Talk:Cornwallis in Ireland

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cornwallis in Ireland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. Before I start on the main review, I have a question about the sources. There seems to be a heavy reliance on certain 19th-century sources - primarily Lecky and Maxwell - which must be assumed to be outdated. I am no expert on the period, however, so could you please justify this decision to me? Lampman (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The primary source I used is Wickwire, the only significant 20th century bio of Cornwallis I am aware of (which if you count the duplicated references accounts for most of the citations). I needed other sources to address what I perceived to be a fairly sympathetic attitude adopted by the Wickwires, and to provide background and color the Wickwires did not. Unfortunately most of my area libraries do not have great coverage of this era, which is why I turned to the older sources. (I understand the risks and limitations of using older sources, since those that apply to 18th-century North America, my normal area of work, are rife with issues.)

I suppose this is acceptable, since the older sources are used sparingly and Wickwire is the main source. If you plan to take the article to FA, you'll probably have to address this though. Lampman (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually have leads on modern histories that should provide some additional color on this episode, which will eventually make it into the article when I take the time to follow them up. Magic♪piano 13:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll address the issues described below in due course; thanks for your detailed feedback. Magic♪piano 12:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the rest of the review. I've done some copyediting, but please ensure that I haven't distorted the meaning. There are some, mostly minor, issues with the language. Some of the sentences are too long and hard to read. There are also some issues of style I'd like to address.

Lead:

• The lead is not sufficiently long to summarise an article of this size; it should go into more detail and be at least two paragraphs (see Wikipedia:Lead#Length).
• The image is far too big. While it is permissible to force the size of an image, especially for the lead image, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images recommends 1.35 maximum. Is there any reason that the other upright images are forced?
• "due in part to" what, his resignation or the fall or the government, or both?
  • I reworked the lead and resized the image. At the default image size settings, the lead image is now under 300px. The more vertically oriented images I tend to size up a little, and this article has a bunch of them. Magic♪piano 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still not happy with the image sizes. It is customary to let images default in size, and to let logged in users decide themselves what size they want the images to be displayed at. The lead image can be sized up a bit, but not this much. It looks enormous, particularly for readers with small screens. I tried it at 1.35, that should be plenty. As for the other pictures, it is permissible to size up images with specific details (maps, charts etc.), but these are just portraits, and I see no compelling reason to force their size. Lampman (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• My standard rejoinder on this is: if you as reviewer don't like the image arrangement, feel free to move/resize them. I get feedback from reviewers on images that is contradictory in the aggregate (images are too small to see, or too large; should be on left, no, right; and so on), so do what pleases you. I don't have your settings, screen geometry, and taste filter. (I personally don't find a 250px image to be overly large.) Magic♪piano 13:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is not about personal taste; this is about my responsibility as a reviewer to make sure the article complies with Wikipedia's manual of style for layout, per criterion 1a. I have clearly stated what guideline this article violates, but you have so far not given any reason why you believe that guideline should be ignored. It is not my responsibility as a reviewer to fix problems with the article, simply to point out where the article fails to meed the criteria, and then fail or pass it depending on whether those issues are addressed. Lampman (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh. I don't know when the change in thumbnail default sizes occurred, but this whole discussion is probably a good example of why not to use relative sizing in the lead image. I never recall changing my thumbnail size, but it was set at 120, rather than the current 220. I will adjust. Magic♪piano 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Background:

• "When the French Revolution broke out in the early 1790s, Catholics and middle-class Protestants united to form the Society of United Irishmen, which successfully extracted additional rights, although there was some Protestant resistance to the idea of full Catholic suffrage, due to their overwhelming numerical majority." - too long, split up
• "By mid-May 1798, British troops and the Irish Volunteers, directed by the current Commander-in-Chief, General Gerard Lake, had acted with brutality and caprice to put down elements of growing rebellion; these actions fanned the flames of rebellion" - too choppy, there are six clauses here, please rewrite.
  • I've rewritten these. (Slaps self on wrist for tendency to write overly-claused sentences.) Magic♪piano 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Rebellion:

• Portland - you should probably wikilink this, the last reference to this man was too far back.
• "speciously" - this word seems a bit POV.
  • I agree that "speciously" is a bit POV. Portland (linked again now) is also making an argument that, to modern ears, is patently ridiculous. Magic♪piano 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• If it is indeed obvious, then it needs not be pointed out. If it's not obvious, then it's POV to state it. If you have a source calling it "speciously", then you can of course quote him on that. Lampman (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Wickwires do in fact use the word: "He reasoned speciously: that Ireland already had one university ...". Would you like me to rewrite this so that is explicitly presented as their opinion? Magic♪piano 19:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• That would be good, yes. Lampman (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Magic♪piano 13:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Departure:

• These last three sections are very short, which is not recommended per Wikipedia:Layout#Body sections. Is there any way they could be combined into one, under a heading like "Resignation and aftermath" or similar? Maybe also move the image of George III up so he won't interfere with the notes.
  • I've reorganized the end sections. Magic♪piano 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• "Catholic rights, and gave signs" who is the subject here? It can't be "Cabinet and royal support". Did he give these signs?
  • There was a subject missing; I've reworded to straighten it out. Magic♪piano 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Emancipation:

• "Cornwallis' work on union and his position on Catholic emancipation" - later in the section it seems like you're only talking about the latter - you mention "the issue" in singular. Lampman (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarified. Magic♪piano 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if there are any more issues. Magic♪piano 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work so far, the rest of issues seem to have been addresses satisfactorily now. Lampman (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that takes care of things (now that I have my settings at the current defaults...) Magic♪piano 13:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, except not all the thumbnails were set to "upright". I suppose that was a mistake, I changed it. I'll go ahead and list it as a GA now, good work! Lampman (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooops. Thanks! Magic♪piano 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic and Protestant Camps

Lecky is a fine historian but his studies are 120 years old. Therefore the charge that the United Irishmen split into Catholic and Protestant camps simply doesn't reflect what happened. There was a very real division between moderates and radicals though, but Catholics were interspersed between these (McCormick and Thomas Addis Emmett, for example, were moderates) In short Lecky was wrong. Read Bartlett, Dunne and even Pakenham (1969) to get the modern scholarly response. 86.40.207.97 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually aware that there are shortcomings in the scholarship on this article, and will revisit much of what the older sources say the next time I pick this article up to work on. Please provide titles, ISBNs, or other more detailed catalog information for the works you suggest; I am not widely read in Irish history. Magic♪piano 21:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you write the article? For someone not widely read in Irish history you've done a fine job. Lecky is a good historian but he is quite dated, and was also rather critical of the manner in which the Act of Union was passed (Despite being a Liberal Unionist)

Here are a few suggestions; Thomas Bartlett, The Fall and Rise of the Irish Nation (It has a good chapter on the 1798-1801 period), Thomas Pakenham, The Year of Liberty, rather old (1969) but the authoritative history of the rebellion, Patrick Geoghegan, The Irish Act of Union, a study in high politics (Authoritative account of the Act of Union, Cornwallis in Ireland, and the resignation of William Pitt) Also a collection of essays, The Act of Union, Bicentenary perspectives. Happy hunting. 86.40.207.97 (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC) P.S- G.C. Bolton wrote a book on the Act of Union also, worth a look.

I did indeed do most of the work on this. I'm working on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Cornwallis, which this article is a dent in. Thanks for your source recommendations. Magic♪piano 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for explanation: I reversed the deletions of the anonymous IP talk because the deletions were unsourced and unexplained. There was no indication to me at the time that any explanation was provided, other than the tag "references removed". I disagree with the removal of this reference, but am not going to get into an edit war on this matter. Hohenloh ⁺ 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I figured. I have no specific reason to either accept or dispute the editor's claim, but I'm also cognizant of the limitations of the source he's arguing against. Magic♪piano 16:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh this guy just takes the biscuit. He clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about, he refuses to respond to my comments, yet demands 'civility', whilst simultaneously treating me as little better than a dog. If I thought he even resembled a gentleman, I'd challenge him to a duel for the gross calumnities he's presented against me. He's impervious to reason. I am seriously pissed off at this stage. Such cheek. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, you can always resort to WP:ANI if you have issues with another editor. Magic♪piano 21:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Emancipation

I am reluctant to edit but wonder if editors more familiar with this page might want to address the question of Catholic Emancipation in the lede -'basic human rights' is a rather anachronistic phrasing. As editors will know, the outstanding issue by the time of the passing of the Act of Union was the question of Catholics becoming MPs - 'basic human rights' might be confusing to the reader.86.44.145.133 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Roman Catholic Relief Bills and some other sources, what you say is not exactly true. The MP issue may have been a major one, but my reading of summaries of the bills preceding the union is that certain rights we might consider "basic", like freedom of association, had only been incompletely granted by the time of union. It is certainly true that suffrage had been greatly expanded by then, as had a significant degree of freedom of conscience (i.e. worship) and the right to engage in previously-prohibited professions. However, Catholics still did not have voting rights outside Ireland, which was fixed in the 1829 bill. Magic♪piano 17:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)