Wikipedia:Peer review/Ministerial by-election/archive1

Ministerial by-election


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this to FAC sometime soonish, within the next couple of months. Before then, however, it needs a deep copyediting cleanse, with consistency in act titles, terminology, linking, and most importantly making sure citations are in tip-top shape. I decided to go for a peer review rather than going directly to GOCE, however, to also receive feedback on the direction of the article and whether there was anything barring it from FA status other than copyediting and a few citations I still need to take care of. To this end I'll ping some relevant Brits

Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm almost done with the content of this article (just need to cite the last paragraph), I would really appreciate a look and copyedit of this (not just by you two, but by others if need be) before I send it to FAC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers . I'm away for the weekend, but will try and have a look at this as soon as I get an opportunity. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 13:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry been preoccupied the last few weeks. I'll also give it a look when I have some more time. On a brief look at the lead though, the comparison with the United States reads a bit odd to me. I think comparing with presidential systems in general would make more sense, in the same way that you already do for dualistic parliamentary systems. Horserice (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries; the US comparison is because both ministerial by-election and the US's presidential system were historical developments from the same concerns of parliamentary venality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have now finished the article content-wise, any comments on the sourcing and especially copyediting would be greatly appreciated before I take this to FAC! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought was more into American politics, but it appears this is up his alley as well! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I like it. I'll have some comments by the end of the week.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * this looks very impressive. I want to comment briefly to note the ideas here, and I hope to comment further. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * "Unlike the United States, whose constitution took such ideas to the extreme by fully separating the executive and legislative branches," Well, this may be a bit too strong. After all, the Vice President is president of the Senate.
 * I could weaken it to "separating", but FWIW the VP has no speaking privileges in the Senate and in any event is nothing like parliamentarism.
 * Footnote a: We do have articles on the Chiltern Hundreds and the Manor of Northstead that could be linked.
 * Added; feel free to have better links.
 * "In the meantime, Whigs desired to maintain a strong executive for the Hanoverian kings who would succeed Anne," I would say "monarchs", since it was widely expected that Anne would die before the heir, Sophia, Electress of Hanover, since Sophia, though older, was in much better health. Sophia would have been a queen, not a king.
 * Fair enough, done.
 * "Any ministers already holding portfolios were not required to contest additional by-elections to remain ministers after being returned in a subsequent general election where their party formed government" It might be worth mentioning here that "remain ministers" includes the case of being a new portfolio".
 * Since such a scenario did require by-election prior to 1867, not done.
 * You mention of the disqualifying clause in the Act of Settlement 1701 "However, that clause was not to come into effect until Anne's death, which would not occur until 1714." My information is that the clause was repealed before it took effect by 4 Anne, c. 8, s. 28. You might make clearer that this was among the provisions in the Act of Settlement which was not to come into force until Anne died and the Hanoverians took over.
 * Changed a bit to "not intended to", hopefully that makes it clearer.
 * It might be worthwhile to spend some time discussing actual instances in which ministerial by-elections took place, especially in the context of the 19th century when a) things got serious in trying to knock out a member of the government and b) they involved people the reader may have heard of.
 * Isaacs mentions Churchill's struggles at times, so I'll look into adding those anecdotes.
 * Churchill is extensively written about so there's probably useful information there.
 * It might also be worthwhile to include discussions of how minority or other governments that barely controlled the House of Commons, dealt with the necessity of having its ministers temporarily unable to sit in the Commons. Granted, some may have been in the Lords, but (looking at Schedule H of the Reform Act 1867) there were still quite a number of offices that would have been filled with MPs.
 * I added Meighen's struggles in Canada, as well as the Queenslandic (lol) governor's, but I'll look into what any sources say.
 * You might want to mention that Viscount Amberley was Lord John Russell's son.
 * I did notice that odd coincidence in naming, done.
 * "when Winston Churchill had to run a by-election to become the Minister of Munitions" My understanding was he was Minister of Munitions from the moment of appointment, he just was no longer an MP. So this seems awkwardly phrased. By the way, some discussion of what happened with ministers who lost the by-election might be worthwhile. Were they out of office or was their time in office limited, and they might still be saved by fighting another by-election somewhere or by a peerage?
 * Changed to "on becoming"; in any event, from what I understand such ministers were typically contested in another seat (and usually won, as was the case in NSW), but sometimes they truly were SOL and didn't stay in office for very long. I'll look into the sourcing for more information if it exists.
 * "The claim that ministerial by-elections were largely ineffective at controlling the executive during the 18th century was repeated by Cannon & Speck 1978, p. 209 based on the statistics." Eh?
 * There's got to be a better way to say that, hopefully you or someone else can help with copyediting.
 * I think you've screwed up the referencing there, is my point.
 * Right, and my point was that I don't know any better here.
 * It's also my understanding that there were offices that were an absolute disqualification to service in the House of Commons, for example Master of the Rolls. Does your article adequately treat these?
 * I mention certain offices in the history, as well as a passing mention of disqualification via the Lords. I don't know to what extent that deals directly with this specific practice, however.
 * Why is the 1926 Act italicised and the Anne-era acts not?
 * Personal inconsistency and ignorance as to whether they should all be italicised or none of them; again, part of my desired assistance is firm copyediting, for these, MOS:JOBTITLES, and citation tidying.
 * Since sourcing is something that you are seeking comments on, I'm using my copy of Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution, Vol I Parliament. You might want to glance through it. I'm using the 1909 edition that has discussion at pages 83 to 87.
 * I'll have to look into it and see if there's anything worthwhile in it.
 * Just looking at John A. Macdonald, I see three times that the need to re-elect ministers was significant in his career, the 1858 and 1863-64 government crises of the Province of Canada, and his election to the House of Commons (and re-election) in 1878. Are any of these worth including in your Canadian section? In addition to King-Byng, these are examples that showed how the system of ministerial re-election could undermine a government.
 * Maybe, I'll have to look into it.
 * More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "opposition frontbencher Ernest Lapointe" Yes, he was, in 1931, a point that may escape the reader. If you introduce King with his party affiliation, then you could do the same for Lapointe.
 * I added the appropriate parties (putting the "Liberal" link in the second mention of King rather than have an ungodly MOS:SEAOFBLUE "Liberal prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King", and also because I think it's slightly more appropriate there.) I do have a slight concern about UNDUE/SYNTH stuff since none of the sources seem to mention parties.
 * "These events led to the abolition of the practice being tabled in 1914, approved without debate in both the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council,[43] and granted royal assent in 1915" This seems to be missing a few words, possibly "legislation to accomplish" before "abolition"/
 * I'd argue that "legislation" is implied since it's being tabled (in the Commonwealth sense of that word) in a legislature, and is thus not, for example, an executive order/statutory instrument. I also think it's slightly cleaner this way.
 * "Offices created after that date remained absolutely ineligible for the Commons absent express exemption in the statute creating them" It's not clear whether you mean that the holder cannot be a MP, or whether they could if they were re-elected.
 * Done.
 * That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I look forward to hearing what others have to say. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Final pinging

 * Just a reminder that I'd like to get this to FAC in a few weeks and would greatly appreciate your feedback in that time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks. I don't really have any comments right now on this. I appreciate your note. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)