Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward Oxford/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 September 2023 [1].

Edward Oxford[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Victoria to Victoria via Bedlam and Broadmoor, Edward Oxford's life was an interesting one. The first failed assassin of Queen Victoria before incarceration and then relocation to Melbourne for a new life with a new name. He died a respected member of the church and a published author with a wife and family—without anyone in Oz knowing of his old life and crime. A hugely useful PR saw excellent critical commentary from UndercoverClassicist, Tim riley and JennyOz which has helped immeasurably, but any further comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from Tim O'Doherty[edit]

Bagging a spot now. I would have participated in the PR, but time got away from me. Not making the same mistake twice. Review soon(ish). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First comments:

  • the private secretary to the Prime Minister - is the link to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom needed? Seems like a bit of an overlink to me.
  • Prime Minister - Per MOS:JOBTITLES, shouldn't "prime minister" be lowercase? I do see a lot of similar cases too, like "Earl of Uxbridge" and "Lord Chamberlain", so they'd need to be consistent. Either way is fine to me; the MoS is a bit strange sometimes.
    I too am often confused by the unclear and seemingly contradictory nature of the MOS on this point. I take the use here to be "a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" because we're referring specifically to Peel. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At around 6:00 pm Queen Victoria - maybe just "6 pm"?
    MOS:TIME seems to suggest the minutes should be included. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • four months pregnant with her first child, Victoria, the Princess Royal - two commas disrupt the flow a bit: how about "four months pregnant with her first child"?
    I think if we just refer to "her first child", someone will complain about not having the name, but if someone else comments on the name and commas, I'll happily swap it over. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victoria recorded in her diary - as there are two Victorias mentioned in the preceding sentence, you could do "The Queen recorded in her diary" or something similar.
    Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trial took place on 9, 10 and 11 July 1840 at the Old Bailey, central London - Maybe "The trial took place from 9 to 11 July 1840 at the Old Bailey in central London"?
    Yes, done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that some quotations begin with capital letters in the middle of sentences, like: "They concluded "We find the prisoner, Edward Oxford, guilty of discharging the contents of two pistols, but whether or not they were loaded with ball has not been satisfactorily proved to us, he being of unsound state of mind at the time."". This looks a bit strange to me; I know that if the full sentence is quoted, then the start will have a capital; however, I think lowercase quotations throughout might not look quite so out of place.
    That quote is a full sentence, so the MOS says we should keep the capital. I've been through the rest and I think we're in line with the MOS strictures, but please let me know if I've missed any! - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon after his arrival at Broadmoor ... - what's happening with the spacing just above that paragraph?
    Fixed - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur O'Connor worth a redlink?
    Yeah, why not. There doesn't seem to be as much on him as on Oxford, but there is certainly enough for something for him. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I've got for now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised: forgot to ping SchroCat. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim, that's very good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Further comments tomorrow, just so you know that I've not forgotten to "vote" for either support or oppose. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Not today, alas. My apologies. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely busy in real life, I'm afraid. I've read the article and the PR fully, I take it in good faith that the refs match the content, and I don't take issue with the images. Support as an FA. (By the way, I believe that I've only ever participated in FACs or FARs on people called Edward: III, Dando and Oxford. Weird.) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    Ah, didn't realise it's finally been deprecated for IBs: now swapped out. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Edward_Oxford_c_1856.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Edward_Oxford's_assassination_attempt_on_Queen_Victoria,_G.H.Miles,_watercolor,_1840.jpg, File:Edward_Oxford_in_the_dock_for_regicide.jpg, File:John_Freeman-Edward_Oxford_(1889).png
  • File:Edward_Oxford_tries_to_shoot_Queen_Victoria_in_1840_by_JR_Jobbins.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the 'when first published' question:
Cheers, as always - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That National Archives chart refers to UK status; my question is more on the US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok: it is free, if I have read this right: anonymous work becomes free at 120 years post-creation. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only place I see 120 years in that flowchart is for material not created before 1978; am I missing another one? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would have helped if I had read it properly and followed the right lines. Expiry of 31 December 2002, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

All but one of my comments were satisfactorily addressed at the peer review, but I'd still like an answer to my question about the line in the Incarceration: 1840–1867 section: "Grey ignored the request"– did Grey literally ignore the request, or did he consider and reject it? Over to you, but it isn't enough to stop me adding my support in any case. A balanced, well sourced and highly readable article, nicely illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reviews, Tim. I checked previously about Grey ignoring the case, but then forgot to update the PR with my findings. The source actually uses the word “ignored” on this.
Fair enough. Tim riley talk 11:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

No spotcheck needed, looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source to the site Queen Victoria's Journal Entry need "registration" in the access parameter
    Does it? I don’t think registration is needed to access it, does it? - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated, but why does fn b have wls to the currencies but none of the others do?
    Because LSD is something alien to most people, even in Britain. I was alive when we still had the Carolingian system, but never used it or had to deal with it, and many people younger than me won’t even have heard of it, or know how it worked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of locations of publication is inconsistent. Andrews 1997 says just the city, while Eigen 2003 names the city and state, while Charles 2014 names the city and county, while Garvey 2020 has no location at all.
    Should now be consistent, as far as is possible. Some cities in the UK don't have counties, so that’s the best that can be done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queen Victoria 1963 needs the editor- and, since there's no ISBN, add an OCLC
    Yep, both added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wallis 1892: I think the publisher and location are backwards
    Fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Webb 2012 is listed as dead, but the orig link works fine for me
    I’m not seeing where is says it’s listed as dead. The |dead-link=| parameter isn’t there. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some links could be added to the journal section for better verifiability; there's likely a JSTOR article for the ones with no DOI
    There were two with no link: I’ve added a JSTOR link to one, but the other doesn’t have anything I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Bethlem Museum of the Mind sites are also not dead for me. Same for Berkshire Record Office 2009 and The British Museum
    Same as the Webb comment above. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the sources under "Websites" are news articles with no URLs- don't these go under "News"?
    Yep, should have been there all along. Now moved. - 08:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat, all done, great work! Universal sfn use is painstaking but very visually pleasing. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks MyCatIsAChonk? All sorted as far as I can, with a couple of questions above. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat:
For QV's journals, it displays a login page for me, and I've never visited the site before, so I'll assume it's the same for other first-time viewers.
Ah: I see the problem: it's registration for non-UK and some non-Commonwealth users, which is why I've never had to register for the site and there is no facility for me to register or login. Fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Webb 2012 and others: this citation is still displaying as dead for me. It probably has something to do with the url-status= parameter; if "live" is not in the parameter, then it will continue to put the archive link where the orig link should be.
Ah, I see - I was confused by you saying the link was showing as dead when it's not. I'm not sure that's really an issue (both links will still remain in the same position), but I've now added this. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks MyCatIsAChonk. All sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - also, if you get time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review - it's much appreciated. I'll try and make time to to visit your FAC (RL is hectic, but I'll do my best!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC[edit]

Putting myself down here, ping to remind me if I forget :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor quibble that you use "seedier" and "seedy" in successive sentences in the lead; may want to sub one to prevent repetitiveness
  • "in Hounslow, then in Middlesex" - I realise that what's happened here is that Hounslow is now under another administrative division, but "then in" makes it sound like the city itself moved. No big deal but maybe "then part of" might be better
  • "annoyed at the attention being on someone else" incredible
  • "Numerous others" - I'm not sure about this phrasing. It makes it sound like there were previous people described as visiting the station just to see him, but these are the first ones mentioned.
  • No gripes through the trial
  • "doctors considered him to be sane" - does anybody say why?
    Just that he didn't exhibit any behaviour they considered 'mad' - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderfully subjective, isn't it, madness? I'm reminded of the Rosenhan experiment, only in reverse. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The letters Oxford sent to Haydon were kept." passive voice. Could we activate and clarify that it was him and his family who kept them?
  • Really enjoying the way everyone is riffing on the "Lights and Shadows" title
  • As a minor quibble, the image under Legacy is shoving the "Later attempts" section header to the side, can we put it on the right side so it doesn't do that?
    The Leach cartoon? The figure is looking into the article (like the photo further up), so the MOS says it should be on the left. I've dropped it down a paragraph: does that sort the problem? - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm, that section says it's often preferable, but doesn't mandate it. Fine enough where it is though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure some of the last paragraph and block quote of the "Later assassination attempts" section is really necessary in this article. I understand up to the establishment of the M'Naghten rules, because his case weighed on those, and the comment about Maclean's verdict, but the rest seems more pertinent for an article about assassination attempts on the Queen than about Oxford. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
    Possibly a little too much, but Oxford ties them all together - certainly in Victoria's mind, as she was always a bit miffed that the light treatment Oxford received meant that it was open season for people to claim insanity if they failed to knock her off. She was still complaining about it forty years later when Maclean had his attempt. I'm minded to leave it in for the moment, but if others find it odd, I'll trim it down a bit. Does that sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see where you're coming from, that's fine by me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the book's characters is Sim Tappertit, described as a "vainglorious apprentice" by Murphy and a "sinister and darkly-comical figure" by Hurst, who was modelled on Oxford." - I might move the last clause to be second, so we know he was modelled on Oxford before we start describing him

That's all I have! Nitpicks mostly. Another interesting figure from English history, well-written and -researched as always. Cheers, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC, as always. All done, except where I've commented otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I'm happy to support; my comment about the legacy content isn't such an obstacle to me that it overcomes the excellence of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks PMC! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

I'm going to lay claim to this spot. ~ HAL333 05:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and fired an arrow at another boy, injuring him in the process" -- Isn't "in the process" somewhat redundant?
  • "drew up a document of eleven rules, signed by the fictitious A. W. Smith; the first of these was You do not talk about Young England". Sorry I couldn't resist.
  • We have a sea of blue with "pathologist Thomas Hodgkin"
    • I think both links are needed, but there’s no real way to separate the, without some semantic gymnastics. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and those incarcerated there had committed crimes while judged to be insane Is a comma needed before "and" to link the two independent clauses? As always, if this is a Br/AmEng issue, disregard.
  • Maybe link opium dens

That's all I got. Very well-written. ~ HAL333 19:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HAL, that’s very good of you. I’ve demurred on one, it followed through on the rest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 17:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist[edit]

Will review here once others have had their say; as above, please do ping me if I'm "up" and taking too long. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: the M'Naghten rule, the legal aphorism is "bad but not mad", I believe. Shove that in somewhere. Cheers! SN54129 14:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UndercoverClassicist, I think the others are all clear now. No rush - I’m happy to wait until you’ve de-trussed yourself! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful what you wish for, SchroCat. There may be over 30,000 bytes of comments coming your way ;) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - I like UC’s reviews. They’re one of about five reviewers who really know their stuff. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am I a member of this inner circle? By the way, will review Gordon-Cumming soon; sorry you've had to wait a week. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! No problems on the delay - I know you've had your hands full of Liz Truss (a horrible thought, I'm sure). - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
  • In my eternal quest to find the smallest nit to pick... the alt text for the image isn't all that helpful to people who can't actually see it, given that the main point of the image is to tell us what Oxford looked like. Suggest including a brief physical description.
  • he was detained at Her Majesty's pleasure at the two State Criminal Lunatic Asylums: Bethlem Royal Hospital and Broadmoor Hospital. : consider a brief explanation of "at HM pleasure" (detained indefinitely "at Her Majesty's pleasure")? Also suggest putting the two more explicitly in sequence, as he wasn't detained at both simultaneously: perhaps first at Bethlehem... and then, after 1864, in Broadmoor. As there's a long gap, it might be good to say so, but appreciate the demands of brevity in the lead.
  • He worked as a decorator, became a respected figure at his local church and married: cadence is better if "married" is moved to the beginning, but appreciate that this might be a chronological list.
  • The Oxford and the later M'Naghten cases: not quite sure about the grammar here with cases agreeing with both Oxford and M'Naghten but only one of those being later. Perhaps "Oxford's trial, and the later M'Naghten case..}}?
  • Why link Birmingham in lead and infobox but not in the body?
  • His parents were George Oxford and Hannah (née Marklew): it's fairly obvious, but I'd be explicit about his wife Hannah (theoretically, she could have been Hannah Smith, née Marklew).
  • The couple met in the Hope and Anchor tavern,: consider Birmingham's Hope and Anchor tavern: it would not be surprising for someone to be born elsewhere than where their parents met.
  • His parents' relationship was abusive: I think we mean George and Hannah's relationship here, but it reads as if we mean George's parents.
  • fits of unprovoked, maniacal laughter: could restructure this sentence a bit so that the reader is clear that the quote, as well as the judgement, is Murphy's (I'm assuming it is?)
  • I see the inflation figure for Oxford's fine: is there any way to contextualise this via cost of living (that is, how far did 150 2023 pounds actually go?) I imagine we can find some sense of what that much money would represent in terms of daily/weekly wages for a low-paid worker like Oxford? Indeed, from the following sentence, this sounds like about two and a half weeks' wages.
  • he lasted only a few months at the Hat and Flowers in St Luke's; and four months at the Hog in the Pound in Oxford Street: we need a verb after the semicolon.
  • Oxford took a series of other bar jobs: I worry that bar may be anachronistic (or possibly American): particularly in the Victorian period, a public house was more than what we'd think of as a bar. Separately, we move around London a lot in the next few sentences, so I'd suggest a series of jobs in other London pubs to ensure that readers understand the link between Marylebone, St Luke's and Oxford Street.
  • Link shooting gallery to shooting range? Potentially an obscure term, especially to non-native speakers?
  • About a week after he moved in, he hit his mother for no reason: "for no reason" doesn't sound great to me. Presumably, there was a reason for it, even if that reason only existed in Oxford's head or would be considered absurd by most of us. Suggest "apparently for no reason" - or did he actually say that he had no reason for it? If the latter, I'd state as much: it would be interesting if Oxford acknowledged/asserted his own irrationality in light of what follows.
    • Done. A footnote added with Hannah's testimony of the occasion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over the next month Oxford also spent his time: also isn't right here; we haven't said anything else he spent his time doing. Perhaps simply "Over the next month, Oxford invented..." - we can take as read that he also did other things?
  • Wikilink brace to brace#Noun at Wiktionary, or consider the more international "pair"?
    • It's a quote, so went with the dictionary. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He drew up a list of principal members: none of these members existed, right? I found myself having to look back up the page to make sure.
  • Oxford walked to Constitution Hill, near Buckingham Palace, and waited for two hours.: did Oxford have any reason to believe that the Queen would be coming past here?
  • It seems a little odd to explain "drosky" but assume that readers know "postillions".
  • When that missed: that doesn't really have an antecedent: When his shot missed? Stylistically, a slightly buried lead: you might consider "His shot missed: he said...".
  • Is drew out the same as drew? If so, there's a maxim about this....
  • Suggest replacing the & with and in the diary entry per MOS:CONFORM, and adding a comma after equally loud for the same reason. The quotation conforms so closely in all other respects that these don't really read as period features, if indeed they were.
  • What's the logic as to when the first letter of a quotation is capitalised?
    • Whereabouts are you looking at with this? - SchroCat (talk)
      • It was Onlookers apprehended Oxford—some shouting "Kill him!"—and disarmed him that caught my eye, vs for example he charged Oxford with "maliciously and unlawfully discharging two pistols at the Queen and Prince Albert" UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah: "Kill him!" is a single sentence shouted by an onlooker (ie. "Kill" is the opening word of the sentence), "maliciously" not the first word in the sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          OK, so should the same apply in Victoria's diary to "my God! Don't be alarmed"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Yes, - now done. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • openly admitted his culpability: suggest cutting openly here: you can privately admit something, but not by shouting it.
  • Police were soon on the scene: a little bit of cliché.
  • and Oxford was arrested and taken into custody at the nearest police station: double and reads a little awkwardly: could replace the first with a semicolon, or perhaps "police soon arrived and arrested Oxford, who was taken into custody...".
  • I'm not sure exactly what showing the public that they had trust means: is it the same as "showing the public their trust [in them]"?
  • Why quote Murphy rather than paraphrasing here? Seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement of fact, which should generally not be directly quoted.
    • I've cut it entirely - it doesn't really add much beyond the 'trust' part of the sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oxford hinted that he was not acting alone: had not acted?

As ever, mostly small points and extremely quibbleable in almost all cases. More to follow (hopefully not 30,000 bytes, but you never know...) UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No quibbles on any of these. All done to some extent in these edits, although there are still two that I need to do. Many thanks as always! - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All now covered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More follow:

  • I like the three images of the assassination: give a date for Miles?
  • Per WP:POPE, suggest amending Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover., to Ernest Augustus, king of the German state of Hanover.
  • Murphy considers him...: this is interesting, but somewhat beside the point unless Murphy also considers that people in Victorian England would have agreed. Any thoughts here?
    • Still to do - SchroCat (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. The first part of the sentence partly covers what people thought of Augustus, but now reinforced this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although there was some initial doubt about whether his pistols were loaded: put Oxford's name back in, as we've just been talking about Ernest Augustus.
  • were loaded ... he admitted that they were: tense is off here: should be had been (at least the second time) since, when he was asked, the pistols were not loaded (he'd fired them).
  • he said they were only charged with powder, not shot: phrased as if these two things are alternatives: suggest "with powder but not with shot".
  • Among those who were summoned: among those summoned?
  • This carried a possible punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering: I looked this up, expecting to find that it had been centuries since that sentence was actually carried out, and was unpleasantly surprised. I gather that by this point it was practically a sentence of hanging (the corpse was beheaded after death), but not sure that's worth much more than a footnote.
  • A great many witnesses against me: this is only a fragmentary sentence, but I'm happy with that as long as the grammatical error is Oxford's.
  • Yes, according to the source, it is. - SchroCat (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could consider adding [are] after witnesses: would perhaps help non-native speakers for whom copula-dropping isn't as natural as it is for Anglophones. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • all he would admit to was firing the pistols at the Queen: as distinct from what? Was he denying firing them at Albert?
    • Looking into. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the point is that he only said he fired at the queen. He didn't admit to anything else (Young England or anything else). I've struck the last three words in case they cause confusion to others. - SchroCat (talk)
  • by Sir John Campbell, the Attorney General and Sir Thomas Wilde, the Solicitor General.: how many men are involved here? If two, would put a comma after the Attorney General. Was it usual to hyphenate in those days?
    • Comma added, but not sure of the hyphenation. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Military ranks like major-general and lieutenant-general were generally hyphenated until the 1980s or so: my thinking was that if we're going to use the capitals for the actual title, we might consider putting the hyphen in if it would have been used at the time. On reflection, MOS:CONFORM would weigh against that anyway, so I wouldn't advise a change. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Positive inaction from me on this! - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although when he was first questioned Oxford had said he had loaded the pistols, the arresting officer said he may have misremembered Oxford's exact words: the way that the first part is worded, it sound as if Oxford's admission is a fact whether or not the arresting officer reported it accurately. Do we have some other testimony than the officer's? Otherwise, would rephrase.
    • Looking into. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about changing this. There were several witnesses on the day when he made the admission, but (and this is a bit of OR), it looks like only the arresting officer that was present in court to be questioned about it. Taylor looks like he was a good enough lawyer to get a policeman tied in knots over a question of the exact wording he later wrote into his notes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalise the beginning of the long blockquote on Oxford's sanity?
  • Would spell out the abbreviation &c to et cetera (I assume these remarks were made orally?)
  • a lecturer at Charing Cross Hospital on medical jurisprudence: more usual the other way around ("a lecturer in Mathematics at Oxford"), which also removes the grammatical ambiguity as to whether the lecturer or the hospital was focused on medical jurisprudence.
  • You find him not guilty, or he was [guilty], but for his insanity: this reads as question, but isn't reported as one. Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
    It was a statement that the judge meant to clarify the decision of the jury. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider using SFNM to group consecutive SFNs
    • Still to do. I don't mind seeing two refs together (or two and a footnote), but will combine where there are three of more: does that suit? (There are some where there will have to be three, which is where there are some sources that don't work with SFNM). - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always use the REFN template and then HARVNB to make the footnote read whatever you like: I recently had to do that a few times in Henry Biard when multi-citing sources that use slightly unorthodox SFN references. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent - thank you! - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A journalist from The Times visited Broadmoor in January 1865. They described: appreciate that the journalist is anonymous: can we rephrase to avoid the singular they (and described...)? Perhaps I'm being old-fashioned, but it reads as unstylish unless consciously used as someone's preferred pronoun.
    We don't know the gender of the reporter. (In all likelihood a man, but it's not recorded who wrote the piece). - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course: I was suggesting A journalist from The Times visited Broadmoor in January 1865, and described... as a way of avoiding a pronoun altogether, or perhaps A journalist from The Times, who visited Broadmoor in January 1865, described... UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep: works for me! - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was leading a group of inmates who were decorating the premises: can we get rid of a who here?
  • with the support of the Chairman of Broadmoor, the deputy superintendent, the hospital's resident doctor and the prison surgeon: odd capitalisation here. I think MOS:PEOPLETITLES would decapitalise chairman here.
  • although they were ranked above nurses, attendants and keepers, who were more like servants (footnote): two things: were keepers more like servants, or were nurses and attendants also more like servants? Secondly, what exactly does were more like servants mean: do we mean something like were afforded a similar status to domestic servants or similar?
    OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • an organisation "aimed to improve their members' minds with debate, supplementing the push of the time to create public libraries and other institutions to illuminate the working man's world".: we should always be able to infer the source of a quotation from the text and citation: this sounds like it's quoting some kind of charter or constitution of the club, but that isn't spelled out.
  • Does John Francis rate a redlink?
  • Sinclair notes that "John Oxford" was unlikely to be Edward Oxford: notes implies that this is certainly true: if John Oxford has nothing to do with Edward Oxford, I'm a little at a loss as to what he's doing in Edward Oxford's biography.
  • Sinclair showed that: minor, but I'm a little uncomfortable with showed that being applied to primary research in a PhD thesis: it's very common for scholars to pick those apart and say that, while she may have argued it, the matter is still not settled. I would be more reassured by a secondary source giving its seal of approval that Sinclair had indeed finished the conversation.
    I've softened to "considered" for the moment, but will look further. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oxford's name thereafter would be associated with the insanity defence, and the divisive medico-legal debate regarding criminal insanity that would continue over the course of the nineteenth century.": perhaps not really quote-worthy, at least not in full: seems to be making a fairly simple point.
  • that the force of the law is entirely put into the Judge's, hands: remove the comma per MOS:CONFORM.
  • The matter of the insanity defence was raised in the House of Lords, which put pressure on the government, which suggested the Lords should ask the judges of the Law Lords to clarify the situation.: can we rework around the double which (in particular, I'm not overly clear whether it was the HoL itself or the raising of the insanity defence there that put pressure on the government).
  • Shortly before his trial Oxford was visited: I know that we disagree on commas, but surely we need one after trial here?
    I'd still demur here, I think. Five words is my trigger point on introductory commas ("From the beginning of September, etc), but I know people differ on when to include. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink French Revolution.
  • The events took place while Dickens was writing Barnaby Rudge (1841): while the brackets are fairly standard usage, in context it's a little unclear whether we are glossing the publication date of Barnaby Rudge or explaining "while Dickens was writing...". Suggest ... writing Barnaby Rudge (published in 1841).
  • sinister and darkly-comical figure: remove hyphen per MOS:CONFORM.
  • Suggest giving months for the publication of Barnaby Rudge and The Old Curiosity Shop, as both are 1841 and we don't currently have a clear chronology.
  • whose plot centred on one of Oxford's descendants—also called Edward Oxford—who travelled back in time to assassinate Victoria: works of fiction are written about in the present tense: whose plot centres ... who travels ... Later, the book includes...
  • WL BBC Radio (and capitalise)

Many thanks UndercoverClassicist. Pretty much everything covered on a first run, although there are still a few points I've flagged up that I still need to cover. Any more comments always welcome, as well as any further pushback on rationales I've given for inaction above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the text: all outstanding to-dos are minor and should be no obstacle to the article's passing.
Thank you, as always, for your wonderfully detailed review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review[edit]
Added a note that Alamy class this as a PD image - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, there's a strong enough presumption of PD that we should be content here. Frustratingly, no image review was conducted when Queen Victoria, which also uses the image, was re-promoted to an FA in 2011, but overall my inclination would be to say "good enough" on this one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They've taken that description from the British Museum, whose classification of images is, frankly, woeful. It's so filled with errors as to be largely useless when determining PD status. I've added another reference from Alamy that the image is PD. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right on the BM, but it seems to me like the balance of probability is for PD-US-unpublished (that it wasn't published before 2003, and was created before 1903). Unless we have good reason to think that the LoC/BM assessment is wrong, rather than simply unreliable, I'd go with that, as it's a "proper" PD tag and stronger than simply passing the matter to Alamy. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, swapped out the licences. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this one: also now swapped over the licences. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're fine with this one. As it was published in the ILN in 1867, it's definitely PD. (If I upload a copy directly from the ILN, I'd certainly publish it as a PD image), - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, it's certainly PD, but we can't then release it under CC 4.0: only the copyright holder can do that, and we've established that we're not them, since nobody holds the copyright. We just need to change the licence templates to reflect the true reason why it's PD. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough: swapped out for better licences. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None. Swapped the licences out for the right ones. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly formalities, as is often the case. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pass as far as I see it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hi Schrocat, looking good. I've looked over changes since PR. Only a couple of comments...

  • You were going to add an age or two. Maybe at "Oxford accepted, and on 22 October 1867 he was released." -insert 'after 27 years' or 'now aged 55' or somewhere else? (just to emphasize how looong he was in there.)
    Ah - I completely forgot about that! Now added in a couple of places (the sentencing and release points), which seem to be the most appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 55 Moran 1986, pp. 175–175. - tweak page number/s
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to add an external link to his papers at NLA, use the URL from this cite (provided by Trove)[1]
    Thanks! Now added - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Unrelated to Oxford article, but there's also a journal of Haydon's from his 5 years in Melbourne for when/if you change his red link to blue[2])
    That's good to know - I'll try and run up a start article when I have time. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Freeman, John; Freeman, John, 1822-ca. 1889. Lights and shadows of Melbourne life (1862), Papers of John Freeman, 1862-1889, retrieved 11 September 2023{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Haydon, George Henry; Ker, William (1843), Diary and papers of George Henry Haydon, 1843-1892, retrieved 11 September 2023

Nothing more that I can see to note:) JennyOz (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JennyOz - I'm much obliged to you once again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All's good! Happy to s'port and thanks for another interesting bio. JennyOz (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JennyOz - I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments from Cassianto[edit]

Early life
  • "He was dismissed from the Shepherd and Flock in Marylebone High Street after he attacked a colleague with a knife he lasted only a few months at the Hat and Flowers in St Luke's; and four months at the Hog in the Pound in Oxford Street, where he was on the equivalent salary of £20 a year." -- equivalent to what?
    Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trial
  • "According to Murphy, the biggest weakness of the government's case was that they could not prove that the pistols were loaded." -- do we need the second "that"?
    From a strictly grammatical point, yes. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The judge, unhappy with the non-standard nature of the decision, bade them retire again to reconsider" -- typo?
    For "bade/made"? No - past of "bid" - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course. CassiantoTalk 12:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incarceration
  • "The case notes on him in February 1854—probably by Bethlem's superintendent, William Charles Hood—described how Oxford "from the statements of the attendants and those associated with him he appears to have conducted himself with great propriety at all times". Hood recorded that Oxford spent much of the time learning" -- we say it was "probably" Hood, then go on to state it was him. "The notes recorded that Oxford..."?
    Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read with gusto. A well written, well researched piece from a writer who has a real knack of picking fascinating, engaging subjects. Despite my nitpicks and any resolution to them, my support stands. CassiantoTalk 21:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cass - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. CassiantoTalk 12:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Edward_Oxford/archive1&oldid=1176948420"