Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Littlehampton libels/archive1

Littlehampton libels

Featured article candidates/Littlehampton libels/archive1

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Littlehampton libels are one of those footnotes to footnotes of history. Some mildly insulting letters were sent round a small town, and it resulted in four trials and two appeals, and involved the Director of Public Prosecutions, the senior Treasury Counsel, a senior Scotland Yard detective and the Lord Chief Justice. The culprit, Edith Swan, fooled three juries and two judges, had another woman sent to prison twice and was declared not guilty before finally being convicted. And then Olivia Coleman played her in a film. This is a new article and I look forward to any constructive comments. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Saving a space for now. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

Lede feels a bit hefty - any chance of simplifying a bit?
"Two women in the thirties, both with black hair. " - In their 30s, or in the 1930s? Given that the source is dated 1921, I'm thinking the former, but I wanted to confirm. I think a less ambiguous phrasing would help.
in December 1920 she was found guilty and imprisoned for two weeks - Subject in this sentence was "Swan". Might need to be reworked
It is based on England south coast - Is this correct in BrE? I know I want to add an 's after England.
Kent - Might be worth a link for non-British readers.
by several neighbours - probably as explicit as the source gives, but "several neighbours" feels weasel-y.
That's as good as I can frame it, based on the source. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
although had been dismissed - Same question, is this correct in BrE? I'd normally go "though she had been"
At my current resolution (4k, 200%+125% zoom) the two maps are stacking, resulting in the prose having a "finger gun" shape. Is there a way to break the text a bit more gracefully?
I don't think so (trying to format based on image placement is a way to madness, I feel). I have a wide screen and it doesn't cause issues, and improves with narrower screens. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pretending Rose was still in the house, to try and trick the Swans into thinking she was still in Littlehampton - still ... still
National Registration forms - worth a redlink?
I don't think so (caveat: that's based on a web search alone, rather than any major digging_. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swans and Goodings houses - as these are possessives, should they have apostrophes?
that Gooding and Russell had both borrowed blotting paper from her. Bill Gooding and Russell both denied ever having borrowed it from her - Feels like we're repeating the names here.
It's trying to clarify that it was Rose in the first instance and Bill in the second. I've tried to be consistent by referring to Rose as "Gooding" and then flagging up when I'm talking about Bill. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In July 1921 an appeal was heard before the Court of Criminal Appeal; Travers Humphreys was the barrister appearing on behalf of Gooding; he told the court that he was appearing having been personally instructed by the Attorney General and that the appeal had the approval of the Home Secretary, the court quashed both of Gooding's convictions without hearing any of the evidence. - This is a bit of a run-on. Aside from the two semi-colons (IIRC, outside of a list with commas, the prescription is a maximum of two sentences joined by a semi-colon), it feels like there is a verb missing between "the approval of the Home Secretary" and "the court quashed both"
To fucking old whore May, 49, Western Rd, Local - Comma after 49 in the original? (judging from the spelling neybor, I suspect so... and speaking of neybor, it may warrant a {{sic}} based on WP:SIC)
The comma is there. It's the way I was I taught to address envelopes way back when, although the etiquette has now changed on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they recommenced in early 1923. ... By October 1922 - Feels like there's a typo in one of these years
two sureties of £25 - each, or combined?
It's not clarified in the source, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The small matter of insulting letters - "small matter" sounds like a judgment call, and thus likely needs attribution.

That's it from me. Excellent, like usual. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Chris - all sorted, except where commented on above. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Supported... interesting read. Hell hath no fury... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris. Yeah, it's an interesting matter - the real mystery is why Swan suddenly turned on Gooding. As she never admitted doing it, there's no explanation as to why it all went so wrong between them, or why she went down the rather bizarre pathway. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Several images use PD-UK-unknown - as per that template, please ensure the image description discusses the steps taken to try to identify the creator
File:William_Stocker_Shaw_postcard.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All dealt with, thanks very much - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

I reviewed the draft a little while ago (on the article talk page), and my few quibbles were satisfactorily dealt with then. On rereading I find the text clear and very readable, the tone neutral and balanced, and the sourcing wide and apparently sound: there are, it is true, fifty citations to the main source, but they're balanced by multiple citations to four other important sources. You've done surprisingly well for illustrations, too. Meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I'm happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 14:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim. Your help in the process was much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

Just did the GAN, so won't have much to add prose-wise; I'll do a source review since I already tackled some of them at the GAN. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

I'll start when all reviewers above finish. 750 h+ 09:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]