Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reform Act 1832/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 not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

[edit] Reform Act 1832

I stumbled across this article, and my first reaction was "Wow, this article is really good." I don't think there's much necessary to get it to FA, and I'm willing to do what's needed. Vanished user ^talk 02:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Did you notice that almost all of the footnotes are from books published in either the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries? While using the occasional historical source might be fine, there is a lot of excellent scholarship on this topic that has been written by modern scholars. Are you prepared to read some of it and check the article against it? We don't want the nineteenth-century view of the 1832 Reform Act! (I see the "Further reading" lists some good books.) Awadewit | talk 07:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it'll have to wait a day or two. Vanished user ^talk 18:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I anticipate waiting a month at the very least! I can't imagine it would take less time than that to start reading on this huge topic - and that would be if you had hours every day to devote to it. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the estimated time to see if modern interpretations strongly differ. If they do, then yes, we have a lot of extra reading. But if they turn out broadly similar, then much less work is necessary. Vanished user ^talk 21:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but you still need to do quite a bit of the reading to see if they differ (one book, for example, is not sufficient) and cite sources in the article so users don't think we are relying only on old sources. Awadewit | talk 21:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, agreed there. But should at least get a preliminary idea after a day or two, which I don't have now. So, insofar as that, I'm not really able to say much more until tomorrow =) Vanished user ^talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way: Slight update: Flu. May be a little longer. Vanished user ^talk 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to hear that! I am just recovering. Awadewit | talk 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I'm opposing for the time being because I'm not convinced that this article is founded on solid research. I am of the firm opinion that wikipedia history articles should be based on modern scholarship. Awadewit | talk 18:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

comment contains unneeded links to standalone years that yield no additional information to support the article content. Just link clutter. Otherwise, fine article. Hmains 03:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Support I studied this some years ago, and it certainly doesn't deviate from my recollection of the subject. Probably reads a little old-fashioned, but I don't believe there've been any major reinterpretations of the subject. If modern sources differ, they probably focus on their opinions of its long-term impact. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 07:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• You're saying there have been no major reinterpretations in 100 years? Let's just say I'm skeptical. You must at least grant that pre-Hayden White and post-Hayden White theories of the Act are going to look different and that's just a beginning. What about the reassessment of the Industrial Revolution that took place rather recently (last 20 years or so)? What about history written using Marxist theory? There are iterations of this. Awadewit | talk 07:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can you provide an example of a different interpretation? Vanished user ^talk 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to believe that it is the responsibility of articles to provide up-to-date scholarship and editors to be able to defend their sources per the featured article criterion which states: ""Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". The "relevant body of published knowledge" goes beyond the nineteenth century in this case. I was not under the impression that it was the job of the reviewer to do the research. I do not have the time to spend researching this article but it is simply illogical to suppose that the historical interpretation of this event has remained unchanged since the interpretations of other major historical events, such as the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the rise of the middle class, etc. have altered significantly. Awadewit | talk 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I said "I don't believe there've been any major reinterpretations", which is based on remembering from "some years ago". I've read some recent works that touched on the subject, and didn't come across anything that jarred with what I know, and the same applies to this article. This isn't, and wasn't meant to be, an absolute claim, but my personal belief that it's basicly sound, and doesn't exclude any major interpretations. So I didn't see a failure of 1b or 1c, and didn't withhold my support. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 07:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am quoting you: I don't believe there've been any major reinterpretations of the subject. You then went on to speculate about how modern sources (which it is not clear whether or not you have read) differ in interpretation of the Act's impact. It is unclear whether you view this as significant. I am also not sure why you would support an article that does not use modern scholarship for its sources - how does this make wikipedia look to the outside world? Even if the information from nineteenth-century sources is identical to modern scholarship (which I highly doubt), a reader would have no way of knowing this and would assume that this page is primarily a nineteenth-century view of of the Act. I do not think that this is the face we want an FA to present to the world. Awadewit | talk 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence you quote should be read in the context of the preceding sentence. My belief (which I deliberately phrased as such so as to be softer than, say, "certain knowledge"), is based on some small familiarity of the subject, which I hope I made clear was some years old (although some related reading is more up to date; a recent biography of Wellington, for example, included his role in the period). My statement of support should be read as no more, or less, than was stated. You say you are unsure why I support the article. The short answer is that I felt it met the FA criteria. I do feel that simply because certain books are used for inline citations, and other listed references are not used in-line, doesn't necessarily imply the listed references have not been used to craft the article. Quite the reverse in fact: if references are listed, it could be assumed they have been used. When I combined that view with the fact that the article did not conflict with what I knew, I concluded I could see no 1b or 1c issues, or any other issues that would prevent my support. I believe (and correct me if otherwise) that you find that the choice of citations implies out-of-date scholarship. That's a perfectly valid view, and I can see the logic behind it. Personally, I don't subscribe to it, and will continue my support. Finally, I will say that what you accurately describe as my "speculation" as to where modern works might differ (and that was my point, that that was the only place I could see where some extra work might be needed) probably wasn't a helpful addition by myself to the discusion; it added little. At the time, I hoped it might help Adam focus the extra reading he has very willngly offered to undertake. I apologise if it was something of a red herring J.Winklethorpe ^talk 22:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• You are basing part of this chain of reasoning on an assumption that cannot be proven yet: that the article was written using the more modern scholarship listed in the "Further reading". It has been my experience on wikipedia that editors often list books that they have not consulted in the "Further reading" so I am hesitant to accept that premise. Furthermore, I wish you would consider how this article looks to the outside world. If I came to this article from a google search and checked its references, I would assume that its content was based on sources cited in its footnotes and its "References" section and I would discard it - I would say to myself, "why do I want to read an article only based on nineteenth-century scholarship?" So, again, I ask you, is that the face we want to put forward as "the best wikipedia has to offer"? Awadewit | talk 22:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• You are entirely right: I haven't personally reviewed the literature on this subject in order to be certain the article is correct. However, I've already outlined why I'm sufficiently confident to support the article. Another reason is that FAC is not a one-person process: other reviewers, who may be more up-to-date, will come along and review. The idea of the FAC process, as I understand it, is that one well supported oppose can trump any number of supports. If someone highlights a failure in the article, then it won't be promoted until fixed. It's entirely possible that I'm badly wrong on this matter, and the FAC will fail.
• As I have covered above, I have "consider[ed] how this article looks to the outside world". I simply disagree with your view on the matter. "[T]he best wikipedia has to offer" is a very subjective description. I've given my subjective opinion, and you're giving yours. Hopefully others will give theirs, and Raul will weigh them in the balance. Perhaps the simplest solution is to wait until Adam reports back on the results of the research you suggested? In any event, I am away for several days from tomorrow. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 23:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Apparently this is current A-level syllabus territory, the main text for which is by Norman Gash "Politics in the Age of Peel". --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 11:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Written in 1971. (I wish someone would explain all of that A-level stuff to me....) Awadewit | talk 02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. There's better and more up-to-date stuff available. (I'll leave a brief explanation on your talk page later.)--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Lol. What I meant was that 1971 is more up-to-date than the current footnoted sources on the page right now! Awadewit | talk 07:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what you meant. "Indeed. There's better and more up-to-date stuff available [than the 1896 book cited here]." I'm sorry if the ellipsis left my remark insufficiently specific for you. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, anyway, since we agree on that issue (the issue of up-to-date sources being available), are you going to undertake the massive task of reading to check on this page to help out poor Adam? I am afraid that I am swamped at the moment. Awadewit | talk 08:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still too emotionally scarred from studying the Corns Laws at school to snuggle up with Peel I'm afraid.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 09:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Pass & support

• On the basis that it's fine.

Request: Add more to External links. Remark: "there is a lot of excellent scholarship on this topic that has been written by modern scholars." And I agree the article needs a wider breadth of sources. Unfortunately current criteria does not require it. Learnedo 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Criteria 1c reads: "'Factually accurate' means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge." - See WP:FA? Awadewit | talk 02:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Criteria 1c is of extremely poor standard. This is why more than one person urges any article have a wider breadth of sources. I never said that it's require however. Do you remember me using the word require? NO. Leranedo 09:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. My question about this article is whether is "accurately represents the relevant body of published knowledge". I have a hard time believing it does, since the majority of the footnotes are to nineteenth-century sources. That is why I don't think it meets this criteria. Awadewit | talk 09:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Leranedo, please read WP:EL; there is no reason for a comprehensive article to add external links, which should be held to a minimum. Also see WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons, among those "Adding external links can be a service to our readers" so do so. Leranedo 09:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo, why don't you show us some links that would be helpful? Nothing is jumping to my mind immediately. I believe wikipedia is trying to cut back on external links, especially on FA pages. Awadewit | talk 09:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I found the article confusing—it says the act "specifically disenfranchised women", which to my mind means their vote was taken away, but then almost immediately afterwards it says "The right to vote [before the Act] was restricted to men". Other parts are unclear: e.g. "George III was averse to the idea" (the idea of enlarging the franchise or the idea of trying to get an unpopular bill through a parliament destined to reject it?) Then later on: "Support for reform came from an unexpected source—a faction of the Tory Party—in 1829. The Tory government under Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.." followed by "The Duke of Wellington...strongly opposed reform measures". And "The Whig party won almost all constituencies with genuine electorates," but I inferred from what we were told earlier on that this number was very low. The article needs a thorough checking to clear up these misunderstandings.

Unfortunately, all the statements cited are correct, even the apparently contradictory ones: For example, no women could vote before 1832, but it was not impossible for women to do so; but no constituency did in fact include them in the list of electors. One of things the Reform Act did was to establish uniform qualifications for the vote for the first time, and these included being male. Similarly, it established a uniform property requirement, much wider in most constituencies; but it also disenfranchised some poor men. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why were the bishops against reform? How widespread/serious were calls for abolition of nobility and monarchy? Were there prominent people or print media saying this, or were they small public demonstrations?

• The bishops were against reform because they were Tories. This in turn for three reasons:
  • They had, almost all of them, been appointed by 40 years of Tory ministries.
  • The Anglican Church, in any case, naturally tended to have High-Tory, no-meddling-with-the-Matchless-Constitution, no-reform-at-all politics, because some of the obvious minor reforms would giving more rights to the Portestant Dissenters in England and the Catholics in Ireland.
  • And the Reform Act itself, besides encouraging other reforms, would give a greater Dissenting vote, both by removing local religious restrictions and by making places like Manchester into parliamentary constituencies.
• I would have expected so much to be the background any literate general reader would bring to this article (its authors may well think so too); clearly not, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You have misunderstood my criticism, which is not on the facts presented but the manner of presentation, which is confusing for any person unfamiliar with the subject matter.

By the way, I don't appreciate your sneering tone, please don't insult my intelligence. By making such attacks you are simply denigrating yourself, rather than the object of your scorn. DrKiernan 09:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What sneer? I said that your criticism indicates that this amount of background is not possessed by all literate readers; saying so implies that you are one. (If, on the other hand, you did accept the facts as obvious, and are suggesting that other readers may lack this background, that is an entirely different question: Should we write down for our readers? and if so, how far?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my misunderstanding. We should remember that the article is being read by non-native English speakers and children, in addition to general layreaders, so clarity is important. DrKiernan 08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think all quotes should have citations and would prefer to see one citation per paragraph so we can see clearly from where the information has been taken. DrKiernan 15:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.