Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/January 1908 Irish representative peer election/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2024 [1].

---

January 1908 Irish representative peer election

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about... an almost forgotten election for an almost forgotten office. Yet interesting both for the winner, the former viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, and for the fact that the two runners up actually tied in the next election, and an obscure means of breaking the tie had to be invoked. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Lead images are quite small and difficult to see

I've replaced the image of Ashtown with a portrait shot which may help here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• File:Bird_notes_and_news_(1912)_(14562015579).jpg: is a more specific tag available?

I've added some and tried to find an individual photographer without luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• File:Baron_Ashtown.jpeg: per the UK tag, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was. Ditto File:Lord_Farnham.jpeg.

Done and also for the new Ashtown image.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Llewee comments and support

Hello Wehwalt, I am going to make a few suggestions for this nomination.--Llewee (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Background

• A brief explanation of what a United Kingdom peer was and how it was a separate category from a Irish peer would be useful in the background section. I think a brief explanation of what the house of Lords is might be helpful as well.

I've added something along those lines, at least drawing the distinction between UK peers and Irish peers.

• "This made it inconvenient for Irish peers to vote, and some did not." - Was this because they felt uncomfortable swearing an oath of allegiance to the British state or just for practical reasons?

It was inconvenient for practical reasons. Most IRPs were Unionist and had no objection to swearing an oath to the British crown. It was just inconvenient for practical reasons. There were cases of Irish JPs traveling to England and in one case to Saint Petersburg to administer the oath in the contested 1825 IRP election.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Elections for Irish representative peers lapsed..." — What does this paragraph about events after 1922 have to do with an election in 1908? If it is going to included at all I would suggest moving it to aftermath.

I think it is part of the background to explain why IRPs disappeared. I work from the assumption that anyone chancing on this article will never have heard of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok that's understandable--Llewee (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Candidates and campaign

• "threw himself off a fourth-storey balcony at his Paris hotel" — this sounds like an oddly flippant tone to me, maybe just say "jumped off a..."

Changed to "jumped".

• "who had been suffering from illness, was killed immediately" — I would suggest taking out the clause about an illness, bluntly I don't think that much matters when you have fallen out of a high window. Also "died" probably works better than "killed" in this instance.

Suicide is a touchy subject on Wikipedia; even though he is long dead, I would rather put in information that explains the action. He was definitely having issues; they had set someone to watch him, which he evaded. How about "fatally injured"?

Fatally injured should be fine. The grammar of that sentence feels quite awkward, could it be reorganised so his illness is introduced first and then his death. (e.g Francis Browne, 4th Baron Kilmaine, an Irish representative peer since 1890, was mentally unwell. On 9 November 1907, he jumped from a fourth-storey balcony at his Paris hotel and was fatally injured.--Llewee (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The newspapers were circumspect in discussing his illness, the one I'm using for a source says he was suffering from insomnia. Let's just stick to the bare essential that he had died.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Writs were subsequently issued in the election for a successor as representative peer" — Shouldn't "in the" be "for an"?

It could go either way but "for an election for a successor" sounds kinda odd.

• "(who had actually been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905)" — Did that mean he couldn't be a contender?

Since he had a seat for life, there was no point in his running. The press made a mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• "(the last ever to be created)" — I'm not sure this is particularly relevant but if it is going to be included then clarify "before Irish independence in 1922".

Since the Irish peerage still exits even if IRPs no longer do, it would still be possible for one to be created. Therefore, if I said before 1922, that begs the question of after.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that is fine--Llewee (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• "appropriate title as he took up his position as viceroy" — Clarify (possibly in a footnote) that peers were given the title of Lord which was prestigious.

I've added a source to stress he did not want to go to India as Mr Curzon. It doesn't actually say that it is a prestigious title but perhaps it is close enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• "he found that his health would not permit him to seek a return to the Commons" — I think this could worded more bluntly "he was too unwell to campaign for reelection to the commons"

I'm not sure. Curzon certainly lived a very active remaining 17 years of his life, during which time he came close to being prime minister. I'd rather not rephrase in that way. He had back trouble and he was certainly devastated by the recent death of his wife Mary, but I haven't been able to identify a physical ailment.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That's understandable. It just struck me as slightly odd that he was well enough to be a Peer but not well enough to be an MP.--Llewee (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

In which case, perhaps 'felt' instead of "found"? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• "considered it undesirable that a recent viceroy fight for a parliamentary seat" — Why was this?

He considered it undignified that a former high representative of the King-Emperor scrap for votes. I've added something.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• " the prime minister, Arthur Balfour, opposed this, and soon after, resigned. The new prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, also refused Curzon a United Kingdom peerage" — Why did these prime ministers oppose him receiving a peerage?

Because Curzon differed on Indian policy with the Secretary of State for India, William St John Brodrick, which led to his resignation as Viceroy, and Brodrick put the kibosh on the peerage with both Edward and Balfour. When Curzon appealed to the new PM, Campbell-Bannerman, citing precedent that an honour for the returning viceroy was not a political matter (Balfour [and Curzon] was a Conservative and a Unionist and C-B was a Liberal), C-B hemmed and hawed made vague promises but eventually said there was opposition in his party to doing it and he wasn't going to. Curzon got his earldom in the Coronation Honours of 1911, after the deaths of both Edward and C-B. All of which is too much detail in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you could just say (perhaps in a footnote) that he was from a different party and disagreed with the government on India policy.--Llewee (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• "look with favour on the only way he could see to re-enter public life." — This is a bit non-neutral, maybe just say "support his campaign".

It's not being said with Wikipedia's voice but as a paraphrase of what Curzon wrote.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• "with considerable satisfaction" — this sounds odd to me, maybe say "with approval"

I'm trying to stick as close to the source as possible. It says "In Unionist circles here the candidature of Lord Curzon as a representative peer for Ireland is regarded with the highest satisfaction". I don't think approval is the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It feels like a slightly quaint term to me, but it's not a major issue.--Llewee (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Curzon was opposed for the seat" — I think it would be clearer to say "some opposed Curzon's candidacy".

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• "They therefore saw no reason to diminish the Irish representation in Westminster during Curzon's lifetime to accommodate an Englishman." — I think a more neutral way of wording this would be "They felt this would in effect reduce the Irish representation in Westminster for the rest of Curzon's lifetime."

I don't know about feeling it, it would. Curzon wasn't Irish and normally the IRPs were elected from among Irish residents. I've rephrased somewhat, look it over.

• "He had a contentious relationship with his Irish tenantry" — I feel more information could be added here, why was there a boycott against him?

Added.

• "but considered Curzon's candidacy hard on peers" — I think changing "hard" to "unfair" would sound more formal.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• "wrote to three candidates, including Curzon," — Weren't there only three candidates in the race?

Lord de Vesci apparently had some designs on the seat. He got the 1909 vacancy, he might have been one of the three. We don't know what was meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• "since his "happy release from that country", he had ceased to vote" — perhaps add a footnote say he had left Ireland in X year to take up Y position or wherever he'd gone

I assume he sold his Irish lands, but what he meant would be rather speculative.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• "for Irish representative peer" — Shouldn't it be "peers" rather than "peer"?

Yes. Good point.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• "in the political wilderness" — this could be worded more bluntly (e.g out of politics)
• " The Kerry News reported that the former prime minister, Lord Palmerston..." — I'm not sure what this sentence has got to do with the election.

Palmerston (Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston) was an Irish peer who had a seat in the House of Commons. The point of the discussion was that Palmerston seems to have feared that the Torys would elect him a representative peer and send him against his will to the House of Lords, and so did not claim the right to vote for representative peer following the argument that was used against Curzon that you had to be have claimed and had upheld the right to vote for IRP in order to be elected an IRP. Of course that argument did not prevail against Curzon. Possibly Palmerston was taking no chances.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Election

• "like the one later that year in November" — This clause referencing another election which isn't the focus of the page isn't really necessary.

Since that election involved two of the candidates from this one, its worth noting that it still attracted a considerable turnout even without Curzon's participation.

• "The Irish Times was confident that Curzon would be seated, but stated that..." — I'd say change "but" to "while" because the quote doesn't contradict the first part.

There's sort of an implicit contradiction, because the clause is meant to say that even if Curzon was not seated, he will still have received a considerable honour. But I've changed to "and".

• "though it required that the peers voting in an election for Irish representative peers have claimed a right to vote" — change "have" to "had"

I think "had" is correct. I could be persuaded otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "has the distinction of being" — change this to "was"

Was is ambiguous. The books are now closed on the IRPs and Curzon was the only one ever elected who did not live in Ireland, but if I said "was", the reader might wonder if that was true as of 1908 or is that still true. I've changed to "is".

I'm not going to get back to this until Friday or possibly the weekend. I just answered the ones I felt I could easily answer. The rest will follow--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

All done now. Proceeding to deal with Gog's, then the IR.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Llewee, are we good?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Llewee, I've added that footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Ok it seems good to go--Llewee (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "Background", first sentence: You don't give, nor is it possible to calculate, the size of the electorate. It can be implied from "A total of 134 ballots were sent to eligible peers" in the next section, but IMO it would be helpful to explicitly state it at the end of this paragraph.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• "to fill a vacancy among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to the British House of Lords". Something like 'to fill a vacancy among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to the British House of Lords from there ranks by the 134 Irish peers' might help a reader to grasp more rapidly what this is about.

Included. It's Irish peers eligible to vote. Remember Curzon was not at the time eligible to vote.

• "and that Ashtown had gained the most votes among those so eligible." I read this as Ashtown gaining the most votes among those eligible to vote. Is it possible to rephrase to clarify?.

I tried to avoid a repetition, but I've spelt it out.

• " but Farnham was chosen to fill the next vacancy." Perhaps add '... also in 1908'?
• "one house of the British Parliament". It seems confusing to refer to the Parliament of the United Kingdom as the British Parliament. Given that Britain can be considered a component of the state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland it seems an unnecessary complication.
• "signed by two Lords Temporal". Why the upper-case initial letters?

No idea. Done.

• "Lord Chancellor would instruct the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to have the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper conduct an election". Similarly.

Ditto.

• "returnable 20 January 1908" → 'returnable by 20 January 1908'?

No. The writ is returnable, not the ballots. I'm pretty sure that's the proper legal language

• "who had actually been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905". I am not sure that "actually" adds anything. Perhaps just delete, or replace with 'already'?
• " He had accepted an Irish peerage (the last ever to be created), to give him the title of "Baron Curzon" or "Lord Curzon" as he took up his position as viceroy", Perhaps ' He had accepted an Irish peerage (the last ever to be created) in 1898, to give him the title of "Baron Curzon" or "Lord Curzon" as he took up his position as viceroy'?
• Link commoner.
• "including replacing local labourers with Scottish replacement". Is it possible to avoid using "replacing" and "replacement" within six words?
• "though this could not be proved." Perhaps 'though this was never proved'?
• "The M. P. for Liverpool Scotland". Assuming this is written in UKvar, member of parliament is abbreviated to MP.
• "The January 1908 election, like the one later that year in November, attracted a high turnout from the voters." Is the number of votes cast known?

No.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If I haven't specifically replied, I've just gone ahead and done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

SC Interesting article – I'd quite forgotten the constitutional position regarding Irish peer elections. Just a couple of very small points from me:

• The Malcomson quote refers to the "conservative party": I think—in line with MOS:CONFORM—this should be "Conservative Party"
• "Lentaigne traveled to London": I think it likely he travelled to London

I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1

Wehwalt - hope you are keeping well. And what a wonderfully obscure topic (see below)! Some comments/suggestions from me.

Lead

• Given the topic's obscurity - I doubt one reader in a thousand will have heard of the Irish Representative Peers (IRPs)! - I think the lead needs a brief explanation of the wider context. I accept that you have it in Background, and that there is a link, but I think a short para. in the Lead, probably the second, could explain; their creation - the Acts of Union; their purpose - Irish representation in the UK Parliament after the abolition of the Irish Parliament; and their, oddly small, constituency - fewer than 150 electing 28. I think the third and fourth para.s could be combined to allow for a new second to cover this.

I will add something on the Acts of Union 1800 in the background section and likely a sentence of summary in the lead.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That's done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Curzon, despite a minimal connection with Ireland" - that "minimal" connection being....? I assume it's his Irish peerage, given that he'd never set foot in Ireland, and didn't own land there. You mention the peerage in the next sentence. I wonder if the nature of the minimal connection could be made explicit. Perhaps something like - "Curzon contested the election as a means of returning to parliament after being denied a United Kingdom peerage by the prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. His connection to Ireland was minimal; born in Derbyshire, the eldest son of an English peer, he held no land in Ireland and his association was limited to the Irish peerage he had been granted in 1898 on his appointment as Viceroy of India. This slender connection sparked opposition, and his late entry into the race also worked against him. Moreover, he had never asked the House of Lords to affirm his right to vote in Irish representative peer elections, a requirement for participation as a voter, which led some to argue that he was ineligible to stand as a candidate."

I don't know that he owned no land in Ireland, I'm not sure any source I have (and I looked through the relevant bits in four bios of Curzon) actually says that. I've rephrased somewhat, leading with the fact he was an Englishman.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Background

• "nor would promotion to a peerage of the United Kingdom end his tenure as representative peer" - "nor would promotion to a peerage of the United Kingdom end his tenure as a representative peer"?
• Fair enough
• "Each of the eligible voters would receive a ballot in duplicate by post with a space for the name of the peer whom the voter desired to elect. The ballot was to be signed" - do the sources say what they did with the second copy? Keep it?

One copy was kept at the Crown Office in Dublin (and destroyed by fire in the Four Courts fire of 1922), the other went with the writ and return to the House of Lords.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There's an example from the Victorian era of a blank ballot on the National Archives of Ireland site, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "the voter's seal affixed, and returned to the Crown Office in Dublin" - link seal and Crown Office?

• OK.

• "the right to vote in elections for Irish representative peer" - "the right to vote in elections for Irish representative peers"?

• Not sure. Peer sounds correct to me.

• "following the death of the last surviving Irish representative peer, Lord Kilmorey, who died in 1961," - perhaps just, "following the death of the last surviving Irish representative peer Lord Kilmorey in 1961,"?

OK.

Candidates and campaign

• "Ivo Bligh, 8th Earl of Darnley (who had already been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905)" - I don't follow this. As Darnley was already an IRP, and, as you explain above, only death or dishonour terminated this, how was he again eligible? Were the press just wrong? The first source explains why he wasn't in the Lords as an English peer, which is fine, but he was as an IRP from 1905, so why would he be eligible twice?

He wasn't eligible. The press made a mistake, as best I can tell. I've tweaked it as far as I can go. There wasn't any follow up on this that I could see.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "...Curzon to be given an earldom, the prime minister, Arthur Balfour, opposed this" - given that this was unusual, going against the general precedent, and that the king specifically asked for it to happen, I wonder whether a brief explanation as to why Balfour opposed an earldom would be helpful, perhaps in a footnote. Kenneth Young covers it quite extensively in his Balfour. In essence, Balfour was concerned over the timing, following on from Curzon's resignation and his publicly-expressed opposition to government policy; "it would never do so to time this public recognition of his services as to suggest that it was in the remotest degree connected to his action in the Curzon-Kitchener dispute. In that dispute he was in the wrong. It would be absurd to take a step which would be universally interpreted as meaning I believed him to be in the right." (Balfour to Lord Knollys 7 October 1905) (Young, p=242).

I'm reluctant to over focus on this. This article really isn't about Curzon's resignation. The thing is, Balfour never honoured him, though I don't know if he did a resignation honours.

I said implement or ignore, so I won’t press the point, but, for me, it is pretty central. The only reason Curzon stood as an IRP was to regain a public platform. He didn’t have one because first Balfour, and then C-B, had denied him the, almost obligatory, post-Viceregal peerage. For me, the reader would benefit from an explanation as to why. KJP1 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll write something up using the source you mention and insert it tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've used your source (which is available online).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "he felt that his health would not permit him to seek a return to the Commons, and that King Edward VII considered that it marred the dignity of the viceregal office" - I'm not sure what the second that is doing?

Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "asked that the voters look with favour on the only way he could see to re-enter public life" - perhaps, "asked that the voters look with favour on his candidacy as the only route by which he could re-enter public life"?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "The Manchester Guardian thought it appropriate that Curzon had been backed by Abercorn and Londonderry" - is "appropriate" quite right here? The Guardian is being sarcastic and I wonder whether something like "telling" would better convey that?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• "because Curzon was the heir to a British title, and when he inherited that title, he would not vacate his place as Irish representative peer. They therefore did not want to diminish the Irish representation in Westminster during Curzon's lifetime." - would something like this be a little simpler?, "because Curzon, as heir to a British title, would retain his status as an Irish representative peer on his succession, thereby diminishing Irish representation at Westminster."?

I've kept the lifetime, otherwise adopted.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "the explosion of a crude bomb" - I appreciate the source does talk of a "crude" bomb, but am not sure what it adds. It's presumably something like "makeshift"?

There's a fair amount of discussion of this in the press, which comes to no real conclusion and seems very colored by viewpoint. I've deleted "crude" and let it go that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "few if any were Irish nationalists, which 80 percent of Irish constituencies were represented by" - aside from the placing of the preposition, I don't think one would expect many Irish peers at this time to be nationalists. But of Home Rulers, there were a few, David Cannadine suggests at most half a dozen. {The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy p=533}. I wonder if something like this would be a bit clearer, "and very few supported Home Rule for Ireland, the official position of the Irish Parliamentary Party which held over 80 percent of the Irish constituencies."?

I'm presenting O'Connor's perspective here. I'm not sure we need to get into it at the level you suggest, just presenting the perspective of people who thought the whole election was a farce.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Election

• "like the 2nd duke of Abercorn" - it may be that the source has it, and I think MoS suggests it, but the lower-case d looks odd, especially for a specific Duke.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "were placed in an ordinary goblet" - to me, it looks like a wine glass and you use "glass" above. Would "wine glass" do? The blue-link for goblet is rather ecclesiastical.

There was a good deal of discussion of this. It was a piece of stemmed glassware, such as ordinarily was used by their lordships for satisfying thirst, not necessarily with water. I think that unless I'm missing something, wine glass is fine. (I personally prefer stemless glassware but most of the time drink from stemmed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hope these are of some use. Obviously, they are mainly suggestions, which can be considered and enacted, or ignored, as you think fit. KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, KJP1, all done. All's well here except I need the ministrations of the medical men more than in the days of my youth. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Wehwalt - I appreciate your accommodating me on Curzon's resignation/Balfour, C-B's unwillingness to elevate. Looking over the other comments, I see I wasn't the only one to raise it, and I think your amendments address the issue very well. As for the other comments, again, I appreciate the responses and am very pleased to Support. Glad you are keeping well, with necessary interventions! I address my own ailments through self-medication with pinot noir, à la Riley, but I understand he's currently hors de combat with a plaster-cast, so he is probably administering it through a straw. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and have sent a note to Tim expressing my best wishes. Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review - PASS

• Just wondering why News Letter and Freeman's Journal have places of publication, but the other newspapers don't – is there a reason?

Yes, since there is no description of the location in the name, and these are relatively obscure Irish journals.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• For Anson, I'm not sure you need to have that it's in the UK – none of the other sources have a country.

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not part of the criteria (and I don't take it into account), but it may be worth archiving the websites? (You have for one, but not the others)

I'm not adept at it, and would prefer that other people with bots do it.

- SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Fascinating stuff. As an Englishman of Irish descent I'm grateful to Wehwalt for a glimpse into Anglo-Irish parliamentary shenanigans. A few quibbles, some drawing on the 1917 edition of Erskine May.

• Piping

Queen Victoria but King Edward VII – I know those are the titles of the WP articles, but it looks a bit odd here to have the female title in blue and the male one in black.

• Background

• "consisted mainly of several hundred hereditary peers of the United Kingdom": I'm not sure that's quite right: there were peers of England, of Scotland, of Great Britain and of the United Kingdom, and I don't think those in the first three categories were absorbed into the fourth.(Erskine May, pp. 6–12). The representative peer arrangements for Ireland followed the precedent of those for Scottish representative peers (sixteen of them) following the 1707 Act of Union (EM, p. 9).

Anson, at page 190, if I read him correctly, does describe England's peerage as merging into the peerage of GB, and then UK. I've spelled it out in a footnote. The Irish and Scottish representative peers weren't quite the same, the Scots only served for one parliament and the voting qualifications were different.

Afterthought: I think perhaps you could skirt round the matter by saying "consisted mainly of several hundred British hereditary peers", which isn't incorrect but avoids the distinctions between the four categories. Tim riley talk 10:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• "along with 28 Irish representative peers and certain others, such as some Anglican archbishops and bishops" – the certain others being law lords (of whom there were four between 1876 and 1913 – EM, pp. 11–12 ), and the Lords Spiritual were the two archbishops and the twenty-four senior diocesan bishops (EM, p. 6)

Responding to the above two, I've put all that in a footnote. I have exact statistics as of 1909 but I don't want to put up too much of a wall between the reader and the meat of the article.

• Candidates and campaign

• "Commander-in-Chief, India, General Lord Herbert Kitchener" – this gives his title wrongly: unless Kitchener was the younger son of a duke or marquess, which he wasn't, his given name doesn't get into his title. He was General Lord Kitchener, but you could get away with calling him General Lord (Herbert) Kitchener.

• Ah, I wasn't sure on that point.

• "… objected because Curzon, as heir to a British title …" – this is the first we've heard of this heirdom, and it might be helpful to flesh it out slightly on the lines of "…objected because Curzon was heir to the British barony of Scarsdale and would retain his status..."

I've simply introduced Curzon as Baron Scarsdale's son and heir.

• Sentence beginning "Freeman's Journal of Dublin pointed out ..." – I have three minor problems with this:

• The article headlined "Lord Curzon's Pretentions" is actually headed "Lord Curzon's Pretensions"
• The article thus headed is on page 6 of Freeman's Journal for 2 January 1908 and not on p. 16.
• The article doesn't say that Curzon's father was 76 years old: it refers to him (wrongly) as "seventy-seven years old"

Errors fixed, 76 changed, alas, to elderly.

That's all I can find to carp about. Tim riley talk 10:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. The article seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria and it has been a pleasure to read and review it. Tim riley talk 13:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks both for the review and the kind words. Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Nominator note

Just noting that after today, I may be out for a couple of days for medical reasons, if there are further comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

750h

lead

• among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to i'd remove "at that time", but i don't really mind

I prefer the way it is now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• something required in order to vote in ==> "something required to vote in"
• eligible to vote, and that remove the comma
• among those who were eligible to vote ==> "among those eligible to vote"
• did not apply to candidates, and declared Curzon remove the comma

background

• House of Lords of Ireland, but provided for Irish representation remove the comma
• voter's seal affixed, and remove the comma
• with the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922. i'd change this to either "with the Irish Free State's 1922 establishment" or "with the Irish Free State's establishment in 1922"

candidates and campaign

• an Irish representative peer since 1890 died in Paris. bit confused here; what does "1890 died in Paris" mean
• a successor as representative peer ==> "a successor as a representative peer"

I don't agree. It would be "a successor as MP" or "a successor as prime minister"

• A total of 134 ballots were sent to eligible peers. ==> "134 ballots were sent to eligible peers."
• It being thought that the viceroy and representative ==> "It was thought that the viceroy and representative" (i think)
• also refused Curzon a earldom or "a" should be "an"
• position in spite of the fact that Curzon had ==> "position although Curzon had"
• supporters of the boycott, but was remove the comma
• unfair to peers who had been waiting years for the honour ==> "unfair to peers waiting years for the honour"

I dont' agree. The present language better conveys that there were peers who had waited years for the item, although we don't know specifically who was being referred to.

• people of Ireland, since the remove the comma
• Irish nationalists, which 80 percent of Irish constituencies "percent" should be "per cent"
• The number of them who exhibit Irish patriotism of any kind or degree are an insignificant minority. "are" should be "is". "The number" is singular, so the verb should also be singular.

I'm not certain about this. It's referring to multiple people so in BritEng shouldn't it take the plural?

I'm pretty sure. Maybe ask another editor, but i'm pretty sure it's this way. I don't mind too much

It's a quotation in any case from a newspaper so it should probably be left as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

election

• by a number of peers that they ==> "by several peers that they"
• Irish representative peers had claimed a right to vote, and had that claim upheld by the House of Lords, it did not require the same for the person elected. remove "it"

aftermath

• Under a procedure set forth in the Act sounds excessively formal. i'd do "Under a procedure outlined in the Act "

I dont' agree. I've read that portion of the Act. It sets out in detail what must be done in the case of a tie, and was done for the only time in the November election.

That's all i got. fine work! 750h+ 13:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It may be a few days before I respond. Health reasons.__Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Support, just one comment above. No problem. 750h+ 13:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

All done or responded to. Thanks, 750h+

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

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