Wikipedia:Peer review/S. O. Davies/archive1

S. O. Davies
Stephen Owen "S.O." Davies was a political maverick from the South Wales coalfields whose career spanned more than sixty years. A trained mining engineer and Arts graduate, he spent 20+ years organising miners and championing their cause as a miners' agent, and then nearly 40 years as their representative in parliament. Inflexible, incorruptible, he was a thorn in the flesh to opponents and friends alike. No one was certain how old he was, but he was well past 80, possibly nearer 90, when he was sacked as MP by the Labour Party on the grounds of his age. Undaunted, he stood as an independent against the party, and won. He holds an honoured place in Welsh working class history, and I'm pleased to bring this artricle here for comment and improvement. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * The usual set of quibbles:
 * Although the article is entitled S. O. Davies, "S.O." is far more prevalent in the article.
 * "a rare example in British politics of an independent candidate defeating his party's organisation." well, if you want to be technical, an independent candidate doesn't have a party organisation.
 * It might be worth mentioning in lede that he was a backbencher throughout his career. I do not know if Attlee ever considered him but it might be a good idea to mention it clearly in the body of the article. I gather by 1964 age and temperament had ruled him out.
 * "his being blacklisting" either "his blacklisting" or "his being blacklisted", I suspect.
 * "leaving at the age of 12—as was usual at that time[n 2]—to begin work in the Cwmpennar coal mine" I might consider commas rather than dashes.
 * "when the strike collapsed after nine days' resistance" I might cut the apostrophe and "resistance"
 * "When Richard Wallhead, the Labour MP for Merthyr Tydfil," you mention in infobox that it was called Merthyr before 1950. Hardie held that seat when sole Labour MP, didn't he? Might be worth a mention/footnote if so (I'm doing this offline)
 * I'll add a footnote re. the Hardie connection. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "In November 1936, having been returned in the November 1935" I would consider eliminating a November or at least separating them further.
 * "According to his biographer Robert Griffiths, it was Davies's hatred of capitalist militarism, rather than a wish to support the Soviet Union, that underlay Davies's stances." I might change the first Davies's to "his"
 * "In June 1953 he was attacked by Will Lawther, the NUM president, " You have not defined this acronym, and the full name has been only given in a parenthetical.
 * "and supporting the Soviet line" maybe "stance" for line, which might be deemed to be POV. It is unclear to me who penned the quote late in the sentence.
 * I've made it "claim", and it should be plain that the Soviet claim was that the rising was the work of "a CIA-sponsored..." etc Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * " Labour's Welsh Regional Council.[42] In May 1954 he offered proposals for a Welsh parliament that were rejected by Labour's Welsh Regional Council" possibly eliminate one or the other L's WRC.
 * "No action followed, and Davies's popularity with the voters of Merthyr Tydfil was unaffected;" as presumably the MI5 report was not released to the voters of his constituency, I don't see why it would be affected.
 * Unaffected by the investigation, which was public knowledge even if the report remained secret. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "According to Griffiths, when Russian troops suppressed the Hungarian uprising in October 1956, Davies was troubled, but refused to join in the general condemnation of the Soviets lest this give comfort to the enemies of socialism." I might say "Soviet" for Russian. I might also delete "of the Soviets" as unneeded clarification.
 * "If Mr. Davies is to be accepted as truthful and accurate in his recollection" is it Mr. or Mr? (once more into ...)
 * "Davies was merely voicing the perpetual dilemma that had faced Merthyr Vale miners" I might cut "merely" and "perpetual" and add "long" after "had"
 * That would give us "long faced Merthyr Vale miners", which might be misunderstood. I'll find a suitable form of words
 * "The government's subsequent handling of the question of financing the tips' removal was one of the factors which led to the breaking of Davies's long connection with the Labour Party" I was going to propose moving this into the next section, but couldn't find a way of doing it. I will simply note that as you dive into this within a few lines, I wonder how necessary it really it. I gather you want to wait to name Wilson, but you actually have not established at this point that the government in 1967 was Labour. Odds are the reader knows, but ...
 * Is such a lengthy mention of Lloyd's CV called for given he is apparently not notable enough to have an article?
 * The point is that Lloyd was on paper a formidable opponent, not a paper tiger, and was thus expected to win comfortably. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Two weeks later Davies was expelled from the Labour Party, along with his principal campaign workers. "I imagine this was for standing against an official Labour candidate, but you should make this clear.
 * "the most colourful election bandwaggon" details might be good, as this may pique the reader's interest in view of the parallel with youthful support of the present Labour leader ...
 * A little colour added. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "privater ownership" in footnote 7. Typo, I imagine.
 * "In June 1997 the incoming Labour government under Tony Blair repaid the amount to the still-extant disaster fund." No interest and a pound worth far less than 1967? Generous soul
 * That point was raised at the time and since Even so, it was more than any government of the previous 30 years, Labour or Conservative, had been willing to do. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do refs 51, 56 and 58 appear as intended?
 * Can you clarify what is the issue? They seem OK to me. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think these are now 53, 58 and 60, which all contain "p. para. 61". If I've misread Wehwalt's meaning, please ignore! – SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my concern. It looks odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Tribunal Report. The problem was that the online version of the report is organised in paragraphs rather than page numbers, and the citation template only has a field for "p.", not "para". I agree that looked odd. What I've now done is simplified the citation and put the paragraph references into the source details. That means that the four tribunal report citations are consolidated into a single ref, no. 53. It's the best I can do, given the limitations of template format (unless the brilliant SchroCat has some fiendish clever trick). Brianboulton (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do - and have used it (For future reference, instead of p=, you can use loc= and add chapter, paragraph, ebook "page" location etc.) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You should probably use if on the Hansard refs too - |loc=c or cc, although there is also the Cite Hansard template which may be of use (your choice whether you use it or not) - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed, it's good to know these things. I have fixed the Hansards per above. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Refs 71, 87, 88, and 90 need close parens. You are not consistent between "quoted from" and "quoting from".
 * As a publisher, HMSO could usefully be linked.
 * Does Campbell have an OCLC?
 * The report of the Davies tribunal is listed twice as a reference, one as a book, one as an online source, with a trifling variation in punctuation (comma after 21st)
 * Apart from the punc inconsistency, this is intentional. The only complete online version of the tribunal's report is that provided by the Durham Miners' Museum, and I have generally cited to that. The site is not all that easy to navigate, so I decided to cite the all-important report conclusion (blaming the Coal Board) to the one page of the original published report that is available online. Not ideal, I agree, but probably the most helpful method to the reader. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The name of the first external link is unenlightening. Is it worth having as an external link but not as a source?
 * I've deleted both ext links. The first gave no useful information and the second was a dead link. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is in the category "1879 births", which is a couple of years before the earliest hinted at in footnote 1. Also please look over whether the categorisation for his being a graduate of the listed universities is accurate.
 * I've deleted the 1879 births category. As to the two universities, the Royal College of Science evolved into Imperial College London, a constituent college of the University of London. University College, Cardiff, became a constituent of the federal University of Wales, but in 2011 de-federated and became Cardiff University. I have amended the categories as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Always enjoy reading of these figures of British history of whom I regret I have not previously made my acquaintance. Excellent work. I look forward to supporting at FAC.
 * Thanks for the encouragement and careful reading. No comment means suggestion adopted, more or less; otherwise, I've added an explanation. One of your points I don't quite understand (refs 51. 56 and 58). Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
Aside from the citation tweaks, a few other minor tweaks undertaken here and here. Feel free to revert what you don't agree with.


 * Early life
 * Link to Blacklisting, possibly? I suppose there may be some that are unclear
 * "Stephen attended the local Cap Coch school": The use of the first name jars a little


 * By-election June 1934
 * Link to by-election? They go under different names around the world
 * Link Manchester Guardian?


 * Tributes
 * "His Times obituarist": possibly "His obituarist in The Times ..."?

Another enjoyable and high-quality article; I hope these few comments help. Please drop me a note when you get to FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Above points attended to. Many thanks, particularly for help with ref formats - I should know these by now! Brianboulton (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've given this a full read and honestly can't pick up on anything. It really looks an excellent account. I'm not in the critical frame of mind at the moment though!♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)