Wikipedia:Peer review/Margaret Bondfield/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Margaret Bondfield[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Miss Margaret Bondfield was a formidable woman who rose from impoverished beginnings to become one of the leading figures in the British Labour and womens' rights movements in the first half of the 20th century. First woman to chair the TUC (1923); first woman appointed to ministerial office (1924); first woman cabinet minister (1929); first woman privy counsellor (1929). Unfortunately, her performance in cabinet office as Minister of Labour (1929–31) alienated many of her natural supporters and she has been somwhat denigrated, if not ignored, by modern Labour historians (e.g. no biography since 1924 when her career was barely under way). Robert Skidelsky ungallantly drew attention to her "long black skirts and a voice that emitted a harsh cascade of sound". Well, here she is, make of her what you will. All comments most welcome; I shall be away for a week from Saturday (14th), so I won't be able to deal with them all immediately, but it would be good to have some idea of the reaction before I go. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a very thorough, well-researched and detailed article about someone who appears more deserving of record than she has been given. I will say that I am not an expert on this period (though I am fairly familiar with it), and I am new to reviewing, but I do have a few comments (which are by no means exhaustive):

  • I notice that you refer to her as Margaret in some cases; the Manual of Style prefers the use of surnames only (see WP:SURNAME).
  • I think first names are OK when dealing with the young childhood of the subject, but you and Tim are right – by the time her career begins she should be "Bondfield", and now is. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was not her vocation in life..." - this seems to imply that she was destined for other things - you might want to consider re-wording it.
  • In the third paragraph of the "Union official" subsection, you state that two thirds of the 750,000 shop-keepers were living-in; it doesn't seem clear to me whether this is taken from the Cox and Hobley work referenced later in the paragraph.
  • Everything in the sentence beginning "In 1907 the first steps..." is cited to Cox and Hobley, pp. 108–09. To make this clearer, I have divided the citation between p. 108 and p. 109. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Near-apostasy" has religious undertones... possibly a tad dramatic.
  • No, the word can be used equally to describe changes of political as well as religious principles: OED and OD of E confirm this. There is no more appropriate word, in my view. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Noswall59 (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this review and for your helpful suggestions, on which I have acted as above. I hope we shall hear more from you in future. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New to reviewing? Aha! Welcome, Noswall, and I hope this will be the first of many reviews you do. Tim riley talk 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley

As you'd like a few comments before you leg it to Sweden here is my first batch. I preface them by remarking that for all your concern about lack of good book sources you have built up a thorough and balanced article from the sources you found. It is a good read, and I rather took to Miss B. Be that as it may, for the moment:

  • Childhood and family
    • "school's Boys' department" – capital wanted?
    • Just following the source – but no, not necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "not her vocation in life" – I think "vocation" is fine, but I'd lose "in life" for crispness
  • Shopgirl
    • Agree with Noswall, above, that it's not clear why she's still being called by her Christian name in the first para. No family members competing here for use of the surname.
    • "As a shopworker…" – I found myself wanting to cheer as I read this para. Terrific stuff!
  • Union official
    • "In 1898 Bondfield accepted the job of assistant secretary" – Was she sounded out under the Old Pals Act, or did she apply more formally?
    • The job was created for her; the union raised a fund to pay her salary. I will add a footnote to this effect. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Women's Labour League
    • "through their mutual work" – you'll get some pedantic twerp at FA insisting that mutual requires a reciprocity not applicable here.
  • Women's Labour League
    • "of either gender" – I think I'd prefer sex
  • National prominence
    • "chair of the Standing Joint Committee" – this, and other uses, earlier and later, of the modern gender-neutral term "chair" worry me in the historical context of this article. I mean, she didn't go round calling herself "Chair of the Standing Joint Committee", did she? If her title was Chairwoman or Chairman I think you should use it, or alternatively dodge the question by turning the word into a verb and having her "chairing the SJC". I see, for instance, that The Times (27 Sept 1923, p. 12) called her "chairman of the General Council".
    • Yes, you're right; all contemporary sources, including MB herself, refer to her as "chairman" of this and that, not as "chair" or "chairwoman". I've adopted "chairman" a couple of times, and otherwise fudged the issue in various ways. I think it's OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the first women to assume the chair" – sounds like divine intervention: perhaps "to be elected to" or some such?
    • Got to be careful. She "assumed" the chair in accordance with that well-established trade union procedure known as "Buggins' turn". She was simply the longest-serving memmber of the council not to have served as chairman – no question of election. Hence my cautious choice of words. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's my lot for now. More anon. Bon voyage, if you go before I send my second batch. – Tim riley talk 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second and last lot from me
  • Late career
    • "suspecting her near-apostasy" – I'm not clear what this refers to. Does it mean her conduct in office or that they believed she had considered joining Macdonald in the National Government? If the latter, should it read "suspecting her of near-apostasy"?
    • Yes, it should, but... "apostasy" is a word that should be rationed to one use per article, and as I am using it in the Appraisal to describe MacDonald's actions, I have reworded this earlier use. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last years, retirement and death
    • "Aside from her autobiography" – I've always thought of "aside from" as an American idiom, with "apart from" the British equivalent

That's all I can find. I think you've done an admirable figure full justice, and I look forward to supporting at FAC. Tim riley talk 13:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Tim, for these comments, as always to the point. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from Rod This is an interesting read. I only became aware of the article because of the Somerset connection and have learned a lot from reading it. It may be useful to get further contemporary sources. A quick search (which may not be available without subscription) of the British Newspaper Archive finds hundreds of relevant articles which may be different to the Proquest ones identified. If you don't have access apply at Wikipedia:BNA.

Thanks. I have added my name to the BNA list, although I expect there will be a lengthy wait – however, this may well be a useful source for future articles. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few specifics:

  • Childhood and family
    • I think the quote "We could not think religion and not think of the needs of the poor" needs to be explained - it isn't clear how it fits with the sentence before or after.
    • I've got rid of the quote, which I think was part of an earlier draft and should have been edited out. The other material relating to her religious beliefs and Congregationalism has been transferred to the Appraisal section, where it more fittingly belongs. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 16:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very helpful. I have added the suggested links and corrected the spelling of Cicely. I have also brought the full name People's Suffrage Federation so that PSF makes sense. Thank you for your review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Most interesting figure about whom I at most ran by the name. First part of two

Lede
  • "Since her death in 1953, despite her years of service" I would have a sentence in which her death is mentioned, then start fresh with the things that have not happened to her since.
  • I'm not sure I understand the point, but I have slightly reworded.
Shopgirl
  • "She found some relief from these stresses " I'm not sure I like the way this is placed, as the immediately prior phrase deals with natural and unnatural vices, as they were then termed.
  • Again, I've made a slight rewording – am open to further suggestions if I am not meeting your objection.
Union official
  • "At the time the union's membership, at under 3,000, represented only a small fraction of shopworkers, and Bondfield gave priority to expanding this total." While it is not entirely ambiguous, there's a mathematical heedlessness about this. I imagine "this total" refers to the 3,000 (clearly she would have been gratified at increases in either figure) but clarification might be helpful in avoiding pedants like me
  • "with mixed outcomes in the face of apathy from shop staff, and outright opposition from shopowners." That doesn't sound like a mixed outcome, it sounds entirely negative. The help did not care and the owners did, very much so. Sounds fairly grim to me. Her thoughts on Gloucester don't really help much either.
  • The apathy and the opposition she faced from staff and employers were not the outcomes; that was the background to her activities. The outcomes were lack of success in Reading and Bristol, a good reception in Gloucester – I think that qualifies as a "mixed" outcome. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which made partial provision" Perhaps "some provision" or "some attempt"
  • With all these descriptions of legislation and so forth, it might be worth mentioning the various PMs and general elections that had an effect on the era. For those unfamiliar with the rise and fall of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and his merry men.
  • I fear such detail might complicate the issue unnecessarily, without adding anything essential. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "talked-out" this may confuse American readers.
  • It may well be worth expanding on the reasons she opposed a "same terms as men" bill. Was it provisions that excluded those who did not own or pay rent for land?
  • I have extended a wording a little, to clarify that the vote was available to men subject to a property qualification; the WSPU were fighting for votes for women on that basis, not for universal adult suffrage, which would include the propertyless working classes and which was Bondfield's objective. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hesitantly suggest a break in the final paragraph, perhaps preceding "In 1906" with minor textual adjustments.
  • I've looked at this, but I see the paragraph as a single entity; splitting it would not I think be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WLL
  • " lecturing on the suffrage" perhaps this could be spelled out more clearly.
  • "Her investigation on behalf of the Women's Industrial Council (WIC) into the working conditions of married women" you introduced this organisation in 1896.
  • "of work practices for married women" perhaps also greater clarity here.
Looking forward to the remainder.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Campaigns
  • "Labour Organizations," I'm struck by the use of US and Commonwealth spelling)
  • Yes, I think that the current BritEng preference for "organisation" is relatively recent – although the "z" version is still acceptable. I have used the spelling which the "organization" itself used to describe itself. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bondfield revealed that in one factory women were being paid two-and-a-half pence an hour to make hand grenades (roughly 1p per hour in post-decimal coinage)." Granted, but what were the soldiers being paid? The "King's Shilling"? Or for that matter, male workers? I don't think currencies travel very well over a century.
  • Well, the "King's Shilling" was in addition to food, clothing, accommodation etc, so the comparison with other wage rates is problematic. The main port I was trying to make here, not very well, was the low rates of pay (compared with men) that women received, even for the same work. I have revised the text, and added a footnote with some specific pay rate comparisons. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the composition of the next government" wordy, perhaps "who would form the next government"
  • Doesn't actually save on words, but I tried it – didn't think it read well. I've changed "composition" to "make-up". Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the resignation of" I'm vaguely unhappy with this, as he would not have technically resigned but gone through the usual dodge.
  • Yes, but details of the parliamentary mechanism whereby MPs resign is of no importance here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minister
  • Did she do anything to reverse the policies of the previous Minister for Labour? He's an easy target.
  • As explained, she piloted a bill which modified the previous government's restrictions on entitlement to unemployment benefit (though she didn't do this in a manner that greatly pleased the TUC). Beyond that, she was basically swamped by the financial crisis that overtook her government, and rather ended up pleasing nobody. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Late career
  • "re-embrace her and she was not re-elected" too much re-re.
Appraisal
  • "2011 a plaquein" obvious typo but I'm doing this offline.--~~``

Thank you for the review. I have done the minor fixes, supplied commentary where necessary on the other points. Most grateful for your suggestions, even when not fully adopted – it's always good to have food for further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SlimVirgin[edit]

Hi Brian, I'm enjoying reading this. A few comments:

  • Minor issue: Brighton is linked in the lead, but London isn't. I would link both or neither. Brighton is linked again in the "Childhood and family" section. In the "Last years, retirement and death" section, Lancashire is linked, but not Surrey.
  • World cities like London, New York, Paris etc are not normally linked in WP articles, but smaller towns like Brighton are. I tend to link the first mentions of such places in the main text, notwithstanding the lead link; this I think is accepted practice. I have added a link for Surrey. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: is Sanderstead in Surrey?
  • It certainly was in 1953, when MB died there. In 1964, in a vandalistic piece of municipal rejigging, it was absorbed into the entirely bogus "London Borough of Croydon" – but that post-dates our story. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This quote switches from she to I: She "had no vocation for wifehood or motherhood ... I had the dear love of friends". Also, according to Google Books it's "the dear love of comrades," in quotation marks (from Walt Whitman – interpreted as an allusion to same-sex relationships; see Stanley 1995, p. 223).
  • The word "she" does not form part of the quote. You are of course right about "comrades" – my carelessness, I'm afraid. I have added a footnote that gives the Whitman source of the quotation. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way the article expresses her dispute with the suffragists – she was an "adultist" – might suggest that we're on her side: the "agenda pursued by the militant suffragists" and "divided her from the militant leadership."
  • I have read my wording carefully, and I can't honestly see that it is biased. I have made a small adjustment in the main text, replacing "their feminist agenda" with "their more limited aims". Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: perhaps consider increasing the size? The cartoon in the "union official" section, for example, looks better at 300px.
  • Well, yes, images tend to be clearer when they are larger, but I understand thyat the practice of upsizing without specific cause (e.g.to enable a map or diagram to be read) is somewhat frowned on, so I am reluctant to act on this sugestion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation: Through these activities Bondfield experienced the lives of the poorest of families, writing: "Oh! the lonely lives of these women, hidden away at the back of a network of small, mean streets!". No need for the full stop.
  • We should say who is being quoted: In an outburst of local celebration her supporters, "nearly crazy with joy", paraded her around the town in a charabanc.
  • I wonder about this: "Cox and Hobley draw attention to Thatcher's early life as a shopkeeper's daughter, and contrast her account with Bondfield's experiences half a century earlier. Thatcher believed that the concept of service to the customer was absolute; she would have had no sympathy for Bondfield's campaigns to better shopworkers' conditions." Thatcher's father owned a shop, so she was in a very different position, and it's a stretch to imply that Thatcher would have supported the working conditions that Bondfield saw.
  • I have amended the text to clarify that it is Cox & Hobley's assertion that Thatcher would not have sympathised with Bondfield's activities on behalf of shop employees. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I'll continue reading and will try to post more. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should we use "shopgirl" in Wikipedia's voice? Most of the shopworkers were women, not girls; Bondfield worked as one until her mid-20s. I see the BBC places it in scare quotes (here) in an article about her based on the book. I have a similar concern about "a dreary, comfortless girls' dormitory": was it for girls, or was it a women's dorm?
  • I've replaced "girls' dormitory" with "women's dormitory". As to "shopgirls", the BBC named their 2014 documentary "Shopgirls", Cox and Hobley's book followed suit, and Lise Sanders's 2006 book is called Consuming Fantasies: Labor, Leisure and the London Shopgirl; so the word is evidently acceptable in some academic circles at least. However, it is not a usage that I particularly want to defend, so I have altered the three instances of it in this article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Shopgirl": "Margaret's later recollections of this period": change to Bondfield's.
SlimVirgin (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for these comments. Any more you have wll be equally welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Margaret_Bondfield/archive1&oldid=1138563732"