Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bessie Braddock/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2015 [1].

Bessie Braddock edit

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Few people in the UK under about 60 will have any idea who Bessie Braddock was, and to anyone outside the UK she is likely to be entirely unknown. Yet in the 20 or so years after the Second World War she was one of the most immediately recognised names and faces in British public life. Not, perhaps, as one obituarist would have it, on a par with the Queen, but way ahead of most of the mundane politicians who governed us. She was a tough Liverpool lass with a natural affinity for the poorest in society. She made herself their champion, and woe betide those who stood in her way, whether in parliament, the Liverpool council chamber or (controversially) Welsh villages whose land she needed to build a reservoir for her beloved Liverpool. Formidable rather than "nice", I'd say, and I dare say she'd have agreed. A long and thorough peer review has brought the article to what I hope is FA-worthiness. Thanks to all who helped. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support One of the most enjoyable reads I've had on here in a while. A delight to read and digest. Easily meets the FA criteria, and in my opinion, an exemplary article on a politician which should be emulated elsewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Agree with Doc entirely: very enjoyable and informative throughout. I know nothing about Bessie, so cannot comment overly on the ground covered, but support fully on prose, layout, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Had my say at the peer review, seems most worthy indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Also had my say at PR stage. Of FA standard in my view. I had also never heard of Bessie before this enlightening read. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am doubtless the only Liverpudlian visitor to this page who is old enough to have met Bessie Braddock – but I didn't. Nonetheless, to my generation her name was for many years synonymous with the city. This article does her ample and balanced justice, and I am very pleased to add my support. Tim riley talk 15:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Liverpool during my infancy, in Bessie's heyday – though I doubt that my family would wholly have approved of her, given their somewhat traditionalist political attitudes. I'm not surprised that she is largely unknown to the younger generation; her legacy has been strangely muted outside Liverpool. For some reason, the ODNB gives twice as much space to the pedestrian Jack as it does to Bessie, an imbalance of justice if ever there was one. And she is surely worth a full-length biography. Thanks to all the above for the many kind words, and for the various helping hands along the way. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi edit

  • Support
  • <strikethrough>Wasn't the libel case worthy of mention?</strikethrough> OK, "sued the newspaper for defamation"
  • The Churchill drunk/ugly thing... I've heard it before somewhere about other political figures... it may be a touchstone to locals, but from all the way across the ocean it seems a bit like fluff...
  • Sadly, this bit of nonsense gets a lot of mileage, as a google search on Bessie Braddock will instantly confirm. It comes up again and again, more so than anything positive she did, alas. So it has to be mentioned; I don't think I've given it undue weight. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, I'm a bit hesitant about the Assessment section as a whole, though I'm open to persuasion. To my mind, "Assessment" implies a scorecard of her political initiatives that won/lost against their relative importance/impact. Maybe "assessment" here means assessment of her personality? But I would prefer to see the former rather than the latter, and if the latter is included (which it very well could be), would prefer it titled something a bit more specific (Personality? Character? Not sure, you can think of a better header than I could)
  • The section is intended as a brief appraisal of her career and personality. I see that in other politician articles the heading "Appraisal and legacy" has been used for similar summing-up sections. "Legacy" is perhaps a bit high-falutin for someone who didn't initiate any major legislation – she's more remembered for how she went about things. I've altered "Assessment" to "Appraisal"; if a better heading suggests itself, or is suggested, I'll be happy to change again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although she never held ministerial office" wikilink ministerial office please...
  • The link article is pretty dreadful and unhelpful to the general reader. I've changed the wording to "office in government", which i think is self-explanatory.
  • Commons Kitchen Committee... what? Wikilink please
  • No apppropriate link. It was the House of Commons's catering body – but on reflection this is too trivial to be worth mentioning, so I've deleted the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking for a good place to wikilink MP to Member of parliament. A purist would do it up there by "her colleague Silverman", but IMO this is kind of an inconspicuous spot... I suppose it could be done twice, or...
  • MP is linked in the infobox, while in the lead Member of Parliament is linked followed by (MP). I've now linked the first mention of "MP" in the main text. That should be enough. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "St Anne's, one of the most deprived" The organization of this paragraph doesn't sit well with me, since it goes back and forth from general to specific etc. It seems that perhaps "The Labour party's official policy on workhouses" should be the first sentence.. plus workhouse needs to be wikilinked there in that new first sentence too (currently not wikilinked).
  • I have slightly rejigged the paragraph, but not quite to the extent you suggest is necessary. The paragraph first describes the ward's character, then introduces the specific controversy of the Brownlow Hill workhouse. This controversy split the local Labour Party; the sitting Labour councillor defied the party's official policy, was deselected, and Bessie took her place. That is the broad sequence of events, and I think that any further reworking of the paragraph may affect its clarity. I have added the requested link to workhouse in the first line of the para. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merseyside Council of Action pls give a little appositive to explain what this is
  • work or maintenance? that's work or transfer payments? pls explain Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text explains what the "work or maintenance" campaign was about, so I don't think extra words are necessary.
  • Not sure where to wl Merseyside, bc is Merseyside part of the title of Council of Action, or were there many c of a's and that one was just in merseyside? Anhow, merseyside needs wl. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
  • In Bessie's time, "Merseyside" was a loose geographical term for the area around the River Mersey estuary. In 1974, after an ill-considered reorganisation of local government, "Merseyside" became a new "metropolitan county", carved out of the historic county of Lancashire, and Liverpool became a unit in the new county. All this happened after Bessie's death; I feel that a link to the current Merseyside article would mislead, so I've changed the wording in the Appraisal section. As explained above, the 1926 Council of Action, despite its grandiose name, was a local workers' committee with no official status. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Class, Culture and Community: New Perspectives in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century British Labour History (Anne Baldwin, Chris Ellis, Stephen Etheridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Nov 15, 2012) has a good quote from an unpublished dissertation by RSW Davies on p. 122, not a feminist, but more interested in womens' health, seemingly significant details given regarding very heavy involvement in Maternity and Child Healthcare issues. Might be worth adding. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of unpublished theses as reliable sources for FA purposes is arguable, but if you can provide a link I'll at least take a look. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps worth a mention. I'll see what I can do.
  • if you look closely at the statue, she's holding an egg. is that because of how she "made sure Britain got safer eggs by the use of the red lion safety stamp"?
  • Alan Dossor musical documentary "The Braddocks' Time", is this worthy of mention?
  • drama bessie
  • I have no information on the musical. I'll add few words on the radio drama. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ling, it's always good to hear from you. Thank you for these useful points, which I have dealt with as stated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brianboulton:, hey Brian. As is plain to see, almost everything I changed or commented about is a very minor tweak for clarity or expansion, in particular adding a set of wikilinks. I'm OK with the ugly/drunk story, as it really does seem to be firmly adhered to her legend. There's another small passage I would call "fluff" ("the blind leading the blind"), but it takes up so little space that it's almost more trouble to delete it than it's worth. Having said all that, there are two (related) things I still see as perhaps needing a bit of thought: first, you hit the nail very precisely on the head when you stated above that she was "someone who didn't initiate any major legislation – she's more remembered for how she went about things". Was that point mentioned in the article, particularly in the lede? I'm in a bit of a rush to go to work so I won't look, sorry. The related point is that the one thing I found repeated across a couple of her brief bio entries was the whole chairman of the maternity and child care issue. That topic is explained very neatly in the quote I gave above (unpublished dissertation)... my point was not that the unpublished diss exists, but that that one isolated quote neatly summarizes what others mention... the book and the quote are visible via the internet here. As nearly as I can tell, this maternity/child care issue was one she seems to have pursued for decades, and held chair position, and perhaps even created the committee (?), etc. I have to go now more later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, two threads that I seem to see mentioned again: first, a "famous quote" on the second reading of the National Assistance Bill which finally brought the poor law to an end. 'I think of what we are repealing more than what we are proposing'. (Hansard,444, 24 November 1947.). Second, some kind of controversy regarding free speech and privacy.. maybe some female reporter published her private remarks or.... something. I haven't quite nailed it down yet. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a busy off-wiki few days coming up, but I'll try and consider these points as time allows. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I suggest that minor points/tweaks etc, which are not critical to the article's promotion or otherwise, could be raised on the article's talk page, to avoid this FAC page becoming cluttered with detail. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I cluttered your page. Meanwhile, did we mention that she organized a national conference on maternity issues: link.
  • I have added a couple of sentences, with two new citations, referring to her work with the Maternity and Child Welfare subcommittee. My remark about avoiding clutter wasn't referring to this issue, but rather to any other "tweaking" ideas you may have. I'm glad that you raised this point, and I think it's fairly covered now. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have four more areas of uncertainty: first, as for "she never held office in government," is MP a government office? Isn't it an elected position? Is this assertion then unclear or perhaps even mildly incorrect? Second, I keep seeing her name kind of casually linked to "getting rid of Poor law" or "getting rid of Poor Law hospitals" (and this goes back to her "famous quote" given above), but I can never unearth any actual details. Did she take any level of leadership in this effort, or was she just a voice in the chorus? third, related to above, the article text asserts that hospitals were in shockingly poor condition. Surely that's not all hospitals? is it only "Poor Law hospitals"? Fourth, this whole lion stamp on the eggs thing, is this significant enough to mention, or is it trivial? Each of my questions betrays my lack of knowledge of English government etc., so I defer to you and perhaps Tim Riley on them. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer these points:
  • Being an MP is not holding a government office; at any one time, about 150 or so MPs (out of 650) hold positions in the administration, the rest are back-benchers or opposition MPs (the same applies in any elected legislature). Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although you say you "keep seeing her name kind of casually linked to 'getting rid of Poor law' or 'getting rid of Poor Law hospitals'", in fact the term "Poor Law relief" occurs just once in the article, and not in relation to hospitals. There is plenty enough information in the article, I believe, to establish that she was a tireless campaigner against poverty, and rather more than just another voice in the crowd. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That knocks away three of the four, but on this last one I obviously am being misunderstood (my fault for being unclear, sorry). I "keep seeing" these references in other sources found online in Google books, etc., not in the article on Wikipedia. I thought it was clear that pretty much all of my potentially substantive comments were based on a modest attempt at online research, looking for gaps in coverage. My quibbles with the existing text of the article as it stood were without exception just nitpicks for clarity... So my questions are: first, is there any meaningful difference between fighting poverty in general and explicitly fighting against the "Poor Laws" (again, my confusion may stem from being under-informed), and if the answer is "Yes", then second, did she explicitly fight against the Poor Laws in a manner extensive enough to warrant explicit mention in the article? Thanks and sorry for being a pain. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the misunderstanding. In fighting poverty generally, Bessie would have inevitably found herself from time to time opposing the provisions of the Poor Laws, which in the guise of providing for the poor did much to perpetuate their plight. That would have been part of her campaigning – anyone in the 1920s and 1930s in this country committed to ending poverty would have fought for Poor Law reform, although this was not Bessie's focus. Indeed, she doesn't mention the Poor Laws at all in her autobiography. My impression is that she was more concerned with initiating direct and immediate action than in the longer-term legislative process. I hope this helps to clear any residual confusion in your mind. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments on the state of the hospitals do indeed refer to all the city's hospitals – a not unusual condition in the pre-NHS era, in impoverished industrial cities. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, on the egg issue, I believe this is unimportant in the context of Braddock's career. I can't find any mention in the various biographical or autobiographical material of her association with egg marketing; maybe she was on a parliamentary subcommittee or something, but honestly, it's trivia, not worth pursuing. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ling, for your stimulating commentary, and support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support on prose + Comment – From my previous contacts with Brian, I respect him for his pioneering efforts in setting high standards on Wikipedia's articles and as I see it, this is another piece of magnificient work of his. I know almost nothing about British history and politics, except a little bit on very frequently mentioned personalities such as Tony Blair and David Cameron. Hence I can't comment on the accuracy and balance to the content.
I have been following Lingzhi's debate with interest, and as a matter of public interest, I like to point out that just because a point maybe found, even from a reliable source, it does not necessarily needs to be included if that point is of minor significance pertaining to the subject's life or work. Of course, such judgement will need some degree of expert knowledge from the editor. On this note, I would like to direct all interested editors and reviewers in reading this: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Hope these helps, for all considerations! Cheers Mr Tan (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes thanks Mr. Tan. Whether or not mentioning these in the article would be WP:UNDUE is precisely the question I am asking Brian. As you may notice, I am deferring to his judgment in every case, but in this case merely rephrased my question for further clarity, and will defer to his honest judgment again in light of the reply which I look forward to reading. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mr Tan, for your kind words and support. Ling is a long-time associate on the WP project, and I'm more than happy to have his input. I have hopefully answered his one remaining concern in the thread, above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to be so dim, but I don't understand what I am being asked to do here. Can you enlighten (please assume no knowledge of image adjustment issues). Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd want to download the image, then open it in an image editing software (Microsoft Paint, for instance). In that software, you should resize the image to 300 pixels on the long side (so, in Paint, Resize > Pixels then change the "Horizontal" scale to 300). Our doctrine of fair use only allows images up to a certain size, and right now the current image is much bigger than strictly necessary for the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I obviously didn't make the extent of my ignorance clear: I have absolutely no idea how to go about doing this, and will have to get someone to do it for me. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bede735 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you tell me where I will find the template you refer to? I've looked at various lists, can't find anything. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bede735 (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492:Thanks for the image review, but as you can see, I need further help! Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN109 doesn't link properly
  • No citations to British Universities Film and Video Council or House of Commons Catering
  • Sometimes you italicize "The" in The Guardian, other times not - should be consistent
  • Be consistent in whether you include accessdates for online periodicals with publication dates
  • Should truncate GBooks links
  • Several newspaper titles are missing italicization
  • ODNB should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this review. All the above attended to. Access dates now shown for all periodicals where the link is other than to s facsimile of the original. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bessie_Braddock/archive1&oldid=1138455959"