Wikipedia:Peer review/Neville Chamberlain/archive2

Neville Chamberlain
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nom it for FA in due course. I would appreciate others' help in smoothing off the rough edges before I do so.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from Tim riley

I'm working on input into the review - this is a very substantial article, but I expect to have completed my suggestions in the next couple of days. More soonest - Tim riley (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I just ask, before wading in - is the spelling for the article to be U.S. or UK? At present it is a mixture of both, and it needs to be one or the other. - Tim riley (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be UK as as British politician. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I tried to make it UK, but as I am American, well, that is why I asked for a PR.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a thoroughly-researched and well-proportioned article. I note the commendably wide variety of authorities quoted. Up to the final paragraphs it seemed to me admirably well-balanced, but I did just wonder if there was a hint of special pleading in the Apologia Pro Vita Sua section at the end, though (i) I found the facts as presented pretty convincing and (ii) I am not an historian, and I hope another reviewer, better equipped than I, can comment more authoritatively on the thrust of the section.

The article doesn't shrink from dealing with NC's less appealing characteristics – his jealousy of rivals is not dodged. A quite vivid picture of the man emerges. My comments below are mostly on the prose rather than on the content.

As requested, I have turned U.S. spelling, and occasionally usage, into UK ditto. Happy to expand on anything above if wanted. Onwards to FA! Tim riley (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * General
 * Capitalisation: Though it is largely a matter of opinion whether job descriptions like Prime Minister or Chancellor ought to be capitalised, I think you should be consistent throughout with each one.
 * Job descriptions used as personal titles: In UK usage job descriptions such as Prime Minister, Lord President of the Council etc are not used as if they were titles. Thus, though it is correct to say "President Wilson" or "King George", it is unidiomatic to write "Prime Minister Baldwin" – that should be "the Prime Minister, Baldwin" (or if you prefer, and I do, "the prime minister, Baldwin")
 * Lead
 * Elder/older: the lead has Austen as "older" half brother, but Early life has NC as "eldest" son of Joe's second marriage – either construction is fine, but sticking to "older/oldest" or "elder/eldest" throughout would be neater, perhaps.
 * Early years
 * In the early years you repeatedly refer to NC as "Neville Chamberlain". I quite see that you do so to avoid confusion with Joe and Austen, but I think (others may have views on this) that in such cases it is permissible, and is certainly less cumbersome, to call him "Neville" tout court especially in the section on his youth.
 * he was neither an academic or athletic standout – as the article is to be in UK English I'd recommend recasting this as "he was not outstanding academically or athletically."
 * Business career
 * Hoskins's & Company – a most unlikely construction. Robert Self's biography of NC gives the company's name as Hoskins & Company, which is much more plausible.
 * but for his disinterest in politics – suggest "lack of interest" (being disinterested is not the same as being uninterested).
 * He became an Official Visitor – this job title conveys nothing to me, and some brief gloss would be helpful
 * While Joseph Chamberlain became the University's first chancellor – does this literally mean "while" in the temporal sense or merely in its antithetical use? Helpful to clarify, e.g "during Joseph's term as first chancellor…"
 * In 1900, he made election speeches in support of Joseph Chamberlain's Liberal Unionists, which were allied with the Conservatives and later merged with them, during the "Khaki election" of 1900. – to avoid ambiguity I'd turn this around to read "During the "Khaki election" of 1900 he made speeches in support of Joseph Chamberlain's Liberal Unionists, which were allied with the Conservatives and later merged with them."
 * corresponded on a weekly basis – "every week"? "weekly"?
 * The two would have a son and a daughter – "… had a son and daughter" would be plainer
 * Chamberlain paid tribute to his wife upon becoming prime minister in 1937 – No real danger of misunderstanding, but even so I'd rejig to read, "When he became prime minister in 1937 Chamberlain paid tribute to his wife"
 * Birmingham politician
 * Upon his election, Chamberlain was made chair – I bet he was made chairman! No such gender-neutral language in those days.
 * looking at housing conditions in Birmingham, and which found – some syntactical confusion here: perhaps "which looked at housing conditions in Birmingham, and found"
 * greatly increasing its population. Chamberlain was greatly interested – two "greatlys" in close proximity.
 * The companies which Chamberlain was involved in prospered due to the war, which made Neville Chamberlain well to do. – if you keep "due to" (not b.t.w. good UK English in such a contruction) you ought perhaps to explain how it was due. I'd be tempted to say "during the war". Either way "which made Neville Chamberlain well to do" could be pruned to "making him well-to-do". Note, too, that well-to-do is hyphenated.
 * became the Birmingham Symphony Orchestra – I believe the orchestra has never had that precise title. It has for many years been known as The City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, and I suggest you use that. (An unnecessarily cumbersome title when one comes to look at it, but facts are facts.)
 * Director of National Service
 * Director of National Service, with responsibility for coordinating conscription and ensuring that essential war industries were able to function with sufficient workforces. This would, I think, be stronger if recast as ''… essential war industries had enough workers"
 * drafted into the Army at a time that Britain – perhaps "…at a time when…"
 * his sister Beatrice was killed in the influenza pandemic – reads rather oddly: perhaps "died"?
 * The Bank would remain in business until 1976 – clearer to say "The Bank remained in business until 1976"
 * couldn't, wouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't, wouldn't join the dance. If this was my article I'd expand the footnote to explain that this seemingly mad construction was adapted by NC from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland – the Lobster Quadrille, but you may think this over-egging the pudding.
 * Minister (1922–1937)
 * whilst he sought a successor – "while" is shorter and stronger than "whilst". Indeed, I agree with the authors of Plain Words that "whilst" is always an unnecessary word.
 * Chamberlain took the opportunity to stage-manage a reconciliation – this makes Chamberlain's action sound a touch cynical. Would it be more neutral to say "to bring about a reconciliation"?
 * Minister of Health
 * expressed envy at Chamberlain receiving the credit for the Act – gerund needed here, i.e. " at Chamberlain's receiving the credit"
 * Chamberlain wrote his sisters – UK usage requires "wrote to his sisters…" [A lovely story, by the way; I laughed aloud.]
 * to easily triumph – in UK usage there is a superstition (a very foolish one) that one does not split the infinitive. Some deluded souls will dismiss you as a bad writer if you do so, and it is safer to humour them by writing "to triumph easily" – or, as you have another "triumph" shortly afterwards, you might recast as "to win comfortably"
 * As the writ dropped for the by-election – this is an idiom I have not met before: I should say "As the writ was issued…"
 * The Leader of the Opposition did not stand in the by-election – clearer if you just said "Baldwin" here, I think.
 * Chancellor and Conservative heir apparent
 * his sons were cognizant of the appropriateness of Neville Chamberlain advocating his father's policies – this could be crisper: something along the lines of "his sons found it pleasing and appropriate that Chamberlain could now promote his father's policies"
 * Chamberlain had disliked what he deemed to an overly sentimental attitude by both – "deemed to be an…." or perhaps better, "considered" or "regarded as"
 * September 1938; Munich
 * The Germans made much propaganda of the incident –"much" looks odd with a plural word like propaganda. Perhaps "considerable"?
 * As the tempest escalated – "grew" would be shorter and stronger.
 * Thousands gathered outside Number 10 – some (not I) might find this too informal – perhaps safer to say "10 Downing Street."
 * Path to war (October 1938 – August 1939)
 * created a Ministry of Supply – a brief explanation of the importance of the ministry's role would be helpful here
 * Declaration of war
 * Von Ribbentrop – the "von" isn't used when mentioning surname only. He should be called either "Joachim von Ribbentrop" or simply "Ribbentrop."
 * Phoney war
 * He restored Churchill to the Cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty with a seat in the War Cabinet, believing that in time of war, Churchill was a greater danger outside the Government than within it, and gave Eden a Government post as well. I'd be inclined to break this into two, giving Eden a sentence to himself.
 * Downfall
 * Chamberlain journeyed to Buckingham Palace – an odd verb – you can walk it in fifteen minutes, and in the prime ministerial car it would take no time at all. I'd stick to the colourless "went".
 * Lord President of the Council and death
 * sapped at his efficiency – "sapped his efficiency"

In the last section, "Legacy and reputation", the description of Churchill's book is a little confusing. Can you simplify? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments from Ssilvers

Twice the article says "the King and his wife, Queen Elizabeth". Tim, is there a better way to put this in brit-speak? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This can get frightfully complicated. In normal usage one would just say "The King and Queen", but if you want to give the queen a name, then "the King and his wife, Queen Elizabeth" is as good a way of putting it as any, I'd say. I hadn't noticed it was used twice, though. The second time, perhaps just "the King and Queen" would suffice. - Tim riley (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A brief one for now but two of the references are to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (the articles on Chamberlain and his father). The DNB is one of the most respected sources in the field and is available both in print and on a subscription website, with the latter even providing references in a copy&paste friendly form, but annoyingly some university library subscriptions wind up in the URL. Currently we've got a link that ends up on a University of London library login for off-site access - can someone get the direct links out.
 * Comments from timrollpickering

(Anticipating anyone raising the question of using the DNB, the most recent discussion I'm aware of is at Talk:Cosmo Gordon Lang.) Timrollpickering (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments so far
Thanks for the comments so far, looking forward to more. I will start implementing them later today. A few comments: Macklin gives additional perspective on NC's reputation. I don't really care about the DNB, if people think it would be wise to remove, it is fine. That is left over from before i started work on the article and I don't like to eradicate everyone else's contributions, this is a collaborative project. Since Karanacs has questioned length at my Khrushchev FAC, which article is about 10K smaller, I am going to try to cut it back by a few thousand bytes. The bulkiest part is the Munich area, but I hate to cut back or spin off the very thing that people are reading the article for!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * DNB is certainly a RS. I thought that what the commenter is just saying that the citation is not correct, and there should be a direct cite to the DNB article: .  The article may be long-ish, but I agree that you should not cut anything that you think is really important for an encyclopedia reader to know.  But, often, if you return to a paragraph and re-read it, you can slim it down to the most efficient, important language.  As I said before, you are probably in the best position to decide what is cuttable and how to streamline the rest, since you know the sources.  Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The encyclopedia reader normally wants a summarised account of the subject's life; those who want the detail go to a biography. Re possible cutbacks, the Munich Agreement has an article of its own, somewhat shorter than your text on Munich and not, I may say, of the same quality. Most of your stuff could be transferred there, and worked on to make another top quality European history article, leaving a brief (1,000 words?) summary on Munich in NC. The other main area to focus on might be the "Ministerial career" section, approx 3,200 words at present which could, I think, be cut quite substantially without too much loss to the encyclopedia reader. Then, I usually find I can knock 10 percent off my article wordcounts by careful streamlining that doesn't lose any substantive content (but perhaps I am just a natural windbag). Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the difficulty I'm having with Khrushchev, I'd expect the delegates to shoot me if I handed them the article as it stands. I don't think that splitting off the Munich material is a good idea, it is probably what the reader is coming to the article for, and it is also Chamberlain-centered, so it would be a lot of work to insert it into the Munich Conference article.  (Hm, how about Chamberlain at the Munich Conference, Daladier at the Munich Conference First Day of the Munich Conference the mind boggles, but that wouldn't be cricket).  Seriously though, after some thought, what I am thinking of doing is splitting off the pre-1919 material into something like Early life and pre-parliamentary career of Neville Chamberlain.  The only thing we would really lose that had serious effects on his later life would be the roots of the quarrel with Lloyd George, and I could keep that material in the main article.  Additionally, if necessary the "Legacy and Reputation" section could be split off, say to Historical view of Neville Chamberlain.  That would result in a still fairly long article, but probably not as long as Roosevelt or Truman or Reagan.  Or Khrushchev.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've implemented everything. I'd be grateful for reviewer's views on splitting the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the cricket reference. As to how NC should be split, the most obvious chronological division seems to me to be at the point when he became prime minister. Thus, one article dealing with his early life and his parliamentary and ministerial career, and another, Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister, dealing with the rest. On the basis of the existing wordcount, the first of these articles would have just over 6,000 words and the second around 9,000. On a proportionate importance basis that seems about right. Of course, with separate leads and an appropriate sign-off for Article 1, a few hundred more words would be needed, but I'm sure that an equal or greater number of words could be saved by some judicious prose pruning. Two articles of respectively 6k and 9k words won't raise anyone's hackles, and there need be no significant loss of material.


 * I don't think that splitting off the Legacy section is a good solution, and your idea of the "Early life and pre-parliamentary career of Neville Chamberlain"  would still leave the main article around 12-13k words. I also wonder whether that early part of his life is interesting or noteworthy enough to deserve its own article. I hope these suggestions help you to decide what to do. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the prime minister article should be the one called "Neville Chamberlain" and the other one called something like "Rise of Neville Chamberlain" or the like (ideas welcome). After all, people are most likely going to want to hear about the stuff he's famous for in the main article, no?  Ideas welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can this be right? I thought that there is one main article on most famous people's lives.  What if you leave the main article, "Neville Chamberlian", but greatly summarize it throughout, moving the detailed information into two sub-articles as you suggest - leaving three articles, the main one of which has cross references to the two more detailed ones.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. Brianboulton (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reasonable, perhaps, but an awful lot of work and also it means for the full information on any topic, you will be forced to a subarticle, which generally have a low number of views. I'd like to at least initially try the single sub article.  A second one can always be added later.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tentatively split the article at the accession to the PMship and called the part on his earlier life Rise of Neville Chamberlain which is a heck of a lot easier than Pre-premiership career of Neville Chamberlain. I'm going to do the one sub article first and summarize in the main article.  We can then see how the articles look and if there's a need for a second subarticle as Ssilvers suggests.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll keep the peer review open for another 24-48 hours, then will close it. I'll work on both articles, probably bringing back Rise first in a few days, then Neville.  Then, if all looks good, I'll nom them for FA one after the other.  I'm off again today but have the key references (Smart, Self, Macklin, Dutton) with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)