Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Jarrow March/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Jarrow March

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

The Jarrow March of 1936 has become, for many, a defining image of 1930s Britain – a crusade to bring work to jobless areas that had been shattered by economic recession and government indifference. It achieved very little at the time – most of its participaants thought it a failure – but has gained retrospective iconic status, and its spirit has often been invoked as a rallying cry on the left. Here is its story, complete with its heroes (Wilkinson, Riley) and its villains (Bishop of Durham, Runciman). Something to get your teeth into during this election campaign – all comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cliftonian

edit

Lead

  • I copyedited a bit in the lead to make clearer some basic facts about the march—where they marched to and from, how many people there were, etc. I thought about putting the distance in but thought too many numbers in the first paragraph made for bad prose. Hope this is all right with you.
  • Is there no free photograph of the Jarrow marchers? I'd be rather surprised if there is no book or newspaper containing a picture that is now out of copyright. The photo we have at the top is good, but my concern is that the lay reader taking a quick glance could be misled somewhat as the sculpture seems to imply the marchers included children.
  • Previously the article had this as its main image. However, the licencing for that image is completely unconvincing, and there is no provenance for the photograph – it could be any group of men in working clothes. Certainly it is not a picture from the march itself; they marched in a formal column, with banners, etc. I have searched for any other image of the march that is not under copyright in this country and the US,but without success. Obviously, if one is found I will be happy to adopt it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • International readers will not know what the TUC is based on its initials.

National background

  • In the unemployment table we use the title "Unemployment in Britain, 1923–36", but then refer to the "NE" and "SE" regions, presumably north-eastern and south-eastern England (as opposed to Britain). I would recommend substituting "England" for "region" to be more exact and clear.
  • "The march leaders were denounced in the press as "avowed Communists ... who have been identified with disturbances in their own localities"." perhaps attribute this quote directly to The Times, as I'm not sure all of the press would have been quite so unsympathetic
  • Again regarding the TUC; foreigners will not know what this is
  • We say "A.J.P. Taylor"; like Tim I prefer to put spaces for initials rather than full stops. Where full stops are used, however, I think spaces should be used as well.
    • I have always written initials in this form; it is not general British English style to write "A. J. P. Taylor", and I will commit hara-kiri rather than see it in that form. I think consistency is the thing here – choose a method and stick to it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Taylor write this? 1970, when the book was published, or earlier?
  • It was first publishd in 1965; I am using the 1970 paperback (which I bought as a student and it still has the price on it - 12 shillings)

Local background: Jarrow

  • "the largest shipbuilding centre in the country" in all of Britain, or just England?
  • "if you go there for an hour or two, reader, you will be black" oh my.
  • we wiklink Charles Palmer in the image caption but not in the prose.
  • "The home steel industry" Good prose, but international readers may not know that "home" in this context means British.
  • "When the feasibility report was received by the BISF in March 1935, the Federation's chairman, Sir Andrew Duncan, at first reacted positively, his members from the north-east rather less so" Suggest review; seems to me like it might not make sense grammatically
  • Perhaps refer to "Newcastle and the north-east" or something similar, as some may not realise Jarrow is near Newcastle.
  • Palmers or Palmer's? Both are used in the article.


March

  • Did the medical attendants count as part of the march or not?
  • Was the fund-raising done only locally, or over a wider area?
  • Why just say and wikilink to the "Bishop of Jarrow", and not the specific person, James Geoffrey Gordon?
  • We say "King Edward" rather than Edward VIII specfically
  • Whence came the idea that Edward VIII might receive the marchers? How serious was this fear?
  • He was something of a maverick who liked to operate informally, much to the annoyance of his government. He had previously made sympathetic comments about the unemployed. I will devise an appropriate explanatory note. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't anything noteworthy happen in Bedfordshire apart from it raining?
  • I seem to recall from somewhere one is supposed to spell out numbers where they are the start of a sentence, as in "185 of the original contingent were still on the road".
  • When was the second petition handed in by Grattan-Doyle?

Appraisal and legacy

  • Since Labour's adoption of the "spirit of Jarrow" as political rhetoric, has there ever been an attempt by the Conservatives or anyone else to "reclaim" it as something that was actually overtly non-partisan, and indeed opposed by the contemporary Labour leadership?
  • No. Don't forget, the Conservative leadership was just as opposed to the march as was the Labour leadership; it was at the local level that the Conservatives were more supportive. They could afford to be, because no one was going to accuse them of communist sympathies. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be made clear (perhaps in a footnote) that the Conservative MP's comments regarding the 2011 march ("an insult to the memory of the Jarrow marchers") came after most of them had pulled out while still in northern England. As it stands it seems like he is saying it was an insult to even attempt to march.
  • Don't take the Daily Telegraph's report on the "fizzling out" as an unbiased account – the DT doesn't do objectivity. The march was a much smaller event than the original, and wasn't always a smooth progress, but it took place, and arrived in London on schedule by which time its numbers had increased considerably. I have amended the wording to give a better context for the MP's remarks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the people in the picture here those from the aforementioned march maligned by Robert Goodwill, or something else?

Very impressive and enlightening read as usual, Brian. Thank you! I hope these thoughts are helpful. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your careful reading and useful comments. No response means that I have acted on your suggestions which were indeed most helpful Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to have been helpful Brian. Please let me know when this goes up for FAC. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt

edit

Very interesting and educational. A few things:

Lede
  • "before in the 1820s mismanagement combined with changing world trading conditions heralded a decline which led to its closure." There is something wrong here, and it's not just the date.
  • "Plans for its proposed replacement" I think the "proposed" ought to go. "Plans" covers the field.
  • "successfully frustrated" at least in AmEng, the word "frustrated" (in that sense) means not just opposition but successful opposition, thus rendering "successfully" superfluous. It may be different on your side of the ocean.
  • "its own plans for the industry" the steel industry or do you mean "the industry" to mean industry in Jarrow?
  • You might want to mention in the second paragraph what the failure of the shipyard did to the town and the people.
  • The final sentence of the third paragraph: the shift in subject from marchers to the march itself is a bit disconcerting.
  • "defining factor" possibly "defining moment"?
  • "Labour leadership's coldness in 1936, the postwar Labour" duplicate Labour
National
  • " that of long-term employment outside the normal cyclical variations;" possibly you mean "unemployment"?
  • "The idea of marching as a means of expressing political or social grievances had by now become an accepted and well-established tactic." It's not clear when "now" is as several dates are mentioned in the paragraph. And would it not be better to move this sentence close to the remainder of the discussion of marches at the head of the paragraph and leave off with the Taylor quote?
Jarrow
  • " whether or not that employer could provide work elsewhere." I'm not sure what this means.
  • "Attempts by workers to organise themselves into a trade union were fiercely opposed by the employers; nevertheless, lengthy strikes took place in 1832 and 1844, each ended when hunger forced the miners back to work." It feels like the final comma should be a semicolon. It might be best to split the sentence.
  • "To underpin this rationalisation," perhaps a bit wordy.
March
  • "The idea of a march was taken up with enthusiasm by the mayor Billy Thompson, the local MP Ellen Wilkinson, and by other groups" No groups have recently been mentioned, so the "other" seems unjustified. Is it necessary to reintroduce Wilkinson so fully?
  • "and a delegation of local churches." perhaps insert "representing" in place of "of".
  • "negative attitude" To avoid any POV claims, possibly "stance".
  • " in London the government worried that King Edward might exceed his constitutional limits and agree to receive the marchers." I'd strike"and agree"
Appraisal
  • He sent Runciman off too appease Hitler, which didn't work out too well. Runciman stayed in the cabinet, though, until the outbreak of war, and became a Viscount, too. Many thanks for your comments; as usualn no reponse means I've taken up your suggestion in whole or in part. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

Very little from me:

  • UK unemployment between the wars
    • "first post-war slump …. normal prewar levels" – the OED hyphenates both.
    • "percentage of the insured workforce" – "insured" will puzzle many British readers and many more from other countries. Either explain or drop, I'd say.
  • Proposed steelworks
  • Proposed steelworks
    • "When, later in the summer, Runciman met with workers from Jarrow the deputation met" – not keen on the "met with" – one meets with disaster or approval but not with people. And the second met could be "encountered" or some such to avoid the jingle.
  • Preparation
    • Bishops – here and in the next section you give name as well as office for Henson, but not for Gordon or Lunt. Not that consistency is necessarily a virtue in these particular cases, but I just mention it for your consideration. If you keep the present wording I think you should be consistent in whether you link to the office (as with Bp of Jarrow) or the man (as with Lunt). Later: I see Cliftonian is ahead of me on this point. Tim riley talk 08:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A cohort of blind veterans" – I'd be a bit wary of "cohort". From constant misuse it has acquired unsavoury overtones on the lines of "Mr X and his cohorts", rather than its honourable original import.
  • Ripon to Chesterfield
    • "King Edward" – worth a blue link?
  • London
    • The Rev. Canon Dick Sheppard – I don't capitalise the definite article in "the Hon" or "the Rev". And didn't you weigh in to turn "Rev" into "Revd" in the Laurence Olivier article a couple of months ago? Debrett is with me on both counts, now I look into the matter.
  • Appraisal and legacy
    • Labour leaders such as Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair – there's an "and" missing, and "such as" seems not quite right when there is only a field of eleven since JRM to choose from.
    • Paddy Scullion – having given us Wodehouse you now give us Tom Sharpe. Come, come, Boulton. Our credulity is not boundless.

That's all from me. I am astonished to find the page is 5,500 words long. It certainly didn't seem it: a really compulsive read, so much so that I chafed at breaking off to jot down the few minor points above. You'll ping me pre-FAC, of course. – Tim riley talk 08:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are kind words indeed, and I am grateful, too, for your suggestions. No comment means action taken in accordance with your wishes. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jarrow_March/archive1&oldid=1138562352"