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 SandyGeorgia 20:51, 19 March 2011 [1].

Eastbourne manslaughter[edit]

Eastbourne manslaughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the death of a 15-year-old "stolid and stupid" boy at the hands of a "distorted" and "lunatic" teacher who may or may not actually have been a nice guy. While you've probably never heard of the Eastbourne manslaughter, the case was important in the development of modern laws surrounding corporal punishment. I believe it to be one of the most complete accounts of the case available (in fact, the only book I've ever seen dedicated solely to the case is a copy of this article - a bargain at only 34 euros!). A quick note about what's missing: images. There are none, as I've found none that are truly relevant, although I'd be glad to consider suggestions. The article received a very helpful GA review (and subsequent copy-editing) from User:Malleus Fatuorum (thanks Malleus!). I feel that this article is at or near FA status, and look forward to your comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential images would be Eastbourne Grand Parade, Swinburne in 1860, Lewes Law Courts, and Millbank in 1862. DrKiernan (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! Added a couple. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. A fascinating tale, well-told. A few comments: - Dank (push to talk)

  • Don't know how they would rule on this particular point, but from my experience it seems like British English uses fewer commas. I don't particularly mind one way or the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the later case the student didn't die, but I've made the change anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed. Thanks for your comments! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all your help, Malleus. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a couple of quickies...

Comments

Overall, I found the article well-written, but am puzzled as to why the article was brought to FAC with two very obvious links missing (did you not find these articles while searching for images? that was how I found them), and one less obvious link missing, and also what looks to me like an unresolved talk page dispute. Possibly obtaining a peer review at a relevant WikiProject might have picked up on this earlier. I'm sure lots will be picked up here at FAC, but could you give a brief run-down of the history of the article writing process? Over what period of time was the article written, who have been the major editors, and what review processes has it been through before arriving here apart from the GA review? Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - my image-finding skills are obviously quite limited, and I didn't think to check for images of the judge or barrister. Brief history of the article: I created it in a sandbox in fall 2010, and moved it to mainspace in October, at which time it was nominated and approved for DYK. The talk page dispute you mention was raised shortly thereafter (at that point, the "Chancellor" spelling was the primary one used in the article), and I modified the name and relegated the alternate spelling to a footnote (it was later "promoted" to parenthetical mention). It was nominated and promoted at GAN in November, and further expanded in February and early March. Beyond Malleus' copy-edits, I've been pretty much the only major editor. To respond to your specific points: Locock now linked; Lefevre is linked because it's a notable case in English history but lacks a "case title" like this one has. Existing articles now linked, and I've added a couple of the images you suggested. Both spellings now redirect to this article, but I'm not sure exactly what you're saying with your point about Hopley - could you clarify? I'm aware of both of the "general thoughts" you raise; as to the "article thoughts", 1 and 4 have been addressed in the article, but my sources give no information on 2 or 3. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for pointing out that the Ballantine book is online was that I thought you could link to it, either from the reference (if the page numbers are the same as the copy you consulted), or in an external links section, or as a courtesy link if the page numbers are different. As far as Hopley goes, there is quite a bit of information in the ODNB entry (such as birth year) that isn't in this article. Since his name has been redirected to this article, there is nowhere else for that information to go. When I mentioned metadata, I was referring to things like Wikipedia:Persondata and birth and death year categories, though I don't know whether such things are applied to redirects (the categories could go there) or included here (the persondata could go in either place). This is one of the disadvantages of redirecting names to articles like this, though the advantages probably outweigh the disadvantages. Possibly a note saying that further information on Hopley is available in the ODNB entry? As regards the talk page dispute, as far as I can see, the IP editor was arguing that you are promulgating an error of transcription. My concern is that not enough eyes have been on the article (since it was created fairly recently) to ensure that that content dispute was adequately resolved, so that matter should be considered here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About the £180, I know I said what is it relative to now, but on reflection, that isn't that useful. What I was trying to get at (apart from it being a lot of money) is how much was it for Hopley? Was it a lot relative to his wealth/income at the time? Probably your sources are silent on this, but I thought it was worth asking. It did make me wonder, though, where the money for the £2000 bail came from! Carcharoth (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link added for Ballantine - the page numbering is similar, but not exactly the same. There's probably enough information about Hopley to turn that redirect into a real article, so persondata and categories could go there. As you suspected, my sources don't comment on the fee relative to Hopley's income, but given that I did the conversion using "average earnings" that probably gives a good estimate (I suspect that £121,000 would be a lot relative to the income of an average teacher today!). As to the talk page dispute: I appreciate the IP's argument, but it seems to me that since at least 3 sources use the alternate spelling it's worth mentioning. Do you have a different view? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to consider the dates of your sources and what sources they are basing their spelling on. The point about the spelling being the same for 150 years and only being spelt differently recently was a good one, I thought. Personally, I'd relegate mention of this from the text to a brief footnote. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any more thoughts on this? I read the article in The Times from 1960, and that uses the Cancellor spelling. I'm still concerned that only three people (you, me, that IP editor) seem to have picked up on this. Do any of the reviewers here have an opinion on how the matter of this spelling should be handled? The ODNB entry (published in 2006 and with no significant change in 2008) is silent on this, and would surely have picked up on the Chancellor spelling if they had consulted the Parker-Jenkins book (published 1999). Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. Above, at '03:48, 9 March 2011', you said "my sources give no information on 2 or 3". Are you sure about this? I had taken your word for this, but on my recent re-reading of the ODNB entry for Thomas Hopley (a source you use in the article), I noticed the following: "Reginald's elder brother, the Revd John Henry Cancellor (1834–1900)" (this indicates that Cancellor's brother was 25 or 26, which is exactly the sort of context I was looking for (how much older than his younger brother was he?) - I understand that you can't give his exact age, but the ODNB did the correct thing which was to give his birth and death years - why did you not do this? Similarly, the age of the father at the time (and at death) seems relevant - the ODNB says "John Henry Cancellor (1799–1860)", so he died at the age of 60 or 61 (you should also make clearer that the father and the brother have the same name, including the same middle name - that may confuse some who see references to 'John Henry Cancellor' and fail to realise that this can refer to the father as well as the brother); and about the mother (or step-mother), the article of 1960 in The Times (titled 'A Sussex Tragedy', again a source that you use) says "Hopley resorted to beating only after anxious consultation with the boy's father who consented in spite of his wife's 'great dread of severe corporal punishment'". Now, is that article referring there to Hopley's wife or John Cancellor's wife? If the latter, then this pertains directly to the question I asked above about whether the boy's mother was known and alive during all this. You say the father died of a broken heart, and mention the brother, but are silent on the mother. Why? Another of your sources says "Cancellor's family was deeply affected by the case, as they had been "disinclined" to see Cancellor beaten; his father died shortly after the inquest of a "broken heart"." That source says "disinclined", and the article in The Times quotes from somewhere saying 'great dread of severe corporal punishment', seemingly referring to Cancellor's wife. Could you recheck the sources (the one with the 'disinclined' quote is subscription-only and I can't access it)? I've unstruck points (2) and (3) above until this can be addressed or some reason given for leaving out this context. Carcharoth (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dates added for both John Henrys. As to the issue of the mother, I would not presume that the woman married to John sr. at the time of Reginald's death was necessarily Reginald's mother - none of my sources explicitly identify her as such, although I will keep looking to see if I can find anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those changes. I've restruck the original points. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, in 1860 there were several Chief Justices. If you read the article you linked to, you'll note that each court had its own Chief Justice until 1875, at which point the three were combined in the post of Lord Chief Justice. I've reworded the sentence in question slightly, and have changed the link for Ballantine. I'll see what I can do about a specialist review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is most of my concerns met. Will take another look in a few days and see how it looks then. If you look around, it should be possible to get hold of a picture of Sir Charles Locock (whether he was Sir or not in the timeframe of the article is probably also worth looking into - he was made baronet in 1857, so the answer is 'yes' it seems). Also, hopefully, when someone comes to work on the articles about the judge and the barrister, they will consider whether a mention of this case is worth it in those articles. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have missed the additional comment I made about Locock, who I think should be referred to as Sir Charles Locock. The ODNB entry says "On his retirement in 1857 he was created a baronet". The ODNB entry for Thomas Hopley refers to him as "Sir", and has the following to say about him: "Anxious to secure authoritative endorsement of the official verdict Hopley accepted an invitation to call on Sir Charles Locock, the queen's obstetrician and an acquaintance of the Cancellor family." this has translated, in the article to the bland "Hopley asked Charles Locock, a friend of the Cancellor family and an obstetrician to the queen, to examine the body and verify death by natural causes". There also seems a discrepancy here between "friend" and "acquaintance" and between "asked" and "accepted an invitation to call on". The article also fails to make the point (that the ODNB makes with the word "authoritative") that as an eminent doctor, Locock's opinion would carry a great deal of weight. Carcharoth (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC) PS. I've also unstruck two points above and returned to the issue of the spelling of the name.[reply]
  • I've added the Sir, switched in "acquaintance" and tried to reword to reflect Locock's importance. I'm not sure "asked" is a problem, so I'll leave that and the name issue open for other opinions/reviewers. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: No reliabilty issues. One nitpick: ISBN missing from ref 26. Another point, not strictly related to sources checking: are we seriously to believe that an income of £180 pa in 1859 equates to £121,000 today? That is the problem with Measuringworth; its scholarship looks impeccable and its theoretical basis sounds convincing, but it produces absurd results. This isn't the place for a discussion on the concept of present-day value, but I have long given up on Measuringworth. Because of the totally different economic circumstances that apply as between the present and the distant past, I am inclined to avoid altogether these raw present value comparisons. What would be acceptable, and much more useful, is something like: "...£180 a year (compared with a schoolmaster's salary at the time of £x)", but this may not be possible, in which case I would drop the £121,000. Brianboulton (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN added. I've commented out the measuringworth parenthetical for now, will see if I can find a source for average schoolmaster's salary. Thanks for the review. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the closest comparison I could find. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! Thanks. I will try to give the article a fuller reviewer soon - I lived in Eastbourne for a while (though considerably after 1859), yet was unaware of this case until now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked a bit, but I don't want to overstate the case in the lead either. See what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "The case became an important legal precedent in discussions of corporal punishment and reasonable limits on discipline in schools." Also perhaps should add geographical context ("in the U.K" or "in British law" or something; whatever seems most standard) either after "discussions" or after "schools" GlitchCraft (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments coming at this as a total non-expert (but BritEng reader)...

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the above issues have now been addressed. I disagree with your suggestion to add a comma after "hearing" and that "But..." is incorrect - both seem fine to me as they are. I'm also not sure how to handle the ref placement issue. My reasoning for having them as they are is that they cite only the material inside the parentheses, not the preceding material, and thus are better placed within the closing parenthesis to make that clear. The MoS does not seem to address this issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still some USEng in there "sensationalizing" etc, and there's no good reason not to have a comma after "hearing". And while I'm no expert, I was always convinced that formal writing avoided the use of "But..." to start a sentence. As for ref placement, I thought MOS said place them after punctuation where possible. One way of avoiding this kind of indecent ref placement is to use footnotes... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just found the relevant section of MoS, WP:REFPUNC - "where a reference applies only to material within a parenthetical phrase, the tag may be placed within the closing parenthesis if appropriate". On the "But" issue, Garner gives a very in-depth explanation with examples supporting its use. (Incidentally, "-ize" is accepted in British English - see WP:IZE. However, for consistency I've made that change). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I would not accept -ize but yes, we're learning from the fact that Brits went all posh and made ize into ise just to stop us being associated with the masses. ize is a bitter pill to swallow, and as yet, won't be proper BritEng (hopefully for some time to come), so -ise works lovely jubbly. As for starting sentences with "But...", what a waste of resources that we're even arguing over it?! A minor reword and it would go away. Anyway, you're determined to keep it, even with a single source to back it up, so I won't pursue that. As for the punctuation, sure, it may be absolute, "letter-of-the-law" correct, but it looks totally repulsive. A footnote in each case would be magnificent – you don't want to do that? Fine, when I get time, I'll do it myself! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"-ize" has been accepted British English usage for some time now, and is preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. The only real issue is one of consistency. The belief that sentences ought not to start with "But" is what Fowler has called a superstition, something taught mindlessly in schools, like the "'i' before 'e' except after 'c'" nonsense. And there should definitely not be a comma after "hearing" as you're demanding. (See how I started a sentence with a conjunction there? ;-) ) Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course I'll defer to Malleus, I'm a mere mortal and I have a lot to learn, I honestly appreciate that. I initially had an instinct to head for -ise as BritEng, but it was only tweaked as a result of inconsistency in the article. As for the "But ... nonsense", I yearn for the day that all my lacklustre education (to be sure) be eradicated and replaced with Malleus' (or Malleus's) superior knowledge. A debate with Malleus is of course one I expect to come out as second, so no point pursuing it. Godspeed!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel bad. For a long time I too thought that sentences ought not to begin with conjunctions, having had that drummed into me at school. It's been explained to me that primary school teachers propagated the rule to counter the tendency of kids to start every sentence with "but", or "and", but I don't know if that's true. And it was (I just can't help myself, it's so liberating) watching a fairly recent episode of QI that made me realise the old '"i' before 'e'" mantra is just plain wrong. A day we don't learn is a day wasted. Unfortunately though, when you reach a "certain age" the new stuff has an apparent tendency to crowd out the old stuff ... I'm talking about myself of course, not you TRM. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Used sparingly, starting a sentence with and (or especially but) can be very powerful. Even as stuffy a reference as my 30 year old Harbrace guide to grammar allows it (and gives examples of how to use it effectively). As long as we pull it off effectively, tricks like this make us look more professional, brilliant, etc.TCO (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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