Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neville Chamberlain/archive2


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 03:39, 23 December 2009.

Neville Chamberlain

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it meets the criteria. It is the main article from which the recently promoted Rise of Neville Chamberlain was severed. It was a FA candidate in 2005, in case you are wondering why this is Archive 2, and a quick read of that nomination shows you that the process is as different today from then as night from day. I believe it is well written, it is a GA that has had a peer review, thanks to the Bundesarchiv donation, it is very well illustrated, and is a scrupulously fair look at a man whose reputation, in the public view, lies in rubble.Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments: Favourable! 2c is good. Provisionally clear 2c, have indicated on article talk a few skerricks of clean up, but 2c is fundamentally good and easily fixed. Would like to note that "In an effort to recoup diminished family fortunes, Joseph Chamberlain sent his younger son to establish a sisal plantation on Andros Island in the Bahamas.[7] Neville Chamberlain spent six years there, but the plantation was a failure, and Joseph Chamberlain lost £50,000 (approximately ₤4.2 million today)." is incorrectly referenced against Purchasing Power Parity.  Nev is a capitalist, he should be indicated against per capita GDP or share of GDP measures as it relates to capital expenditures (percentage of total social output directed towards investment). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I don't have time tonight to work these through.  I may come back to you on the 50K quid thing, but I will probably do that on your talk page.  Thanks for looking at these.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made that change, Fifelfoo, as well as the changes you proposed on the article talk page. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Technical review No dabs or dead links, some images lack alt text 09:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've put in alt text where needed.  Should be clear now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Support - All comments covered, now Supporting promotion of the article. This is an amazing article, but I have a question about a source. I recently finished Richard Toye's Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness, and the final two chapters or so focus on the 1939-1945 period, and particularly on the grudges between Chamberlain and Lloyd George; Toye cites some pretty damning evidence that they loathed each other, and that neither wanted to serve with the other in Churchill's government. Which was a problem, as Churchill wanted both in (for various reasons) and went to some lengths to try and have both serve in the Cabinet: Toye makes quite a good case, for example, that it was Churchill and his contacts that ended the criticism of Chamberlain in the newspapers after he left as Prime Minister and entered the Cabinet, for purpose of trying to get Chamberlain to agree to serving with Lloyd George. I looked through the article and didn't see much about this after the middle of the article. I'd add material myself, but frankly my editing skills are nowhere near yours, Wehwalt, and I wouldn't want to mess your prose up. And I'm not even sure how much of this should go in, although I'd think a sentence or so might be a good idea. But I'd certainly never oppose on the issue, and would like to highlight that I don't think this is a major or even minor issue - just one of clarification or emphasis that could certainly be made even after the article has passed this, which I'm sure it will. Apologies if this seems a tad indecisive, but I thought I'd make mention of it. Skinny87 (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no serious effort at bringing LG into the government under Baldwin or Chamberlain, both because of the antipathy and because Lloyd George was financing candidates opposed to the National Government (he controlled a rather large electoral fund). Yes, you are quite right, Chamberlain put his foot down and said it it is him or me when Churchill considered giving LG office in the summer of 1940.  I can put in a sentence about that.  Notably, Churchill never gave LG office, even once, within a couple of months after Chamberlain's death, he was in full control of the Conservatives, and LG lived until 1945, and was quite active until 1943.  In an earlier version of this article, I discussed that Churchill was instrumental in stilling criticism of Chamberlain, I cut it out to save space.  I'll put it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be great, thanks for the (re)-addition and whatever you can about Chamberlain and the press. Yes, Toye makes quite a credible case that LG didn't actually want office, but simply liked having the attention from Churchill and others making the offers. Because of Wehwalt's rapid response, I think this Comment is satisfied. I'll look over the rest of the article when I can, but I'm currently moving to Support. Fantastic effort on a much-maligned but incredibly important British politican. Skinny87 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, I'm not even done yet! I still hadn't added the info on Lloyd George.  I wanted to review my sources first!  Thanks so much for the praise and support.  I'll add the Lloyd George material now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(od)I've found a few things which need rectifying, though they in no way tamper with my supporting the article. Just small things in no particular order: Skinny87 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Englefield, Dermot' isn't listed in the Bibliography - does it need to be?
 * 'Chamberlain worked to bring his Conservative Party...' - Was it still 'his' party, or had Churchill become party leader by that time? I'm a little hazy on that, so it's just a clarification.
 * 'Sir Austen did not live to see his brother's final climb to the top of the greasy pole, having died two months earlier' I noticed in the companion 'Rise of...' article, the greasy pole comment is in quotes - it should probably be here as well, and maybe cited, so it doesn't look like opinion.
 * Second paragraph of Domestic Policy is barely more than a sentence - can it be merged into the previous or succeeding paragraph?
 * On my firefox page, the Lloyd George photo is rather squeezing the text and makes it look odd - purely a decorative point, but would it look better removed, or moved elsewhere? Perhaps into the 'Lord President of the Council and death' section?


 * Churchill became leader of the Conservative Party in early October 1940. I've done the other things.  Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm curious as to why you are using a portrait of him as the lead image, not something like File:Arthur Neville Chamberlain 03.jpg, or a photographic portrait? Connormah (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's from the cover of Time. Surely it's a photograph?  I did look at the image you mentioned, there are problems with it because it purports to be out of copyright in the US, but there is no indication when/where it was first published, so it would raise a red flag.  Incidentally, are you comfortable that the image of his signature is PD-ineligible?  Durova's raising questions about it over on my talk page on Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that it's copyrighted, though? Surely, it can be copyrighted, but does that always mean it is? I'd highly doubt that it is, but I could be wrong. Connormah (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt it. And the signature was done in his capacity as a servant of the Crown, and any crown copyright has expired.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see here at p.440. A workaday signature is unlikely to be deemed copyrighted, only a particularly distinctive one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * His is a pretty ordinary signature, nothing unusual, so I'd say we're safe. Connormah (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's at least legible. Are you happy on the photo points?  Thanks for your comments, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The infobox death date lists it as 8 November, but the article mentions 9 November multiple times. Which is the correct one? Connormah (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I must have missed that, or perhaps subtle vandalism snuck in along the way.  I'll make that change.  It is the 9th.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * General
 * A boringly recurrent plea from me for consistency in capitalising words: "Government" in this article is variously capitalised and not. E.g "the Labour government", "the Czech government" and "the British government", but "the Chamberlain Government" and "the de Valera Government". There are 53 instances of "government/Government" in the article, of which, most could properly be lower case – those in quotations naturally excepted. (The National Government is, perhaps, properly capitalised, though I shouldn't care to explain quite why.)
 * Prime Minister – the French one (Daladier) is reduced to lower case. Quite right perhaps, but so should the Anglo Saxon ones be – or else none of them. Our own ones are variously capitalised and not. Consistency, please!
 * Parenthetical dashes – I believe (but am no authority) that the WP standard is n-dashes with a space each side, rather than (as here) m-dashes with no spaces. Do not take my word for this, but you might like to check.
 * These things are done. Prime Minister is capitalized wherever it occurs in the text.  Government is only capitalized in quotes or in "National Government".  WP:DASH seems to indicate that unspaced mdashes are the way to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Domestic policy
 * "it involved the state in the great expansion of leisure accommodation for the working classes" – It isn't obvious to me what this means. Could you elaborate?


 * Road to Munich (March 1938 – September 1938)
 * "Britain had no military obligations towards Czechoslovakia; France had a mutual assistance pact with Prague." The wish to avoid repetition is understandable, and of course most readers will realise at once that "Czechoslovakia" and "Prague" mean the same thing here, but it is nevertheless potentially confusing. Perhaps something like, " Britain had no military obligations to Czechoslovakia, but there was a mutual assistance pact between France and Czechoslovakia" There's another "Prague" for " Czechoslovakia" later in the para, which should also, I think, be made plain.
 * "Over the next two weeks, Lord Runciman" – his peerage has just been mentioned: perhaps just "Runciman" here?
 * "…advisers how to respond if war seemed likely. In consultation with his close advisor" – adviser or advisor – one or the other, please. (The idiomatic English version is the former.)


 * Munich conference
 * "the Czech government in Prague protested the decision" – ambiguity between U.S. and UK usage here – "objected to the decision" would be safer


 * Aftermath and reception
 * "Anglo–German Agreement" – should this be an n-dash or just a hyphen?
 * Per WP:DASH, unspaced n dash.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "come right to Buckingham Palace" – a very un-English construction (if that matters). "come straight" would be more idiomatic
 * "his wife, Queen Elizabeth" – piping: suggest first two words should be left out of the piping


 * Path to war (October 1938 – August 1939)
 * "he instead reshuffled his Cabinet" – is the meaning of this clear to a non-British reader? (I don't know, but think it worth pondering)
 * I've piped this to "Cabinet shuffle"--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Lord President of the Council and death
 * "for the first time since his ouster" – is this a U.S. idiom? It is new to this English eye. Perhaps "…his ousting"?
 * "M.P.'s lost their heads…" – I haven't got the book quoted, but would be mildly surprised if the apostrophe was there.
 * "with the Benelux nations" – does this need spelling out?
 * I've simply linked to Benelux.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "He offered to honour Chamberlain by making him a Knight of the Garter" – sorry to be a pedant about this, but this grates to an English reader: the prime minister officially recommends to the sovereign that an honour should be bestowed. I should rephrase this on the lines of "He asked if Chamberlain would accept the highest order of British chivalry, the Order of the Garter."
 * "He wrote John Simon" – in English usage "He wrote to John Simon"

The above is a collection of really very minor comments. The article is first rate, and clearly deserves to be FA. I shall be happy to give my support. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of all of these concerns, and I've made a couple of specific comments above. Many thanks for going through the article, and for being involved in the article's peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments leaning to support  from Brianboulton: This lengthy list is the main part of my comments on this article. They are mainly relatively small prose points which will require little fixing; some are mere suggestions. I hope to returm and complete the review within 24 hours. Overall this is a lucid and involving account of a man whose political life climaxed with a major crisis in European history. The Munich sections are particularly well done.
 * Lead
 * First sentence in its present forms reads as tough NC was a both a British Conservative politician and PM of the UK for a brief three-year period. I would amend to "...British Conservative politicain who served as Prime Minister..." etc
 * "Prime Minister" in caps throughout (except for the ODNB) See MOS guideline
 * "best known for his appeasement policy, surely?
 * Suggestion: "declaring war on it on 3 September 1939." Germany is a pretty big "it". Can this part of the sentence be rephrased along the lines: "...in the face of Hitler's continuing aggression, for declaring war on Germany on 3 September 1939.
 * "were widely popular among Britons..." It might be as well to add the modifier "at the time"
 * Early life etc
 * How about a main template to your excellent "Rise" article?
 * It's at the top of the article. Should it be moved?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * £50,000 is equated to a current value of £29.1 million. That's an inflation factor of nearly 600, and is wildly out compared with conversions I have done on other articles, relating to around 1900. Using the Current Year converter template I get £50,000 = (approximately £0 as of 2024). This seems reasonable. Are you sure about te £50,000 figure?
 * Please see Fifelfoo's struck comment right at the start of this. Reviewer conflict, please advise, I'm willing to go either way--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See article talkpage for my argument. Brianboulton (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: "...and beginning in 1925" → "which in 1925 became"
 * "At age 49, he remains the oldest man to enter Parliament for the first time and later become Prime Minister." There is a clumsiness about this phrasing, which I suggest could be shortened to "At age 49, he remains to date the oldest parliamentary debutant who later become Prime Minister."
 * MP and minister
 * "The Unionists won the election, and Chamberlain declined to serve again as Chancellor,..." I think this is probably a "but" connector rather than an "and"
 * The budget deficit of £120 million seems ridiculously small by today's standards. It may be worth noting that its present-day value is around £6 billion (the current year converter again).
 * Premiership: "the most sophisticated press management system employed by a Prime Minister..." etc. Is this an early appearance of the spin doctor who became such a beloved institution in British politics in the 1990s? A link would be fun.
 * Domestic Policy
 * "the great expansion of leisure accommodation for the working classes." What is "leisure accommodation" referring to?
 * Some repetitive prose in these sentences: "Chamberlain had further plans for the reform of local government, but these plans were not enacted because of the war. The Chamberlain government planned to raise the school-leaving age to 15, but this was scheduled for implementation on 1 September 1939 and did not go into effect because of the outbreak of war." I suggest reduce to "Chamberlain's plans for the reform of local government were shelved because of the outbreak of war in 1939. Likewise, proposal to raise the school-leaving age to 15, scheduled for implementation on 1 September 1939, could not go into effect."
 * Relations with Ireland: "There was no provision in the treaties for British access to the Treaty Ports in time of war, but Chamberlain and de Valera orally agreed the British would then have access." Needs rephrasing: only De Valera agreed to this, Chamberlain merely accepting the verbal assurance. I would like to see a specific citation for this, and if possible to know when this happened.
 * Self doesn't make it clear; neither does Macklin. Either in the final negotiation (March 1938) or in April


 * European policy - early days
 * Verbose phrasing: "by the fact that" → "because"
 * I'd insert the phrase "while the Foreign Secretary was on holiday" earlier in the sentence. Thus: "Chamberlain also bypassed Eden while the Foreign Secretary was on holiday, by opening direct talks..." etc
 * "At the Cabinet meeting..." → "At a Cabinet meeting..."
 * "...Hitler began to press Austrian officials to allow Anschluss..." Not "officials", surely? The Austrian government, perhaps? And "accept" might be better than "allow"
 * Road to Munich
 * It would be interesting to know where Chamberlain "noted" the comment at the start of this section
 * Suggestion: "...unwilling to limit his government's discretion by giving commitments."
 * Suggestion: "The Nationalists by now strongly had the upper hand in this war,..."
 * Suggestion: "...and agreed to follow the British position on Czechoslovakia."
 * I'm sorry for the two Sudeten farmers, but they seem entirely detached from this narrative. Was Germany thought to be moving troops in response to these incidents?
 * Yes, they refused to stop for Czech border checks at the Czech-German border, and they were shot by the border guards. I will clarify--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "...with only First Lord of the Admiralty Duff Cooper dissenting." Another phrase that would sit more easily earler in its sentence: "...Henderson and secured their backing, with only First Lord of the Admiralty Duff Cooper dissenting, for his policy..." etc
 * September 1938: Munich
 * Can the image of Chamberlain leaving Berchtesgarten be made a bit more prominent, or less tiny as Tony would say. Also Ribbentrop ought to be identified in the caption.
 * He is now. It's actually at Munich airport.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fouth para: I don't think "Additionaly..." is necessary. Also I'd like to avoid the "after" rpetition in the last sentence of this para, by saying "only under considerable pressure"
 * I took the suggestion but then reshuffled the paragraph a little bit so that the sentence isn't too long--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Image Neville & Hitler: see previous comment re sizing. Ditto the Munich group photo (see Cosmo Gordon Lang)
 * Could we be reminded of who "Wilson" is?
 * "...and requested that the Germans not bomb Prague if the Czechs resisted, which Hitler seemed agreeable to." Ambiguos wording. For clarity the phrase needs to end: "...a request to which Hitler seemed agreeable."
 * Unnecessarily inirect expression: "including language stating that..." → "including a statement that..."
 * "the King" should not be capitalised (see earlier comment re titles). King George VI OK, otherwise "the king"
 * I'm reluctant to change all the prime ministers and kings to lower case. The problem is, do we lower case "Chancellor of the Exchequer" "Health Secretary"?  I seem to be getting split guidance about the Prime Minister question, I am inclined to say that the MoS is merely a guideline and consistency is more important.  Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll deal with the balance as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All good. I've implemented except where comments were made.  Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Further comments (Brianboulton)
 * Path to war
 * "Having considered a general election immediately following Munich,[138] he instead reshuffled his Cabinet." Make clear this is NC not Hitler
 * "Despite Hitler's relative quiet as the Reich absorbed the Sudetenland..." "Quietness" maybe?
 * Second paragraph: the last sentence would be more effective if it ran with the final sentence of the previous paragraph: he thought about calling an election, decided such a course would be suicidal (I wonder what he meant by that) and shuffled his Cabinet instead.
 * He was afraid that if he called the election, he would lose it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Even Churchill and Lloyd George praised Chamberlain's government for issuing the guarantee to Poland." Just an observation: I'm a bit surprised to see Churchill and LG linked in this way, since at this time their positions were poles apart - LG was an out-and-out appeaser and admirer of Hitler.
 * True, but it shows the war fever at the time I've gotten another book on the runup to war, I'll see if it adds anything to this.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be worth explaining that Britain sent only a low-ranking delegation to the talks with Molotov, led by Admiral Reginald Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax. (!!!!) This led the Russians to doubt the  seriousness of the mission. You could mention this, if only to get that ridiculous name into the article.
 * Uh, I think it would be a distraction. I'll mention the low level delegation.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Declaration of war
 * Rather clumsy: "At 6:00 p.m., the Commons met, and Chamberlain and acting (in the absence of the ill Clement Attlee) Labour leader Arthur Greenwood entered the chamber to loud cheers." Suggest "When the Commons met at 6:00 p.m., Chamberlain and Arthur Greenwood (deputising for the sick Labour leader Clement Attlee) entered the chamber to loud cheers."
 * Phoney war
 * Whose metaphor is "a sea of lengthy memos"? (Sounds like a sly joke - First Lord of the Admiralty ho-ho-ho)
 * Downfall: no comments, very well done
 * I'll plead guilty. Didn't you notice that he was "deluged" by the sea from the First Lord?
 * Lord President etc
 * Slightly awkward phrasing: "Some of Churchill's great speeches, such as his "We shall fight on the beaches" speech to the House, met with only half-hearted enthusiasm there." Suggest: "Some of Churchill's great speeches to the House, such as "We shall fight on the beaches", met with only half-hearted enthusiasm there."
 * Anachronism alert: "As chair of the Lord President's Committee,..." I don't think "chair" was used in the sense of chairman in 1940. Gender sensitivity did not exist.
 * Convoluted sentence, grammatically suspect in its middle reaches; advise split "However, renewed pain, compounded by the night-time bombing of London, which forced him to go to an air raid shelter and denied him rest, sapping his energy, and he left London for the last time on 19 September, returning to Highfield Park."
 * It might be worth identifying Sir Archibald Sinclair as the then leader of the Liberal Party.
 * Legacy and reputation
 * When was Feiling commissioned by the Chamberlain family? Which govt was in power at the time?
 * Churchill's, They were considering whether to have him do it quite soon after Chamberlain's death, though they considered his writing rather idiosynchratic, which it is, reminded me a bit of Conrad Black's bio of Nixon, there's commentary mixed freely into the text.  The book was finished in early 1944, but the Chamberlain family felt it would not get a good reception during wartime and decided to hold off on publication until after, as it proved, 1946.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Link in quotation (Pontius Pilate) probably unnecessary since he is pretty well known.
 * General comment: The article is a great achievement. Personally I think it benefits from the separation of Chamberlain's rise into another article; we get to the meat much more quickly, and you are able to provide a detailed, measured legacy section which ends the article perfectly. My one serious niggle is the equation of Joe's £50,000 to £29 million today, which I hope to see amended soon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments and advice, I will get on that tomorrow, just too tired tonight to deal with it. I suspect the true answer lies somewhere between the two figures, I mean Chamberlain built a railroad on Andros and hired a large number of workers for six years, to say nothing of plants, etc.  I may just rewrite the damn thing to avoid the figure.  Of course, most of the other pound figures in the articles deal with government deficits and the like so I'm not sure I'd be gaining anything.  What would you think of putting the equivalent values into a footnote?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The £50,000 might be replaced by "heavy losses", for I am sure that the round figure of £50,000 is an esitmate anyway. Alternatively equivalents could go into a footnote, which would enable you to explain that there are different methods of calculation that can be applied. The note might read: "According to MeasuringWorth.com, £50,000 has a current value of £x using an equivalent purchasing power basis and £y as a proportion of gross domestic product" or some such. I would have no problem with the GDP equivalent basis for government deficits, but again a footnote should explain the method used. Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have done all those except for the money question, which I want to study a bit more and will probably do tomorrow.  I am very hopeful that Karanacs will promote this article on Tuesday and will put the money thing in long before then.  Right now I am leaning towards a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comments, leaning towards Support - This is a great effort, very well structured, detailed, balanced, referenced, and illustrated. Just a few points:
 * Support: I am happy to accept your assurance that the money matter will be settled appropriately, and am equally happy to support the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In Munich conference you zero in on Churchill's good wishes to Chamberlain as the latter departs, then in Aftermath and reception you mention WSC's dismay at the outcome, even though the outcome seems, at the time, all that could have been expected - to me it appears that WSC has done an about-face with no explanation as to how or why.
 * I've sliced it. What Churchill said seems to be the subject of dispute.  Apparently Harold Nicolson wrote in his diary that Churchill said "I congratulate you on your good fortune.  You were very lucky."  Best to say nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While we're at it, to convey the depth of the anti-Munich crowd, you could employ WSC's "unmitigated defeat" quote, and there's another which I've only seen once but would love to see here, namely (words to the effect) "Britain had the choice between shame and war. She has chosen shame, and will get war".
 * I will add the one then, I am very cautious about other people's quotes, but I guess people will expect to hear from Churchill here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

All in all, though, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Commons opened a debate on the Munich Agreement on 3 October; though Cooper opened the debate by setting forth the reasons for his resignation - repetition, how about "Cooper began by setting forth..." or some such?
 * In Path to war you have With matters appearing to go better... - how about "appearing to improve"?
 * In Lord President of the Council and death you have He proffered his resignation to Churchill on 22 September, which the Prime Minister was reluctant to accept, but as both men realised that Chamberlain would never return to work, Churchill finally accepted it. - minor but maybe another word to avoid repetition of "accept(ed)", e.g. "Churchill finally aceded/agreed"?
 * Images are excellent but I think most are rendered a bit too small to discern decent detail without double-clicking - like to see them increased in size a little.


 * Thanks. I've implemented those.  I appreciate the praise.  This was a tough article to write in the flat, NPOV tone that I favor.  I think it's come out extremely well, but then I'm biased.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No probs, it has indeed come out well and I'm more than happy to support. One tiny thing, re. Cooper, we still have a bit of the repetition I mentioned earlier since you say "The Commons opened..." and then "Cooper opened..."; can we just change one "opened" to "began" (or "commenced" or some such)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the support, I've made the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments I haven't finished reading this engaging article yet but I have three short comments: I will return later, hopefully to add one word "support". Graham Colm Talk 16:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is the "Anglo-Irish Trade War" hidden in a piped link? Surely it deserves a sentence of its own.
 * Is there something missing here, "Chamberlain, as Chancellor, had taken a hard-line stance against concessions to the Irish, but persuaded that the strained ties were having effects on relations with other Dominions, sought a settlement with Ireland" such as having been persuaded?
 * I don't like "which contained three paragraphs, including language stating that the two nations considered the Munich Agreement" - language stating? How about "a statement"?
 * I did those things, and somewhat expanded the explanation of the dispute between Ireland and the UK. Looking forward to one word from you!:)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brian's comments above and I have no doubt that the nominator will make good use of them. I said earlier that I would return here to hopefully add one word. This I have done, but I want to say a little more—I am often amazed by the generosity, time and talent that contributors bring to Wikipedia. This is such a bloody good article, and I feel pride from the tiny, tiny part I have played in giving it freely to the world. I have learned something from this, which has changed my thinking. I know that this FAC is not complete and that image and source reviews are still to be done, but I fully support the promotion of this example of our best work. Graham Colm Talk 20:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Support, this is a great article, I'm not an MOS Maven or scholarly type at all, but I found the prose engaging and the sourcing to be admired. Well done!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review
 * File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H12486, Vorbereitung Münchener Abkommen, Chamberlain auf dem Flugplatz Oberwiesenfeld.jpg, File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H12751, Godesberg, Vorbereitung Münchener Abkommen.jpg, and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H12967, Münchener Abkommen, Chamberlain.jpg require an English description.
 * Looks good. 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a bit unsure on File:Nevilleplaque.jpg. I would think that freedom of panorama does not apply and that the image should be deleted per the following: "The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works (which will typically be two-dimensional) such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place." However, I am interested to hear other opinions.
 * Per my talk page, this has been commented out of the article until Media copyright questions is resolved. NW ( Talk ) 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * File:LloydGeorge.JPG needs a source and a place of publication. I believe the uploader still edits on Commons; perhaps you could track him down?
 * The image this was replaced with looks good. NW ( Talk ) 22:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The source listed in File:Chamberlain-war-declaration.ogg no longer exists. Could you please track it down?
 * Looks good. 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes to File:Jchamberlain-achamberlain.jpg. Please check if they are correct. If so, could you please move the image to Commons?
 * Looks good. 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please give me a heads up on my talk page once you finish up with these. Cheers, NW ( Talk ) 20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support on images per above. Cheers, NW ( Talk ) 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I've dealt with Brian's last concern, the money matter. We have six supports (Skinny87's support is not bolded), plus NuclearWarfare's image support, plus of course the nominator.  Image check done, technical check done.  I don't think we're missing anything here, and (knock wood) I think we finally going to have a FA about a British Prime Minister, just three months after I idly picked up a book on Chamberlain in a Cardiff bookstore.  My thanks to all the reviewers and commentators for helping an article which failed FAC over four years ago be greatly improved.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I have read only the lead and the concluding section on legacy, but these seem well-written and represent a balanced summary of the postwar historiography. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will go ahead and promote, but please do another check for wikilinking, dashes, and non-breaking spaces. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.