Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Balfour Declaration/archive2

< 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2017 [1].

Balfour Declaration

edit
Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been significantly improved following another detailed peer review, prose advice from Corinne, and an extrapolation of those comments to tighten up every nook and cranny of the article. Having implemented the prose polishing, the creation a smooth narrative flow throughout, and the trimming of the footnotes, it is now a much easier and more pleasant read. I am pleased to nominate this again for FAC ahead of the centenary on 2 November; I hope you enjoy it. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

edit
  • Support - all my issues were ironed out during the latest peer-review, so I'm happy to see it here again. A flurry of sudden interest and intense edits from many editors, in a way I haven't seen before, seems to have made the article less cohesive right before the first FAC (and after the first peer-review where I, for full disclosure, acted as mentor). FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest scaling up lead image slightly
Done
  • At the previous FAC, you had mentioned proposing an amendment to the UKGov tag wording - any progress on that?
Yes. I have pinged you on Commons
This fix has now been completed. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_"Basel_Program"_at_the_First_Zionist_Congress_in_1897.jpg: first source link doesn't appear to work.
Fixed with Wayback Machine

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replies in green above. Many thanks for the speedy review. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

In my view all sources meet the required standards of quality and reliability. This review is concerned with issues of presentation and format.

  • In about 20 cases you use "p." instead of "pp." when citing page ranges (17, 33, 65 etc)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 65 and 73 need ndashes not hyphens
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit dubious about the use of "et seq" in cited page ranges. It's open-ended, not particularly helpful to someone wishing to check. Is it possible to be more precise?
Agreed and fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 32: Your text refers to the Jewish population as "a small minority, approximately 3% of the total" – but I don't see any mention of 3% in the source.
I have added Bachi, the underlying source, which includes a table with percentages supporting the "approximately 3%". Other sources summarize the data in a similar fashion, which we can use if needed: ([2], [3], [4]). Onceinawhile (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in 32, why is it necessary to refer your readers to another WP article for "further details"? What "further details" do they need? (same issue arises with ref 85)
I have removed this in ref 32. Source 85 is a link to the Central Zionist Archives article, that is intended to be linked in the same manner as Cambridge University Press is linked, rather than for further information in the way ref 32 was being used. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 214 and 236: wikisource citations should give author and date information (there is a useful template available)
Fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 216: Harvard error
Fixed by RL0919 (thanks). Onceinawhile (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 217: Italicize Jerusalem Post
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 262: requires author and proper source title
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 276: The link on "Virginia Page Fortna" is dead.
Updated. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 287 lacks publisher information; Jim Miles is the author
I removed this ref as not necessary. Instead I added an additional page number to the Schneer ref. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 290: Italicize The Guardian
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Access dates are required in a number of cases: 262, 287, 290 and 292 are obvious examples, but there may be more.
I added these. I also looked for others, and can confirm that these are the only primarily web-based sources in the article which did not already have access dates. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your criterion for adding access dates in the bibliography, which you do on a couple of occasions?
I removed the two access dates; I have always considered them only relevant when the reference is primarily a web-based source (WP:CITEHOW only mentions access dates under "web pages") Onceinawhile (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to be consistent about including publisher locations for books. In general you don't give them, but in the odd instance you do (Stein, Wavell and Woodward are examples but there may be more)
I found and removed nine examples of this. They don't add anything; the books are all easily identifiable with existing information. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about how publishers are shown. For example, you have "Cambridge University Press", but "OUP". Another abbreviation is "NYU Press". Also, consistency is required in the use of "The...", e.g. "University of Texas Press" and "The University of California Press"
I reviewed and fixed these. On the first topic, I found three abbreviations (including SUNY). On the use of "The" I have removed the example you pointed to, and added it to a journal name – the criterion I am using is that "The" is only used when it appears in the official title of the organization or journal. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yapp appears in the bibliography but has no citations.
Removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've found. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed; replies in green above. Many thanks for looking at this so thoroughly; I imagine it took some quite some time (I figured that the volume – c.300 citations and c.100 items in the bibliography – would have made a source review more onerous). Onceinawhile (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

edit
  • "was the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict": "origin" doesn't work because it's ambiguous; it can mean "initial stages", "explanation" or "cause". Pick a different word.
This is a very good point. I spent some time looking across the underlying sources in the article, and opened a discussion at Talk:Balfour_Declaration#The_Declaration_and_the_Conflict. The consensus is for "cause", which I am happy with. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the basis of the quid pro quo agreement in the correspondence, the Arab Revolt was launched on 5 June 1916. However, in May 1916 the governments of the United Kingdom, France, and Russia secretly concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement": "However" is the wrong word here, because a secret agreement doesn't negate or mitigate a revolt. Rewrite to clarify which two things are being contrasted.
Done; I have flipped the first sentence around to directly juxtapose the two agreements. As such I kept the word "however", but I case just as easily delete it if you think better without. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sykes was a British Conservative and Unionist MP whose role had developed from his seat on the 1915 De Bunsen Committee to have a significant influence on British policy in the Middle East, including initiating the creation of the Arab Bureau, whilst Picot was a French diplomat and former consul-general in Beirut.": Loss of clarity, mainly from trying to do too much in one sentence.
Done. I had the same uncomfortable feeling reading that sentence previously. I have now split the sentence into two, and copyedited the Sykes sentence to improve clarity and flow. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • “: no curly quotes, per WP:MOS
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was intended that Palestine may become a Jewish Commonwealth if and when ...": might, or would, not may.
Done. Changed to “would” since that’s the word Lloyd George used in his quote Onceinawhile (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Seraphim System

edit

This statement is in the lede: The opening words of the declaration represented the first public support for Zionism by a major political power. I am looking for a source for it in the body but I can't find it, could someone please point it out for me? Seraphim System (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have now added this into the body in the Zionist reaction section. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Midnightblueowl

edit
This was discussed during the last FAC at Talk:Balfour_Declaration#Infobox:_Proposed_RfC and Talk:Balfour_Declaration#RfC:_Location_of_verbatim_text. The discussions were linked at the FAC review. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have said before that I am not too keen on having both the info box and the text block; now that there is a higher resolution image available, could we not look at this again? Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I opened another discussion here: Talk:Balfour_Declaration#Need_for_verbatim_text_in_lede ten days ago, but there was no support for a change. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I also added a link to Zionism. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Allied war effort" - this is the first introduction of the concept of the "Allies" in the lede. I'm concerned that there are points like this which require the reader to have a pre-existing understanding of the First World War and its various sides in order to understand what the lede is actually referring to. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Took a great deal of thinking, and a lot of iteration, but I think I have fixed this. I only explained the position of the countries we discuss in the lede. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The opening words of the declaration represented the first public support for Zionism by a major political power" - probably could just go with "The declaration represented the first expression of public support for Zionism by a major political power." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have made most of this proposed change. The bit I didn’t implement was the deletion of the words “opening words of”; this is there in order to differentiate from the latter part of the paragraph which talks about “the second half” of the declaration, which comprises the two key provisos. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It greatly increased popular support for Zionism, led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories, and was the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, considered the world's most intractable conflict." I'm wondering if this would work better as two separate sentences: "It greatly increased popular support for Zionism, led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories. It was also the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, considered the world's most intractable conflict." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have split this as proposed, and incorporated Dank's comment above. Rather than "also" I used "As a result" as the linkage, because the causation of the conflict runs through the strengthening of Zionism and the creation of Israel/Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In "Background"
edit
Done. I didn't make them exactly evenly sized, but created one paragraph relating to the mid-1800s and one to the late 1800s/early 1900s. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Changed to "actively encouraged", to be clear that this was not passive encouragement of an existing trend. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I have now explained this. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Turks began to apply restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine in late 1882" - I think that this is the first explicit mention of the Turks; before this we have only mentioned the Ottoman Empire. It might be worth making clear the connection between the two for readers unfamiliar with the situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I have added "also known as the Turkish Empire" in the paragraph above. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " At the meeting David Lloyd George, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whose law firm Lloyd George, Roberts and Co had been engaged a decade before by the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland to work on the Uganda Scheme,[40] "referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine".[41] " This is a bit clunky, especially the middle section. Perhaps it could be broken into two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, by moving the middle section to the next sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; restructured the sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added link as proposed. Conservative and Unionist Party was the contemporary name in common usage, because the merger of the Unionist and Conservative parties had only just taken place in 1912. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many further discussions followed, including the initial meetings in 1915–16 between Lloyd George, who had been appointed Minister of Munitions in May 1915,[48] and Weizmann, who was appointed as a scientific advisor to Lloyd George's Ministry of Munitions in September 1915.[" - it is a bit repetitive to use "Minister of Munitions" twice; in the latter case perhaps just "advisor to the ministry in September 1915." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seventeen years later in his War Memoirs Lloyd George described these meetings as being the "fount and origin" of the declaration although this claim has been rejected by historians.[" - this sentence could do with some additional commas, after "years", "Memoirs", and "declaration". Midnightblueowl (talk)
Done. I made the last one a semi colon and removed "although". Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few instances of passive voice where active voice might be more appropriate. "Zionism was first discussed at a meeting of the British Cabinet on 9 November 1914," could be "The British Cabinet first discussed Zionism at a meeting of the British Cabinet on 9 November 1914," while "although this claim has been rejected by historians." could be "although historians have rejected this claim." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, split into three. I made some additional stylistic improvements to make this work. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late 1915 the British High Commissioner to Egypt, Henry McMahon, had exchanged ten letters with Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, in which he had promised Hussein to recognize Arab independence "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca" with the exception of "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo", in return for Hussein launching a revolt against the Ottoman Empire." This is a very lengthy sentence and it would work better if divided into two sentences. Also, no reason to include the "had" in "had exchanged" and "had promised". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, it is more accurate to contemporary usage to retain Unionist. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Sykes’ mind, the agreement became outdated even before it was signed – in March 1916, he was to write in a private letter: " - change the apostrophe after "Sykes" to the standard style; maybe "was" rather than "became"; "he was to write" to "he wrote"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although retained American spelling Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, except for the first one, where I am intending to communicate that we are talking about events which post-date the subject of the declaration – and in particular the narrative to come in the following sections. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to retain the information that this was known to the British, as the most relevant point to the article is what the British thought rather than what was or was not true. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Approvals
edit
  • "Balfour met Weizmann at the Foreign Office on 22 March, in a meeting described by Weizmann in a letter two days later as being "the first time I had a real business talk with him".[94]" This could be edited down a bit to something like: "Balfour met Weizmann at the Foreign Office on 22 March; two days layer, Weizmann described the meeting as being "the first time I had a real business talk with him".[94]" Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already linked in the "1915–16: Prior British commitments over Palestine" section above; I had removed duplicate links. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already linked in the "Late 1917: Progress of the wider war" section above. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done; I fixed this another way, by adding reference to Washington and NYC. I also dealt with the double Balfour usage by replacing on with British Foreign Secretary. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This meant they supported the country supporting; I have added "Britain" in the middle to clarify. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I restructured the sentence to avoid the "and... and" Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I added a clarification above next to the 1906 reference to the party. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drafting and Terms
edit
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added as an endnote, and clarified relevance. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done; change to Interpretation. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I went for deliberate. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed italics. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done; removed italics Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, simplified down to "in the words of... the community observed that they had been" Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, changed as proposed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I also searched through the article and found three other examples - now these are consistently lower case. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Rights and political status of Jews in other countries", we have two sentences that are standing alone as paragraphs. I think that we need some rearrangement to ensure that the paragraphs are more equitable in size. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done - rearranged, and reads better now. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction
edit
Good point; now changed to "In addition to its publication in major newspapers..." Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made this more specific, with reference to the 1990s and a link to the Wikipedia article on the topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the link, as it’s already linked in the Background section. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British public and government opinion became increasingly less favourable to the commitment that had been made to Zionism;" could be streamlined to something like "British public and government opinion became increasingly unfavourable to state support for Zionism;" Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Historiography
edit
Done. I also removed the repeated “Lloyd George” in the following sentence, and replaced it with “He”. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough it did previous say “listing”. However, in the source itself, Lloyd-George didn’t “list” the factors, but rather described them in a less structured manner. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I replaced the second Britain with “their”. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term impact
edit
Done; replaced the first one with just “It”. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it was seen as a repudiation of the declaration by Zionists" - this can be misread as meaning that Zionists themselves repudiated the declaration. Change to "Zionists saw it as a repudiation of the declaration". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; I added the word “many” so as not to imply all. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Arab-Israeli conflict in a wider sense ran primarily from 1948–73, but continues today, mainly in the form of the more localized Israeli–Palestinian conflict." - unreferenced and perhaps not really necessary given the prior mentions of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Document
edit
Removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other
edit
Understood. You may be interested to see the discussion at the last FAC. I have cut them down since then, and will have another go at some further trimming now. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: just to say thanks very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: do you expect to have any further comments? I am keen to encourage Wehwalt to have another look at the article following his previous detailed feedback, but if you are still in the middle of a detailed review I imagine he may prefer to wait. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can people ping me when ready? I would hate to overlook returning to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile:: I will ensure that all my comments are provided here by the end of the day, apologies if I have held anything up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Midnightblueowl. You certainly haven’t held anything up. You have provided superb comments, always constructive and always clear. Your input has been greatly appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: I have completed putting through your comments. Thank you so much for performing such a thorough assessment!

@Wehwalt: It’s ready for your review if you have time; I will hold off on making any further changes. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to lend my support to such an important article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, nice work. I have the following suggestions/observations (apologies if some have already been mentioned above): AustralianRupert (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...Churchill's 1841–42 exhortations...": probably should be "...Churchill's 1841–1842 exhortations" per WP:DATERANGE
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for "1881–84 anti-Jewish pogroms" and "1905–06 election campaign after" and other similar constructions
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the duplicate link checker tool suggests that the following terms are overlinked: Zionist Organization, Nathan Rothschild, Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, Lloyd George ministry, Western Front (World War I), Russian Revolution, Bolsheviks, Leonard Stein (Liberal politician), League of Nations mandate, King-Crane Commission, Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, Public inquiry, 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine
All removed. Thank you for listing these out, it was very helpful Onceinawhile (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography, for the Renton work, is there an end to the page range? Currently it has: "pp. 16–"
Corrected Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography, "A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the struggle that shaped the Middle East" --> probably should use title case caps: " A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle that Shaped the Middle East" (please check for other instances)
Done. I found four more in addition. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography, some isbns have hyphens and some don't (e.g. compare Barr with Antonius)
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography, for the journal articles, I suggest adding ISSNs if there aren't dois. For instance, Brecher is missing one of these.
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography, "THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE PALESTINE PROBLEM 1917-1988 PART I" --> should use title case instead of all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: many thanks for taking the time to review the article, and for your helpful comments. I have made all of the changes, per above. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BrightR

edit

Very satisfied to see the increase in Palestinian, Jordanian, and other sources on the topic. I can see what Midnightblueowl says about apparently excessive quotes, but I am a fan of direct quotes myself and see it as a benefit to the article's verifiability. At any rate, if required, all the quotes can be removed. Strong support. Bright☀ 10:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

I weighed in at the initial FAC. Additional comments (more coming).

  • "the United States had yet to suffer a casualty," The U.S. was an Associated Power, not an Ally. A year or two in the 2nd pp might be helpful.
Good point. I changed it to "Britain's Allies and Associated Powers"; having looked around for other alternatives, I have not come across anything more concise. On your second point, I agree - it wasn't clear given the prior reference to 1914. I have added 1917 just once, because after that it's clear that the rest can only be 1917. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you mention that there was enoucragement for Jewish emigration to Israel, I don't see any numbers, nor mention of the Jews already there.
Agreed; this was because the encouragement had no direct effect on immigration (although it may have indirectly succeeded by encouraging the growth of Zionist thought in the longer term). I have added some wording to explain the fact that it did not succeed, and added a number as suggested. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "co-belligerants"?
I did think about that, but concluded that the term belligerant is unnecessarily technical and can be misinterpreted as "aggressor". "Associated power" is long, but I think it is simpler to understand. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " leaving Britain without a sphere of influence.[3] " I might add "in the Levant" or similar
Done. I added Palestine and the wider Middle East to follow Schölch, and used the same article to append a better bridge to the subsequent sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentioning long term hopes of Jews to return to Zion, as stated for example in the liturgy, "next year in Jerusalem" and all that.
I have considered it, but can’t find a way to do so without creating something quite complex. Prior to the BD and the creation of the State of Israel, Jewish views on references in the literature to a return were widely spread and – in the late 19th century – hotly debated. Much of these hopes were Messianic and Eschatological in nature, and many Jews – both religious and non-religious (such as Moses Mendelssohn) – interpreted manmade attempts to to encourage a mass return to be unacceptable. As an aside, the phrase L'Shana Haba'ah (Next Year in Jerusalem) is relatively recent in popular usage. A broad-brush statement on this would be open to challenge, so I’d be keen to hold off for now. I might work on this in a different article at some point, when I have a few weeks to spare, to develop a description which is robust on all sides. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to enlist him in influencing those deemed to be receptive within the British government to their agenda" a bit vague
I have added a footnote with further clarity here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but remained a senior member of the Conservative and Unionist Party – today known as the Conservative Party – in their role as Official Opposition.[e]" They're still the Conservative and Unionist Party, technically, so I would lose the full name and just say Balfour was senior in the Conservative Party.
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIrst sentence of 1916-17 I might mention that all those people were members of the Liberal Party.
Done. I added it to the second sentence, with a small restructuring. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Russian forces were known to be distracted by the ongoing Russian Revolution and the growing support for the Bolshevik faction, but Alexander Kerensky's Provisional Government had remained in the war, and only withdrew after the final stage of the revolution on 7 November 1917." I might toss a "Russian forces" before "only".
I added just "Russia" to avoid repetition, and added a semi-colon. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on 22 March;" 1918?
Added the date - it was 1917. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French position in regard to Palestine and the wider Syria region during the lead up to the Balfour Declaration was largely dictated by the terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and were complicated. Likely the "were" should be "was"
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caps inconsistency, "southern borders" vs. "Southern border"
Changed to lower case. I checked all four cardinal directions, and can confirm there are no other inconsistencies. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Israelites" this term is in my experience anyway, rarely used to refer to a modern people.
Fixed. This was a mirroring of the name of the Italian organization in the previous sentence; I have fixed this too, and added an explanatory footnote. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " described by Harold Nicolson – who had been involved in preparing the draft – in 1961 as proposing a "sanctuary for Jewish victims of persecution".[127][128] " to make it less choppy I would move "in 1961" to before "by"
Done; good solution, thanks Onceinawhile (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mainly presentational amendments." I might say "technical" as the adjective.
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although the chief architects of the declaration considered that a Jewish State would emerge in time.[xvii]" I might say "contemplated" for "considered"
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The clause had been drafted together with the second safeguard by Leo Amery in discussion with Lord Milner," I might say "consultation" rather then "discussion".
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fourteen points" usually "Fourteen Points".
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "speeches were given by leading Zionists as well as members of the British government including Sykes and Cecil" Was Sykes a member of the government.
In some uses of the word government, civil servants can be included, and Sykes was an MP as well and acted in many ways like a minister in what was a very unusual government structure at the time (the Cabinet was very small, and most ministers were not part of it - even Balfour himself.) But I take your point, technically Sykes probably was not in the government. Either way, I made it simpler by replacing "government" with "administration". Onceinawhile (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 25 April 1920, the San Remo conference established League of Nations mandates for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine, the latter including the Balfour Declaration and," I might clarify, as I understand, that the terms of the mandate for Palestine included the Balfour Declaration.
Agreed. This is an important part of the story. I have added more detail. You'll see in the next section (Evolution of British opinion) further detail of the creation of the Mandate. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one represented in 1961 by Leonard Stein," represented could be better as "presented" or "argued"
Done; I picked argued. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It meant partition of the Ottoman Empire. I have clarified. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All done, with many thanks for another very valuable and incisive round of comments. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. Not sure I agree with every one of your solutions, but that's not required:)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2017 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Balfour_Declaration/archive2&oldid=807592081"