Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reginald Maudling/archive1

Reginald Maudling

Self-nom. I surprised myself when rewriting this article that he came out as a more interesting character than I had expected. A 'nearly man' of British politics. Dbiv 01:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral My specific objections have ben largely addressed by a lengthy re-write and a large improvement in organisation. I don't know enough about the subject to be able to support it, though - it could have factual errors or omissions which I am in no position to analysie. Psychobabble 02:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)Object. Far from brilliant prose (sorry to sound like a broken record) and a few things don't make sense to an ousider. What does "read law" mean? What was the conservative party's extensive rethink? Where did he stand in the latter movement? To an outsider this seems to be missing a fair bit. Psychobabble 01:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for "Far from brilliant prose" this is insubstantial and I don't know how you suggest it should be changed. The term 'reading' for studying at a university is a standard expression which you really ought to know. The Conservative Party's rethink was into party policy after the loss of the 1945 election which is a far more general topic than this one article; I've started to cover it in the Conservative Research Department article. Maudling's position in the Conservative Party was much too subtle to be classified as 'Left' or 'Right'; as the article explains he was to the right of Edward Heath when defeated by Heath for the Conservative leadership in 1965. Dbiv 01:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll give eg's then. "Ministerial office in the 1950s" is a long, meandering one sentence paragraph and "experience of preparing economic policy" doesn't sound right to me. "Maudling's defeat was a surprise although feeling in the country and in most newspapers was in Heath's favour." "Maudling's tendency to reassuring calmness" and the first paragraph under "scandal" all read badly. It needs a close copyedit imo, much of the writing doesn't flow well at all. Psychobabble 02:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and as for 'reading' a subject, I dispute it being a common term outside Britain. I've been studying law for 3 years in Australia and I've never heard the term and Australia is, obviously, much more similar to Britain than the rest of the world.Psychobabble 05:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me take these points one by one. 1) "Ministerial office in the 1950s" has three sentences, not one. 2) Maudling did have "experience of preparing economic policy" in the CRD in the late 1940s - what does "doesn't sound right to me" mean? 3) I've redrafted some of the paras you 'don't think flow well' although this is again an insubstantial objection. 4) It is acceptable to use the variety of English relevant to the context of the article according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling. See sample google searches at [1], changing 'history' for any other subject. Dbiv 14:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also dispute the term "reading" is widely enough used as to be acceptable. I've certainly never heard it in the US. If most of the English speaking world would not understand a phrase then it does not matter whether it is British or American English or whatever, it should be exchanged for a more well known term. Or put the more well known in parenthesis. This is also the case for a number of other phrases in that section. What does "called" mean in that context. What is a barrister? It should be noted inline, not forcing the reader to read the linked article. If there are that many in one paragraph, I'm assuming there are many more throughout the article. Clarity is more important than using British colloquialisms. - Taxman 18:04, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Undecided: Sorry to but into the argument, but I think as a potted political biography this is OK. I would like to support it. However, I think it needs a copy edit, perhaps Dbiv you have stared at it for too long, my grammar isn't good enough to do it, but I do see some of the points Psychobabble is making. The facts and dates are all there, it just needs a little more information and explanation. Reading for studying is particularly British, but could stay if about an Englishman (see votes for FA John Dee). The final section 'Death' at one and a half lines is far too short, he must have done something else besides die, dug his garden, walked to the off licence; and some less than romantic, or catholic souls may not know the date of Valentine's Day. Yes I know it says it at the top, bit is this significant? Was he a great lover? This could be the umph this page need!Giano 18:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) This is much better now, but still needs more information on the man, what made him tick etc. Giano 17:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I have addressed these concerns with the latest rewrite. The date of Reggie Maudling's death is in the first line for anyone who doesn't know what day St Valentine's day is. So far as is known Reggie Maudling was not a notably good lover (although he did have four children). Dbiv 14:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support: I think is a pretty good article and it's turned out much better than I ever thought when I started it. Come on, give it chance. james_anatidae 01:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Have attempted to improve the written style of this article. However, reverts by DBiv have ensured that while the facts are there the English and vocabulary remain basic to say the least.213.122.195.196 13:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have done no reverts. We evidently disagree on what constitutes the best prose and written style. I found your edits flowed rather badly and lacked some necessary punctuation; they also tended to introduce new concepts: for example, did Macmillan retain Maudling in 1957 because he 'recognised the potential of a rising star'? Or did Butler persuade Macmillan to retain his ally? I don't know, which is why the article did not speculate. I'm afraid I also thought your edits included a number of clichés. Dbiv 15:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support Good article. But it would be better to recast the Bar/barrister bit so it can be understood by an international audience. jguk 15:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. Dbiv 15:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support--ZayZayEM 07:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support assuming those sources were really used to come up with the material in the article and or fact check it. Not terribly interesting to me, but that is just because it falls entirely out of my areas of preference. It seems like a well written article, if anything it is a little scant on his personal life. We don't need much since that is not why he is famous, but what about his personal interests or similar. Object. No references. Was all this material made up out of thin air? - Taxman 04:01, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

It does have references. What do you think the autobiography and biography are? Dbiv 12:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Listed as they were they could have just as easily been referring the reader to biographies about him, but never actually looked at by editors of the page. - Taxman 18:08, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I confess to not having seen Michael Gillard's 1980 book about Poulson. I requested it at the British Library but it had gone missing. However I know of its contents and they have been added to in Lewis Baston's book which has the benefit of having some recently disclosed extra documents. Dbiv 21:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, have added some more, and also some more interesting points. Dbiv 15:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)