The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:55, 8 December 2009 [1].

---

Rise of Neville Chamberlain[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Rise of Neville Chamberlain/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This is a large part of the GA Neville Chamberlain. At the peer review, while the article was generally liked, it was thought to be too long. I did not think that it could be shortened by editing without losing a lot of information, so it was split, and this is part I. While the FAC is going, I'll be working on summarizing the portion of the main article covering 1869-1937 (I could not call this "Early Life of Neville Chamberlain", the customary dodge, for obvious reasons). This article covers much of the career of a man who had a lot more to him than an umbrella and a forlorn piece of paper.Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbola image clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No dab links and all images have alt text. Ref dates are consistent ISO style. --an odd name 17:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why is this recoloured image being used in preference to the original ? In my opinion, the recolouring by a wikipedian does not serve any encyclopedic purpose, and is possibly ahistorical. Abecedare (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The trend of recoloring historical images does need review, for the reasons mentioned by Abecedare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've switched it for the black and white one. Odd how Joe Chamberlain's clothing could probably pass on the street, while either of his sons looks hopelessly old-fashioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does the last source in References say 2010? I assuming this is a typo (also note that the Harvard references need to be fixed). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a typo. I bought the book on September 15, too. That's what it says on the copyright page! It won't matter in a month and a half. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relying on the Copyright date is the most common way to assign a date to a text. If the publisher wants to lie, we still work off the lie on the bibliographic information page of the work. Other ways to date books exist, but shouldn't be of large concern to FAC reviewers of 2c unless the work lacks a copyright date, or date of publication on the bibliographic page. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why they do what they do is not clear to me. I should not that if I switched it to 2009 (publication date at least in the UK where I bought it), five years from now people will wonder why it doesn't bear the copyright date. Copyright date seems to be the best way to go. I'm open to ideas here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning to support:(See support statement at end) Chamberlain is a discredited figure in UK political history and it is rare to find a dispassionate account of his career, which was by no means all failure despite its inglorious end. This narrative looks distinctly promising, with a generally uninvolved perspective; however, there are numerous fairly minor prose issues that need attention. I'm not through yet, but here is my first list:-

• Lead
  • "long been seen" and "was seen" in same sentence - repetitious; suggest "long been regarded"
  • "chartered accountants" should have a link
  • Likewise "backbenches"
  • Likewise "National Government"
  • The chronology of Chamberlain's early ministerial career would be easier to follow if you said "briefly becoming Chancellor..." and "later spent five years as Minister of Health".
  • "guiding Britain through the Depression" sounds like a judgement. In some analyses, Chamberlain's financial policies during the Depression were divisive, with a particularly harsh impact on northern working-class areas. Rather than "guiding", I'd say something neutral like: "directing Britain's fiscal policy through the Depression years."
  • Last sentence: the parenthetical note needs to specify "who had replaced MacDonald as Prime Minister in 1935"

Response Did all these, though I modified the phrasing.

• Early life
  • "...who later became Lord Mayor of Birmingham and a Cabinet minister." As there is no connection between these offices, the phrasing would read better as "who became Lord Mayor of Birmingham and later a Cabinet minister."
  • Another rephrasing suggested: "Joseph Chamberlain's first marriage had produced two children, Beatrice and Austen." This avoids the ugly "had had".
    • Your choice to retain "had had". I still think it's ugly, though. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a sister"? Presumably "his" sister?
  • "whilst at Rugby". I don't know if the old ukase against "whilst" is still in force. Either way I think the phrase is redundant.
  • Does the source use the term "apprenticed" in relation to his accountancy training? In the UK the traditional term for on-the-job training in a profession, as distinct from a trade, was "articled".
    • Stay with your source, even though in this instance I think he's used the wrong word. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Done. On the last, Self, page 21 says "As a result, he was apprenticed in 1889 to a leading firm of Birmingham chartered accountants where he demonstrated rather greater application and within six months he was promoted to become a salaried employee." I am pretty sure Self is British, and he surely knows his stuff, he released this bio after editing and publishing Chamberlain's papers in multiple volumes. Maybe things are different in Birmingham? After this and your illustrious forebear, I've come to the conclusion it's a rather strange city.

• Business career
  • The section should have a broader title, since only the first two paragraphs cover Chamberlain's business career. Alternatively it could be split.
    • I'm not sure that "Businessman" is much broader, but I can't think of anything better. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close repetition of "venture"; second mention could be "enterprise", or "project", or "operation" etc
  • Is there a rule about converting acres (to hectares, km² etc)?
  • After the second paragraph the chronology of this section becomes a bit confusing. In succession we have a comment he made in 1931, reference to a journey in 1904-05, undated civic activities and hospital involvement, likewise undated involvement in establishing the University of B'ham (which must predate 1914 since Joseph died that year). Then we go to the Boer War and the 1900 election, and finally to some private life details. I think the section needs a bit of tidying, even if the splitting option is rejected.

It struck me that it would be more jumbled had I tried for strict chronological order (for face it, Chamberlain led a fairly humdrum life during that time) so it was best to have paragraphs that cover topics, not times. Business career, outdoor activities, civic activities, politics, personal life (I combined the last two into one paragraph to be more compact). Open to ideas, but I think this is a decent way to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not something I feel strongly about. It looks tidier as a single paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm working through my strikes, bear with me. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Birmingham politician
  • First para, final sentence, looks in need of a citation. Also, the final phrase "a name by which it is still formally known" is probably unnecessary.
  • "With the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, Chamberlain became deeply involved in the war effort." There is no evidence of this in the rest of the section. His hard work and his activities, important though they were, don't really chime with the phrase "war effort".
  • Also, the sentence about him prospering personally from the war seems oddly placed here. Should it be put as a note somewhere in the Business career section?
    • I'm going to strike that sentence. Self makes mention of the Chamberlains having financial problems in the early 1920s. MPs got paid almost nothing then, you had to be a minister to earn a decent amount of money.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "established ... established" in close proximity. Synonyms: inaugurated, instituted, set up, etc.
    • The sentence in question is "The concerts established Birmingham as a cultural centre, and in 1919, the Orchestra was formally established." The next setence begins: "Chamberlain established..." That's rather too much use of the one word, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All these are now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Director of National Service
  • The phrase "to various extents" is too vague to be useful. Suggest drop it, and rephrase "which would have resulted in mandatory service..."
  • Did Austen really say "...for together if they were together..."?
    • Yes he did, see here--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm. No wonder his career flopped if he went around saying things like that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • These issues are taken care of. I've just said "for mandatory service". Chamberlain tried several different ways; Lloyd George and the War Cabinet basically blew him off.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Candidate and backbencher
  • "Through the rest of his career, Neville Chamberlain laboured to further the ideals of his cousin, and wrote a biography of his cousin—the only book he ever wrote." The sentence seems laboured itself. Perhaps: "Through the rest of his career, Neville Chamberlain laboured to further the ideals of his cousin, and wrote his biography — the only book he ever wrote." (note spaces around ndash).
  • "...tried to recruit him to serve on another committee..." - ambiguous. I think you mean "an additional committee"
  • "...five of the six Unionist leaders, including Austen Chamberlain, resigned from their government and party offices." It won't be immediately clear to those without knowledge of British political history why Austen and other leading Unionists resigned their government and party offices. It should be made clear that they opposed their party's decision to go it alone, and wanted Lloyd George's coalition to remain in place. Hence their refusal to serve under Bonar Law. (They all crept back later, though).
    • Still not completely clear to the unaware, I fear. How about inserting thus: "five of the six Unionist leaders including Austen Chamberlain, who wished the coalition to continue, resigned..." etc Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will work on this today. Was going to work on the main article, but first things first. I tend to throw in a whilst or two when writing British English as a way of showing it is British English. Always happy to defer to a competent authority, though!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All these comments have been addressed, except as commented, although I may have used other phrasing than suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing comments (second half of article)

• Bonar Law government
  • The main thrust of this section is Chamberlain's early ministerial career. His short stint as Chancellor is covered in one sentence - there's much more about his activities in other posts. So I'd change the heading to "Bonar Law government; early ministerial appointments" or some such.
  • "Bonar Law appointed Chamberlain as Postmaster General, outside the Cabinet." For clarity, I suggest "Bonar Law initially appointed Chamberlain as Postmaster General, a ministerial post below Cabinet level." ("Initially" emphasises that this was merely NC's first appointment)
    • Suggestion not adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "King's Speech" should be explained rather than just linked, e.g. "the King's Speech opening the new parliamentary session"
    • Probably, "setting forth the Government's programme", with the link in place, is enough without the "in opening parliament" bit. On this same point, did Chamberlain "oppose" or "refuse" the request to broadcast the speech? Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • He opposed it, which is logical enough. That is a fairly momentous decision, and I doubt the Postmaster General would be left to make it. No doubt Downing Street made it in consultation with the Palace.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify "offered the position" = "offered the Health ministry"
  • "Housing Act" looks too broad a term to be the subject of a single Wikipedia article (there have been many such Acts in the UK), so I'd drop the redlink
    • It's actually a pipe from Housing Act 1923. Let's hold off on this one, User:Ironholds is doing a massive project of writing articles on individual UK acts, and I've asked him to look at the redlinks in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whilst" he sought ???
    • • Actually, when my mom and I went to the UK in 2004, we had the giggles each time we saw the word.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosley was no gentleman" No doubt true, but also rank POV. Suggest "Mosley, who was described by Baldwin as "a cad and a wrong 'un", refused to retract the allegation."
    • • That's how Macklin describes him ... but I'll rephrase. Darn. You're taking all the fun out of it. That must have been a really great campaign to witness ... Mosely vs Chamberlain. I'd pay money to see that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In about 1978 when I was a student, I was walking in St James's Park when I saw Mosley, sitting all alone on a park bench. He looked very old and defeated. No one paid the slightest attention, but it was definitely him. I did not pay my respects. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Minister of Health
  • It might be worth mentioning that ten shillings corresponds to about £20 in today's values. (per MeasuringWorth.com)
    • I've added the citation. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rambling sentence: "Chamberlain continued to work with Churchill, though the two had policy differences, and the Chancellor let Chamberlain read a manuscript volume of his heavily-autobiographical The World Crisis, confiding to Chamberlain that he would have wished for two more years to revise the manuscript." Try "Despite policy differences Chamberlain continued to work with Churchill, who showed him the manuscript of his heavily-autobiographical The World Crisis. Churchill confided that he would have wished for two more years to revise the manuscript; Chamberlain wrote to his sisters that he could have done the job in two hours—with a pair of scissors."[85]
  • "Labour MPs, however, gave as good as they got." Again, the personal voice intrudes. Suggest "Labour MPs retaliated; one referred..." etc
  • "His poor relations with the Labour Party would play a major part in his downfall as Prime Minister." Needs an "eventually" or "in due course" to maintain chrnological sense.
  • "...by seizing on provisions..." - what does this actually mean? Sounds like banditry as stated. Perhaps "commandeering"?
  • I suggest the following sentence is deleted - it tends to confuse an already fairly complex situation: "The Poor Law boards had responsibility for both the unemployed, and for the disabled and elderly; responsibility for the unemployed was given to its own set of commissions."
• Return to opposition
  • I am a bit bothered by paragraphs 2 and 3 of this section, which seem to be overdetailed in regard to the Empire Trade issue, which impacted against Baldwin rather than Chamberlain. I have prepared a condensed, single version of the incident, here, which you might consider. Note that I have used "campaign" rather than effort, and have extended Baldwin's remark on power without responsibility to the full quote he borrowed from Cousin Kipling.
    • I did my own shortening, see what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your revised shorter version is fine. Should Kipling be acknowledged, in a foonote perhaps? I would still prefer "campaign ... for" rather the "effort ... for", though. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not accepted idiom to say that a party "swept a number of seats. They "won" them , or "captured" them, but they didn't "sweep" them.

• Chancellor and Conservative heir apparent
  • Suggest link Liberal National
  • Suggest delete "his brother" before Duke of York. It reads confusingly, otherwise.
  • "At the end of the speech, Sir Austen Chamberlain walked down and shook his brother's hand." At the beginning of the speech they were side by side...so what happened?
    • • Sir Austen was behind him. That's clear in the article. He was a backbencher. Taylor indicates that one reason Austen was given no role in the National Government was that his faculties were starting to fail. His letter to his sister that I linked above seems pretty cogent to me. I'm still trying to verify a claim that Neville used his father's despatch box for the address, but I haven't been able to confirm it so it isn't in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right about "behind". I read it as "beside" - sorry Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the Prime Minister in decline..." Best to name him.
  • Final paragraph should have a brief introduction, rather than leading in with an unexplained "new king".
  • "...dying two months earlier" → "having died two months earlier."

• Legacy and reputation
  • Much of this section seems to refer to his whole career, rather than to the part that is the subject of this article. That makes confusing reading for someone unfamiliar with the details of Chamberlain's premiership and appeasement policy; since this article is about Neville's rise, the assessment section should be confined to that. Would it not be more pertinent to retitle this section "Appraisal" or some other neutral noun ("Legacy and reputation" are post-career terms), and to use the space for an evaluation of his tenures in the main offices (Chancellor and Health Minister) which he occupied up to 1937? The other stuff should be reserved for the second article.

That is my review. I don't think there is any serious issue among the points that I've raised – they are mainly matters of minor prose and presentation. My biggest concern at the moment is the last section, for the reasons explained. If pressed I could indicate some areas where I think the level of detail is excessive—I have made one suggestion in this respect. But on the whole, the big achievement has been to make Neville Chamberlain almost interesting. What next – the love life of Sir Alec Douglas-Home? Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over. I think some mention has to be made of the appeasement issue. I think that the "slum clearance" comment can be lost, I put that in in an effort to bend over backwards on NPOV. Note that the Legacy section in this article is entirely different than in the main article, and some of the comments (for example, both of Macmillan's) really cover both Chamberlain's tenure as Chancellor and his peacetime premiership. Macklin seems to be right, it is hard to filter out the "authentic Chamberlain". I disagree with one thing, though: no one is going to read this article who does not know that Chamberlain is known for appeasement and Munich. As for Home: Did Home have a love life? He must have, he had kids. I'm giving some thought to Attlee, though, though I haven't started accumulating references. Baldwin is starting to seem more interesting to me. How can a man be at the top rank of British politics for fifteen years and spend most of his time, apparently, dreaming about retirement?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Appraisal section is now excellent. Spoilsport note: "Iron Lady" is not a neutral term in relation to Margaret Thatcher. Initially intended as pejorative, it was adopted by her as a badge of honour. People who thus describe her are generally thought to be in admiration of her. If it was in quotes, or qualified as "the so-called Iron Lady", this would be more neutral. But (in my view) best avoided. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that it is difficult to separate appeasement from rearmament, and Chamberlain's record on rearmament is certainly fair game in this article. That's why I have the two quotes from Attlee and Greenwood in there, not to mention the sniping from Churchill. While those matters came to fruition during Chamberlain's premiership, they had their roots when he was Chancellor. Anyway, I don't have much time to work on the details right now but I'll get to them within a day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahead of schedule as usual. All done, except as noted. I cleaned up the legacy section, but you have some mention of appeasement for the reasons as stated.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I've addressed the remaining concerns in the part of the article you've double-checked on.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's taken me a while, but I've re-reviewed everything. Only a couple of points are still unstruck - could you look quickly at those (including the "established ... established ... established" phrasing) and briefly respond. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've caught your second pass comments and unresolved first pass issues now. I did some disestablishing, so I think you'll find that is OK. I didn't know Kipling was Baldwin's cousin. Well, live and learn.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: My long list of issues has been worked through patiently, and I think the article is better for it. I believe the sources are top quality and have been used effectively. I'd get the Kipling citation in, though. This highly informative article is an important contribution to 20th century British political history and has taught me lots I didn't know. Brianboulton (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The Kipling cite is footnote 101, more as an explanatory note. Thanks for the support!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I peer reviewed this in its previous form as part of a single article on Chamberlain. My reservations then were neither grave nor numerous, and have been dealt with. Some tiny points on the present article - all too minor to affect my support but possibly worth a look:
  • "Prime Minister" (23 times, by my count) or "prime minister" (5 times) - both are used in the article, with no evident distinction beween capitalised and lower case versions. I'd recommend lower case throughout, but either way, unless there is a reason for the distinction I advise consistency.
  • Unless I have missed them, there are no blue links to Labour or Liberal at their first mentions in the article.
  • Piping for the "Sir" for knights is inconsistent. As far as I can discover there doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia party line on this, but I think, to quote two examples from the present article, Sir John Anderson is easier on the reader's eye than Sir Thomas Beecham. The latter somehow rather breaks the flow of the line.
  • Bonar Law Government; early ministerial office
    • "second eleven" – blue link to junior varsity: I see why you've put this link in, but as the precise term applies to cricket or association football the junior varsity connection is tenuous. I wonder if an explanatory footnote might be preferable.
    • blue link to Chancellor of the Exchequer appears at its third mention in the section, rather than its first. Deliberate? Not an obvious reason for this.
    • "Baldwin decided that a general election was needed" – to refresh his mandate? to legitimise the tariff reform programme? A brief word about why Baldwin came to this view would be helpful
  • Return to opposition
    • "Colonial Secretary, where Joseph Chamberlain": strange choice of preposition. Either "Colonial Secretary, in which post…" or "the Colonial Office, where…" perhaps.
  • Chancellor and Conservative heir apparent
    • "Sir Austen Chamberlain wrote his brother": British usage requires "wrote to his brother"
    • "civil servant salaries" - reads oddly: civil servants' salaries or civil service salaries, possibly?
    • I see a "whilst" has remained unslain. I second Brianboulton's recommendation, above, to expunge this unnecessary and pompous word.

And that really is the lot from me this time. A most comprehensive and instructive article, fully worthy to grace the front page. - Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and I hope it will one day, though I am shooting to have the main Chamberlain article pass FAC next and be main page on 10 May, the 70th anniversary of the end of his premiership. But I'm sure this will make it one day. I made all the changes you've proposed. If you get a chance, could you look over the note for second eleven to ensure it is correct? I'm afraid I went to a New Jersey high school where we didn't use such terms.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - spot on, I'd say. - Tim riley (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another term we didn't use. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This well-researched article is very clearly written - I could easily follow Neville's rise. Just a few points below:

• His childhood and early adulthood were marked by uncertain career direction. - Whose childhood is marked by a certain career direction?

• Neville's mother, the former Florence Kenrick, also died in childbirth in 1875 - Sounds awkward

• As a Lord Mayor in wartime, Chamberlain had a huge burden of work - I think we can do better than "huge".

• While some historians relate Norman's death to a hatred of war on his cousin's part which led to appeasement, according to biographer Nick Smart the death did not cause Chamberlain to hate World War I, and any influence on his later positions is far from certain. - Awkward syntax

• With Baldwin on holiday in France, Chamberlain negotiated for the Conservatives, telling MacDonald that the Conservatives would only join a coalition if the full recommended cuts in unemployment compensation were made - A little bit hard to follow

• ir Austen did not live to see his brother's final climb to the top of the greasy pole, having died two months earlier. - Do we need "greasy pole"?

• Please add publication locations to the references.

Are you going to write the Fall of Neville Chamberlain? Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take care of the comments later in the day. I don't think it is necessary to write the Fall article, the main article (which I will nominate as soon as this clears the page) is fairly comprehensive on that, and we also have Norway debate. Basically, it was necessary to split the main article due to length.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Fall" thing was a joke - a reference to all those rise and fall narratives. I just need to stop making jokes. No one gets them. :( Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, please continue. My fault I missed it!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes, excepting the greasy pole. That's a fairly famous quote from Disraeli, see here. And given that Chamberlain was alluding to Disraeli with "peace for our time", it is very appropriate. I'd rather leave it in, unless it makes you really unhappy. Three supports, one of which is independent of the peer review, no opposes, technical and image checks done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we indicate "greasy pole" is a quote, then? Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've quotified and put in a note explaining it. I think that should be fine, I can always switch it to "his brother's ascension to the premiership" but I think putting little things like the greasy pole in there helps an article make the 1(a) criterion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looking forward to the "List of Neville Chamberlain Articles" article!  ;-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope, these two are it! I may milk the books for the last drop and write about Munich, but not soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.