Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marshalsea/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 Karanacs 01:27, 7 October 2009 [1].

Marshalsea

[edit]
Nominator(s): SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is a self-nom, something I've been working on slowly for a while. Others involved: thank you to LoopZilla for some of the images, to Crum375 and Eubulides for most of the alt text (though I bravely managed a couple myself!), and to Eubilides for his restoration work on Hogarth's engraving of Southwark Fair. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to FA delegates: I was finding the discussion hard to follow, so I've split it into sections, making them invisible as I deal with them, and I've added a "Fixes" section, listing my fixes as I make them. Feel free to undo if it's confusing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I've undone the collapsing of sections. These are highly discouraged, as they sometimes push the FAC archives over the maximum number of templates allowed on one page. Also, please note that it is not good form to collapse other people's comments on these pages; this is considered to be the same as striking comments, and on the rare occasions when we do allow it, the reviewer is expected to be the one to collapse their own, already addressed comments. I'll leave the sectioning for now, as this has become a pretty long page. Karanacs (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

[edit]

(Eubulides, Ealdgyth, NuclearWarfare, Tony, Dabomb, ϢereSpielChequers, Jayjg)

Comment. Alt text is superb; thanks (I wrote very little of it). Just for next time, alt text doesn't have to be quite that fancy; see WP:ALT#Brevity. I just now added |link= to a couple of purely-decorative images in {{Marshalseaend}} and {{London history}}, and added alt text to one image that had been overlooked. Eubulides (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Many of the images in the article clash badly with the use of long quotations. Can you please decide which to keep and which to remove? Thanks. Also, why are so many of the images tagged with {{KeepLocal}}? I really see no reason to, and it will hinder the image review somewhat. NW (Talk) 02:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tag "KeepLocal" doesn't mean I don't want the image on the Commons, just that I'd like a local copy kept too. I do this because I've seen quite a few images disappear from the Commons in the past, with no explanation that I've been able to fathom. I also like to know if someone edits the description, and that means I need a local copy on my watchlist. How does that hinder the image review, NW? Also, can you give some examples of the images that are clashing with the highlighted quotes? Then I can look to see whether to remove the quotes or try to save them. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, all right. I suppose that's fine. The reason I dislike having a local copy is because changes on Commons should be able to synch up with changes on enwiki (I normally do a cleanup of the image page when doing my image review), and this means I will have to do double the amount of edits. No big deal, I suppose. I'll try to get to the image review within a few days. NW (Talk) 19:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's a big deal, NW, and if it'll increase your workload, go ahead and upload and remove the local copies. My preference is only a slight one—based largely on knowing the rules here, and the Commons feeling like a foreign country. :) I don't want that to cause an increase in work for you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that; it will be very helpful. I'll keep these images on my watchlist on Commons for you (which I usually check daily), so I'll tell you if anything comes up. Thanks for understanding, NW (Talk) 19:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, 1a. Oh nice: an enjoyable read and a highly professional standard of writing. Bit crowded at "Southwark", with a pic that I'd love to be larger (very detailed) and the highlighted quotation (forgotten the term for it). Can't see an easy solution, though.
  • "Ducking stool", "unnatural crimes"—ah, I can feel it in my blood.
  • The "London in 1300" map can be looked at only by clicking on it. I'm new to image management, but I guess this is OK: The thumbnail at least shows that it's a map, and if there were more room, it would be great as a centred, larger image (but there isn't more room).
  • Marshalea prison image: Just out of interest, why didn't you upload to the Commons? No mention on the file description page of the reason for the distorted shape of the photograph?
  • Nice touch: "How to find the prison remains" in the appendix part of the article. Tony (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind comments. :)
  • I've removed the hightlighted quote at Southwark and tweaked the writing, so it should look less crowded. [2]
  • I'll take a look at the London 1300 map and whether it could be enlarged.
  • Regarding the distorted shape, do you mean this image? It looks as though it was torn out of a book. I kept it that shape so you can see the little boy peeking of the doorway. I should upload these things to the Commons. I keep meaning to get involved there, but I've never done it before, and I imagine it involves the use of templates, so I keep putting it off. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I like the page and will be performing a major review later to ensure that everything can be handled correctly. The language looks excellent. However, there are formatting problems with some of the image placements and sandwiching of text. I'll try to think of possible solutions before I start listing them. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have over-used the highlighted quotations. I do it because I like to see the text broken up. It makes it easier on the eye, in my view, and more informative for readers who scan. Please let me know which ones you see as problematic. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks, I enjoyed reading that. I've made a couple of minor tweaks and hope you like them. I'm not sure whether the strong room needs describing twice, and would be tempted to swap the photo slightly with perhaps the drawing of the prison or the infirmary as the lead picture. But others may have differing views on that. ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WSC, thank you, and yes, your changes were very helpful. I'll take a look at the Strong Room issue. As for the lead image, I did have the old prison in an earlier version, but I liked the idea of showing the remaining wall, because it's a photograph, it's real, and people can go and touch it. I felt that brings home that this wasn't all that long ago, and that in turn makes the radically different treatment of people all the more interesting. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really like the new lead picture. ϢereSpielChequers 12:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fascinating story, hard to believe that's what British prisons (and justice) were like. Well written, well sourced, well illustrated. More than satisfies all the requirements of policy and guidelines. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian

[edit]
  • Comment: A very detailed article, evidently the result of much care. There is a problem, though, with the lead section, which is fine as a short intro to the topic, but is not the comprehensive overview as required by WP:LEAD. Bearing in mind that, per WP:LEAD, "the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject", it is hard to justify having a whole lead paragraph devoted to the Dickens story, while significant parts of the article are not covered by the lead at all. On a minor point, I think the Dickens debt should be written in the standard £sd format of £40.10s., rather than as "£40 and ten shillings" which soumds like two separate debts (and would never have been written thus in the £sd days). I will try to add more in the next few days, but in general this looks impressive. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Brian, I'm not a fan of the "relative emphasis" part of LEAD, though I do think this lead more or less satisfies it. Dickens is the only reason many people have heard of the Marshalsea, so I felt it appropriate to give him more than a passing mention. The rest of the story is pretty well covered: it existed for 500 years; it was mostly a debtors' jail; it was run privately; it was corrupt; people were treated very badly, and indeed many died, if they couldn't pay the fees; it became famous because of Dickens; when it was demolished; and what stands on the site now. What other key points do you feel belong in the lead?
I'm not sure about 40 pounds and ten shillings. You're probably right. I was just worried that no one would understand it, and I don't want to have to explain it in the lead. I'll give it some more thought. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on the lead and various other matters.

  • Lead: Re. my comment above, while I don't suggest that the recommendations of WP:LEAD have to be adopted slavishly, they should be followed generally. In this case I think the lead should indicate that there were two Marshalseas; the history of the earlier Marshalsea, which occupies a lot of article space, should be better reflected in the lead – a couple of summary lines, perhaps. The Dickens paragraph could be expanded to make reference to other notabilities (Ben Jonson, at the very least), and there is no need to give the precise amount of the Dickens debt in the lead, as this is given (with updated value) in the text. On another point, I think "unnatural crimes" should be linked here, as well as when it appears in the text. If you don't link it here you will be tantalising the reader, another lead crime(!).
  • Hi Brian, I'll take a look at your points below later. I just wanted to say that I didn't mention Ben Jonson in the lead, or link to "unnatural crimes," precisely because of that part of LEAD that I don't like. I was constantly thinking, "better not mention X, or someone will say 'X is in the lead and there's not enough about it in the text.'" I had visions of being forced to write a section on buggery. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This does not really address my concerns about the lead. Why no mention of two Marshalseas? Why not a few more references to its history? Why not mention one or two of the historically interesting prisoners? No need for a section on buggery, but the content of the lead should broadly reflect that of th article. I don't think this version does so adequately. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I note a slight movement towards meeting my lead concerns, but not much. We are obviously not going to agree on this, and since no one else seems particularly concerned, then I guess you win...this time. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotations:
    • There are numerous verbatim quotations within the article, some of them rather awkwardly placed. It would help to differentiate them from the text if they were enclosed in boxes rather than using the dreaded cquote template. Also I think that at times the reliance on quotations is excessive; the "1729 Gaols Committee" section has three long quotes, one after the other. The Dickens quote near the end is 200+ words of prose. I don't believe that the article would suffer if the quotations were reduced, or replaced by paraphrase.
I'm not sure what "Most of the pull quotes are gone" means, since I can see very little change in the number and length of quotes. The language the sources wrote in can be conveyed in short extracts rather than these lengthy paragraphs. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I seem to be alone with this concern. It bothers me, but not it seems anyone else. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**I am a bit concerned that a couple of the quotations, which appear to illiustrate conditions in the pre-reformed Marshalsea, are from a fictional work. How is this encyclopedic?

Because much of our information about the second Marshalsea comes from Dickens. The academic sources all cite him too. I can replace them with secondary sources citing Dickens, but that would only change the refs, not the information. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: I have only looked at the first few sections, but there are quite a few issues, happily mainly minor. I will try and pick up others later:-
    • Lead

***Second paragraph: The first "it" pronoun should be replaced by "the Marshalsea".

This one? "Run privately for profit, as were all prisons in England until the 19th century, it looked like an Oxbridge college and functioned largely as an extortion racket." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

***"it came with" → "it provided"

      • "with dozens of others" → "with dozens of other prisoners"

***Further pronoun confusion: "he based" should be "Dickens based"

Whether you agree or not, the subject of the first part of the sentence is Dickens's father, so "he" in the second part has to be defined.Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


***"...notably Little Dorrit, whose father..." In this sentence, Little Dorritt refers to the book, not the person, so the "whose father" part of the sentence needs rewording.

    • Etymology

***"...a special jurisdiction of the English royal household that appeared around 1290..." I wonder if "appeared" is the best word? Wouldn't "was created" be more accurate?

    • Debt in England

***Ambiguity: "By 1641, around 10,000 people in England and Wales were imprisoned for debt" By "imprisoned" do you mean "in prison"? Otherwise 10,000 might be understood as the total imprisoned for debt that year.

Good point. Will check the source. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed with a source. "According to a petition presented to parliament in 1641, around 10,000 people in England and Wales were in prison for debt." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

***"...added on." "on" is redundant

    • Prisons in England

***"...a practice that ended in 1868." You have mentioned a list of practices – to which does "a practice" refer?

  • Clarified it. "Prisons were designed to hold people until their creditors had been paid, or their fate decided by judges: usually execution, the stocks, flogging, the pillory, the ducking stool, or, until the practice ended in 1868, penal transportation to one of the American colonies or to Australia." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

***"It was when Sir Robert Peel became Home Secretary in 1822 that prison reform in England began." An awkward formulation, which could be written as "Prison reform in England began in 1822, when Sir Robert Peel became Home Secretary."

Disagree, sorry, in that context. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


      • "Before the Gaols Act 1823, then the Prisons Act of 1835 and 1877, prisons were administered by the royal household, and run for profit almost entirely without regulation by private individuals who purchased the right to manage and make money from them." I am confused by this. You describe a situation that was presumably reformed by the Acts you mention. But the Acts are spread over a period of 54 years. Can you clarify the progress of reform?
  • Not without writing a separate article. A number of Acts were introduced that had no direct effect on the debtors' prisons, or that affected some of them but not others, or that affected them all but were not enforced. It was a long slow process of reform, culminating in the Bankruptcy Act of 1869, which finally got rid of debtors' prisons, but that was after the Marshalsea's time, and other acts that outlawed making profits from any kind of prison. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*** "...The Bishop of Ely's prisons" – Bishops had prisons? This could do with a mite of context. And up to what date are we to understand that the spiked collar treatment was administered in the Bishop's prisons?

Anyone could run a prison. What kind of context were you thinking of? I don't know what date that kind of treatment ended in other prisons. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::::First, does "Bishop of Ely" refer to a particular bishop, or to the office? (In other words, were these prisons run personally by an individual, or were they effectively the property of the Church?) As to the second part of my question, does the source not give any date context for the medieval punishment it describes? Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is clarified somewhat by the added footnote and by changing "prisons" to "prison"

*References: the list of these is very long – is every one cited at least once in the text? It would be useful if the list were subdivided among books, journals and online sources. The books should have ISBNs if published after 1970.

Yes, every one was used. There may be a few that are there because of earlier material -- some material was moved out of the article recently -- so I'll go through and make sure they're still sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked. There were three in Refs that weren't being used, two because quotes had been removed, so they've been restored, and the third ref moved to FR. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. What about the ISBNs, and my other suggestion? Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a specific requirement that featured articles have to have ISBNs, but I have yet to see a recent one that lacks them. What possible reason is there for not including them? Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Tourist information ("How to find the prison remains"): I'm a bit nonplussed by this – not seen this sort of thing in an encyclopedia article, bus routes and all. Are you sure this is not out of place here? Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::*Fine, but I think it should be in the body of the article, as suggested below, rather than rather than tucked below Further reading. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Policy-wise, style-wise, and by convention, it shouldn't be there, let alone in the last section. Still, "best" doesn't always mean "conventional", and I think WP:NOT was made for the more blatant cases where such how-to stuff starts appealing to hardcore experts or goes non-neutral ("There are many more beautiful yachts in this part of Monaco; here's how to get there!"). This section does interfere with the usual external link placement, but is otherwise a small part of the article. I suppose if I had written the article with it, the "How to find" part would be more like a "Marshalsea today" section just before the "See also"s.
    Either way, the bus, train, etc. routes seem short enough to be prose-able—something like "Buses 21, 35, 40, 133, and C10 all pass near the remains. They can also be reached from the Borough station of Northern line and by the London Bridge train." I'd change that if I was sure it wouldn't change the list's meaning. --an odd name 01:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The how-to-find-it section is there in the hope that people reading the article might be encouraged to go and look at it, and to prevent them from doing what I did many years ago, when I spent an afternoon in contemplation of the remains, and of the terrible suffering, only to discover later that I had been looking at the wrong wall. The silliness was compounded when I went to the local history library afterwards to look at their archives, and mentioned to the archivist what an amazing experience it had been, seeing and touching the actual wall of the Marshalsea, not realizing that I had walked past the right wall on my way through the library door. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, reluctantly, on the following grounds:- *Lead: For reasons outlined in my comments above, I don't think the lead meets the requirements of FA criterion 2(a). Your responses to my comments on the lead are not particularly convincing. As explained above, I'm not pursuing this, though I still don't think the lead does the article justice. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC) *Overuse of quotations: I can't see that my concern about the number and length of verbatim quotes in the article has been addressed. I have registered my feelings about this, but as no one else seems unduly concerned I won't pursue it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prose: It's fine by me if you choose not to adopt all my suggested minor prose tweaks, but there are more significant prose issues in this article which do need to be addressed. The unstruck examples in my earlier comments are cases in point. I have read through the rest of the article and found numerous further points that need fixing. A few examples (there may be more):-

**"...didn't like the beer being served in the taproom" - ambiguity. **This whole sentence: "The court was told of three other cases, that of Captain John Bromfield, Robert Newton, and James Thompson, who had all died after rough treatment from Acton, followed by nights in "the hole" or the Strong Room, then weeks in the sick ward, often left to lie on the floor in leg irons." Faulty grammar and construction, easily remedied.

**"Dickens (1812–1870)...." should be "Charles Dickens (1812-1870)...", as this is the first mention of him for some while. **Unnecessarily cryptic: "...who became known a few years later for founding Georgia." Why not tell the reader you mean the American colony of Georgia? **Neutrality issues: The comment "Like most other rules, it was ignored", without citation, sounds like editorial opinion, as does "Contemporaneous sources indicate that it satirized the Queen", again uncited. Same issue with phrases like "his worries were misplaced" and "As dreadful as the Marshalsea could be..." etc.

  • Other issues
    • No-break spaces missing throughout
    • No metric conversions for distances and areas
    • ISBN codes required
    • Except in the case of the Dickens debt, no updated values are given for the various money sums. I'm not suggesting that every case is converted, but a few more would not be amiss. Incidentally, I get a slightly different 2009 value from MeasuringWorth for the Dickens debt (£2954).

The article is basically fine, and I will be pleased to see it promoted in due course. However, it does require some further attention. Please contact me when you want me to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, with respect, I think you're trying to impose your own views on the article too much. That is, I feel you're opposing because you would not have written the article this way. But I am asking you to judge whether it's FA quality in the way I wrote it, if you see what I mean.
I just randomly picked out one of your own FAs, Tom Crean (explorer). Looking at your lead (which I hope I'm right in assuming you wrote, or at least agreed with), I would not have written it that way. Who cares that he enlisted at the age of 15. That's not what made him notable, yet it's your second sentence. Your use of his name rather than "he" is a little confused e.g. "he was a participant in ..." followed by "Crean was one of the party of three..." with nothing in between to suggest that Crean was not still "he." And there is arguably OR: how do you know he lived "quietly and unobtrusively" until his death: almost by definition, you probably don't have a source for that.
But these are very picky criticisms, based on personal preference, and I would never let it stand in the way of giving the article FA status, because it's a fine article with a fine lead (even if not to my taste). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments: Many of my concerns have been addressed. Others I don't intend to pursue, a few may be matters of personal preference. I am disappointed, however, that none of the "other issues" listed above have been acted on; I'm not too concerned about the absence of no-break spaces, but the others in that list are ways in which the article could be improved for its readers, and think such opportunities should be taken, even if there is no hard and fast rule. I have struck the oppose, and would be happy to turn this into a support given some movement on these issues, which I feel are important to the article as a whole. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To recap, these are your remaining issues, as I understand them:

  1. You would like to see the lead mention famous prisoners, and that there were two buildings. It's not enough to have that in the infobox.
I accept what you've done in this respect. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You want ISBNs for all the books. (I won't be adding these. I don't mean to be obstructive, but I'm very opposed to requiring FA writers to do things like this (on the grounds of instruction creep), especially when there's no benefit. If someone else wants to add them, that's fine though.)
I'm not sure there's no benefit. In my early Wikipedia days I was firmly pointed towards WP:ISBN which gives the rationale for them. I have always thought that they were required for FAs. If the director's delegates concur with your position that's fine by me.Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You don't like the Gaols Commmitte quote, or the Dickens quote at the end.
It's not that I don't like these quotes as such. I feel, however, that lengthy quotes that could be paraphrased are contrary to the guidelines of WP:QUOTE. Although a taste of original language is often useful, too much of it can affect the objective neutrality of the article. I am not, however, pursuing this point. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You don't like "Something he never forgave his mother for." (That is perfectly acceptable, you know; there's nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition.)
I was taught otherwise, but maybe it's a rule only in English schools. I'm not worried about this Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You don't like the way I summmarized the sources with: "Like most other rules, it was ignored"; "his worries were misplaced" and, "As dreadful as the Marshalsea could be..." etc. You want to see citations for those particular phrases.
I do think that the first of these needs citing; the others, in context, can be left alone. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No-break spaces missing throughout (sorry, have no idea where or how to add them)
As a goodwill gesture I will do these. Then, if you look at my edit summaries, you will see what it's about. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No metric conversions for distances and areas (I can add some of these)
Fine by me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have I left out anything? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have fixed the no-break spaces. The only issues outstanding as far as I am concerned are (1) the ISBN point on which I would like to have an authoritative ruling, (2) a citation for "Like most other rules, it was ignored", (3) metric conversions for distances and areas given in feet and yards and (4) indications of the values and modern equivalents of sums such as "2s 6d", "five shillings and sixpence" and "eight shillings and sixpence" which might not be understood by modern readers. These are relatively simple points. I realise that this FAC has become rather stressful for you, and I am sorry about that. Please take your time, and if you would like a helping hand with these chores please let me know, though I will be a bit busy during the next 48 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: SlimVirgin has worked through my concerns, and although there are points of disagreement remaining, these are not in my view critical issues. There is often room for more than one point of view. From the start, my criticisms notwithstanding, I have felt positive about this article, and will be pleased to see it promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit images

[edit]

Awadewit, I'm not sure what you intended to do with the quotes. Did you mean to turn them all into blockquotes? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See explanation at my talk page. I've distinguished between blockquotes and pull-quotes. Awadewit (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 There is a lot of work to be done on the images. At the present time, I have only looked at their copyright status, not at their layout.

  • File:Dickens-at-the-Blacking-Warehouse.jpg - This was originally published in London, therefore on Commons we need to have a tag explaining its copyright in the UK. Do you know Fred Bernard's death date, by chance? Has he been dead for 70 years?
  • File:Marshalsea prison 1773.JPG - The license on this image claims that it is in the PD because the author has been dead for 100 years, but the author is not listed. I didn't see an author listed at the source. Perhaps you can find one?
  • I wouldn't know how to find an author's name for that. There's a signature in the corner, but I can't make it out. It's dated 1773, so obviously the author has been dead for the requisite time. If not, I want what he's having. And in the U.S., anything published before 1923 is PD. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John-Howard-prison-reformer2.jpg - The license on this image claims that it is in the PD because the author has been dead for 100 years, but the author is not listed. Please find his/her name as well as a date for the image (I wasn't sure if it was the same as the publication date for the text or not).
  • Published before 1923, so it's PD. It was published in 1850, so it's unlikely that the author has not been dead for 100 years. It's on the cover of the 1850 book cited on the image page. I've looked through it but they don't give the artist's name that I can see. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's dated 1729, which is the year the Gaols Committee visited the prison, I believe it was prepared as part of their report to parliament, but I can't be sure because I've not see the report myself. I've added that to the image page. [5] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gen james oglethorpe.jpg - This needs a date, a author, and more complete publication information for the source. In particular, we need to know where it was published.
  • File:Sirjohneliot.jpg - Is it possible to link to the source or describe it in more detail? Also, we need a date and an author.
  • File:Charles Dickens.jpg - The author field needs to list the artist who drew the image, particularly since the license is claiming it is in the PD because 70 years have elapsed since his/her death. Do you know who this is?
  • I can't find a location, either. Since we don't know its country of origin, we will have to put it on en.wikipedia and delete it from Commons. On Commons, an image has to be PD in both the US and its country of origin (which you have to know). Awadewit (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Plan of the Marshalsea, 1843.jpg - Do we know any more about J. Shuttleworth, for example his first name or date of death? To establish that this is in the PD because he has been dead for 100 years, we need a bit more info on him.
It was published before 1923, so it's PD. I don't know his first name. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will take some time to sort out, however I look forward to striking this objection after the work has been done. Also, note that if the author cannot be found for some of the above images, there are ways to license the images other ways, such as with PD-1923 or anonymous-EU. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed some tags to pd-1923. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick responses. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose with regards to the images. Awadewit (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit general

[edit]

Oppose In general, this article is well-written and well-constructed. I was engaged while reading it and it covers what I have learned about Marshalsea in the past - I can't say whether or not it is comprehensive, but the information certainly seems accurate to me. However, there are a few small issues that I have with the article that preclude me from supporting at this time. I've also made some bold edits to the article (removed some images and blockquotes).

  • I find "Further reading" sections to be problematic. There must be a lot of material published on the Marshalsea. Why have these items been chosen to be listed here? If they are so important, why were they not used for the article itself?
  • How necessary is the "Southwark" section as a section? I'm wondering if it could be combined with the "Etymology, Marshalsea Court" section into a new "Origins and purpose" sort of section? Right now, the "Southwark" section seems a little disconnected from the article.
I like this in its own section. Southwark was defined by its prisons, theatres, and inns, because of its location just over the London Bridge. It's an important part of the story. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't flow well the way it is currently set up. How do you propose to solve this problem? I offered one solution. Another is to rewrite the opening and closing of the current section to make it flow better with the rest of the article. Awadewit (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The David Copperfield quote in the "Debt in England" section is not particularly evocative. Perhaps something from Little Dorrit or Pickwick that refers directly to the prison or debt in the quote itself? Without a direct connection, many readers unfamiliar with Dickens will wonder about the quote's connection to the topic.
  • The quote relies on the reader knowing the David Copperfield is in the same situation as Dickens, though. Not many people readers will know that. Why not put the quote as part of the caption to the illustration and say that Dickens described the experience of being a bootblack in the person of DC, etc.? Awadewit (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious why the two specific examples in the "First Marshalsea" section were chosen - why the Noorthouck quote and why the Darby story?
  • I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking why I used Noorthouck as a source? Not sure what the Darby story is -- if you mean that he was hired to run it, it's an example of people being hired to run it, an important example given that it led to William Acton being hired, and the subsequent trial. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wives, daughters, and lovers of male prisoners were allowed to live with them, so long as they behaved themselves - You might give an example of some of these gender-specific rules. They are enlightening.
  • Women were expected to behave differently in the prison than the men - what did it mean for the women to "behave themselves"? This needs to be explained to the reader, who will not necessasrily know what 18th-century expectations were. Awadewit (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no need for other prisoners to see it, Ginger writes. - Who is Ginger? A short ID for the reader would be helpful.
  • I see that paragraph two of "Trial of William Acton" is based on Cobbett's trials. I'm forgetting - are those edited trials? I know that he edited some trial transcripts to favor his political positions. Prison reform was one of his issues.
  • As I said, "he edited some trial transcripts to favor his political positions". Have you looked into the reliability of this source at all? Early nineteenth-century sources can be sketchy. I know other trials Cobbett published were altered and edited for propagandistic purposes - that's why I'm asking. Awadewit (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Notable prisoners" section is a prose list. Could you reduce this effect by giving each paragraph a topic sentence? I see that each paragraph has a topic!
  • I feel that the Dickens section is a bit thin - considering Dickens often wrote novels to make readers aware of great social injustices, I think something should be said about this. Dickens did not just write about Marshalsea because of his personal connection - he also wrote about it for political reasons. A paragraph dedicated to the biographical background and a paragraph dedicated to his political angle should be sufficient. This would entail a slight rewriting of the section as it stands, not a massive expansion.
  • Of course it can, just like most every other section in this article. However, the failure of the article to mention this subject at all is a serious deficiency, as it leaves out a crucial part of the Dickens issue (many scholars would even argue the politics of his novels is far more important than their biographical background). Writing one paragraph on this topic would not be difficult, as there is ample material published on it. Awadewit (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what "of course it can" refers to. I feel there's already enough about Dickens in the article. You say there's ample material but I'm not aware of anything showing that Dickens wrote about the Marshalsea qua reformer, except in the obvious sense that he clearly wasn't extolling its virtues, and it was already closed or closing when he wrote about it. I have a copy of Philpotts book here, and I can add something if he has written about it, but if he hasn't mentioned that angle himself, I'd prefer not to go off on a tangent. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I'm not asking for an expansion, but a revision. Have you looked through JSTOR and MLA (there appear to be many helpful articles there)? Considering the huge amount of material written on Dickens as a social reformer and on novels such as Little Dorrit as a novel of social justice, I'm surprised you can be so sure there is nothing written on it. Philpotts is not the only source to look at - there are many more Dickens sources out there. I hardly consider this a tangent when Dickens is primarily known as a novelist of reform. Legal reform was one of Dickens' most frequently recurring issues - and this included prison reform. Mentioning this is crucial. Dickens wasn't just rewriting his own personal history - he was trying to change the world with his books. :) We need to alert readers to this. Awadewit (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the Marshalsea, not about Dickens, and it's already long. If you want to add something yourself, I'm unlikely to object to it—and if Philpotts writes about it, I will take something from him myself—but otherwise, I don't see how writing about Dickens's political work will help readers learn more about the Marshalsea. The reason I focus on Philpotts as a source is that, although he's writing primarily about Dickens, he focuses to a large extent on the Marshalsea, and on what we know about the Marshalsea from the novels. He is the source other academics cite on these points. That's why I'd prefer to be guided by his view on this. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the nominator's responsibility to respond to comprehensiveness concerns. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest quoting two different sections from Little Dorrit in the "Debtors" section, rather than the same one twice.
  • They were supposed to have a separate yard to exercise in, so that criminals weren't mixing with debtors, but in fact the prisoners mixed happily. - Why is this being cited to Little Dorrit, a novel?
  • Yes, as are all the secondary sources. A great deal of the information about the second Marshalsea comes from Dickens, as I said in the article, and it's regarded as reliable. Dickens reportedly played down the rowdiness of it, to satisfy Victorian sensibilities, according to Philpotts, but it's otherwise viewed as factually accurate. I'll restore the quote from Dickens that the reference was attached to, then it'll make more sense. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find your explanation deeply problematic. You write that there are contradictions, but Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to ignore those contradictions. According to WP:NPOV, we are supposed to present the major views, even if they are contradictory (I would think especially if they are). Moreover, in the link provided by you here, the article now notes that Dickens altered his description of the Marshalsea for Victorian sensibilities, so I would think that we would need other sources to counter this bias. However, this article does not provide us with that in the second section, as you acknowledge it largely rests on the Dickens material.
  • The only prisoners not expected to pay "chummage" were debtors who had declared themselves insolvent by swearing an oath that their assets were worth fewer than 40 shillings. If their creditors agreed, they could be released after 14 days, but if anyone objected, they remained confined to the "poor side" of the building, near the women's side, receiving a small weekly allowance from the county, and money from charity. - Why is this being cited to the Pickwick Papers, a novel?
  • The Philpotts 1991 refs should be separated by page number - referring to an entire article is not helpful to the reader.
  • Dixon, William Hepworth. John Howard, and the Prison-world of Europe. - Missing a year
  • Dickens, Charles (1850). David Copperfield, Spark Educational Publishing - Is this SparkNotes? I hope not...
  • There is no one text - the manuscripts differ from the serial publications which differ from the triple decker versions, etc. Careful editors take these things into account - that is why Penguin and Oxford editions tend to be better, as they have academic editors. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unfamiliar with Oberon, but I will let this point go, as the other points I've raised are so much more important. However, in the future, it would be better to use authoritative versions of the text. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phillips, Nicholas (2006). "Crime and Punishment", High Sheriff's Law Lecture, Oxford, October 10, 2006 - I don't think we can use lectures, as they are not verifiable. The information in the lecture should be common enough you can find it in a printed source. Things such as: "Until the late 19th century, imprisonment alone was not regarded as a punishment, at least not by those imposing it. Prisons were designed to hold people until their creditors had been paid, or their fate decided by judges: usually execution, the stocks, flogging, the pillory, the ducking stool, or penal transportation to one of the American colonies or to Australia, a practice that ended in 1868."
  • [Added later] I tried to fix the call-quotes when I read this article the first time, but I was reverted. Although the MOS prohibits using call-out quotes or pull-quotes for blockquotes, they have been used for this article. On my computer, this results in a hideous layout, with large white spaces throughout the article. See, for example, this screenshot and this screenshot.

I hope these comments are helpful and I look foward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me a note on my talk page when these issues have been addressed and I'll reread the article and reconsider my oppose. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, most of the issues - and, not insignificantly, the most substantial issues - that I have raised have been ignored. I had hoped to support this article, but I cannot do that at this time. If you would like help gathering additional sources from JSTOR, MLA, etc., I would be happy to help in that endeavor. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eubulides

[edit]
  • Comment. Article looks very good. Haven't had time to read it as carefully as I'd like, but I have a few comments:
  • "There is some confusion regarding how many prisons there were in Southwark in the 18th century." Horsemonger Lane Gaol says it replaced the White Lion; doesn't that resolve the confusion in favor of five prisons, rather than six?
  • "In 1799, the government reported that the prison had fallen into a state of decay." This sentence is repeated in different sections. Surely it's enough to say it once. But isn't that phrase giving a misleading impression? The Marshalsea had been in a "state of decay" for centuries by 1799.
  • Prisons in England doesn't make it clear enough that debtors were the only long-term prisoners. (see Woodfine)
  • The article says little about the Marshalsea's earlier history, such as in Elizabethan times. (see Adams)
  • For quite some time counties and most towns were assessed ₤1/year for the relief of debtors in Marshalsea. (see Woodfine)
  • Here are recent citations that I found useful; they bring up some of the previous points, and some others.
  • Adams, Robyn (2009). "'The service I am here for': William Herle in the Marshalsea Prison". Huntington Library Quarterly. 72 (2): 217–238. doi:10.1525/hlq.2009.72.2.217.
  • Woodfine, Philip (2006). "Debtors, prisons, and petitions in eighteenth-century England". Eighteenth-Century Life. 30 (2): 1–31. doi:10.1215/00982601-2005-001.
Eubulides (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the Woodfine artile is just about Yorkshire ... I read it a long time ago. Do we really need to be putting in material on prisons from anywhere in England? Eubulides, what part of Woodfine do you realy think belongs in the article on marshalsea? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woodfine's material is mostly (but not all) from Yorkshire, but it does mention Marshalsea in places and its conclusions are about England overall, which would certainly be appropriate for Marshalsea #Prisons in England. I added "(see Woodfine)" in my comment above to mention useful points that I thought it made. In looking briefly at Woodfine again I would add one more important point that is currently neglected in Marshalsea:
  • Overcrowding, and the resulting disease and epidemics, was the thing prisoners complained of most; even more than physical maltreatment.
Eubulides (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'It assumed jurisdiction over members of the household living within "the verge"' That was what the statute said, but in practice "the Marshalsea was widely used by people unconnected with the household for the hearing of their private disputes". The court also had a fairly loose definition of "the verge", sometimes going beyond the 12 miles of the statute. See McIntosh, Marjorie K. (1979). "Immediate royal justice: the Marshalsea Court in Havering, 1358". Speculum. 54 (4): 727–733. Eubulides (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these, Eubulides, that was very kind, and they look interesting. I'll take a closer look over the next day or so. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes

[edit]

As the discussion is getting a little hard to follow, I'm going to keep a list below of the fixes I'm making as a result of the input, with the name of the person who made the suggestion at the front. I'll add to it as and when something is changed.

If I don't make a fix that was suggested, it means that I respectfully disagree and it's not required by policy/guidelines e.g. adding ISBN numbers.

  1. Dabomb (Break 1): Dabs fixed.
  2. WereSpielChequers (Break 1): I've replaced the lead image with an image of the first Marshalsea.
  3. Brian (Brian): I've added an infobox which gives the dates of the two locations, which I hope will cover Brian's point about mentioning that in the lead.
  4. Brian and Anoddname: I've brought the "how to find" section into the body of the article, and made it less list-like; see Marshalsea#How_to_find_the_prison_remains.
  5. Brian: I've linked "unnatural crimes" at first reference.
  6. Brian: The jurisdiction appeared --> emerged.
  7. Brian: Clarified that 1,000 people were in jail in 1641, in the Debt in England section.
  8. Brian: Removed anything not being used as a reference from the References section (there was only one).
  9. Brian: Clarified that it was penal transportation that ended in 1868.
  10. Brian: "Contemporaneous sources indicate that it satirized the Queen" removed.
  11. Brian: The Prisons in England section rewritten slightly, which I hope might satisfy Brian's concerns. Current version, as opposed to previous version.
  12. Brian: Added a couple more money conversions. [15]
  13. Brian: Regarding Brian's point that I should change "£40 and 10 shillings" in the lead to "£40 10s," the BBC writes it as "£40 and 10 shillings," and they are quoting the Marshalsea Prison day book from the time. [16]
  14. Brian: Added some of Brian's suggestions about the writing. [17]
  15. Brian: Added some notable prisoners to the infobox, which I hope takes care of Brian's concern about needing some of them to be mentioned in the lead (with thanks to Thumperward for adding that parameter to the infobox). [18]
  16. Brian: Fixed "Dickens (1812–1870)...." should be "Charles Dickens (1812-1870)".
  17. Brian: Fixed "Why not tell the reader you mean the American colony of Georgia?"
  18. Brian: I disagree about "Like most other rules, it was ignored"; "his worries were misplaced"; and "As dreadful as the Marshalsea could be..." needing a source. They have sources, and the sources make clear that most of the rules were ignored; Acton's worries were misplaced; the Marshalsea was dreadful. This is a just a question of writing. The NOR policy doesn't stop editors from summarizing in their own words; indeed, it encourages it.
  19. Brian: Brian has asked for ISBN numbers, but these aren't required, it would be a fair bit of work for an article with this many sources, and there's no clear reason to provide them.
  20. Brian: I rewrote the awkward sentence. It now reads: "The court was told of three other cases. Captain John Bromfield, Robert Newton, and James Thompson all died after similar treatment from Acton: a beating, followed by time in "the hole" or Strong Room, before being moved to the sick ward, where they were left to lie on the floor in leg irons."
  21. Awadewit (Awadewit images): I've replaced the "pd-old" image tags with "pd-1923," in cases where it's not clear if the 100-year-rule is satisfied. Awadewit's other image issues are dealt with.
  22. Awadewit (Awadewit general): Restored some material from Dickens about the Admiralty, which I had earlier removed, and which makes it clearer why Dickens is used as a source for this. See Marshalsea#Admiralty_prisoners, last paragraph.
  23. Awadewit: Added something about how accurate Dickens was about the Marshalsea in Little Dorrit to address Awadewit's point about why we're using him as a source in general. [19]
  24. Eubulides (Eubulides): Added in Notable prisoners section that it became the main holding prison for Roman Catholics suspected of sedition during the Elizabethan era, per Eubulides, using Adams 2009.
  25. Eubulides: Slightly rewrote in the Closure section that it had fallen into disrepair by 1799; Eubulides felt it was repetitive.
  26. Eubulides: Restored a quote, which I had earlier removed, from an anonymous witness that stresses the overcrowding: "170 persons have been confined at one time within these walls, making an average of more than four persons in each room—which are not ten feet square!!! I will leave the reader to imagine what the situation of men, thus confined, particularly in the summer months, must be." See Marshalsea#Debtors.
  27. Eubulides: Added material about William Herle from the Robyn Adams paper Eubulides found. [20]

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note about sources
[edit]

A word of caution regarding suggestions that I add this or that. The Marshalsea existed for over 500 years, so a lot has been written about it by primary sources, much of it contradictory. As this article can only be a certain length, I focused on two key primary sources (as I explain in the article here): John Baptist Grano, a prisoner who kept a detailed diary that became a major source for the first Marshalsea in 1728 and 1729, and Charles Dickens, who wrote about the second Marshalsea (1811-1842) in his novels, particularly Little Dorrit.

In order to avoid original research, I used these primary sources via two key secondary sources: John Ginger (for the first Marshalsea), who was given access to John Baptist Grano's diary by the Bodleian in Oxford, and who published it with an extensive commentary as Handel's Trumpeter: The Diary of John Baptist Grano (1998). For the second Marshalsea, I focused on Trey Philpotts of Arkansas Tech University, whose Companion to Little Dorrit (2003) looks closely at the Marshalsea via that novel. It was important to do the research this way, because of the high degree of inconsistency between the primary sources, and to some extent between the secondary sources too. So I had to tread carefully through it, and I used Ginger and Philpotts to guide me. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meta-comment. In dawdling down the FAC list I couldn't help notice that this nomination page has ballooned out to a gigantic size. Yet I remember thinking this was already pretty good stuff upon nomination, at least from the Cr. 1a perspective. I appreciate Brian's and Awadewit's expertise, and heck, I'm the nit-picker extraordinaire, but has this article not reached FA standard yet? I note that the nominator has bent over backwards to engage with the reviewers, and is one of WP's experts in the field of NOR. The use in part of a fictional work by one of the great 19th-century writers in English seems to be an innovation carefully judged within the bounds of NOR, and one that sets this article apart from other Internet sources on the topic as a rich and, given the circumstances, reliable account. If there are still objections, could they be raised here once and for all? Tony (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My issues are already clearly articulated. There is no reason to re-list them, especially since SV has not addressed the bulk of them. Awadewit (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler

[edit]
Provisional support Support

("Provisional support" means that I haven't finished reading the article, but I like what I've read.)

I've read about a third of the article and find it to be very well written. There are some prose issues—nothing glaring though—that I've included in my detailed comments on the article's talk page. I will add my remaining comments tomorrow, which is also when I expect my vote to change to unqualified support. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read up to the end of the Dickens section and added more comments to the article's talk page. The "1729 Gaols Committee" and especially "Trial of William Acton," are very moving. Enough that my critical eye failed me. Its writing must only have been a labor of love for the author. For that I offer my thanks and admiration. Changing to support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo and other shorts

[edit]

Support Conditional upon: "^ British Library" citation be corrected to "British Library (undated). Plan of the late Marshalsea prison" because the footnote needs to indicate the origin of the document and the nature of the document being cited, and its readily corrected.

Congratulations, this article is a clear demonstration of how to deal with a subject matter where large number of primary sources exist: placing emphasis on highest quality secondary sources to structure the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, I confused the lead image's name with it's alt text. Fixed. By "Marshalsea-plaque" I assume you mean File:Marshalsea-plaque-December2007.jpg? That has alt text 'Plaque headed "Marshalsea Prison" ..."; are you not seeing that? Eubulides (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was also confused by the lack of alt= which I guess isn't always needed when the text is preceded by this symbol -> |...Modernist (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2009 (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/Marshalsea/archive1&oldid=1088822763"