key points to be included: coverage of the whole period including the & amp;quot;quiet times & amp;quot;, reasons for nature of changes and/or continuity, examination of the relative significance of the range of factors involed in change, assessment of the extent change, clear identification and discussion of indicators of change, judgements about change will show explicit analytical comparisons, use of historiography- nationalist/traditionalist vs. revisionist interpretations and the key historians which advocate these view points, confident and precise selection and use of material, structure and coherency in writing, kept to limit of 3000 words. Introduction: Discussion and analysis of title- measurement of success/advancement of the cause, both individually but also in context with other leaders. Idea that some areas were continuous across the whole period whereas others were specific to the individual leaders. Discuss the transient nature of the Irish Question and therefore the difficulty in establishing/measuring success. Indicate the possible reasons for advancement or its lack through issues like the role of the British government. Discuss the significance of the dates and place them into context- 1801 implies the start of a nationalist movement, 1921 suggests the demands have been met. Discussion on the title being open to interpretation and different historians pose different arguments- brief reasons why. Section 1: Traditional view that Irish were victims- nationalist view. Link to concept of mythology and romantic leaders. 1798, 1848 and 1916 rebellions with Wolfe Tone, Davis & amp;amp; Stephens, Mitchel, leadership of Easter Rising (Connolly & amp;amp; Pearse)- value of revolutionaries. Principled, rigid, radical approach but willingness to use violence (success?)- contrast with O''Connell political pressure for example. Radical nature also in De Valera, Griffith and Collins - combination of practical republicans and romantic aspirations 1921. Section 2: Link into constitutional styles- O''Connell & amp;amp; Parnell. Use of leaders actions before helping to advance their cause. Similarity comparison between backgrounds of Grattan, Butt & amp;amp; Parnell and discussion why Parnell may be more successful. Parnell link between militant and constitutional elements, Catholic and protestant elements. Relationship with parliament (particulary Gladstone), link with key issues like; land, and action without violence. Section 3: Link to Redmond- uniting figure in IPP, different style of leadership (a plus but ultimately a minus (support shift to Sinn Fein) ). Comparison with O''Connell - more successful, pragmatic agitation, logical, systemic approach like Parnell. Discussion on Catholic leader rather than nationalist leader in context of Irish grievences at the time, relationship with Parliament (particularly Peel) and opposition faced - link to Redmond. Interpretations of O''Connell''s success - nationalists acclaim his actions, revisionists criticize them e.g. further division of religions. Section 4(incorporated throughout): Nationalist vs. Revisionist interpretation of the leaders but also of role played by British government. -Foster, Hoppen, Lyons, Mitchell, Magnusson, Shaw, Bradshaw, O''Brien, Boyce. Conclusion: Discussion on the change and continuity- what seems to be strand(s) that run through the Irish Question and what are the themes which occur/recur through the whole period. Which methods worked and made the leaders successful, why were some less successful in advancing the cause.