Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Well he would, wouldn't he?/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2024 [1].

Well he would, wouldn't he?

Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions), Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty and I would nominate this article, wouldn't we? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:John_Profumo.jpg: per the UK tag the image description needs to include details of research to attempt to identify author, and the US tag needs sorting

File:Harold_Macmillan.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria - I think I've done the first following the template documentation: not sure about the second. It looks like it was created in December 1959, but there isn't any information about when it was first published. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the US tag on the first indicates that tag cannot be used for post-2012 uploads at all?

On the second, what is the first known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. I've removed it for now, but assume it'll need to be replaced with something similar at some point.

I'm not sure. Any way to find this out? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could try seeing whether appears/credited in sources, or using a reverse image search. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried running a search and couldn't find anything. Can we upload these here with fair use rationales? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only if there's not an alternative free option that could work. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been able to find anything. Should we remove the Macmillan image? Replace it with another one on Commons? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria - We've removed the Macmillan image: are we good to go? Profumo need any adjustment? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Profumo still needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the Profumo UK tag is appropriate; the author is not unknown, it is "Bassano Ltd." Just because it's unlikely we can easily trace Bassano Ltd. or the photographer of that company, doesn't mean they're unknown. It's possible that the photographer died in the 70s, for example, which means we'd still be within 70 years of the author's death. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another image of Profumo we can use? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed both images for now so they're not a liability here. Once / if the licencing issues are resolved, we can add them back. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we had a PD image of Ward. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From all the portraits on the NPG website, it seems none of the known photographers died long enough ago for the copyright to have expired; closest we have is 2027. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were any of them taken by a photographer in the employ of the government? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Given that the images have been removed, did we pass image review? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the remaining image has no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

I will review this (won't I) when I get a moment. Placeholder for now. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we bold and redirect MRDA?

Right, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start an RM for that. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Mandy Rice-Davies Welsh but Stephen Ward British (as opposed to English)?

Changed to "English". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

secretary of state for war, John Profumo: if we phrase this as "John Profumo, the Secretary of State for War}}, we could avoid the WP:SEAOFBLUE. On another note, I think MOS:PEOPLETITLES wants the capitals here.

Done both. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Profumo had had an extramarital affair with Rice-Davies's friend, the model Christine Keeler, lied about that affair to Parliament, and then publicly admitted that he had misled the House. : I think this is clearer if we cut one had.

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since its widespread adoption following the Ward trial: how immediate was this widespread adoption? We hint at "very" but don't actually say as muhc.

The phrase first appeared in the ODQ in 1979. Any interpretation of the age of some of the sources might be clipping into OR I think, but happy to be given an explicit source saying how quickly / slowly it was absorbed into the public consciousness. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

who beginning in July 1961 had an extramarital affair: this would read more idiomatically to me with beginning in July 1961 after an extramarital affair, but I can believe it's in line for a slightly mid-century BrE.
when Keeler's private life became public: what about her private life?
who in October 1963 resigned for reasons of ill health.: we might clarify that M. was in hospital after an operation for what he believed to be terminal cancer at the time: as written, the ill health sounds like a pretext, which it wasn't (or at least wasn't entirely).

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeler's involvement with Yevgeny Ivanov, a naval attaché at the Soviet embassy, which meant a possible national security risk: I think this needs spelling out a little: Keeler was a model, so is the suggestion that she was sharing secrets about Profumo and his work with Ivanov?
Given that we've linked osteopath, I would also link socialite.

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the barrister Geoffrey Robertson stated that the Macmillan government had her arrested to coerce her testimony: I think this would be clearer as a more verb-y phrase: something like to coerce her into testifying. I'm a little uncomfortable with the authority of this source versus the gravity of the accusation: has anyone else given this view any credence? What makes Robertson an expert here?

Done the first. To your second, Robertson wrote a book on it: Stephen Ward Was Innocent, OK. I'd say his including his view is relevant (and fairly authoritative) here, especially on such a niche subject. He seems to be the expert for the Ward trial (living, at least). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That book doesn't seem to be cited: it should be, surely? We don't seem to have any book cited which is explicitly or entirely about the trial, or MRD. Are there any (more)? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is at Internet Archive. I'll take a look. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and is described as such: I'm not sure who is being described as what by whose biographer here.

Fixed, hopefully. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are committal proceedings?

Linked. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in his book on the chronology of the Profumo affair: was it strictly on the chronology (the order in which stuff happened)? The quoted paragraph seems at odds with this.

Removed "chronology" (it's written in timeline-ish fashion). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rice-Davies is reported to have replied: "Well he would, wouldn't he?", which was met with laughter: for grammar, we need to rephrase which was to keep it within the "reported" framing: perhaps "It is reported that Rice-Davies replied "[MRDA]" to widespread laughter"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I've fully grasped the significance of the other reported exchange: the Guardian article gives it as an example of MRD's prickly style and use of rhetorical questions, and I'm not sure how relevant that is here (as opposed to in her biography). Very happy to be convinced here.
I don't think we bold redirects in the body when they've already been bolded in the lead.

Fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been interpreted in political, rhetorical, and linguistic terms as representing a counter to political elites, an ironic response to self-interested criticism, and a means of dismissing a person's opinion.: can we cite this?

Isn't it just summarising the cited info in the following paras? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTCITE, section leads generally don't need citations, like the article lead. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't need them: it just read oddly to have a single uncited sentence after a series of cited ones, and I suggest that it would be fairly trivial to double the citation to avoid this. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rice-Davies had exposed that people in positions of power are willing to cover up their misdeeds and put their own interests above national security: this is an opinion, but is presented as a statement of fact (I'm not saying I disagree!) I'm also not totally sure I understand the direct connection to national security.

Rephrased and note added. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

undermined the authority of elite attorneys: lawyers in England, I think: attorneys is generally either American or Scottish.

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest linking truism.

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if–then statement should have an endash, I think.

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rice-Davies's statement should be evaluated from ... an objective statement of reality: something has gone a bit wrong grammatically here.

Fixed? Per Gog's comments yesterday. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which, according to her biographer Richard Davenport-Hines, "delighted" Rice-Davies.: not totally clear (what exactly is the antecedent of which: the quote, the abbreviation or the dictionary?)

Fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries are books, and therefore should either be a subset of Books and journal articles or simply rolled into that section. I'm not sure I'd call the ODNB a dictionary in the strict sense.

OK, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd to be sniffy about separating a book chapter as its own thing, when we'd be happy to treat it alongside the other books if it were published in a journal.

Done? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article seems to suggest that there's a little bit of doubt as to a) whether the quote is fully authentic and b) as to whether it truly was followed by laughter. We allude to this with the verb "reported" but don't really go into it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added an old note. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might come along later and do the image review. I hope the above it useful: it's a nice little article, and please do come back and quibble where necessary. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: are there any other edits you would like done? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, though I'm not sure if the consultation/integration of Stephen Ward Was Innocent, OK mentioned above has happened yet. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UC, apologies: I did look over the book shortly after I left the comment. As I remember, the Rice-Davies section of it (the relevant bit) was pretty thin gruel and didn't add anything new. I did cite the book in the Savundra note as that was the best source readily available for that. I've also added another cite from Robertson 2013 to the end of section 1 to bolster the statement a bit. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support from there, then. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by Eddie891

Just a drive-by. This article is, quite frankly, not that long.I find myself asking after reading this article why it couldn't be merged somewhere (ie to Mandy Rice-Davies herself). The few sentences of literary analysis that might not fit there are, in my opinion, literary scholars over-reading into her commentary and I'm not convinced anything would be lost if it wasn't retained. This is not to say anything about the work you have done here (it's good work), but is it enough for a stand-alone article? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's definitely enough in the sources (and enough of them) to establish notability: "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that I don't think there's notability here. Stand-alone notability is a different thing. I am not clear why this article couldn't be merged with Mandy Rice-Davies. Clearly there would be no reason to WP:SIZESPLIT the two, and there's really just not that much discussing the quote by itself, imo. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC at Sagan standard had similar issues raised, if I recall correctly. Obviously these two articles are different kettles of fish, but not incomparably. I think this article has stand-alone notability, but then again... does the joke really need to be repeated? ;) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would need to be repeated, wouldn't it?

Acknowledging that I was the reviewer who approved this article's earlier DYK nomination, my two cents are that the coverage of specifically the phrase is sufficient to warrant standalone notability. The psychologists, linguists, historians, philosophers, etc. cited on this page for analysis of specifically the phrase (multiple of them in peer-reviewed academic periodicals) are, by all available guidelines and measures for Wikipedia, WP:RS and know what they're doing. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 20:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're reliable, but even what they have to say is just not terribly substantive, is it? Sagan is a different case because there's just so much else to say in his article that a merge wouldn't make sense. For me, it's more analogous to the situation with Elizabeth Willing Powel, where "A republic... if you can keep it" is discussed as part of the same article. I'm not sure why we couldn't do the same here, and why it is better to have the two articles separate. The quote would arguably be better contextualized through inclusion in Davies' article. But, I'm not super invested in this, and this was just a drive-by thought, as advertised. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think what's been said about this phrase is any less substantive than what has been written about the Sagan standard; both have been analyzed in philosophical and political terms and both are used to describe particular truisms about self-interest and the scientific method, respectively. SIZESPLIT only applies when the article itself is getting too long; it doesn't speak to whether an independently notable topic should be merged back into an article on a related topic. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd echo voorts here: there's no converse of WP:SIZESPLIT to say that we should merge two articles, each of which would independently pass WP:GNG, simply because the resulting article would be of a manageable length. Indeed, WP:FRANKENSTEIN would flag up some potential dangers of doing so. Honestly, I think the Elizabeth Willing Powel example shows the difference: that article has been very careful to keep the focus on Powel and so not to discuss the afterlife of the "if you can keep it" quotation, except to discuss Powel's progressive removal from its story. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how WP:FRANKENSTEIN is related to this? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry: I was going for WP:COATRACK, I think. The article on (say) Mandy Rice-Davies is about a person. If we merge with that an article about a quotation, there is a strong likelihood that we will find some information that's due more weight in an article about the latter than the former, and so we'll either include it and create a WP:UNDUEWEIGHT problem for our coverage of the person, or exclude it and create a comprehensiveness problem for our coverage of the quotation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just have two thoughts, and probably won't return to drag this out any further: 1) there is a converse of SIZESPLIT, it's MERGE. 2) the difference between Sagan's quote and this is that the quote is MRD's primary source of notoriety. It wouldn't, imo, be undue to cover it (and even its reception/legacy) fairly extensively in her biography. And a lot of the linguistic analysis is just linguists being unnecessarily convoluted-- you can only interpret something someone said in passing so much. But clearly opinions differ on this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Background: Could we establish that we are talking about the UK? Perhaps 'The Profumo affair concerned John Profumo, the British Secretary of State for War ...'?
- It says "British political phrase" in the first sentence.

Er, I started the sentence with "Background" because I wanted to talk about - no, no, you guess. ;-)

Oops, my bad. Done.

In the "Profumo affair" section two dates are to the month, one only to the year. Any chance of giving the month at least of Profumo's lie?
- Done.
"Keeler's involvement with Yevgeny Ivanov". Is the nature of this "involvement" known:?
- Sexual; added.
"Edwards and Potter contended that Rice-Davies's response rebutted (through use of the modal verb "would")[28] an implied criticism from Lord Astor (that Rice-Davies was lying) by ironically suggesting that he was known as a self-interested person." I would personally replace the parentheses with commas, but that's your call.
- I decided to let loose and changed it to an em dash.

You rash impetuous devil you.

"rather than from an objective statement of reality". Should that be 'rather than as an objective statement of reality'?
- The word should be standpoint rather than statement; fixed.
If you follow the link doffed their caps I think you will find that the definition isn't the one you want. You are after something more like wikt:tug one's forelock.
- Done (but tug one's forelock sounds like something you probably shouldn't do in front of a playground).

I wasn't suggesting it (smutty pun intended), just indicating that I understood what sort of link you wanted.

Martin and Thorpe need publisher locations.
- Martin is University of Toronto Press, and per {{cite book}}, "Geographical place of publication; generally not wikilinked; omit when the name of the work includes the publication place, for example, The Boston Globe, The Times of India." For Thorpe, according to commented out text from Tim: "Kindle edition, no ISBN or publisher location"

The latter is London - [2].

Done.

What a splendid article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild: Thank you for the review! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Responded above. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely, well written little article. A pleasure to review it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: The philosopher Timothy Williamson ... suggested that Rice-Davies could have instead said "Well he did, didn't he?" This should be "could not have instead said". From Williamson: "Mandy Rice-Davies’ point was that Lord Astor’s making the denial was modally robust given his interests, irrespective of the truth-value of her allegations, and so was evidentially worthless. She could not have made that point just by saying ‘Well he did, didn’t he?’ She used the modal sense of ‘would’ to full effect." Shapeyness (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Johnbod

Not much to say, I think. Nice read.

👍 Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In lead, at "by the Welsh model Mandy Rice-Davies during the 1963 trial of the English osteopath..." insert "while giving evidence" (so not just in a fag break) after her name.

Ha, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't many images (though the lead one is good), so there is no need for a horrible tiny double image. Much better to break them up.

I'm still holding out hope for the Macmillan image issue to be resolved, or finding a replacement - if not, will do. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a photograph of Ward makes more sense than McMillan. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he wants to have both (I think). Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any images of Ward under a free licence? If we do then I agree that that would be better than Macmillan. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't, we can upload one to en-wiki under fair use. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have this one. Question is whether we can justify using it here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess not; @Nikkimaria, any thoughts? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the subject's date of death, I'm surprised we would need to rely on a non-free - have you looked into potential PD options? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd lead para looks too long (on my screen anyway); best to split it. Also the single para "Political use" section.

Not sure where / if to do it in the lead, but done in the second. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I split the lead paragraph. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would expand a bit to clarify (or at least list more clearly) the various wordings given at the time, integrating notes 1 and 3 into the text. The (typical) difficulty in finding out what was actually said is itself of interest.

Hm. I'm not sure about adding the first note into the prose: would be very long for the lead sentence: ""Well he would, wouldn't he?" (quoted by contemporary sources as "he would, wouldn't he?";[1] sometimes misquoted as "well he would say that, wouldn't he?"),[2] commonly referred to as Mandy Rice-Davies Applies (shortened to MRDA), is a British political phrase[...]". In my mind, this is exactly what notes are for: clarifying and expanding if needed without being too bulky. Re note 3, it had originally been cut out of the article but put back in in response to a different review, and is just the story of a scribe jumbling up his notes, which he later admitted to. Happy to be convinced either way though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of adding to the "Utterance" section. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now done: note in lead still kept, though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I expect you know, the "Indian doctor" was Emil Savundra (neither Indian nor a doctor). If you can reference that it should be linked - also his bio has a cn tag for that, which it would be nice to lose.

Yes, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that's it, I think. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod - thanks very much for the review. All points addressed: some you might want to pursue. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to leave it there & Support. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hydrangeans

Just some brief comments; not so much a formal review (I already reviewed for DYK)

Pleased to see how well this FAC has gone! Sorry to be a little eleventh hour, but while I see why Gog the Mild suggested linking Rice-Davies's "doffed their caps" remark to "tug one's forelock" (the whole deference vibe), that seems a bit easter egg-like, linking one phrase and sending the reader somewhere else entirely, and sort of veers on an WP:OR presumption about what Rice-Davies really meant to say. Toggling the examples provided with wikt:doff one's hat to makes me think the original link is actually right:

I doffed my hat to the wondrous horse, the fast trotter, the best in mother England
I doff my hat to Mr. President of the Republic as he celebrates his eighth anniversary of accession to the pinnacle of political power.
Perhaps this is why she enjoys writing series (doffing her hat to all the series she read as a child).

These seem to be along the lines of what Rice-Davies is talking about: a gesture of praise or respect to someone else. The middle quotation especially seems to capture Rice Davies's meaning—an "age of deference" where people still "doffed their caps" to those they were supposed to respect.

I also certainly understand why Gog the Mild suggested wikilinking Emil Savundra, since otherwise the reader has no idea who this "Indian doctor" is—but that also turns into a bit of an unintended easter egg since the reader doesn't know to expect to stumble on an article about someone who isn't in fact Indian or a doctor. If Emil Savundra is making allegations that involve Rice-Davies, should that be incorporated into the Background section? Or maybe at least an explanatory note along the lines of The "Indian doctor" was Emil Savundra, a Sri Lankan scam artist who... etc.?

Sorry about not getting around to comments earlier! This is really excellently put together; and I don't mean to hold it up. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 06:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Hydrangeans, and no worries: both done now. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And both look excellent. Best wishes! Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 20:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You're not holding anything up. We still need a source review, if you're interested in doing that. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spot-check upon request. Reviewing this version. There seem to be rather inconsistent citations, but from checking it looks like that's due to different sources proffering different information. I think that iNews is linking to the wrong page. I wonder if there are any pages here and here that could be used. It seems like we are relying on a mix of academic sources, biographies and newspaper articles which I guess are OK. Apropos of nothing, I remember seeing this phrase as part of the essay Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies which I am admittedly rather iffy about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are formatted consistently with the available information provided. I'll take a look at the sources from the link you shared later today, but I'm pretty sure we've gotten the main points without citing repetitive sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: There are no other sources that I could find from those searches that would be useful. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think this passes, with the caveat that I didn't spotcheck much nor am familiar with the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done re iNews / iNews. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Is this good to go or do we need a few more general reviews first? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's at the stage that an uninvolved coord (e.g. me) could check it over... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over from a referencing perspective, I tend to agree with UC that we could afford to cite the last sentence of the first/intro para under Analysis, even if it is all covered in the following text -- it is after all a strong statement in itself that I think warrants standalone verification. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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