Talk:Churchill caretaker ministry/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 12:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun reviewing this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks. Will try to help with all questions. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

A nicely done article as far as it goes, but needs to go a bit further

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Sources okay but can be broader, see below
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Some additional topics can be covered, see below
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutrality intent is fine but sources should be broader, see below
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Top image needs replacement, some others could be added, see below
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Regarding sources, this article leans heavily on the Jenkins biography. That's a well-received work and there is nothing wrong with using it, but as you know there have been a bunch of other treatments of Churchill and it would be good to incorporate some of what they have to say about this period. In particular the Gilbert volume that covers this ministry could be used as a source.

I've got my copy of Gilbert back now and there is some useful stuff in the "Iron Curtain" chapter which I'm adding to the article. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting additional perspectives is especially important for the description of Churchill at Potsdam. Do other authors agree with the conclusion that Churchill's performance there was weak? And would it have made any difference in the outcomes with Stalin if his performance had been better? Besides Churchill biographies, a good source to consult might be Michael Neiberg, Potsdam: The End of World War II and the Remaking of Europe (2015), which seems to have a more positive interpretation of Potsdam than the usual historical account.

I'm not too sure about giving extra coverage to Potsdam because the second half of it is outside the scope of this article. I found a Google extract of Neiberg's book but it was limited to some of the preparations only and doesn't (as usual!) give the page numbers. The book concurs with Jenkins in terms of Eden's assessment. According to Neiberg, Eden thought Churchill was "tired and unwell" through Potsdam and, along with advisors, greatly concerned by how Churchill was no longer interested in reading official documents. Neiberg claims that Eden and other ministers were losing faith in Churchill but keeping it quiet with the election campaign underway. I don't currently have the Gilbert "Life" to hand but it should be back shortly and I'll see what he had to say. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert doesn't record Eden's comment. He quotes Montgomery being worried about Churchill's health but otherwise his account reads as if Potsdam was business as usual for Winston conducted with customary vigour, especially his opposition to the Oder-Neisse Line. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though this ministry only last two months, there was a lot going on during that time, so it would be good to have some sort of historical assessment of the caretaker government. This 2001 article "Churchill and the Conservative Party" by Stuart Ball p 328 says, "The 'caretaker' government of 1945 is sometimes unfairly dismissed, but it was a sound and capable team." But it sounds like there are other views out there.

This should certainly go in. When I get the Gilbert book back, I'll see what he can add for one. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert has much to say about what the government intended to do if re-elected. Their main domestic concern was housing but that of course is a long-term policy. They promised to respect Beveridge by introducing national insurance and creating the NHS but, bearing in mind that this is the Tory party, regardless of Churchill's personal zeal in such matters, would it have happened as it did under Labour, or at all? No Great Shaker (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be good to cover what if any changes were made regarding social/domestic/quality-of-life issues during this time. Civilians were no longer under threat of attack, did the government take advantage of that to relax any restrictions? What about rationing and the like?

I need to look into this but I'm fairly sure there were no rationing changes. Hansard might help here but it is of course a primary source. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few rationing cuts in 1945, which I've noted: bacon and soap, for example. I had thought civilian petrol was restored in 1946 but it was 1945. I've found a list of all the Acts that received the Royal Assent at prorogation and decided to mention the family allowances as arguably the most significant. All of this legislation was first proposed during the previous administration, of course, but even so it was enacted in June 1945. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect that can be drawn out more is the change Churchill as prime minister had to undergo switching from a coalition government to a party-oriented one. This 2010 article "Winston Churchill's "Crazy Broadcast": Party, Nation, and the 1945 Gestapo Speech" by Richard Toye explores the disastrous 'Gestapo speech' and analyzes why someone who was so good at finding the right public words during the war could go so off-base here. Part of his conclusion is that Churchill didn't realize the level of political trouble he was in. He was also used to being Prime Minister on a non-partisan pedestal and had trouble dealing with that no longer being true.

I hadn't seen this article before. It's very good and should certainly be referenced. I like the quote by Amery which said it all, really. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those themes are also brought out by this 1980 article "The 1945 General Election Reconsidered" by Henry Pelling. And the Geoffrey Best book Churchill: A Study in Greatness talks about how Churchill didn't want to return to regular politics given that the war with Japan was still going on (chapter 21).

The Pelling article is a good one and can be used as a citation in a few places. I've no access to the Best book so I've added it to a further reading section along with Neiberg.

Regarding images for the article, I think the top image should be something that was taken during the caretaker ministry, not before. A good choice would be File:Winston Churchill during the General Election Campaign in 1945 HU55965.jpg from 27 June 1945, which is from the right time and also shows him more in a political pose than statesman pose, which is appropriate for the nature of the caretaker period. Another possibility is File:British Political Personalities 1936-1945 HU59722.jpg but I think the first one is better.

I agree. I've inserted the 27 June one because it is topical. As you say, it is much better than the other. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the section about plans to extend the coalition, a good one to include would be File:Winston Churchill waves to crowds in Whitehall in London as they celebrate VE Day, 8 May 1945. H41849.jpg, because it shows Bevin right next to Churchill and gets across the idea of the need for the coalition coming to a close.

Yes, I've included that one. It's already used in the main Churchill article. I've got a book which has an excellent photo of Churchill and Attlee together on the front cover but I'm afraid it's copyrighted. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this odd cartoon, File:Caretaker Churchill on the Job (16547321940).jpg, which explicitly refers to him as a caretaker, but I'm not sure what the point of it is (the explanation in the Commons description doesn't make sense to me). Finally, File:Voters arriving at a polling station in the Italian Hospital, Queen Square, Holborn, London to cast their vote in the General Election of 1945. D25102.jpg might be a good image to illustrate the general election section - it's got the feel of the time.

The one of the ladies at the polling station is very illustrative so that's a good find. The cartoon is a take on Churchill's bricklaying hobby – he enjoyed building garden walls at Chartwell and even joined the building trades union at one time. I think it's another good illustration so I've included it too. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some images from other articles of various ministers. In general there's no particular reason for the ones I've chosen except I think the two from the Ministry of Food are relevant and the two women should be included (so Florence Horsbrugh qualifies on both counts – three counts with her trip to San Francisco). No Great Shaker (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the article is very good as far as it goes, I just think it needs to cover a bit more in places. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WTR. That's an excellent review. Very thorough with some good suggestions for expansion and improvement. Can you leave it with me a few days and I'll see what I can do. Will come back to you soon. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, take your time, no rush. The standard GAN boilerplate text says seven days to respond to comments but I don't hold to that, especially under the current circumstances we are all dealing with. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, WTR. I think I've just about finished now. I've answered each of your points individually above. Would you like to take another look when time allows and see what you think? Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

@No Great Shaker: The article is definitely much better now, definitely more comprehensive, good work. A few further comments here and there on content:

It might be good to add to the lede the thing about the election being on 5 July but votes not counted until 26 July due to so many overseas service personnel. It's interesting, it was relevant then in terms of how Potsdam was handled, and it has some relevance to current times what with elections taking longer to count due to effects of the pandemic.

Agreed. Sentence expanded. No Great Shaker (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the caption of the V-E day photo should explicitly state that Anderson continued on in the caretaker ministry but Bevin did not. Saying so illustrates the effect of the end of the coalition.

Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the discussions about extending the coalition, it's important to add that at the time many people expected the war against Japan to continue well into 1946. Thus Labour proposing an election in October 1945, which to modern readers may look like they wanted an election after the war with Japan was over, was not that. And it should be made clear that once Labor wouldn't agree to extending the coalition to the end of the Japan war, the Conservatives wanted to hold it as soon as possible to capitalize on Churchill's wartime popularity (hence July) whereas Labour wanted to delay it a few months to let that popularity wear off (hence October). Pelling p 401 is a source for all this.

These are good points. I've revised the relevant paragraph. No Great Shaker (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Potsdam section should begin by describing how the status of Eastern Europe, and especially that of Poland, was of great concern to Churchill during the entire time after V-E day – it wasn't just at Potsdam that this came up. Adding material on this will also set up the he was much more interested in what was happening in Eastern Europe than in Great Britain remark that is made later in the article.

Sentence added. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a broader quote from the Gestapo speech should be provided in the article, to give a more complete idea of what Churchill actually said and how it showed a lack of political feel on his part. The start of the Toye article has this: "No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance."

I've put it into a quote paragraph. Much better. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of usage things:

What is the significance of the same day that King George VI visited the recently liberated Channel Islands,[21]? I'm not seeing the connection to the rest of the sentence. And that's a run-on sentence in any case, I would suggest breaking it up. For saying in a letter that he (Churchill) had – since this isn't part of the quote, you can simply say saying in a letter that Churchill had.

All done. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a few comments on citing practices:

The three cites to the Patricia Nicol book are missing page numbers.

I "borrowed" this from the UK rationing article as an extra source. It doesn't have page nos there either. I've moved it into the FR section as it isn't actually needed for citation purposes. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the Pelling journal article, which is cited in six different places, you can move it into the Bibliography and then short-form cite it to specific pages (i.e., the same way you do for the Toye journal article).

Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of the Toye page ranges use a hyphen when they should have an endash.

Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is inconsistent about whether books cited only once are included in the Bibliography and short-form cited (Butler & Buter, Roberts) or are not in the Bibliography but instead are full-cited in place in that one footnote (Mercer, Leonard, Fenby, couple of others). I've seen it done both ways in WP articles, but the second approach is more common.

I've full-cited Roberts (someone else had added that one). Butler & Butler are actually cited three times, though always for the same page range. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I understand about your having no access at present to certain books and thus putting them in Further reading. The good thing about WP is that articles are never finished, so you can always modify the article if you get access to those books down the road. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Wasted Time R, and thanks for the feedback. Sorry I've been unavailable for the last two days but have caught up now. Could you please take a look at the changes and see if they are okay? All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have listed the article as GA. Good job again. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Wasted Time R. You made a major contribution to the article yourself by doing such a thorough review and suggesting additional content and sources. I'll try to think of a couple of possible hooks for the DYK. Thanks again and well done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]