Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Privilege of Peerage/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | Privilege of Peerage
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 08:52, 22 November 2007.

Privilege of Peerage

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage

Another Emsworth classic, this article has no in-line citations, and is in great need of review. Judgesurreal777 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • An excellent article, plainly derived from the listed references; also accurate as far as my knowledge of the subject extends. Please read WP:WHEN, which is cited by our criteria, and say which statements both lack references, and need them. WP:V requires references for statements challenged or likely to be challenged; that would be a good start. Using {{cn}} would probably be preferable to trying to list them here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Standard criteria for Featured Articles is in-line citation of references, and to retain its status, that is what this article needs. Judgesurreal777 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The purpose of this page, if it has any, is to improve articles; the purpose of this discussion is to fix, if possible, the flaws in the article. Your comments contribute to neither purpose; rather, they tend to produce unnecessary citations, which would decrease readability. Please do not act like a bot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Judgesurreal. This article needs so many citations that it would be a wasted effort to list them all, and would be too distracting to add {{fact}} to them all in the article. Some of the more obvious needs: quotes from books, the algorithm for determining rank, and statements like "In practice, however, the Act is obsolete". This article is filled with facts that are not common knowledge where I come from: "Hereditary supporters are normally limited to hereditary peers, certain members of the Royal Family, chiefs of Scottish Clans, Scottish feudal barons whose baronies predate 1587." or "The coronation robes and coronets used at Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953 cost about £1,250". Pagrashtak 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Emsworth is gone. The article is both accurate and lists its sources; the standards of WP:V are clear, and they do not require a footnote at every semicolon. This can go two ways:

  • We can identify, specifically, which claims actually need citation. This would be a service to Wikipedia, and if the nominator is unwilling, for whatever reason, to actually look at the listed references, almost all online, I am willing to do so.
  • An effort can be made to pointlessly delist this competent and accurate article without improving it. I will consider what means of dispute resolution are appropriate to such disruptive following of the letter of the rules to the detriment of their spirit; I will also consider whether this page is in fact of any service to Wikipedia whatsoever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought is, don't complain to us for following wikipedia featured article guidelines and either; complain to someone who can change them to your liking, or fix the article. Judgesurreal777 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't complain if you were following them as {{guideline}}s should be followed, with common sense. This is a much better article, as it stands, than most of the articles we promote; it can, if we cooperate, be improved further. But it should not be blindly delisted; so how about some {{cn}} tags? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once there are some citations, then I will if you wish, currently I would have to CN just about the whole article. Judgesurreal777 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you were to {{cn}} what needs citation; we may assume sufficient initiative on the part of the reader to actually look at the section called References; but try a few examples. Please also eschew the uncivil attitude of the sidewalk superintendent: you do the work, and I'll sit here and watch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is pointless, I didn't make the rules. The article doesn't meet the criteria, and must be improved or removed. Judgesurreal777 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have missunderstood the purpose of review, which is to improve articles; if you are not going to do so, this was indeed pointless, as was the nomination. Please do not make these disruptive nominations again. The little gold star isn't worth anyone's time; considering which statements may actually need more citation for the reader to verify them would have been both interesting and useful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did that just above and was met with rudeness. You complain that we are not identifying what needs citations, yet you treat me with disdain when I do. I would suggest that it is you and not Judgesurreal who is being disruptive. Pagrashtak 14:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One statement is well-known to anyone familiar with the subject, as our criteria require (I've added a footnote to the most likely actual source for the details), and I found the other in ten seconds by doing the obvious thing. Less frivolous examples, not phrased as WP:INEVERHEARDOFIT, will deserve more respect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Septentrionalis is essentially trolling here, as far as I can tell. This FA is in legitimate need of review. I would definitely not fact tag bomb, but someone might start with the direct quotes. And then I'd suggest giving DrKiernan a ring. We've saved Emsworth's before. Marskell 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A personal attack, and false. I am merely trying to exercise common sense; we do not need a footnote for things readily and obviously obtainable through the existing references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eleven of them thus far, and I am very happy they have been saved. I nominate them to be fixed if possible, so that they show wikipedias highest current standards. Judgesurreal777 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judge, focus on the article, ignore disruption. All of Emsworth's older articles need attention, many have been restored to status; keep up the good work. The editors who have been restoring his articles understand what needs to be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one has touched the article, or challenged a sentence here, since I added footnotes last week. It would be good to improve it by adding notes where the reader will genuinely have difficulties; if none can be found, so much the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about these currency conversions?: "In 1771, the publisher was fined £100—over £10,000 in modern terms" and "in 1953 cost about £1,250,[12] which in present-day terms would exceed £22,000."

The average UK house price in 1953 was £1,800. It is £180,000 today.[1] So, by that standard £1,250 can either be figured as two-thirds of the average house price (£120,000) or 1000 times more than it was then (£1,250,000). The problem with these inflation-based calculations is that they do not relate to contemporary earnings, buying power, "baskets of goods" or job roles. It is better, in my view, to describe the amounts in terms of what people earnt or what you could buy at the time. In other words, say that £100 in 1771 was equivalent to such-as-such's annual earnings or was the same value as such-and-such.

For 1771, a labourer in Southern England earned about £20 a year, teachers about £16, a skilled specialist craftsman (such as a printer) about £50, lawyers about £240. I reckon a literate man who worked as a senior clerk might make £100 a year.[2]

For 1953, I reckon an average worker earned about £350 a year.[3] So, we could claim that £1,250 was "more than three-times the average annual wage of a factory worker".

Now, the problem becomes: does making these statements constitute "original research" by synthesis; or can we get away with it? DrKiernan 13:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to use a price index (to some extent it doesn't matter which, since, even for 1771, they're not going to vary that much) than house prices, which have gotten much more expensive relatively since the introduction of modern conveniences. We should specify price index; the value of silver is frequently used because it's easy, but it's even less representative than houses. As long as we say what we're doing, it should come under the exception for straightforward calculations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What follows is from Global Financial Data United Kingdom Retail Price Index 1271-2007, which is derived from E. H. Phelps Brown and Sheila V. Hopkins, "Seven Centuries of the Price of Consumables, compared with Builders' Wage-rates," Economica (November 1956): 296-314 and the UK Retail Price Index.
  • 12/31/1770: 2.9402
  • 12/31/1771: 3.1914
  • 05/31/1953: 10.3563
  • 09/30/2007:208.3

This would, I think, justify, with a footnote citing these figures: "In 1771, the publisher was fined £100—over £6,000 in modern terms" or even "more like £10,000" and "in 1953 cost about £1,250,[12] which in present-day terms would exceed £25,000." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added them in. Thanks. DrKiernan 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - more citations are still needed. What happened to the dozen or so web-link references listed at the end of the article? They looked productive. Also, the article could definitely use a much larger number of images. Nowhere near current FA standards, salvageable perhaps. The Land 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the web-link references to inline citations. DrKiernan 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like this review was a big success, the article is now very well cited and should retain its status! Congratulations guys, you did a great job. Judgesurreal777 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, so far. Trial by peers section remains unsourced. We might also expand the lead. Any suitable pics? Marskell 10:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit

I've left this up a while but there hasn't been comment in a few days; moving here to get last comments. DrK provided some additional refs yesterday but the lead still needs expansion and it would be nice to have another pic or two. Marskell 07:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with it and agree that it needs more work. DrKiernan 08:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At present, I'm disillusioned with this article, and not keen to invest much effort. It fails on grounds of comprehensiveness: some privileges are not covered at all, even quite major ones such as the ability to commit crimes of house-breaking, highway robbery, horse-stealing, and robbing of churches without punishment (granted in the reign of Henry VIII), which was only explicitly repealed in 1841, after an earlier act in 1827 was deemed ambiguous. My main concern is that, even if effort is put into an expansion, it will merely become a rather contrived and loosely-connected assembly of obsolete and trivial snippets. DrKiernan 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the lead by merging it with the first section, and added two images. DrKiernan 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sep's "An excellent article, plainly derived from the listed references; also accurate as far as my knowledge of the subject extends." and Judge's "the article is now very well cited and should retain its status" comments are both fair. I would not complain if this article retained its status on the basis of their justifiable support for it.
The privilege is, and always has been, obscure and ill-defined; this, rather than the article itself, makes me cautious in giving my own support. While the article does not cover some aspects of peerage that some would consider a privilege (a seat in the House of Lords, for example), it would be difficult to include these because they do not formally comprise the privilege (not all peers, and for most of history no peeresses, sat in the House), and hence these topics may be justifiably, perhaps rightly, excluded from the article. DrKiernan 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on DrKiernans statement, I think it can be fairly said that the article is comprehensive, in that it includes all verifiable information on the topic and does not include very minor and/or unreferenceable material. Judgesurreal777 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a comment that the article excludes the (former) right to sit in the Lords, because not all peers possess it? I would have added, but I don't quite see how to phrase it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "The right to sit in the House is held separate to the privilege, and is only held by some peers (see History of Lords Reform)." to the lead. DrKiernan (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ UK House Prices Since 1952. Nationwide Building Society.
  2. ^ See, for example, Stanier, Alan M. "Relative Value of Sums of Money". University of Essex.
  3. ^ "Rise In Average Weekly Earnings" The Times, Thursday, Mar 26, 1953; pg. 3; Issue 52580; col A
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Privilege_of_Peerage/archive1&oldid=1078812026"