Wikipedia:Peer review/Alec Douglas-Home/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alec Douglas-Home[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've substantially revised and added to this article, and would like to get it up to FA standard. Comments and suggestions will be gratefully received on any aspect of the article – length, balance, proportions, prose and indeed anything else. One particular point: I have tried to follow the Manual of Style on capitalisation of job and other titles, and where the MoS is silent or incomprehensible I have had recourse to the Guardian style book and the practice of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (though drawing the line at the latter's "earl of Home"). I find such resulting forms as "lord chancellor" rather jarring, and I'd welcome comments on this. Tim riley (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few comments on the Early years section (will be doing this section by section when I can fit them in)
    • "Charles, Lord Dunglass" and then "Charles Dunglass" - best to use only one and/or recast.
    • "his eldest son" - better to say who this was: "Lord Dunglass" or "Alec Dunglass" or "Alec, Lord Dunglass"?
    • Note 3: better to quote from Connolly's book (easily obtainable) rather than the Grauniad's obituary.
    • Was it really a 3rd class degree? I always thought it was a 4th. Needs a ref, I think.
    • Proceeded MA? This sounds like an Americanism. In any case, it's hardly worth mentioning because you convert your Oxford BA to an MA by paying them some money (£7 in my day).
    • "medium-paced outswingers" vs "right-arm fast-medium bowler": either pick one or amalgamate in some way.
    • --GuillaumeTell 17:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy this peer review! I'll deal with the above points forthwith. I haven't set any timetable for FAC, so there is absolutely no rush for your next set of comments (to which, however, I look forward very much, foreseeing a spirited tussle, without bloodshed, naturally). Tim riley (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt
  • Part I of mine as well.
Lede
  • I would start the third paragraph with Macmillan's illness and resignation.
  • I would move the mention of Home's pushing through successor elections to his other accomplishments as PM.
  • The mention of his stiffness on television should probably be moved close to the discussion of the 1964 election. There is something to say for moving the 1964 election to the fourth paragraph, but a case could be made either way.
  • "his Conservative successor" Suggest omit as unneeded. Home would be unlikely to serve in anything else than a Conservative cabinet and the successor is implied.
  • "retired from politics." Perhaps "active involvement in politics"? It's just the juxtaposition with the translation to the House of Lords ...
Early life
  • There seems to be a need for citation in the first paragraph.
Member of Parliament
  • "of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" Suggest omit, it seems implied in the fact that this is when we're talking about.
  • "The 11th earl, Dunglass's great-grandfather, was the only earlier member of the family to be a government minister, serving as under-secretary at the Foreign Office in Wellington's 1828–30 governmen" Perhaps "Uniquely in the family, the 11th earl ..." That avoids the awkwardness as you try to move around the fact of Alec's later service.
  • " Eton or Oxford. He had not joined the Oxford Union as budding Oxonian ... " Suggest "Oxonian" be deleted as not really needed, and the triple Ox ... is a bit much.
  • "as the Conservatives were then called in Scotland" when?
  • " "a property-owning democracy", based on industrial democracy " Can the second democracy be altered? I'm not really sure what is being driven at anyway.
    • Tricky. It's a technical phrase: I've added a link and switched the sentence around to separate the two "democracies" more. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dunglass was not persuaded by the alternative, socialist ideal of common ownership." The word alternative might be wrongly taken to be intended as a noun,
  • "the chancellor of the exchequer," Suggest caps C and E.
    • Ah, well, this is the problem I mentioned in my preamble at the top of this page. I think I am following the prescriptions of the Manual of Style, and where that is silent or incomprehensible I have followed the Guardian style guide and the ODNB, both of which sternly abjure capitals for "chancellor of the exchequer". It looks odd to me, but these are formidable supporting authorities for the MoS. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1936 Dunglass married Elizabeth Alington, whose father, Cyril Alington, had been his headmaster at Eton, and was from 1933 Dean of Durham; " I didn't know Home was Dean of Durham.
  • " There were three daughters and one son of the marriage: Caroline, Meriel, Diana and David, who inherited the earldom of Home on his father's death" I would separate the daughters, and then the son, who inherited the earldom upon his father's death. Lest anyone assume all four inherited it.
  • "through appeasement of Adolf Hitler." I would suggest "through the appeasement of Germany, led by its chancellor, Adolf Hitler."
  • I think Lord President of the Council has to be capped. It may be you have other ideas though.
    • As above – this is an attempt to comply with the MoS and to follow the usage of the best-known modern British style guide and the ODNB. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the quote box. That colour looks similar enough to the one some time ago I observed in one of your articles. You can change the colour in the quote box, look here for colours.
    • Interesting, thank you. I'll have a little experiment. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Postwar
  • "as he would soon inherit the earldom." I would throw a "likely" into there somewhere.
    • I think this is probably covered by "widely assumed"
  • "by-election was scheduled" I take it this means it was already given a date when Attlee called the election?
  • You might want to make it clear that Home was not then Foreign Secretary; the modern term is Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
    • He was foreign secretary under Macmillan and foreign and commonwealth secretary under Heath. I have tried to stick to the title prevailing at each period.
  • "When the invasion was abandoned under pressure from the US in November 1956, Home worked with the dissenting members of the Commonwealth to build the organisation into what Hurd calls "a modern multiracial Commonwealth"" In two months before Eden resigned? Suggest this might be better in the next section, where it would go well with the African nations getting independence.
    • It was during the crisis that I was getting at. After the crisis was over the dissenting members of the Commonwealth rallied round supportively to a perhaps surprising degree.
  • "forcefully expressed" I would put a hyphen.
  • Your minimal use of capitals surprises me. Surely at least "Cold War"?
    • Again, this is an attempt to follow the best current UK usage.
Part II to follow. Looks very good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I'm grateful for this, which I'll enjoy dealing with over the weekend (after a hiatus throughout Saturday, and possibly Sunday morning, when I am briefly emerging from retirement to do a tiny bit of paid work for HMG.) Tim riley (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I trust the paid work does not involve editing Wikipedia, or you may be hit with lighting bolts from Zeus! I will probably not complete this before the weekend; I am traveling and time not driving or sleeping is limited.
Certainly not! A spot of copy-editing of an official report on a subject I have never dealt with in Wikipedia. Absolutely no rush for further comments, though they will be welcome as always at your leisure. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


2nd tranche of comments by GuillaumeTell
Section 1.2 header: "Member of parliament" - um, Member of Parliament?
  • end of second para: "not persuaded by the alternative, socialist ideal" - either omit the comma or add another after socialist
  • 3rd para: is there some good reason why National Government is in quotes?
    • I dithered about this: I put the quotes in to flag up to any non-British readers that although all national governments are national governments the National Government was something quite other. I'm not bound to the quites with hoops of iron and will blitz them if you recommend it. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5th para: "parliamentary private secretary to the junior minister at the Ministry of Labour ... same position under the chancellor of the exchequer" - how about a) telling us who the junior minister at the M of L was and b) clarifying whether the "same position" was to another junior minister under Chamberlain (and, if so, who?) or as pps to Chamberlain himself.
    • Redrawn to make all clear. (He was indeed Chamberlain's PPS)
  • 6th para: "the Archbishop of York, William Temple and the Bishop of Durham, Hensley Henson." Sounds as if William Temple was a third party; suggest either "William Temple, Archbishop of York and ..." or "Archbishop of York (William Temple) and ..."
  • The Hirsel is a rather surprising redirect to Lake of the Hirsel. Suggest turning the redirect into a stub about the house and telling us more about it somewhere in the article.
    • I spoke too soon. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence about the house. I can't find anything of much use online, and I may have to do a spot of fossicking in the British Library. For the time being I'll leave the link as it is, I think. Tim riley (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent idea. I'll do just that before going on to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2: "the intention that a disclaimed peerage would lapse permanently .... if this provision had remained a condition of disclaiming his earldom...": an intention and a provision seem to me to be two different things.
More nit-picking with my fine-toothed comb when time permits. --GuillaumeTell 10:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: As I have come late to the Vass party, I won't do a prose nit-picking exercise since others seem to be doing that. I do have a few quibbles about this excellent biographical article on a somewhat enigmatic figure:-

  • Is it possible to do anything about the presentation of the first paragraph of the lead? All those bolded names - it looks a bit of a mess and not especially welcoming. That's a pity, because in general I think the lead is a model for what this section should be: clear, lucid and a comprehensive summary of the article.
    • I'm outvoted on this: another regular editor agrees with you on this point, and has firmly told me so. I'll see if I can make the lead work without the litany of titles. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One slight factual error in the lead: you refer to "...a sexual scandal involving a senior minister in 1962". The Profumo affair erupted in 1963, not 1962. And I am unsure whether Profumo should be described as a "senior minister"; he wasn't in the cabinet and was subordinate to the Minister of Defence.
    • Phew! Thank you for spotting those clangers. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Home's involvement in the D'Oliveira affair, as recorded by Peter Oborne in Basil D'Oliveira. Cricket and Conspiracy: The Untold Story (2004) is a little less innocent than suggested in the article. Oborne says that in his meeting with Vorster, Home was "no more robust with Vorster than Chamberlain had been with Hitler thirty years previously." He skirted around, but did not address the issue of D'Oliveira's acceptability directly. Furthermore, Home advised the MCC to drop its policy of seeking assurances from the South Africans about selections for the 1968–69 tour, and to let things be, opining that "the odds were 5 to 4 on D'Oliveira being allowed in, if selected". And D'Oliveirs might lose form and not be selected, in which case the issue would go away. As a result of this "do nothing" advice, the MCC was quite unprepared for what transpired when D'Oliveira was selected.
    • Very interesting indeed. You wouldn't get that impression from Thorpe's 1997 biography of Home. I can see I'll have to pop down to the British Library for a spot of reading before I go to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have Oborne's book, and will craft an appropriate couple of sentences if you wish. Oborne writes from a generally right-wing perspective (pol. ed. of Spectator, Mail on Sunday columnist etc), so I think his strictures carry some weight. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a very handsome offer which I gratefully accept. Absolutely no rush. Don't hesitate to cut or alter what I've said so far. Tim riley (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have now done so; please check it out. I have also added Oborne to the sources. However, I find myself a little worried about the second MCC-related controversy, concerning the replacement of Brian Close as captain of England. My recollection (I was about 14 at the time) is that Close lost the captaincy because of some blatant time-wasting tactics in a county match, whereby Yorkshire avoided defeat by taking half an hour to bowl five overs. This behaviour was widely condemned, not just by the MCC establishment. There were no doubt some MCC class warriors who were only too anxious for an excuse to replace the rough-hewn Close with the gentlemanly though generally unsuccessful (as a captain) Cowdrey, but the plain fact is that Close handed them their excuse on a plate. To imply that the only issue was social class is perhaps misleading.
            • I've reread the Thorpe biography on this matter and it confirms in every particular what you say above. I'll rewrite. Thank you very much for this. Tim riley (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the "Reputation" section could be beefed up a bit. What, specifically, have historians said about him? Has anyone gone beyond the assertion that he was a nice polite man? (Later: Some of the survey results reported in Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are quite telling. Not all of them are based on ill-informed opinion).
    • Exellent suggestion, which I'll follow up before taking the article further. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section heading "Douglas-Home's government, October 1963 – October 1964" should read "Douglas-Home's cabinet, October 1963 – October 1964". His "government" included a large number of second tier and junior ministerial posts not listed here.
  • I am somewhat at odds with the "Titles and descent" section, which taken together with the opening to he lead is surely going to perplex our American friends. It seems particularly overcomplicated to suggest that even the addition of a post-nominal represents a change of style and title. The five genuine names, and the reasons for them, are fully covered in the text and I see no benefit in spelling the whole things out again here.
    • This is an attempt to accommodate the susceptibilities of an earlier editor, who evidently adores Debrett and has added countless such lists to UK bio articles. I turned his/her bulleted list into prose, but I find the whole thing pointless and unencyclopaedic, and will gladly blitz it if there is a consensus to that effect.

That's all for the moment, though I may poke around a bit more while the review remains open. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3nd tranche of comments by GuillaumeTell
Chamberlain and war
Postwar and House of Lords
  • "in the Conservatives' defeat in the landslide Labour victory" - "in the" twice sounds rather odd.
  • "He remained with the bank until he took ministerial office five years later" might be rewritten and placed near "Home was appointed to the new post of minister of state at the Scottish Office" two paras later.
    • Redrawn.
  • "When Eden succeeded Churchill as prime minister in 1955 he promoted Home to the cabinet as secretary of state for Commonwealth affairs". No (if Wikipedia is to be believed) he wasn't, he was promoted to the cabinet as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, to which there should be a link.
    • Thank you very much for that! The sources are sound, but I misread them. Tim riley (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • final para: Butler "damaged his chance of succeeding Eden" etc seems to me to be jumping the gun as at this point Eden hadn't resigned. Suggest inserting some version of this near the start of the next section.
Macmillan's government
  • Lord Salisbury wasn't Home's immediate predecessor at Commonwealth Relations (that was Lord Swinton), though (briefly, in 1952) he was a predecessor.
    • True. I've blitzed mention of the CRO here. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section has "Commonwealth relations office" twice and "Commonwealth Relations Office" once - need to check the rest of the article. I prefer the latter (and, like Wehwalt, also prefer capitals), especially as WP article titles (e.g. Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations) use caps. En passant, I don't think that the Guardian style book's preference for lower-case is suitable for titles in encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper!
    • In truth, I'm pleased that both you and Wehwalt vote for capitals for job titles. I can live with "prime minister", but "lord privy seal" looks plain daft to me. I've given all job titles caps now. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord President of the Council: no mention of why this post of Home's was given to Hailsham in 1957 after only 6 months or so (especially as this post "was largely honorific") - or indeed why he got it back in 1959. BTW, is there some good reason why the lengthy infobox in the top right-hand corner places the "in office" sections headed Foreign Secretary and Lord President in reverse chronological order?
    • Hailsham was made chairman of the party, and was made Lord President to give him a post that entitled him to sit in the cabinet. I think this is a bit of a diversion from the narrative here, though. As for infoboxes, I loathe them with a Florentine fourteenth-century frenzy. I didn't put the blasted thing there and I assume that whoever perpetrated it is following a general format. I'd drop it altogether if I thought I could get away with it. As it is, I have blitzed a second infobox on a cricketing theme, which took the bottom of the infobox sprawl as far down the page as the Munich agreement. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign secretary
  • 4th para: "Soviet nuclear missiles were brought to Cuba, provocative the US." - either "provoking" or something like "which the US [or JFK?] regarded as a provocative move".
  • "Despite a public image of unflappable calm, Macmillan was by nature nervous and highly-strung." Ref needed, if you can find one (and my vision of SuperMac pre-night-of-long-knives has now disappeared completely).
    • Ref added
  • "The lord chancellor, the attorney general and the solicitor general" - I'd include their names.
    • Done. I bet you five bob you haven't heard of the Attorney. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Successor to Macmillan
--GuillaumeTell 10:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, concluding
Successor to Macmillan
  • Is there no article that can be a hatnote in this section about the leadership crisis?
    • No, as far as I can see, but I am thinking of writing one in due course. I've got tons of fascinating stuff that I couldn't squeeze into this article. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conservatively-inclined" Can another phrase be proffered here?
  • I seem to recall some Wilson quotations of his delight at the idea of facing the aristocratic Douglas-Home in the election. One might be worthy of inclusion if you can find it.
    • Nothing leaps to mind from my recent reading, but I'll have a rummage in the archives. It would be good, I agree. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition (1964)
  • "together with a life peerage" If the source says whether this was granted in Home's resignation honours, it might be worth noting.
    • No. Home offered Butler an earldom (most unusual for a cabinet minister who hadn't been PM) but Butler declined. The offer of Trinity and the life peerage came from Wilson some weeks later, with Douglas-Home's approval. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Douglas-Home either did not know, or chose to ignore, the fact that Heath had privately made a donation to PEST." Well, if it was private, why would he?
    • Point taken. That's what the source says, but I've removed "privately" as it isn't crucial. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I recall correctly, the balloting is organised by the 1922 Committee, the backbenchers. If that was Home's touch to assure impartiality in the process, it would be worth a mention, I think.
    • You do, and it is. Well worth mentioning. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unilaterally declared" I would pipe to Unilateral Declaration of Independence
  • "rebels" in view of the insurgency carried out Rhodesian, er, independence, I would clarify you are talking about the "government".
  • "The second controversy was not one of race ..." this sentence makes for difficult reading, consider rewriting and possibly splitting.
  • "after the 1964 general election had" omit, not really needed and so you'd avoid double use of "election".
  • "that he would lose, and " Perhaps recast along the lines "if he lost, Powell would ... " After all, Heath was safe if he won.
    • But I want to make the point that Home expected Heath to lose. I think I'll leave this as is.
FCO
  • "who handled the day-to-day negotiations" suggest tossing a "with European officials" or the like in here to remind the reader the purpose of the talks.
Legacy
  • " He was also the only prime minister to have played first class cricket." The list of first and last may expose you to claims of trivia. I suggest that this can be easily sacrificed to mollify them, as you've already said this.
    • Blitzed in toto.
  • Titles
Some sourcing needs I think.
    • Also blitzed, after encouragement from Brianboulton above. The article is much the better for the removal of such trivia. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I have no doubt Alec will soon join his old boss Neville in the FA pantheon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am most grateful to all three reviewers above for throroughness above and beyond the call of duty. The article is noticeably in better shape now than when I put it up for PR. I'll leave the review open for such further comments as anyone may feel moved to add. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4th tranche of comments (slowly getting nearer to the end) by GuillaumeTell
Prime Minister
  • Order (rather than order) of the Thistle looks better
  • Yes it does. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In particular Wilson demanded how "a scion of an effete establishment" - I'd have a comma after particular and "to know" after demanded
  • 3rd para: something a bit odd about wikilinking BBC television and then BBC three lines down. Perhaps also a mention of "That Was The Week That Was", to which I assume you refer?
    • If it had just been TW3 I'd agree, but TW3 ended in Dec 1963 succeeded by Not So Much a Programme in 1964, and I think two links here would be excessive. I think it was on the latter that Bernard Levin caused a hell of a row by calling Home "a cretin". I'll fix the links.
  • On the same subject, probably when Private Eye is mentioned, shouldn't there be some mention that Willie Rushton stood as a candidate in the Kinross by-election? I seem to remember that his slogan was "Up the Baillie three times daily".
    • Rushton's election posters bore the cruel Scarfe cartoon of Home looking horrifically skull-like. I have wondered if I can get away with fair use, but conclude that I probably can't. I'll ponder on mentioning Rushton; I'll see if he attracted much attention.
      • Later: Rushton gets hardly a mention in the six nationals to whose archives I have access. Perhaps the Private Eye crew were not as important as they thought they were. Tim riley (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--GuillaumeTell 10:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More good stuff, for which thank you. No rush for the next batch, though I'm looking forward to it just the same. Tim riley (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

final tranche of comments by GuillaumeTell
Opposition, 1964-70
  • 2nd para - wl backbench? Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely. Thanks for that. The term is first mentioned earlier in the article and I've added the link there. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhodesia: - shouldn't this be Southern Rhodesia, the title used by the UK Government, rather than Ian Smith's choice of UDI name?
    • I see you've waited till the end to slip the horseshoe into your boxing glove. I'll have to ponder on this. It has every appearance of being a question to which there is no right answer. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As with the Rushton reference above, I've looked to see what the press did at the time and twenty years later in the obituaries. hey, along with the Thorpe biography, take the "Rhodesia", not the "Southern Rhodesia" route. Tim riley (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gentlemen v Players: the article linked is almost entirely about the matches between the two; the amateurs link from there is OK, but the link to professional sports#cricket is duff. I can't help thinking that talking about professionals (Close, D.B.) and "amateurs" (Mr M. C. Cowdrey) (see here), zapping the G vs P link and providing a footnote would be the best way of explaining what this was all about to people who aren't up in cricket arcana.
    • Do you think we ought to encourage such depraved persons? You're probably right: I'll run up a footnote. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 1970–74
  • foreign and Commonwealth affairs > Foreign and Commonwealth affairs (?or Affairs)
  • "once again, a second cabinet minister, this time Anthony Barber..." but this time both were in the Commons
  • Macleod: prefer "who had died suddenly on 20 July" (no need for the location)
  • "Some commentators have maintained that Macleod's death and replacement by the less substantial figure of Barber were a fatal blow to the ..." a) which commentators? Ref 161 seems to say that they were all called Maitland; b) (reaching for Fowler) I think it should be "was", not "were" (or "were fatal blows").
    • It's pretty axiomatic that Barber was no Macleod, wouldn't you agree? However, point taken and I'll root out another citation or two. As for Fowler (my idol) he must have been having an off-moment. All right, fish and chips is a good meal, not are a good meal, but thunder and lightning are a bloody nuisance. More broadly, I wondered if in including this sentence I was straying too far off topic. What think you? Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hold on! Maitland is one ref backed up by two anonymous refs from The Economist. Ought I to reword the citation to make it clearer? Tim riley (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning what Barber (then Rippon)'s title was re the EEC negotiations?
    • Fair point. I think they were Chancellors of the Ducky, but I'll check and insert accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Barber was replaced at the FCO by Geoffrey Rippon ..." sentence is too long and unwieldy
  • final para: who was the "senior British judge"?
  • No comments on subsequent sections, but I'd knock off the Douglas-Home's cabinet, October 1963 – October 1964 section at the bottom, which looks rather odd, and provide the following link - probably up above in the Prime Minister section Conservative_Government_1957-1964#Douglas-Home.E2.80.99s_Cabinet. Incidentally, why did Boyle leave the Cabinet in April '64?
    • I'm not wild about it, but someone (not I) has worked long and hard on it, and I'm loth to zap it. I think I'd rather leave it in situ and see what happens at FAC. Not that I'm imminently thither bound: there are additions to be written arising from comments by you and Brianboulton, above. Boyle was bounced by Quintin and demoted to that betwixt-and-between level of "Minister of Cabinet Rank" without being in the cabinet, when Hogg was made S of S for Education and Science. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am enormously grateful for your detailed comments. I ought to feel guilty at the hours you have put in on them, but, as you may have observed, I am without shame. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing peer review

I think this is pretty much there or thereabouts now. I'll leave this review open for a day or so on the off-chance, before taking it to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Alec_Douglas-Home/archive1&oldid=1047888638"