Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tichborne case/archive1

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 Ian Rose 04:33, 5 May 2012 [1].

Tichborne case edit

Featured article candidates/Tichborne case/archive1

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tichborne Claimant has been widely assumed to be a scheming London butcher who wickedly sought a title and fortune by pretending to be Roger Tichborne, the missing heir to that family's lands and wealth. He was proclaimed a fraud and a liar by the English courts, after many years of legal tussling that captivated and divided mid-Victorian England; the case had, in the short term at least, some broader consequences for radical British politics. Was the law's verdict fair and reasonable? Probably... but there will always be the possibility that he was, after all, who he said he was and thus the tragic victim of this intriguing case. The story is genuinely gripping, and I'm surprised that its filmic treatment to date has been so negligible. Please read on and draw your own conclusions. Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Declaration of interest: I contributed one graphic used in this article, and took part in the peer review. I don't believe this disqualifies me from expressing full support here: the article seems to me to meet all FA criteria. I particularly admire the way it observes encyclopaedic scrupulousness while at the same time telling a gripping tale. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim for your excellent graphic, your reviewing, and your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport I was also involved in the peer review and all of my (minor) issues were addressed there. Fully meets the FA criteria and quite well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with images, particularly for finding the striking lead image, and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review I was asked to review the images as part of the preparation for FAC and peer review process. They are all free, mostly because they were published long ago. The lead image has grids added to each photograph, but as it a historical composite that shows both Roger Tichborne and the Claimant, and attempts to show their facial resemblance (depsite the intervening years and pounds), I think it is a particularly apt lead image. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took part in the peer review, and all of my concerns have been addressed. Excellent article. Meets the criteria. Finetooth (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in the article, and for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is getting crowded pretty fast. I've read about a third of the article, and it looks very well written thus far (and very entertaining, of course). I made a couple small copyedits, feel free to revert. My only question thus far is if there should be a comma after Guildford here: "notable supporters included Lord Rivers, a landowner and sportsman, and Guildford Onslow, the Liberal MP for Guildford who became...". For "Arthur Orton, a fellow-Englishman", the hyphen looks odd to me, but I presume this is just a convention I'm unfamiliar with. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another question, should 21st century be hyphenated here: "equivalent to several millions in 21st century terms." Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right on both of your hyphen-related queries. i.e. "fellow Englishman" (no hyphen necessary) and "21st-century" (hyphen necessary for the adjectival form). British English would not generall add the comma afte "Guildford" in the sentence you highlight. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks good to me.

Support Alright, I'm more than willing to support the article at this point, excellent example of our best work. The one nitpick I have left is one citation "McWilliam 2007, pp. 110–111", I think you just used two digits (110-11) on similar cites. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mark, and well spotted (the extra digit, now removed). Brianboulton (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, was involved in the peer review, my concerns were addressed, fine article about an odd episode in English history.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feature-quality articles require feature-quality reviews, and you have once again supplied this. Many thanks for your hard work and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review ... (special guest appearance from the past...)

Italicise Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - please. (shudders).
Okay, why "McWilliam 2007, p. XX" but "Woodruff, p. XX"? Consistency.
"Cambridge, U.K."? I thought ya'll like "UK"? And ... it's not consistent with the "Mineola, NY"...
Spotchecks of three ODNB sources show no issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the dark art of source reviewing, at which you were for so long nonpareil. In answer to the above:-

My source is the online version of the ODNB, not the book version. They are not the same. In these circumstance it seems to me that italicisation might be misleading. I'm not sure why the shudders - should I italicise?
There is another MacWilliam source, dated May 2010. There is only one Woodruff.
UK it is.

Thanks for the checks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We generally italicize works - which the ODNB is ... And I don't SEE a McWilliam 2010 in either the references or the footnotes... I even did a "find" with my browser to be double sure ... no such source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 16: "McWilliam, Rohan (May 2010) etc". On italicisation, the point is that ODNB online is not the same work as the printed ODNB. It is a separate work, even though much of the content is shared with the printed book. We have the same issue with Grove Music Online which is not the same work as the printed Grove (and has little shared content). Italicisation would suggest that the online and printed versions were one and the same, and could confuse anyone checking sources. Therefore I prefer not to italicise, but if there is an absolute policy that says I must, I will reluctantly do so. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... okay, see.. there is no McWilliam 2010 in the Bibliography to distinquish from the McWilliam 2007... thus it just looks very very odd to me. No, there is no policy requiring italicization of works but generally website names are italicized so you'd normally italicize all the works. But since you haven't italicized MeasuringWorth... you're good. (You could get around the problem with the McWilliam thing by going with my system of using "Author title of work p. X" instead of the silly "author p. X" system that MLA has pushed for years... no one remembers which year a work was published ... which forces everyone to look up the title anyway... but we won't get into the silliness that the MLA is...) You're good to go! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your diligence. I suppose we all develop our ways of doing these things and it's often hard to change methods. It is of course important to be consistent, which I think I have been. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – stunning article. Engaging prose of an exceptional quality, thoroughly and properly referenced and well illustrated. More than worthy of FA status in my book. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very generous comments for which I am most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have a few more nitpicks concerning the citation formatting, if you don't mind:

Author name formatting for cit 3: Is it consistent with that for the others?

No author's name is given in cit. 3 (1n 1968 Times' correspondents were anonymous). "Sir A. Doughty-Tichborne" is the article's title. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, probably the most embarrassing blunder I've made to date. Sorry for that! Auree ^★★ 02:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for doubled punctuation (in both citations and bibliography)

Fixed (they are a regrettable byproduct of citation templates) Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed; there's also a doubled bracket in cit 16, hehe Auree ^★★ 02:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Boston MA" vs "Mineola, NY"

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise good work! Auree ^★★ 21:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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