Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benjamin Disraeli/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC).

Benjamin Disraeli

 * Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because… we think it meets the criteria. Benjamin Disraeli was an unusual man in his time, and in retrospect. Had he continued to profess the Jewish faith he was born to, he almost certainly would not have climbed to the top of the greasy pole as he famously did. Yet his fame is not political alone (leaving aside his famed battles with Gladstone) for he was also a noted writer of novels. Everyone had a view on Disraeli, they either loved him or loathed him. In his time the loathers outnumbered the lovers, as he spent most of his career in opposition. I'd like to extend, and I'm sure my conom will as well, my appreciation to, who has kept up this article for ten years and gave us a very solid foundation to work on.Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources look reliable and of appropriate quality. A few very minor tweaks necessary:
 * 137 needs a space after p.
 * 253 needs pp. before the pages range
 * Dickens entry: I don't think location "Shrewsbury" needs a "UK"

Otherwise, all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Support: I had a substantial input in the peer review, where my concerns were either met or countered by reasoning. This is an important article – very long, but what can you do when the subject's career is long, varied, and of great historical significance? I request one final tweak: in the lead sentence "He returned to opposition, leading the party to a majority in the 1874 election", insert "before" after "opposition". Otherwise, subject to an image review I believe all is well. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, BB, for this, and for your important input at PR too. Suggested tweaks above duly twuck. – Tim riley (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it, on both counts. Deeply grateful for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed every image. I moved some images to the Commons and updated the licensing information on others. I only found one problem: File:14th Earl of Derby.jpg. I can't find any information on the author, so I can't be sure that the author died more than 70 years ago, or that the image was first published before 1923. It seems overwhelmingly likely that the image is in the public domain, but I'm having trouble proving it.
 * Image check

Besides this, all images are clearly in the public domain (except for 1, 2, and 3, which are freely licensed and fully attributed). All required information is present.

I do have misgivings, however, about whether a gallery of "Cartoons, 1846–86" is appropriate in a featured article. – Quadell (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that review, and glad to know that we are OK on that front. As to the gallery, if the consensus is against including it, I think I can safely speak for my co-nom and say that we are not wedded to it. For my own part I rather like it (well, I would, of course, as the perpetrator) and I note a more extended, and I think splendid, example at another current FAC here. Tim riley (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you keep the cartoons. Were they of the trivial, "funny" variety I'd say ditch them, but as sharp contemporary satirical comment they are worth having. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally think the article would be better without a gallery of political cartoons at the end. (Any relevant to a particular section can be included where relevant, though there are enough images that there may not be room for many.) But I'm just one data-point; I'm not insistent. – Quadell (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: the Derby image (see here) was published as a carte-de-visite in the 1860s according to the National Portrait Gallery. Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Then it's at least guaranteed to be PD in the US. That info should probably go in the image description page somewhere. – Quadell (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done that, and added the link. I also support the retention of the image gallery but won't insist.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you to Quadell for this scrupulous and helpful input. Tim riley (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Now this is massive, twice as long as my longest. I don't doubt that every byte is deserved, however! My review will likely take a couple of days, particularly as my internet has been freaking out recently.
 * Some addressed comments moved to talk to avoid cluttering the page


 * The Infernal Marriage - year?


 * Built by French interests, much of the ownership and bonds in the canal remained in their hands, though some of the stock belonged to Isma'il Pasha, the Khedive of Egypt, who was noted for his profligate spending.  - another sentence with a lot of subordinate clauses and commas
 * The canal was losing money, and an attempt by Ferdinand de Lesseps, builder of the canal, to raise the tolls, had fallen through when the Khedive had threatened to use military force to prevent it, and had also attracted Disraeli's attention. - this too; confused what exactly drew Disraeli's attention
 * pre-canal - you've just used Canal (caps) for Suez Canal. Shouldn't that be repeated here?


 * Support on prose and images, though there are still some outstanding questions/suggestions/etc. The both of you have done a fantastic job and presented a thoroughly enjoyable read, and I thank you for that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC),
 * Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I join my co-nom in thanking Crisco 1492 for his notably thorough review and his support. Tim riley (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. Enjoyed reading it, and a huge amount of work has clearly gone into this. Some minor comments below:
 * ""I determined when descending those magical waters that I would not be a lawyer." On their return to England he left the solicitors, at the suggestion of Maples, with the aim of qualifying as a barrister. " It's minor, but this reads oddly, since most modern readers would consider a barrister to be a lawyer. I'm not certain if this was different in the 19th century, or if Disraeli means something else here?
 * No, I think you read it right. But Disraeli made that comment some years after the event, though he may well have remembered correctly. He was at the solicitors's firm at his father's behest rather than from personal inclination. His move from there to a barrister's chambers (putatively the more exciting side of the legal profession) was very probably in the hope that he would stick with the law as a career, but if so it was a vain hope on Isaac's part. I think this is a reasonable inference from the sources, but is not actually said by any of them, as far as I can remember. – Tim riley (talk)
 * " financier J D Powles, who was among those leading the mining boom" - can you lead a boom?
 * Fair point. Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "the old Duke inadvertently branded the new government by incredulously repeating "Who? Who?" - is it worth noting that the Duke was deaf, which is typically given as part of the reason he kept questioning what he was being told? Also, it's unclear from this what he branded the government as.
 * I think the heading of the section, combined with the Duke's response, adequately fills the field. I will add his deafness. No doubt from cannon on the playing fields of Waterloo.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "I have climbed to the top of the greasy pole" - worth a footnote explaining what a greasy pole was? (I'm not certain if non-UK/US readers would be familiar with the folk contest!)
 * I think Disraeli's phrase speaks for itself and I am inclined to let it stand in the existing form..--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * " convinced that if he waited longer, he would take a worse beating" - "a worse beating" felt a little informal
 * "In August 1876, Disraeli was elevated to the House of Lords..." It's implicit, but its probably worth explaining why the Lords would be easier for an ill man - they met for much shorter periods of time than the Commons and less frequently, as well as having a slightly less febrile atmosphere.
 * "His will was proved at £84,000" - "proved" is quite a specialist term; "his estate was valued at"?
 * Since this seems to be the proper term, I am reluctant to use another. Do other reviewers have comments?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As that is what The Times would say I think it's sensible to stick with it. If we say "He left..." we get into the gross/net murk. Tim riley (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "pleading public business to public mockery" - I had to read this twice before getting the meaning, might be worth tweaking slightly
 * I wasn't keen on the gallery of cartoons either, although there's space for one or two in the text above. They'd go well in in an article on the Cartoons of Disraeli though (there's some literature out there on this, I think). Hchc2009 (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If I haven't commented, except for the barrister, Powles, and gallery, which I've left for my colleague, I've done them. Thank you for your review and support.(Wehwalt)
 * And thanks from me, too. I've attended to the barrister point, above, and will wait with interest to see how the consensus develops for or against the gallery. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Support I had my say at PR, and a further read-through shows this to be stronger than it was then. Lovely prose, good level of detail and a fascinating read. Long, but entirely justified, given the subject. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insightful comments in your review and for your support.
 * Hear hear! Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Support I took part in the PR and I feel somewhat privileged to have played a small part in the development of this mighty article. Simply outstanding in all departments—I almost feel I should be supporting twice. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Warmest thanks to Cliftonian. (Supporting twice, forsooth! But thank you so much!) Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.