Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boulton and Park/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) 8 March 2023 [1].

Boulton and Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boulton and Park were two Victorian cross-dressers who went under the names Fanny and Stella. They appeared on stage in drag and—to the shock of Victorian society—did so in public and in their private lives. They were arrested in 1870 and appeared in court. The gutter press of the time published sensational details, including details of their private lives and those of their known friends and associates. An interesting case for the time, it has been re-examined through the changing prism of social attitudes, which adds another fascinating aspect to this small sliver of history. – SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Park_and_Boulton_(Fanny_and_Stella)_restored.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Stella_Boulton.jpg, File:Ernest_Boulton_with_blonde_hair_(cropped).jpg, File:Fanny_(Frederick_Park).jpg, File:Frederick_"Fanny"_Park_(Cropped).jpg, File:Stella_and_Fanny_in_character_(cropped).jpg, File:The_Illustrated_Police_News_-_Young_Men_Charged_with_Appearing_in_Women's_Clothes.jpg, File:Ernest_Boulton_and_Frederick_Park_leaving_Bow_Street_Magistrate's_Court.jpg, File:Fanny,_Stella_and_Lord_Arthur_Pelham-Clinton_(cropped).jpg, File:Lord_Coleridge_LCJ_by_EU_Eddis.JPG, File:Portrait_of_Sir_George_Lewis.jpg, File:Fanny_(Frederick_Park).jpg, File:Stella_as_a_shepherdess.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Am I right in thinking these are not PD in the US?
  2. Are these OK uploaded onto en.wp as being PD in the UK?
  3. Once these six are sorted, are the others OK, or are there any problems with them? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answering the last first: File:Park_and_Boulton_(Fanny_and_Stella)_restored.jpg is still missing a US tag; File:Portrait_of_Sir_George_Lewis.jpg is missing a publication early enough for its current tagging, as are File:Stella_as_a_shepherdess.jpg and File:Lord_Coleridge_LCJ_by_EU_Eddis.JPG.
The answer to 2 is no: local uploads are okay for works that are PD in the US but not their home country, not the other way around. On 1, to know the answer to that we need to be able to determine earliest known publication. If the earliest known publication is recent, it's possible these would fall under {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delighted to hear they are all PD in the US after all! As far as I can see, most of the photographs were unpublished until 2013, so that makes it a little clearer. Going through them individually:
  1. File:Fanny, Stella and Lord Arthur Pelham-Clinton (cropped).jpg: created by Spalding (d. 1895): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  2. File:Stella and Fanny in character (cropped).jpg: created by Spalding (d. 1895): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  3. File:Fanny (Frederick Park).jpg: created by Spalding (d. 1895): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  4. File:Frederick "Fanny" Park (Cropped).jpg: created by Spalding (d. 1895): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  5. File:Ernest Boulton with blonde hair (cropped).jpg: created by O Sarony (d. 1896): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  6. File:Stella Boulton.jpg: created by N Sarony (d. 1879): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  7. File:Park_and_Boulton_(Fanny_and_Stella)_restored.jpg: created by Spalding (d. 1895): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  8. File:Stella_as_a_shepherdess.jpg: created by Spalding (d. 1895): {{PD-US-unpublished}} added
  9. File:Portrait_of_Sir_George_Lewis.jpg: Removed
  10. File:Lord_Coleridge_LCJ_by_EU_Eddis.JPG: painting by Eddis (d. 1901): no evidence of it being "published" – either in a book or gallery – so {{PD-old-70}} added
Hopefully that should cover them all, but please let me know either way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That last one is still an issue - PD-old-70 is redundant to the tag that was already there, but doesn't satisfy the need for a US tag. For the others, as long as you're reasonably certain they weren't published earlier, they're fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's annoying - it's the tag shown to use on the Commons:Hirtle_chart, which is supposed to be for determining in the US! Any suggestions? - SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not known to have been published, wouldn't the same unpublished tag apply as with the others? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep (Sorry, brain not working well today) now added - sorry for all the extra work on this one. Are you happy with them all now? - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SN's support

[edit]

Usual suggestions, no three-line whip.

  • "after the arrest they were still dressed in the women's dresses": repetition of dress/es? Perhaps "clothed in the dresses" or "dressed in the frocks" etc.
  • "an intrusive physical examination": could link to this.
  • "sodomy in the UK carried a life sentence in prison": plus hard labour, per lead?
  • "Such ignorance... such activity": This ignorance?
  • "such activity...Britain": undertaken reads oddly. Perhaps 'did not exist'? Also testimony rather than expertise?
  • Link Joseph Bristow (for 'tis he), and do we usually mention the title of the source in text?
  • [Passing: "Cross-dressing was not illegal in the 1870s; it was associated with the theatre, particularly pantomime;" good to know that the Victorian mind was nearly as advanced as the medieval one  ;)
  • "they arrested 'for the purpose...'": missing a 'were'?
  • [Lucky landlady. She coulda pulled his rates up, phnarr phnarr]
  • I can never remember what Wiki sez about London boroughs. Would Tottenham have been Middx or London in 1847?
  • Do we know why his father indulged his x-dressing? Seems pretty radical, esp. as he was determined that he'd do a staid job in the city.
  • "While he was growing up...": 'he grew up in'?
  • Indian Mutiny, probably the storming of Jhansi March 1858.
  • "the best profession for his son was within the law...": presumably talking about Park again, but the previous para ends talking about Harry. Clarify who "his son" was?
  • Strictly Davenport-Hines was writing for the Oxford DNB. If any of us could be arsed, that should probably have its own article.)
  • Thompson's activities in Edinburgh; are to infer that his removal of gear was illegal? (Or, without a warrant etc?)
  • Since you later emphasise the degree of importance with which deathbed confessions were treated, perhaps link.
  • "that failure is because the police": was because?
  • "Joyce views...l from the view ..."
  • "Joyce considers that Senelick identifies and studies Boulton and Park in relation to stage drag artistes": there's got to be a better way of putting it than this. Lots of names crushing each other! (Reading on, it's not really clarifed much with the next sentence, "Joyce sees the common theme that Boulton and Park were considered...") Holy Historiography batman!
  • "The historian Harry Cocks": monikered twice, both in Histog./Legacy sections.
  • Check your colons: block quotes "did with each and one another feloniously" and "of two or three months' imprisonment, with the treadmill attached" lack colons in the preceding sentence, whereas the next four blockqts are each led in by colons.
  • "The Labouchere Amendment—formally, section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, named after its sponsor": Perhaps lose the repetition of the title and redux to "This, formally, section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, named after its sponsor..."
Solid work! Cheers, SN54129 16:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. All done as best I can, except where referred to above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convoluted was just the word I couldn't remember at the time! But use, reads much more smoothly if you don't mind my saying. Happy, of course, to support this article for its promotion. It's a really interesting story and one that still, to some degree, resonates with us today... SN54129 12:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 13:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vami_IV, Just a little nudge... no worries if events have overtaken you though. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • I wonder if the lead could be condensed into three paragraphs. As is, it strikes me as jumping back and forth in time needlessly; paragraph three restates details from paragraph one (e.g. the fact of Boulton and Park's acquittal, which has its cause and context divorced from the first statement of their acquittal).
  • Just before the case started Clinton may have died, possibly of scarlet fever or suicide; it is also possible his death was faked and he fled abroad. This sentence states twice that Clinton may have died.
  • The events surrounding Boulton and Park make one of the key moments in gay history. I am American, so I don't know if "make one of" rather than "mark(s) one of" is erroneous or not. And I wonder if this should be "gay history in the United Kingdrom" or left as is.
Body prose
  • [...] there was a 28 per cent conversion rate for sodomy [...] Do you mean "conviction rate" here?
  • [...] were associated with homosexuality and male prostitution. Good place to introduce a link to the latter concept.
  • According to the historian Matt Cook, this confirm[ed] the association of homosexual behaviour with fashion, effeminacy and monetary transaction". There's a quotation mark missing from here.
  • [...] according to Joseph Bristow, [...] Should have a descriptor.
  • Cross-dressing was not illegal in the 1870s; it was associated with the theatre, particularly pantomime; there was no association in the minds of the general public between cross dressing and homosexuality. Second instance of "cross-dressing" here lacks the hyphen. Check the article over and make sure this is consistent.
  • During his childhood he also developed a fistula in his rectum which needed surgery.[a] The highlighted footnote confuses me; did Boulton require surgery shortly after being born, or does the prose refer to the footnote? If the latter, remove the footnote's contents to this sentence.
  • He had the surgery when about 22. I'm trying to avoid dodging back and forth in terms of time (ie. mentioning his very young life, then the fistula surgery when he was 22, then back to him being six or so). - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two times that Boulton is referred to by female pronouns. This does not appear to be the case for Park. Did Boulton identify as a woman?
  • There is no record of when Boulton and Park first met, but the two soon became close friends [...] "soon" here is meaningless without a bedrock. If we don't know when they met, then we must surely know by what time(s) they were known to be close friends.
  • Boulton and Paul Paul?
  • To store their dresses, cosmetics and other items, as well as a base from which they went out, the two rented a small flat at 13 Wakefield Street, off Regent Square. Is this the flat mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph of #Fanny and Stella?
  • He also noted that both Boulton and Paul had large penises; he said this was a result of their sodomy.[d] (Hilarious.) The attached footnote also mentions enlarged testicles.
  • When examined, Mundell stated that he "believed Boulton to be a woman", and made advances to her accordingly. Advances of what variety? Assume I am naive.
  • He said that [...] Two sentences, one after the other, start with these words in #Trial.
  • [...] what was considered a foreign habit was being practised in England. Huh?
  • After the acquittal, some of the leader writers changed their stances, and The Times said they had "a certain sense of relief that we record this morning the failure of a prosecution"; a guilty verdict, the leader writer continued, "would have been felt at home, and received abroad, as a reflection of our national morals". Huh? The last clause seems to fly in the face of the whole rest of the sentence.
  • It was a head in the sand avoidance of reality. If they had been found guilty then it would have proved cross-dressing and homosexuality existed in England (shock horror!), but as they were acquitted, there was no proof it existed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upchurch and Bartlett, Cocks considers, write of a "wilful ignorance" [...] Huh?
  • The second paragraph of #Portrayals is stylistically incoherent.
All the points of the Body addressed either above or in this series of edits. I'll work on the Lead comments shortly. Many thanks for your comments, which are absolutely spot on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hi Vami_IV. I've covered all your points in these edits. There are a couple of comments above where I haven't done something - either explaining (and I'd be happy to hear alternative suggestions on the text) or querying. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vami_IV - your comments we very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TR

[edit]
  • Lead
  • The alt text for the lead image asserts that Park and Boulton are seen in Edwardian ladies' dresses, which would have been a good trick in 1869.
  • "The events surrounding Boulton and Park make one of the key events…" – too many events.
  • Background
  • "a 60-year-old man and a 35-year-old lawyer were arrested" – I am intrigued by the implication that a lawyer is not a man.
  • Thomas Ernest Boulton
  • "Boulton was often mistaken as a baby girl" – strange preposition; one might expect "for"
  • "on the Haymarket" – this would be the Haymarket, Tallahassee? The preposition you need here is the BrE "in".
  • Frederick William Park
  • "He grew up the family home" – missing a word.
  • "sent to Scotland by his father to avoid further scandal" – not clear how being in Scotland would improve the young man's morals.
  • It's not covered by the source, unfortunately, although as they had a different legal system, the jurisdictional issues would have made it difficult. Removing him from his social circle is likely also a reason, but this is all just OR and guesswork. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mrs Mable Foster" – really Mable and not Mabel?
  • Fanny and Stella"
  • "would go out in public dressed in both male and female attire" – must have been hot wearing both. Perhaps "either" here?
  • "simpering and mincing … was popular" – plural verb wanted
  • "part of a theatre troupe that would tour Britain" – not sure why "would tour" rather than a plain "toured"
  • Arrest and investigation
  • "Police also interviewed John Safford Fiske, the American consul in Leith" – do we know why? Seems a bit odd.
  • "three others who were found to have ties to the others" – others ... others.
  • "He has also written letters to Boulton" – "had also written"?
  • "although McKenna considers it likely that he lived abroad" – this reads rather oddly. You have touched on this theory in the lead, but here I think you should consider adding something to the effect of "he did not, in fact, die but lived abroad"
  • "There was no doubt, he said, that some of the accused had appeared in public in drag" – as you are using indirect speech – "he said" – I think perhaps "drag" is not quite right here, though of course fine elsewhere. Possibly "in women's clothing" or some such?
  • Legacy
  • "Do you take me for Boulton and Park?'[150][145]" – refs in wrong order.

That's all from me. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency. The article is in fine fettle, and I look forward to supporting its elevation. Tim riley talk 11:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff - all ad rem comments - thank you very much! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria: it's a cracking read, well and widely sourced, nicely illustrated, balanced, and the right sort of length for its material. And amazingly for a SchroCat article, death and destruction are kept to a minimum. A pleasure to read and review. Tim riley talk 12:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Many thanks Nikkimaria: I’ve covered both of these. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 4 March 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/Boulton_and_Park/archive1&oldid=1143637197"