# Talk:Castlereagh–Canning duel

I am the main author of the original article in the German sister project and I had & still have several misgivings about this translation.
To start with: The article was translated without my prior knowledge or involvement. As a result of this, there are, unfortunately, several errors when it comes to content. For instance, in my German article I wrote:
Giles Hunt sieht in den Handlungen des Königs den Versuch, den ungemein talentierten, aber als Emporkömmling betrachteten Canning einerseits nicht zu verlieren, andererseits zumindest aber als Premierminister zu verhindern.
Translated into:
Giles Hunt interprets the King's actions as an attempt to prevent the ascension of Canning, a talented but inexperienced politician, to the position of Prime Minister.
This is wrong. King George III. never had any qualms to promote persons he personally trusted, regardless of talent or experience. Truth is, Canning was an outsider, the only one in the cabinet not to be a lord or the son of a lord. (Hunt, page 117). And, as the son of an actress (at the time at the very bottom of the social hierarchy) he was a victim of snobbery. And the touchy King George also regarded him to be unfit to hold the Treasury/prime ministerial job because of Canning`s earlier support for Catholic emancipation. I revised this, but there are other errors.
The translation was done in good faith, but it usually shows when the translator is not familiar with the topic he is writing about. Informing the main author beforehand to give him the chance to proofread would have been great. Michael G. Lind (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Michael G. Lind: I'm happy to see you have been able to point out shortcomings in the translation of your German article. I hope you will now be able to improve the English version.--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Ipigott: I already began with my work. I am determined to make this a featured article.Michael G. Lind (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Michael G. Lind: Despite your earlier misgivings, I would be happy to help you along if as a first step you go for Good Article status. That's the usual procedure on the EN Wikipedia. The GA reviewer is likely to come up with a series of questions and recommendations which will need careful attention.--Ipigott (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, this is very kind. Any award will do. Okay, so within the next days I will do exactly as you suggested and go through the Review. Michael G. Lind (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Castlereagh–Canning duel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Michael G. Lind (talk · contribs) 23:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 09:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. Tim riley talk 09:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


### Initial comments after first read-through
First, and most important, the article is written in a mishmash of AmE and BrE – mostly the former. It should all be in BrE: see MOS:TIES. At present we have behavior, favor, favorite, fulfill, honor, skepticism, theater, and any number of –ize endings. (This is not necessarily a comprehensive list – just the ones I spotted.) (Later: forgot to add dueling/duelling and variations thereof.)
It would be helpful to your readers to explain why Lord Castlereagh was not in the Lords but was in the Commons.


#### Individual points
Prime Minister Portland – WP:FALSETITLE – you wouldn't say "Good morning, Prime Minister Portland". .
King George III and other members of the cabinet:
ambiguous: George III was not a member of the cabinet.
You are inconsistent throughout the article on whether to capitalise "cabinet" or not. Likewise the job titles of cabinet ministers.
the ascension of Spencer Perceval as the new prime minister: unexpected and rather odd use of "ascension".
due to his humble origins – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
Aside from Pitt – the usual BrE is "apart from".
He also assumed control of the War Office – sounds like a coup. Do you mean Pitt appointed him as Secretary of State for War?
After Fox' death – needs a possessive apostrophe.
Grenvilles scheme .. Grenvilles offer – ditto.
The real figures of importance were a foursome of Pittites: – if this sentence is intended to refer to Castlereagh, Canning, Perceval  and Hawkesbury in the following paragraph you need to make that clear by reformatting.
inherited the title Earl of Liverpool in 1808 after the death of his father, with which he became famous) – he was famous with the death of his father?
Despite his own significant internal criticism – meaning unclear. Do you mean Canning was under criticism in Britain? And "significant" is a word to be used with care. This is from Gowers:  This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large  ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'.
Canning and Castlereagh also increasingly disagreed about the optimal strategic approach – is "optimal" here just a pretentious way of saying "best"?
military pressure on the ally Austria – whose ally?
Prime Minister Portland – another false title.
During Easter recess only a few days later – a definite article before "Easter" would be usual.
he met with Portland – in BrE one meets with disaster, triumph etc but when it's people one merely meets them.
prevent the ascension of the talented Canning – another ascension: getting needlessly Messianic, perhaps?
He did not trust Canning as he had earlier supported Catholic emancipation – who had? Canning or George?
Canning, who observed the country in a state of imminent peril – I think you may mean he regarded the country as in that state.
renewed his demands at Portland – curious choice of preposition: one would expect "to" here.
on the verge of a negative turn – fancy way of saying "on the verge of going badly".
Prime Minister Portland – false title again.
he argued against the next prime minister from the House of Lords – needs clarity. You mean he argued against having the next PM in the Lords.
Douglas Hurd also perceived Canning's actions – we could do with a word or so of introduction explaining why we should be interested in what Hurd says.
Within days, he ultimately demanded – the adverb doesn't work if, as I take it, you mean his demand was an ultimatum.
duels still occurred on a regular basis – you mean "regularly".
Fox supporter George Tierney – another false title.
The leading Whig, Charles Grey, saw Castlereagh – as I take this to be a restrictive rather than a non-restrictive phrase you don't want the commas, I think, otherwise Grey is the one and only leading Whig, which I don't think you mean.
King George III was amused to be informed by Canning – unclear why this amused the King.
With Canning and Castlereagh now on the backbenches – two points here. First, unless I've missed it (a possibility not to be ruled out) there is no previous mention that Canning and Castlereagh had left the government by this point, and secondly either here or preferably at earlier mention you might explain for non-British readers what the backbenches are.
came to an agreement with Castlereagh to serve as the new foreign secretary – this needs redrawing for clarity: they came to an agreement that C would serve as the new foreign secretary.
two distinguished Cambridge historians – we could do without the adjective: see MOS:PEACOCK.
and forbade Castlereagh to be privy to the discussions – he didn't forbid Castlereagh, but rather forbade everyone else to tell Castlereagh about the discussion.
as a partially irrational act – can one be partially irrational?
Castlereagh's career would have been over. Less driven by ambition than Canning, he had taken the loss of his office in stride. – You've told us this before.
Over to you. I can't promote the article to GA with the prose in such need of attention, but I look forward to seeing it in better shape. I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you time to address these points. Tim riley talk 12:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Any response to the above? I'll have to fail the nomination if there's nothing forthcoming in the next day or so. Tim riley talk 08:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the review. In the past few days I fixed most of the mistakes you mentioned. I've been slower than usual, unexpected death of a colleague put my Wikipedia-activities to a standstill (at least almost). 2 points to mention: The withdrawal of Canning & Castlereagh from the government was already mentioned in Chapter 4. Then the amused King George III, I will get my copy of John Bew's Castlereagh back tomorrow and put in greater detail tomorrow evening.--Michael G. Lind (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Fine, and sympathy for the loss of your colleague. I'll leave the review open for another few days. Tim riley talk 23:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! So, if I didn't miss out some AmE, then the mistakes mentioned above are rectified. Michael G. Lind (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
OK. I've picked up the AmE stragglers. I found your citation system surprising, and have never seen anything quite like it before. You have given yourself a lot of needless work by trotting out the full title of e.g. John Campbell: Pistols at Dawn: Two Hundred Years of Political Rivalry from Pitt and Fox to Blair and Brown. Vintage Books, London 2009 at each mention: just plain "Campbell" would do, since the full bibliographical details are given in the Bibliography section. But one could hardly object to this slightly circumlocutory method. The article now seems to me to meet all the GA criteria:


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation (somewhat idiosyncratic but wholly acceptable) of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Well done. I enjoyed the article and am pleased to be able to promote it. Tim riley talk 09:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)