Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Balfour Declaration/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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2017 [1].

---

Balfour Declaration

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is about the document considered to be the birth certificate of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Its 100th anniversary is in three months' time. It is a Top-Importance article at both Wikiproject Israel and WikiProject Palestine. It was promoted to good article status in April 2016, and has since had a peer review, a GOCE copy edit, and support for almost a year from FunkMonk as a mentor. As an important topic in a controversial area, it has been prepared in conjunction with WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, which aims to create a bilateral narrative in a field with distinct and divergent ways of describing the same things. The abundance of supporting quotations and notes, reflecting the fact that every detail of this topic has been argued over by scholars from all sides of the spectrum, has been discussed at WP:ANI. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

update: the article was recently promoted to be a level 4 vital article in History. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Haven't finished reading it yet.

• "The Balfour Declaration was a British public statement made during World War I to announce its support for the establishment of a "national home" for the Jewish " Who is "its"? (if it's the British government, remember to use "their"; note the first sentence of the Declaration is similar.)
• The lede seems to me too long with five paragraphs plus the lengthy blockquote. My understanding is the maximum is four paragraphs. The blockquote seems a bad idea to me as the prose in the lede should be as concentrated as possible to give the reader information and I don't think a blockquote of an original source can fit the prose. I'll wait and see before discussing further what you have to say on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Resuming my review.

• '"the US" I would say "United States" on first usage.
• "intentionally unclear as to whether a Jewish state was contemplated." I might say "vague" rather than "unclear"
• "The second part of the declaration " I might say "second half" instead of "second part", or possibly better "latter half"
• "Whilst the declaration provided political rights in Palestine for Jews" I might say "called for" instead of "provided"
• "had motivated Lord Shaftesbury and other lobbyists" I'm hesitant to term Shaftesbury a lobbyist when he was in Parliament most of his adult life, and lobbyists usually aren't legislators, that is why they are out in the lobby.
• In the "Early Zionism" section, you have Balfour ask Weizmann what his objections were to the Uganda Scheme but you don't answer the question.
• " Constantinople in 1901" I might say "In 1901, the imperial government in Constantinople" I might also add a "in Palestine" after "to buy land"
• The information that Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire is contained in the World War I section, but it probably would be usufully in the Early Zionism section instead, as you discuss the Turks without mentioning the relationship.
• "Lloyd George was however, the Prime Minister at the time of the Balfour Declaration, and ultimately responsible for it.[40]" I might say "by" for "at"
• "On the basis of the correspondence, the Arab Revolt began on 5 June 1916. " This reads a bit obscurely. Possibly you should mention the quid pro quo, Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottomans.
• Your capitalisation of "War Cabinet' does not seem consistent.
• "Avi Shlaim says there were two main schools of thought on the origins of the Balfour Declaration,[61] one represented by Leonard Stein,[78] the other by Mayir Vereté.[79] He says that Stein does not reach any clear cut conclusions," I personally avoid the use of the word "says" as a bit unencyclopedic. Asserted, wrote, stated, averred, etc. A:*" :*More recently, Historian Martin Kramer " historian should be lower case (similarly "Holy Sites". And more recent than what? Than "modern scholarship"
• "assays" You may mean "essays". The dictionary Google pulled up showed "assay" as in to "assay a joke" as archaic, but "essay" in a similar sense as current.
• The capitalization of the section titles doesn't seem consistent for example, Sykes-Picot Exposed, why is Exposed capped?
• "On 19 June, Balfour met with Lord Rothschild and Weizmann, and asked them to submit a formula for a declaration.[102] Following receipt of Lord Rothschild's 18 July draft declaration by the Foreign Office, the matter was brought to the Cabinet for formal consideration." These two one-sentence paragraphs could be combined, but you should alter the prose to connect them better.
• "Consent from the U.S. President was sought over the same time period.[104]" This seems topically related to the next paragraph, not this one.
• "British officials asked President Wilson for his views on the matter on two occasions – first on 3 September, when he replied the time was not ripe, and later on October 6, when he agreed with the release of the Declaration" You may want to avoid using multiple date formats in the same sentence.
• "Wilson's advisor and leading Zionist Louis Brandeis.[r]" He was by then a Supreme Court justice and should be referred to as such. I'm not thrilled about the "Wilson's advisor" given such.
• "With respect to the War Cabinet, in order to aid the discussions, the Cabinet Secretariat solicited interministerial clarification as well as the views of President Woodrow Wilson," this is written as if the article had not just discussed Wilson and his views. Additionally, the prose in this subsection seems a bit choppy, and this sentence seems a bit obscure. I don't know what interministerial clarification is, for one thing. Still more: the term "Cabinet Secretariat". You refer earlier to a War Cabinet Secretariat, is this what is meant? Or do you mean the senior civil servant, the Cabinet Secretary (United Kingdom)?
• "and in the British Guardian on 26 November 1917" At the time, the Manchester Guardian. (note, I happened to look ahead and saw this)

This is probably going to be a bit piecemeal. If the nom is archived, I'll complete on the talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Response to Wehwalt

I agree with you that the verbatim text is not needed in the lead. It was discussed 18 months ago at this talk thread with Hertz1888 and Rjensen, and consensus was for keeping. However, the article and lead have developed a lot since then, so consensus may have changed. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a memorial plaque or similar with the words written on it that would do instead, say as the lede image? I would urge you to discuss making a change.==Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point. When this was last discussed, we had a lower quality image on the page ([2]). Now we have a much clearer lead image with the words on it. I will open a request on the talk page. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

On "its" to "their" - thank you, I will fix this. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where to make comments, so I'll do it here. It seems to me that the text belongs in the lead. Reasons:

• From what I remember, every word and punctuation mark of the Balfour Declaration was crafted with a lot of behind the scenes maneuvering.
• Without the text the subsequent two paragraphs would be incomprehensible ("The first part", "The second part" and discussion of the various phrases like "national home".
• MOS:LEAD recommends four paragraphs as a rule of thumb, but AFAIK there's no prohibition against having five. More importantly, the guideline says that the lead should "stand on its own". I, for one, can't read the image easily on a desktop and mobile is probably even worse.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage to removing the text from the lead. Having it buried several sections below, at the end of the "Drafts" section, after several earlier versions, is not the same at all. The lead should "stand on its own" and explain what "it" is, "it" being the subject of the article. In this case "it" can be shown, verbatim, in a single legible paragraph. Let's leave it be. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pity about the images, not much you can do with 100 year old stuff; is there any way of somehow putting the nicely typed version together with the image or is that just impractical? I did as well wonder about having a face or two on the page somewhere, maybe a little shot of the authors or even just Balfour?

Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion re verbatim text in lead, since resolved via RFC

::: Just messing about a bit:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Selfstudier/sandbox Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC) I like the idea on the bottom right - where you have the full text in the infobox. I don't like having Balfour's photo in the lead as it's misleading - sure his name is attached to it, but he was just one of many players in the story of its creation. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC) True, three of them here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Times_history_of_the_war_(1914)_(14577979888).jpg I don't like Balfour's photo either, probably can just remove it. As for the infobox stuff, does the infobox count as part of the lead? Perhaps it might work. I am not sure I like it though: it would still be awkward to talk about "first part" and "second part" without actually stating the text in the lead. It might be the least of all evils. I don't know. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Um, how about this one, then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Selfstudier/sandbox Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC) I had a go at amending the one on your sandbox. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Like Kingsindian says, its an awkward choice, I hadn't paid much attention to it before, its not good that the text in the infobox is difficult to read tho it is nice to see a copy of the original. However I think I prefer a popout version at least some users can then see a legible version. It says that infoboxes should still contain what is in them in the main text somehwere, they are supposed to be a fast summary of some key data, having the long block of text is also frowned on apparently /: I suppose that in the end, the reason it is in the lead is because it is short enough to be able to do that (cf United_States_Declaration_of_Independence has a single line quote from it in the lead).Selfstudier (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC) I will wait and see what other FAC reviewers think of the text in the lede. Please ping me when you want me to take a second look. .--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC) What about a "no infobox" version? Starting something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Selfstudier/sandbox A picture could be inserted somewhere later in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

As to photographs, there are no known photographs of the protagonists together from the time of the declaration. This is likely a function of the wartime and secret nature of the discussions. The available photographs are usually posed portraits which give the reader no relevant information other than these people's facial features. I prefer going a little later, either to the 1918 Zionist visit to Palestine (see Weizmann, Edwin Samuel, Ormsby-Gore, Israel Sieff, Leon Simon, James de Rothschild and Joseph Sprinzak) or the 1925 Balfour visit (see Sokolow, Balfour and Weizmann or "The Palestine Trio", in which a few of the protagonists can be seen side by side.) There are also a few out of copyright videos from 1925: [3] [4] [5] [6], [7]. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Wehwalt: do you have any further comments on the article? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it another look.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: thanks for taking another look. I have made all the changes you proposed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: thanks for the further comments, which I have put through. You'll note I used "Sublime Porte" instead of "imperial government in Constantinople", which I think is more elegant not least because it avoids the Constantinople / Istanbul debate. Looking forward to any further comments you may have. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll keep plugging at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Wehwalt: these are all great comments - thank you. I have processed all comments received so far. On the last few, you'll see I've gone for slightly more detailed solutions to address three of your comments (Brandeis, the Cabinet Secretariat, and the events between 19 June and 18 July). I hope these are satisfactory. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Image review (let me know if discussion above results in further changes)

• Suggest scaling up 1915-16 maps
• File:The_"Basel_Program"_at_the_First_Zionist_Congress_in_1897.jpg needs a US PD tag
• I'm not entirely sure that textual documents of this sort would qualify as "artistic works", which is the wording of PD-UKGov. Does provision of Crown copyright differ for nonartistic works?
• File:1918_British_Government_Map_illustrating_Territorial_Negotiations_between_H.M.G._amd_King_Hussein.png is of poor quality; is a better-quality image available?
• File:Balfour_Declaration_in_the_Times_9_November_1917.jpg should explicitly state author's date of death
• File:Filastin_(La_Palestine)_March_25th_1925_editorial_addressed_to_Lord_Balfour.pdf needs author date of death, and given the 1925 publication date what is the rationale for that US tag?
• File:2011-08_Desk_Balfour.JPG: what is the copyright status of the pictured wall art? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, a few initial reactions:

• Basel - have added as suggested
• Times - Since no known writer (to be expected, since it looks like a government press release), I have added the date of death of the editor (1944)
• 1918 map - no, unfortunately there is no better quality version available anywhere. I have looked high and low (this was discussed at the talk page a few months ago). It is the only known government map illustrating the 1915 agreement, so is highly notable.
• Filastin - the editor and owner (El Isa) was the author of the piece. He died in 1950. I have removed the other tags, as Mandate Palestine copyright laws apply

• Bit confused here: if he died in 1950, and the Mandate Palestine copyright term is life+70, why would this be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• 70 years is for Israeli copyright post 2008. For creations prior to 2008 (as this was), the British Mandate laws apply, see [8]: "The term for which copyright shall subsist shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be the life of the author and a period of fifty years after his death." Onceinawhile (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, so we need now to determine the status of the work in the US - not sure how the Mandate laws mesh with URAA. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's an interesting question as the El Isa family would likely not have recognized Israeli descent of their Mandate copyright. It's not relevant though as the paper was almost certainly published in the US without a copyright notice or copyright registration. I have added a tag and an explanation onto the file page. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Desk - a tricky one. The Hebrew text is simply a verbatim translation of the letter and declaration. But the artwork, I don't know. An option is to replace it with a cropped version (e.g. he:קובץ:שולחנו של בלפור.jpg, but i'm not sure how to transfer the hebrew otrs to global commons).

• I don't know the answer to that one, maybe ask over at Commons? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• I figured it out! I will swap the photos. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• UK Crown Copyright - I read this [9] as applying to all Crown material, not just art. Following [10] gives the same conclusion.

• Hm. That flowchart does differentiate between artistic and non-artistic works, though: artistic works have their copyright expire 50 years after creation, whereas for other works it's 50 years after publication, assuming that happened before 1989. So the question becomes, when were all the textual documents pictured here published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• They were all published before 1961 (the date of Leonard Stein's seminal publication on the topic which incorporated most of them as core primary sources; the others are in other works from the same time period). I will figure out the dates and add them to each file. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have added the details against each of the files on commons. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Okay. I'm wondering whether there is a UK tag more reflective of the situation for textual works, as UKGov is specific to artistic works. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have added a note above each of the tags on the file pages to clarify. To clean things up for future users of the tag, I have also proposed an amendment to the template at [11]. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Scaling up - do you mean make larger on the page, or zoom in further?

• Make larger on the page, ideally using |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you - this has been done. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria: do you have any further comments on the images or the article as a whole? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

While you are deciding what to do with the lead/infobox, here are a few other minor points you should address:

• The form "Lord Walter Rothschild" is wrong; it would only be right if he was a younger sone of a duke or a marquis, which he wasn't. Just "Lord Rothschild" would be correct everyday form.
• "Mark Sykes" was "Sir Mark Sykes" at the time, and was rather more than "a British War Cabinet secretary", which makes him sound like a typist. "A senior member of the British War Cabinet secretariat" might be a better indication of his rank.
• The way it's currently written, it sounds as though Sykes began discussions with Weitzmann on his own initiative, out of the blue. I would preface this sentence with "In accordance with government policy, which was increasingly favouring Zionism,..." (or some such wording)
• Repetitions in second line of final paragraph: "ongoing...ongoing", and "conflict...conflict".
• Like others, I think including the text of the declaration in the lead as well as in the infobox is unnecessary. Do you actually need the infobox at all? It contains nothing of note that's not in the first paragraph of the text. A possible alternative to the infobox is illustrated here - replacing it with a quote box containing the declaration's text, and obviating the need to repeat it in the body of the lead.
• The image in the current infobox gives an impression that the declaration document was headed "Balfour Declaration", which was not the case. Incidentally, it would be interesting to know when the document first acquired this name – was it from the very outset, or a later appellation given by historians?

Aside from these minor issues, I have a major problem with the article as presently constructed. In addition to its main text, there are more than 10,000 additional words of "Primary supporting quotes" and "Explanatory notes and scholarly perspectives" – considerably exceeding the length of the article itself. Some of the notes are, individually, quite lengthy essays running to several hundred words. I don't believe that this approach is what is intended for Wikipedia, which is about providing articles in plain style for the general reader, not for researchers or academic historians. The authors should reconsider the nature of their intended readership, with a view to removing much of this explanatory material. WP:NOT might be a useful guideline. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to Brianboulton

Many thanks Brianboulton. Comments on your points in turn:

• I agree that "Lord Walter Rothschild" is wrong. However, we need a way to differentiate him from two other contemporary Baron Rothschilds (in England Baron = Lord), much better known in politics, his father Nathan Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild who died a couple of years before the declaration and his distant cousin Baron Edmond James de Rothschild (who was, I believe, not an English Baron but an Austrian Freiherr, but who used the style Baron in England). Walter was not a particularly political or financial man, so it is notable that it was him in particular.
• Agreed re Sir Mark. It seems his entitlement as a sir was in his Baronetcy inherited from his father, rather than being knighted. I have made both these changes
• Agreed re Sykes's authorization; I have added wording to clarify
• As to the infobox, that's an interesting idea. I am neutral on this and will wait to let consensus form.
• The caption below the picture in the infobox is intended to explain that the declaration itself is within the letter. The name "Balfour Declaration" formed very early. It was used frequently in the reports of both the 1919 King–Crane Commission and the 1920 Palin Commission
• As to the notes, in the original nomination above I linked to the ANI discussion on the topic. The subject of this article is the origin of perhaps the most controversial and hotly debated of all modern conflicts. I have edited in the Israel Palestine area for some time, and have learned that quotes in footnotes are a must in order to avoid edit wars on controversial topics. As it says at WP:IPCOLL, every topic is described differently by both sides. Israelis, Palestinians and their respective supporters come to read this article all the time - when they see something that doesn't fit the narrative they thought they knew, let's just say that they do not bother to go and check the source book out of the library before editing. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Seconded, on the last point. Some quotes are useful to get some insight into the topic. Around the time of the ANI discussion, I made an attempt to shorten the quotes, but judging from the overall discussion, people didn't find the practice problematic; so I discontinued the attempt. There were some concerns raised about copyright, but from what I saw, most people agreed that it did not fall into copyvio territory. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with both of you. I accept that, to an extent, explanatory footnotes which incorporate verbatim source material can have some useful function in backing up possibly contentious statements in the article text. But this should be done sparingly; when the notes amount to considerably more in size than the text they are supporting, and when some of the individual footnotes are essays of several hundred words, my eyebrows remain raised. Were you writing for a scholarly journal, the argument might be different (though I think the editor of such a journal might well insist on some cutback in the notes). But this is an encyclopedia; we should be writing principally for a general readership who require a clear straightforward summary account of the topic and, I am certain, will not read the notes and may well be intimidated by them. The subject is controversial, but not more so than many other subjects, none of which as far as I can see have adopted your pre-retaliatory approach. Alas, those who are determined to challenge your coverage will find ways of doing so regardless – you simply can't anticipate every point of contention, and I worry that attempting to do so creates further problems, not least a great strain on readability. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this part of your comments "when the notes amount to considerably more in size than the text they are supporting, and when some of the individual footnotes are essays of several hundred words, my eyebrows remain raised"(although even adjusting just this may itself cause controversy).Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that Brian's "considerably more" comment appears to be mistaken; the notes are 9,000 words vs. the article at 11,000 words. But of course his point stands. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, I am referring only to specific notes rather than the totality ie the size of some specific notes could perhaps be reduced (f goes off the bottom of my screen as I read at the moment) or some notes content incorporated in the main text. In regards to the totality, I hold the view that if a thing is deserving of an expanation (admittedly a matter of opinion), then it ought to be explained whether in notes or text. Selfstudier (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So, by way of example, I would (personally) not object to removal of primary source note f (the first lengthy one I come to going down the page); while of interest, its removal (imo) would not affect the article in any significant way.Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: please could you share any thoughts on how we might address your concern on the notes in the least damaging manner? Removing all the notes is a quick job, but putting them back again would not be; so I am keen to agree here exactly the scope of what you consider necessary.

In this context, below are two additional thoughts on the two components of the notes section:

• The "primary supporting quotes" subsection is a specific reflection of the way the topic of this article is dealt with in ALL the best reliable sources; the key points in the history are always illustrated in the literature with quotes from the relevant parties involved. We can speculate why this is; my guess is that the heart of what most readers want to understand when reading this article is exactly why this declaration was issued, and primary quotes from the various protagonists are the purest way of cutting through the mythology which has been built up around every detail. We could easily take all these notes out of the footer and spread them around the article, but to my mind this would make reading it too clunky.
• With respect to the explanatory notes and scholarly perspectives section, we have only 29 explanatory notes versus the 20 at Jesus - one of the very few WP:FAs on a subject so deeply disputed in the scholarship. We can cut some down and incorporate others into the main prose; any sense of a target number we should aim for would really help.

Any finally, a broader reflection, having spent the last week or so struggling over the right philosophical approach to your challenge regarding having all these detailed footnotes here. My personal view is that it will be a travesty to be forced to cut out these detailed quotes and footnotes, not just because in its current form it will be a shining example of WP:FACR requirements 1b. and 1c., but because in the context of Wikipedia aiming to become more reliable and more trusted (per the current draft 2030 strategy), the kind of robustness and confidence which these footnotes imbue will help Wikipedia on its quest to gain the respect it deserves. Having said which, I am conscious that your description above of what Wikipedia articles are trying to achieve comes from a very different yet equally important angle, and I have no doubt that this FAC will fail unless you are content. Stepping back from our own views, I am also conscious that there are many differing views on this question in the broader community. At the ANI I linked to in the opening post of this review page, one uninvolved editor wrote "The length of these quotations is appropriate as a means to provide critical documentation in a controversial article. This is a model of what we should be doing across articles in Wikipedia as a best practice." and another wrote: "Quotations of the length exhibited here are absolutely the norm in serious scholarship and can greatly enhance the quality of an article. Whether the quotations in Balfour Declaration are appropriate must be considered on their merits as part of the article, not on a priori grounds." These apparently passionate views are on my end of the spectrum, and I'm certain we could also find many on yours. Of course with everything on Wikipedia, multiple views will continue to abound.

Which is a long way of saying that I hope to be able to find a way to address your concern in the most thoughtful manner possible, and any specific guidance you can provide us on where exactly to draw the line would be greatly appreciated.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

On the minor point of the precise text-to-notes ratio, I based my original statement on the basic page size wordcount, which is currently 7,987. The 11,000 figure you mention presumably includes the quoteboxes, blockquotes and tabulated text.

As to the main issue concerning the justification for notes of this volume and detail, your arguments are well made and forceful, and I don't think anything I say will alter your position. Likewise my own view stands; if other reviewers interested in this article are prepared to contribute to this discussion, and if they share your standpoint, that's fine by me – I will not press my point further. But I think the debate should be widened by taking into account the views of others. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment re verbatim text and infobox

In response to comments from reviewers above, an RFC was opened at Talk:Balfour_Declaration#RfC:_Location_of_verbatim_text. Limited interest was shown, but there seems to be consensus for option 3. Unless anyone objects here, I propose to end the RFC and make the change. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I have now implemented this. So I believe the infobox / verbatim quote / lead paragraphs discussion is now resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Corinne

1) You may have discussed this elsewhere, but upon reading the first sentence of the article, which begins:

The Balfour Declaration was a British government public statement made during World War I, which read:

I found "a British government public statement" awkward. May I suggest alternatives? –

• a public statement issued by the British government
• a public statement made by the British government

It would then read:

• The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I, which read:...

2) The first sentence of the second paragraph reads:

During the period of the British War Cabinet discussions leading up to the declaration, the wider war had reached a period of stalemate; the United States was yet to fully deploy, and the Russians were distracted by internal upheaval.

(a) I think "During the period of the British War Cabinet discussions" is awkward. Also, using "the period of" doesn't make 100% clear that the "discussions" were directly related to the declaration; also, the phrase "period of" is used later in the sentence. I suggest either removing "the period of" or using a verb instead of the noun "discussions:

• During the British War Cabinet discussions leading up to the declaration,...
• While the British War Cabinet was discussing the declaration,...

(b) I suggest a colon (:) after "stalemate" because the subsequent details are illustrating the stalemate.

(c) Instead of "the United States was yet to fully deploy", I suggest "the United States had yet to fully deploy", making "deploy" an active verb.

If these changes are made, it would then read:

• During the British War Cabinet discussions leading up to the declaration, the wider war had reached a period of stalemate: the United States had yet to fully deploy, and the Russians were distracted by internal upheaval.

I'm not sure "period of" before "stalemate" is really needed. A stalemate is a stalemate. If it is removed, it would then read:

• During the British War Cabinet discussions leading up to the declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate: the United States had yet to fully deploy, and the Russians were distracted by internal upheaval.

3) The second sentence of the second paragraph of the lede is as follows, with the word "that" highlighted in bold:

Historians agree that the first high level contacts between the British and the Zionists can be dated to a conference that took place on 7 February that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership that ultimately resulted in Balfour requesting, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration.

You'll see that the word "that" appears five times. This can be reduced to three with these changes:

• Historians agree that the first high level contacts between the British and the Zionists can be dated to a conference that took place on 7 February that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership. This meeting that ultimately resulted in Balfour requesting, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration.

It would read:

• Historians agree that the first high level contacts between the British and the Zionists can be dated to a conference on 7 February that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership. This meeting ultimately resulted in Balfour requesting, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration.

4) The last sentence of the second paragraph of the lede reads as follows:

The Cabinet discussion on approval described perceived propaganda benefits amongst the worldwide Jewish community for the Allied war effort.

I found "The Cabinet discussion on approval described perceived propaganda benefits" a bit dense. I assume this means discussion within the Cabinet regarding approval of the final draft of the declaration. ("On approval" almost sounds like when a store lets you take something home to see if you like it enough to buy it, you take it on approval.) The previous sentence had begun "Further drafts were discussed by the British Cabinet" and ended "the release of the final declaration was authorised", so I don't think "on approval" is necessary. Also, since the previous sentence ends: "the release of the final declaration was authorised by 31 October", the next sentence probably refers to discussion that took place before the release of the final declaration was authorised, so I would use past perfect tense in the last sentence, and "included" instead of "described". I suggest the following:

• The Cabinet discussion on approval had included described perceived propaganda benefits amongst the worldwide Jewish community for the Allied war effort.

It would then read:

• The Cabinet discussion had included perceived propaganda benefits amongst the worldwide Jewish community for the Allied war effort.

5) In the fourth paragraph of the lede is the following sentence:

Whilst the declaration called for political rights in Palestine for Jews, rights for the Palestinian Arabs who comprised the vast majority of the local population were limited to civil and religious.

I think ending the sentence with two adjectives, "civil and religious", is awkward. I think it should end with a noun. I suggest one of the following:

• civil and religious issues
• civil and religious areas
• the civil and religious spheres

Also, if Palestinian Arabs lived only there, then "who comprised the vast majority of the local population" should be a non-restrictive (non-limiting, non-identifying, containing extra, non-essential information) clause, so should be set off within a pair of commas. If Palestinian Arabs lived in other places, and this sentence is referring to only those who lived in this area, then the clause beginning "who" is a restrictive (limiting, identifying) clause, so does not need commas. I suspect the case is the former. If that is correct, commas needed to be added around the clause. It would then read:

• Whilst the declaration called for political rights in Palestine for Jews, rights for the Palestinian Arabs, who comprised the vast majority of the local population, were limited to the civil and religious spheres.

6) The very next sentence reads:

In 2017, the British Government acknowledged that the Declaration should have called for the protection of political rights.

The phrase "the protection of political rights" does not make clear whose rights should have been protected. I believe it probably means the political rights of the Palestinian Arabs. If this is correct, then perhaps the phrase "the Arabs'" should be inserted before "political rights: "called for the protection of the Arabs' political rights". The sentence would then read:

• In 2017, the British Government acknowledged that the Declaration should have called for the protection of the Arabs' political rights.

I'm not sure "the" before "protection" is needed. If it is removed, the sentence would read:

• In 2017, the British Government acknowledged that the Declaration should have called for protection of the Arabs' political rights.

7) The first sentence of the fifth (and last) paragraph of the lede is as follows:

The issue of the declaration had many long-lasting consequences.

Here, the meaning of "the issue" is ambiguous. It could mean "the topic of the declaration", or "the problem of the declaration", when I think it was intended to mean "the issuance of the declaration". I suggest changing "The issue" to "The issuance" or "The publication".

That's enough for now. I'll continue in a minute.  – Corinne (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

8) The first two sentences in Balfour Declaration#Early Zionism read (minus the references):

Zionism arose in the late 19th century in reaction to anti-Semitic and exclusionary nationalist movements in Europe. Romantic nationalism in 19th-century Central and Eastern Europe had helped to set off the Haskalah, or "Jewish Enlightenment", creating a split in the Jewish community between those who saw Judaism as their religion, and those who saw it as their ethnicity or nation.

I think the second sentence provides further detail, a kind of illustration, of what is described in the first sentence. Thus, I'm not sure it is necessary to repeat that it took place in the 19th century. Also, unless the romantic nationalism in Central and Eastern Europe took place before the events described in the first sentence, past perfect ("had helped") is not necessary. I think the second sentence describes in more detail what happened in the late 19th century, so past tense "helped" would be correct:

• Zionism arose in the late 19th century in reaction to anti-Semitic and exclusionary nationalist movements in Europe. Romantic nationalism in 19th-century Central and Eastern Europe had helped to set off the Haskalah, or "Jewish Enlightenment", creating a split in the Jewish community between those who saw Judaism as their religion, and those who saw it as their ethnicity or nation.

The sentences would then read:

(a) Zionism arose in the late 19th century in reaction to anti-Semitic and exclusionary nationalist movements in Europe. Romantic nationalism in Central and Eastern Europe helped to set off the Haskalah, or "Jewish Enlightenment", creating a split in the Jewish community between those who saw Judaism as their religion and those who saw it as their ethnicity or nation.

In fact, the two sentences could be combined:

(b) Zionism arose in the late 19th century in reaction to anti-Semitic and exclusionary nationalist movements in Europe, with, for example, romantic nationalism in Central and Eastern Europe helping to set off the Haskalah, or "Jewish Enlightenment", and creating a split in the Jewish community between those who saw Judaism as their religion and those who saw it as their ethnicity or nation.

9) The last sentence of the second paragraph in Balfour Declaration#Early Zionism is as follows:

Herzl died in 1904 without the political standing that was required to carry out his agenda of a Jewish home in Palestine.

I wonder whether it would be a little more accurate to say:

• Herzl died in 1904 without having gained the political standing that was required to carry out his agenda of a Jewish home in Palestine.

or "without having secured the political standing".

10) At the end of the paragraph that is the section Balfour Declaration#Ottoman Palestine is a quote. To me, the connection between the quote and the ideas in the sentences just preceding it is not clear. The preceding sentences say the Ottomans made it possible for Jews to buy land, the percentage of Jews in Palestine rose, Arab nationalism was on the rise, and "in Palestine Anti-Zionism was on the rise". The quote begins, "The Balfour Declaration was not, in and of itself, the source of trouble in a land that previously had been more or less at peace..." I can understand mentioning that the declaration itself was not a source of trouble, but the previous sentences (which I just summarized) do not suggest much peace. Is that is what is meant by "more or less at peace"? Perhaps it would help if the person who made these quoted statements were mentioned. The quote is kind of "out of the blue", not connected well enough with what precedes it.

11) In the section Balfour Declaration#1915–16: Prior British commitments over Palestine is a double image. Each image has its own caption. The one on the left does not need a period/full stop since it is not a sentence. In the one on the right, the date is written "Jun. 1922". I don't think June needs to be abbreviated. It's only one more letter to write it out in full. Perhaps it was abbreviated earlier because of space constraints, but here, I think there is enough space that it could be written out in full. The caption in the next image does not need a period/full stop, either.

12) I believe we had discussed the capitalization or non-capitalization of "declaration" where it is not in the phrase "the Balfour Declaration", and agreed that it should not be capitalized. For consistency, then these need to be made lower-case:

• last paragraph of Balfour Declaration#1915–16: Prior British commitments over Palestine
• the heading of the section Balfour Declaration#June and July: Decision to Prepare a Declaration (why are the nouns capitalized?)
• second paragraph of Balfour Declaration#September and October: American Consent and War Cabinet Approval
• first paragraph in Balfour Declaration#Long-term impact

In the second and third paragraphs in Balfour Declaration#Response by Central Powers, I notice that the phrase "the Balfour Declaration" is used often. You might take a look and see if some could be changed to simply "the declaration".

Well, that's all for now.  – Corinne (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Response to Corinne

Dear @Corinne: a big thank you for these comments. They have been prepared with an eye for exquisite detail, and are beautifully written and presented. I am embarrassed to say that your talk page prose is more elegant, and with better syntax, than any article prose I have been able to write! I will implement these comments, with a couple of small builds which I will describe here. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Onceinawhile Thanks! I'm glad to help.  – Corinne (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I notice that there has been some comment in the last couple of days here, but we don't seem much closer to achieving a consensus to promote at the moment. This has been open for some time, nearly six weeks, and has generated a lot of discussion, but nothing in the way of support. FACs like this, which are down the queue and have discussion but no support, often struggle to attract reviewers. As such, I think it is unrealistic to believe that we can get that consensus within the timeframe of this particular FAC. Therefore I am going to archive this shortly, but I would recommend that the nominator works with Brianboulton and Wehwalt (who I am aware was still commenting) on any remaining issues away from FAC and perhaps ask Corinne for any further comments (or maybe a copyedit). This article can then be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period, when it will hopefully have a smoother ride. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.