Happy to review this article, sorry it's taken so long to be picked up.
Hey, thanks for agreeing to look at this! Yes it’s been stewing there for a while haha I’m away at the moment and I’ve just had another long-standing GA candidate reviewed. I’m hopefully going to be able to respond to that one tomorrow, but I might take a little while longer than normal to respond to your comments here. Thanks again :) Xx78900 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
independent senator – it could perhaps be made clearer (in a separate note?) that an Irish senator sits in the Seanad Éireann.
Not done I don't think it's necessary to specify that a senator sits in the senate, particularly when I have now specified that Seanad Éireann is the Irish senate.Xx78900 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again, I had a bit of time tonight so I was able to make a few changes per your review thus far. I have also removed the italics from the word "Seanad" throughout the article, per the recommendation left by the person reviewing Legal career of Mary Robinson, comments here. Xx78900 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
1 12th Seanad (1969 – 1973)
Consider splitting parts of this section into subsections, as a way of making the text more accessible.
with whom she had had a relationship since they were law students and who was then practising as a solicitor (and the rest of the paragraph) - this level of detail isn't needed in an encyclopaedia article.
This date was significant as the legal voting age had recently been lowered from 21 to 18, but the updated electoral register would not come in to effect until April. - amend to something like ‘two months before lowering of the legal voting age from 21 to 18 came into effect’?
The personal details regarding Robinson’s family (e.g. those that appear in the last paragraph of this section should be removed), as they are not relevant to the topic.
Half done I removed the bit about her daughter, but not her mothers death - I believe that in the source it might mention that it had an impact on her campaign, I will double check on Monday and adjust then.Xx78900 (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
It’s not clear to me why the last paragraph is included in such detail. That Robinson was narrowly re-elected to the Seanad is all that matters, surely.
DoneYou're right. I was writing this article and that of Robinson's legal career at the same time so some things got muddled. Shortened now.Xx78900 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
This long section could do with being split into subsections.
Half done I've added subsection, though now the bit about FLACs is just floating under The right of women to sit on juries - thoughts?Xx78900 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
That same year, Robinson first served on the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, which she remained a member of until her retirement from the Seanad. Also in 1973, Robinson - 'In 1973 Robinson first served on the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities—which she remained a member of until her retirement from the Seanad—and she’.
Link called to the bar of England and Wales (Call to the bar); Fine Gael (moved from later in the section); Oireachtas; Conor Cruise O'Brien; penal reform.
This led to Robinson - There’s a lot going on here, I would replace this with the thing being referred to, to help readers know what is being being referred to.
Done
widely publicised – is too vague imo.
I would contend that if it wasn't widely publicised it wouldn't really be worth mentioning - and axiomatic to such a phrase it would be unwieldy to list everywhere it was publicised.Xx78900 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for nor being clearer, I meant that the context of being "widely publicised" needs to be more specific, perhaps 'widely publicised throughout Ireland'? Amitchell125 (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
political traction – I’m not clear what this actually means.
She was hoping that as a result of their being a more liberal party in government, she as a liberal politician, would be able to further promote her own political agenda.Xx78900 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for this, but other readers might also benefit from the text being rephrased (or expanded?) to help with this phrase, which is slightly idiomatic. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Then-senator Michael D. Higgins participated in the debate - Then-senator seems redundant, as only serving senators could take part in the debate.
Yes, but Michael D. Higgins is best known for, like Robinson, later being elected president of Ireland (a role he still occupies). I think for future readers who may not have the exact dates in their head about when each was a senator/president and may not be aware that the president couldn't weigh in on parliamentary debate, it could be useful to specify. I'm open to changing the wording though, or if you feel passionately that it is inappropriate, removing it entirely.Xx78900 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately I don't think you can assume that readers are aware who the president of Ireland currently is. I would consider replacing Then-senator Michael D. Higgins participated in the debate, arguing with 'Senator Michael D. Higgins, who participated in the debate, argued'. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
The debate was eventually adjourned, but no further debate ever followed - ‘The debate was abandoned’?
Well, adjournment implies debate will be returned to. I suppose it was effectively abandoned, but on a technicality it wasn't. That said, I understand that sometimes such nuance is best left to source material. What do you think?Xx78900 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think we can leave it as it is. AM
I think a new paragraph could be made after Robinson had more success.
sat on a jury - ‘sat on a Republic of Ireland jury’?
Done, I said "sat on a jury in Ireland". Ireland is used throughout the article to refer to the nation as opposed to the island, with Republic of Ireland only being mentioned in a quote from Robinson. I can change this if you like? Though I personally feel it unnecessary, given that Northern Ireland is specifically mentioned where relevant.Xx78900 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
permitted every Irish citizen – ‘gave every Irish citizen’.
It is, in fairness, also a rather long article! I really appreciate the thoroughness of your review, I think it's helped the page greatly!Xx78900 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
3 14th Seanad (1977 – 1981)
Starting in 1977, and lasting until 1987 - consider putting this at the end of the sentence and simplifying it to ‘from 1977 to 1987’.
The second paragraph could do with some copy editing—and as there is too much text for a single paragraph. Much of the text consists of details about events that Robinson was not directly involved in, and at least one sentence is too long. Examples - Among the most prominent issues tackled by Robinson in her third term as a senator - ‘In her third term as a senator, Robinson’; Though officials within the Labour Party were largely sympathetic to Robinson's cause, they – ‘The Labour Party was sympathetic’; first the subject of a dig by archaeologists – first excavated’ (linked to Archaeological excavation).
she was called to the Inner Bar – 'Robinson was called to the Inner Bar’.
Done
and was far more conservative – are you meaning to imply here that Haughey was conservative?
As a member of establishment, and particularly in comparison with Robinson, it would be difficult to see him as otherwise, but no, what I am meaning to imply is that the bill Haughey put forward was more conservative than the one Robinson had attempted to pass in the first, ie it had restrictions on the sale of contraceptives that were absent in Robinson's bill.Xx78900 (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Understood. AM
(who would later become a Supreme Court judge) is off topic and should be edited out.
though nothing else would materialise – why though?
I guess because I think the text implies that the Seanad would discuss the draft, but it turned out that they didn't. It can be removed though, I'm not too fussy.Xx78900 (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Understood. AM
4 15th Seanad (1981 – 1982)
on the sixth count – it’s not clear what this means to readers perhaps unfamiliar with Irish election procedures. Is there a suitable link?
I'm not sure how to change it, and amn't sure whether you are familiar with Irish election procedures so forgive me explaining them here in asking your advice. In Ireland we use a system of government called proportional representation, in which more than one candidate is elected for each constituency, thus allowing for representation that is, as the name implies, more proportionate to the electorate. This is achieved via a single transferable vote, whereby every voter ranks the candidates numerically in their order of preference. If there were 7 candidates, say, in an area where 2 candidates are elected, there are two ways in which the 2 who get elected are chosen. Either they would meet a minimum threshold of first preference votes, or, if that threshold isn't reached by any of the 7 candidates, the candidate with the least amount of votes are eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to the voters' second preferences on the ballot, and so on and so on until the threshold is reached. So, if someone is elected on the sixth count, it means that five candidates had been eliminated and their votes redistributed before enough of their second, third, fourth, etc. votes pushed Robinson over the threshold. I'm not sure that I can summarise such information succinctly within the article, and amn't sure if I should link to PR or StV. Any thoughts?Xx78900 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
The first paragraph has copy editing issues, e.g. which sits for the first time later than the Dáil, was even more so, which makes little sense to me.
Half done I've attempted a fix. I'm trying to say that the first day that senators assemble is later in the year than the first day the Dáil meets as, after the Dáil has been elected, the Taoiseach makes nominations for the Seanad. It cannot meet until after the government has already been formed.Xx78900 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
two-and-a-half hour long – consider replacing with ‘150-minute-long’.
Not done Why? Personally I think two-and-a-half hour sounds more natural, though I will change it if you strongly feel otherwise.Xx78900 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Understood. AM
among the most – ‘one of the most’, as there was only only one of them.
I would consider of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as being excessive, and causing the sentence to be overlong.
Yes I think you're right. Which do you think is better: "with the British Government" or "with Margaret Thatcher's government in Britain"? The second is still long but it adds precision. Not really tied to either one of them.Xx78900 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Why is humiliating within quotation marks? It looks editorial (see MOS:EDITORIAL).
I did this because it is used in the source and I feel that it is relevant to mention that it was a humiliating experience, but inappropriate for encyclopedias to label something subjective as fact, hence the quotation marks. I would rather remove the word entirely than just the quotations, though I am open to other suggestions.Xx78900 (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
O'Sullivan refers to the practice as "rather embarrassing" rather than humiliating, which isn't the same thing. Consider amending which ended the "humiliating" practice to something like 'which ended what the historian Michael O'Sullivan refers to as "the rather embarrassing practice". Amitchell125 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've looked at the sources used and the citations, and haven't found any issues there. I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 21st August to allow time for the issues raised above to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
