Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal baccarat scandal/archive1

Royal baccarat scandal

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The royal baccarat scandal, or Tranby Croft Affair, is one of those particularly British scandals: royalty, high society, no sex, a pantomime villain and some of the finest sideburns seen in legal history. It involved allegations of cheating at a country house game of cards against a wealthy, respected soldier (and philanderer), some poor and shoddy footwork by royal advisers, and a court case at which the heir to the throne was forced to make an appearance. This has undergone a substantial (and occasionally painful) re-write recently and the aim is—if reviewers agree—to push for FA status. All and any constructive comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• Looking quickly at the images:

• Why is pretty much everything set to "upright"? These are line drawings; several are very hard to see at upright size
• The PNGs (except maybe the seating schemes) should really be JPG so that they display better in the article
• I will probably be playing with the images later, removing backgrounds etc.; I'll make the conversion to JPG at the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the tweaks on these! - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Events running up to 8 September 1890 - why is this its own section?

• It separates out the dramatis personae from the events in question - an explanation of wht Tranby Croft, and a possible motive of jealousy for Edward's action. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• the advice of the royal advisers who, - advice and advisers in such close repetition?
• and the prince was at his most unpopular for a time afterwards, although he did not regain his popularity for several years afterwards. - why two afterwardses?
• I've removed the street address, as it is not particularly pertinent here
• His extra-marital affairs were "carefully confined his serious attention to married women with compliant husbands" - was he married at the time?

• Yes, since '63. Is "extra-marital" enough to show this, or should I add something else? - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd make it explicit (gives us a chance to link his wife). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Do we need a section on Wilson and his family? It's only a single paragraph. Why not merge it?

• I'm not sure where into. There are three separate groups involved: The prince/courtiers, the Wilsons and Gordon-Cumming. Some in the Wilson group were not regular visitors to the royal circle, so I think dealing with them separately would be an advantage. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Link Hull?
• Section #Gambling and baccarat in 1890 feels really short and doesn't shed much light on the situation (also contradicts itself "illegal, then not illegal but questionable, then illegal")

• Thanks: I'll re-work this one a bit. I think the confusion comes from the unclear legal situation (and my writing too). - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• the Wilsons also invited Sykes, Lord Brooke and his wife Daisy, and Gordon-Cumming to attend, along with his equerry, Tywhitt Wilson and royal couriers Lord Coventry, Lord Edward Somerset, Captain Arthur Somerset—his cousin—and Lieutenant-General Owen Williams, along with their wives. - this list needs reworking, perhaps because of the several "ands"
• How much of #Events running up to 8 September 1890 is really necessary? The Brookes, for instance; does this need a whole paragraph? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think the Brookes are needed there: the prince found his mistress in the arms of G-C less than a week before the accusations. It could explain a lot about the prince's reaction to his friends problems. I'll trim a bit off the list of attendees (which would also clear up the problem above of too many "ands") and see above a little trimming here and there too. - SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Edward's biographer, Jane Ridley, and the former Attorney General for England and Wales, Michael Havers, the lawyer Edward Grayson and the historian Peter Shankland, - This list is also a little odd
• Queen Victoria later wrote "The incredible and shameful thing is that others dragged him into it and urged him to sign this paper, which of course he should never have done". - who's he?
• the Jenks v. Turpin case - worth a redlink or an overview?
• On their advice, he obtained a written summary of the account from Coventry and Williams, and visited his commanding officer, Colonel Stacey, and informed him of the situation. - new paragraph, pronouns should be replaced by names
• Wontner and Sons or Wontner & Sons?
• the Judge Advocate General, - name?

• Unknown, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• According to the Judge Advocate article, William Thackeray Marriott. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Selling tickets... blast. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• All done so far, except where commented on, and except for two areas I need to address peoperly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• So wait, British courts at the time allowed juries to directly question witnesses?

• It seems so. I think they still can (although not directly: questions can be made through the judge, as far as I am aware). - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• the prince was followed into the witness box by Clarke's last witness, Williams. - I'm going to assume this is a metaphor, and suggest not using "followed"
• Sir William Gordon-Cumming - this has been bugging me; when was he knighted? His article doesn't even talk about it.

• He wasn't. The Sir comes as part of the title of a baronetcy (also with Bt. as post-nominals to differentiate from a Knt of the realm). Our own article isn't the best - I'm working on an upgrade! - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Heber Hart - Is the link to Wikisource a good idea? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Possibly not, but it's the best there is at the moment. Once I'm done working on the G-C article, I'll create one for Hart too.

Many thanks for all your help and thoughts on this: it's all very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto comments

Background

• Gordon-Cumming or Gordon Cumming? We currently have both.
• I'm never a fan of short sentences, such as here: " He was a personal friend of the Prince of Wales." Would it be possible to move this down to where we speak of the prince again so we have this "He was a personal friend of the Prince of Wales, and would lend the premises to the prince for assignations with his mistresses."
• I feel a brief explanation of what Tranby Croft is would help. I had to stop and flick up to the lede to find out what exactly it was.
• "he denied having has a sexual relationship" →" he denied having had a sexual relationship"
• "known as the Marlborough House set, named after the prince's home, Marlborough House" -- Marlborough House and Marlborough House, not necessary.
• "Others of the set", or in the set?
• "The set surrounding the prince was constituted of a mix of old titled families" -- redundancy of "surrounding the prince".
• "Wilson was the 52-year-old..." New para, new person, full introduction needed. I get the title of the subsection, but the prince was part of the title, and he was introduced fully; not to mention Gordon-Cumming before him.
• "...her husband, Edward Lycett Green was the some of the local manufacturer" son?

• All done up to date so far: many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay:

• "Godfrey Lushington stated that there was nothing in the court's judgment to that made baccarat illegal if not played for money." -- Is there a stray "to" in there?
• "...putting two card tables along with the smoking room table." →"putting two card tables alongside the smoking room table"?
• The sixth paragraph is rather long in comparison to the others. It make me feel like I'm looking at a rather steep hill.
• I love these Vanity Fair images!

• They're great, aren't they! Not mine, unfortunately - mine are the pen and ink drawings from the newspapers. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Do we know the identity of the lady who informed him of the events at Tranby Croft?

• Nope, unfortunately. None of the sources let us know, and I suspect WG-C was rather discreet with her identity. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• "On the advice of his solicitors Gordon-Cumming obtained a written summary of the account from Coventry and Williams, and visited his commanding officer, Colonel Stacey, and informed him of the situation." →"On the advice of his solicitors Gordon-Cumming obtained a written summary of the account from Coventry and Williams, and informed his commanding officer, Colonel Stacey, of the situation."?

More to come...Cassianto^talk 19:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks: all done up to now. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• "After his opening speech, Clarke then questioned Gordon-Cumming for the remainder of the day." → "After his opening speech, Clarke questioned Gordon-Cumming for the remainder of the day." "Then" seemed a little redundant IMO.
• "After 20 minutes examination by both Clarke and Russell.." →"After a 20 minute examination by both Clarke and Russell..."
• "Under questioning she confirmed that she had seldom played baccarat before..." Would work better with "before" omitted. "Had" offers us the past tense here.

These are my offerings, adopt or disregard at your discretion. Bit of a Busman's holiday for me reading this, but wonderfully entertaining nonetheless. FA worthy for sure! Cassianto^talk 21:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

A handful of quibbles for starters. (Have tampered with your prose, too, which please check and revert ad lib.)

• Background
  • "a personal friend of the Prince of Wales" – as opposed to an impersonal one?
  • "for assignations with his mistresses" – the PoW's mistresses, no doubt, but this is theoretically ambiguous.
  • "Sir Charles Mordaunt, bt" – Bt not bt, but I'd lose it altogether
  • "wife had been unfaithful with three men" – I don't know what this says about me, but I have visions of four in a bed here. I keep trying to write an alternative, but I get too flustered. There's a limerick that ends "And the band at the Waldorf Astoria" that comes to mind.
  • "he was subpoenaed" – "Edward was subpoenaed"?
  • "His extra-marital affairs were "carefully confined his serious attention to married women with compliant husbands" – this needs redrawing into English. Simply removing "were" would work, but it could perhaps be tightened further.
    • I've dropped the "were" for the moment, but will return to it again to tweak further. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Enjoying this extravagantly. More tomorrow. – Tim riley talk 20:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• All done to date: many thanks indeed for your efforts so far! - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Second and concluding batch

• Edward, Prince of Wales, and the Marlborough House set (concl)
  • "prince's home on London's fashionable Pall Mall" – two things here. First, as we're in England not America it's in Pall Mall not on it. Secondly our article about the building says that it's in The Mall, rather than Pall Mall. It's both, of course, and the main entrance is off Pall Mall rather than The Mall, but you may want to consider whether "overlooking The Mall" might be a safer bet. En passant, I don't know that Pall Mall was "fashionable" in the 19th century – full of stuffy middle-class clubs like the Athenaeum and the Oxford and Cambridge. Its fashionable days (Nell Gwynn lived at No 79, and I worked at No 78 shortly afterwards) were long gone.
    • Did you meet her often, while you were there...? SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Arthur Wilson and family
  • You don't, I think, mention anywhere which county Tranby Croft is in. (You don't mention John Le Mesurier, either, which shows commendable restraint.)
• Events of 8–11 September
  • "Stanley Wilson and both Somersets met with Coventry" – you can meet with abstract things like disaster, approval etc but you just meet Coventry and other corporeal things.
  • "to the former Attorney General for England and Wales, Michael Havers" – he was indeed once Attorney General, but he later held the top legal post of all – Lord Chancellor – before the book came out, if I have my dates right.
• The news leaks out: the path to the High Court
  • "he again wrote to the Williams" – "to Williams"?
  • "from the general" – I'd lose these three words
  • "…informed him of the situation. Stacey informed…" – "told" the second time, perhaps?
  • "Sir Redvers Buller – the Sir isn't included in the piping as it is (rightly, in my view) with other knights throughout the article
• Trial
  • General comment: Asquith seems to have a hefty share of the action for a junior. Do the sources comment on this, e.g. why Russell delegated so much important examination to him?
    • Sadly not: there is just a reference to what he would later become. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Italicisation and piping: "The Pall Mall Gazette – but The Manchester Guardian in the next para. Opinions differ on which style is preferable. Brian B prefers the first, I think, and I the second, but consistency either way is probably desirable.
  • "the charges appeared to be so unanimous…" this is the second time you've used this quote. Perhaps paraphrase it the first time and keep the direct speech for here?
  • "the Morning Advertiser" – as with the Pall Mall Gazette, above
  • "the Daily Chronicle" – ditto
• Aftermath
  • It may just be my ageing eyes, but I could do with having both the images in this section at a larger size.
• Lead (left till last, more meo)
  • "English" - surely linking this is WP:OVERLINK?
  • "involving the future King Edward VII" – perhaps "involving the Prince of Wales (the future King Edward VII)"?
  • "a close personal friend of the prince" – another "personal" friend. And were they that close by now? You tell us later that the friendship was soured when Edward found Daisy Brooke with Gordon-Cumming on 6 September.
  • "although he did not regain his popularity for several years later" – shouldn't "although" be "and" here? And do you need these words anyway? They are implied in "was at his most unpopular for a time afterwards".
  • Image: the caption looks a bit odd. "Partygoers" suggests people going to an evening's knees-up. Perhaps just "The house party …"?

That's all from me. I greatly enjoyed this article, which has FA written all over it. – Tim riley talk 10:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

All done, as per your suggestions: many thanks indeed for all your efforts! - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from BB

First half of my review of this juicy affair:

Lead

• The multiple repetition of "scandal" in the first line should be avoided. The affair is often referred to as the Tranby Croft affair – the title of H.S. Green's book on the scandal (not used as a source), so the middle "scandal" in the intro could justifiably be changed.
• "The secret was not kept for long, and Gordon-Cumming demanded a retraction from the family." This is a little cryptic. I assume you mean the Wilson family, and that someone of that family spilled the beans, but this should be made clear.
• "Called among the witnesses was the prince..." – an almost poetic construction, but reads rsther oddly, I'd prefer the straightforward "The prince was called as a witness..."
• "Despite a strong and well-regarded closing speech for the plaintiff..." Not all your readers will identify the legal term "plaintiff" with Gordon-Cumming, and it is not clear from your wording who made the speech.
• You state that the judge's summing up was an "instruction" to the jury to find against Gordon-Cumming. Did he actually instruct them thus? From the article text, this does not seem to be quite the case (more, I think, a matter of the Cantley syndrome), so I suggest you summarise the judge's bias a little more circumspectly.

Edward, Prince of Wales, and the Marlborough House set

• "and could not claim to be inexperienced in dealing with scandal" – rather convoluted, double negative etc. Also, the issue is his past involvement in scandals, rather than in "dealing" with them. I suggest: "and had a history of association with scandals".
• "Three years later, in April 1869, Sir Charles Mordaunt (1836–1897) learnt that his wife had three separate affairs, including the heir to the throne." Not quite grammatical as it stands. We need the past perfect tense ("his wife had had..."). The last part should read "and that her lovers included the heir to the throne".
• The second paragraph is rather overdetailed; adultery is not the issue in Tranby Croft. We can cover the prince's adulterous tendencies more briefly, I feel.
• "Others of the set followed the prince's example and also conducted affairs; because of the adulterous behaviour, "Marlborough House ... became a byword for louche morals". I'd consider dropping this sentence, since it harks back to the well-trodden grounds of adultery.
• "The set was constituted of..." → "The set contained..." (or maybe "comprised")

Gambling and baccarat in 1890

• "...there was nothing in the court's judgment to that made baccarat illegal if not played for money." I suspect that the word "to" is an intruder.

Events running up to 8 September 1890

• I wonder if this brief section really deserves a level-2 section heading? It doesn't really deal with "events"; I'd be inclined to slip it in as a preamble to the following main section.

• As you're the second to pick up on this (following Crisco), I've dropped it down and tweaked the headings (and levels). Does this look logical and OK to you? - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Among the original attendees..." – as they didn't attend, they weren't "attendees". Thus: "Among those originally invited were..."

Events of 8–11 September

• The seating plan for 8 September does not show Sassoon, who according to the text was the game's banker. Also, the chart shows Levett on Wilson's right, not left as per the text. And the caption says that this is the seating plan of the "left side" of the table – it looks like three sides to me.

• I'll check the positions (I think I have mixed up left and right in the text); the image shows the left tableau, with the right tableau continuing on past the blank side: left tableau refers to those to the left of the dealer (PoW). - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• In the text, "latter" is incorrect when referring to the last of three. Suggest "last-named"
• "There was some disagreement between the courtiers on whether to include the prince" – do you mean "involve the prince", or more simply, "tell the prince"?
• "According to the former Lord Chancellor, Michael Havers, the lawyer Edward Grayson and the historian Peter Shankland..." This is a very heavy-handed, and somewhat confusing attribution, naming and describing three joint authors. Attribution is necessary when a source gives a POV or a challengeable account of an event, but not when simply constructing the narrative – otherwise WP articles would become unreadable, with "according to..." prefacing virtually every sentence. In this case I think it would be perfectly OK to begin the sentence: "The two men told the prince..." (see also a later attribution to this trio)
• "he dismissed all except..." I assume; "the prince dismissed..." (not obvious at present)
• "who urged him to sign the document" – the document has not yet been established as an entity, so I would say "who urged him to sign a document that they had drafted"

Second half soon Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

All done, bar one, which I still have to check. Many thanks indeed for your thought so far. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the rest

The news leaks out: the path to the High Court

• I question whether this section heading complies with MOS. We don't usually include the definite article; "The news leaks out" sounds like a chapter in a boys' adventure yarn. I tend to use all-purpose words/phrases like "Further developments" or just "Developments" and let the text tell the story – you might consider doing the same.
• "He replied to the prince to make a "final appeal..." → "He replied to the prince with a "final appeal..."
• (In footnote j): "address of a club to which he belonged" → "address of a club to which Gordon-Cumming belonged"
• "was informed by a lady" – can you be a bit more specific? If her name is not known, I suggest "a lady acquaintance"
• "informed his commanding officer": this is the first indication that G-C was an active serving officer. His military responsibilities seem to have been extraordinarily light, allowing him, it seems, to come and go at will (winters abroad big-game hunting, etc). Perhaps a footnote would be appropriate here, or maybe earlier, clarifying his precise military status during these years.

• Unfortunately there is nothing in any of the sources. I suspect he was probably on half-pay, as many gentlemen officers were between engagements, but I can't find anything to back this up, or any other explanation of his status. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• I thought he might be on half-pay, i.e. inactive, but in the article you say that Stacey "requested permission to let Gordon-Cumming retire on half-pay", which suggests that he wasn't. Presumably, rich and well-connected regimental officers in Victoria's army were given lots of leeway when they had "done their bit", as G-C had in the Sudan. With no alternative explanation, we have to leave it there. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Edward's younger brother..." You normally refer to him as "the prince", and it won't be obvious to every reader who "Edward" is - I'd stick to "the prince"
• You shouldn't rely on the link to identify Asquith as the future Liberal PM
• "If Gordon-Cumming was tried by a military tribunal, then the rationale for a court case would disappear". The option of a military tribunal has not been raised in the article before. If this was discussed with Buller – as your next sentence seems to suggest – then I think the matter should be mentioned in the previous paragraph. But I'm curious to know why "the rationale for a [civil] court case would disappear"; if the tribunal found for G-C, surely he would still be after the Wilsons et al for damages?
• "his court was converted to accommodate the case." More details, e.g. "enlarged to accommodate the many society spectators wishing to witness the case."

Trial

• "When cross-examined by Clarke he was not brow-beaten by the lawyer's arguments, although Clarke made him appear "brash, conceited and callow". This, I think, is a case where attribution is required, as the assertions are an individual's POV interpretation.
• I am finding rather an abundance of mdashes (almost on the level of F. Scott Fitzgerald – see Tender is the Night). I suggest that you audit these; you may find that quite a few can be replaced by standard punctuation. Sample problem sentence: "At points in the examination by Asquith, Lycett Green contradicted the course of events outlined by Stanley Wilson—which Levett had also done—and on one point regarding a question the prince put to Levett—his answer was 'highly suspect' ".

• Ive done tweaks here and there, but to be fair, some of them are in direct quotes! - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Mrs Wilson lied" - direct, emotive accusations should be avoided. Suggest: "Mrs Wilson stated that only her husband had placed such an amount, but Wilson had not played on either night as he disliked both the game and high-stakes gambling." The "lies" accusation can be properly left to the quote.

Aftermath

• "Clarke remained convinced in his client..." You can't be "convinced in" someone; perhaps "retained faith in his client"?
• "Most biographies of Edward VII contain details of the scandal, but in 1932 the first book to cover the scandal was published; Teignmouth Shore's account, The Baccarat Case, was published in the Notable British Trials series, consisting in part of a full transcript of the case." This is an awfully convoluted and over-extended sentence. Here is my effort to rationalise it: "Most biographies of Edward VII contain some details of the scandal, but the first book to cover it in detail did not appear until 1932. This was Teignmouth Shore's The Baccarat Case, published in the Notable British Trials series and incorporating a full transcript of the case."

That concludes my comments, which I hope you find useful. This looks like a worthy addition to the sub-genre of scandals that is gradually polluting the fragrant FAC atmosphere, and I look forward to seeing it there in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

All covered, I think. As always I am deeply indebted to you for your thoughts and comments. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

E.S. Blofeld comments

Lede

• Tranby Croft, in Yorkshire...
• "They refused and he filed a writ for slander. " -do we know when?
• "The case was heard " -where?
• "Gordon-Cumming was dismissed from the army the following day," I think somewhere you might add a sentence or so mentioning his background to put it in context, without of course getting off the subject. perhaps earlier where you say lieutenant colonel replace with "a decorated lieutenant colonel in the Scots Guards".
• "two fictionalised accounts of the events." -such as? If not particularly notable don't worry.

Background

• I think it might be useful to link Gordon-Cumming again in the photo caption.
• "At the time of the events at the country home Tranby Croft", in Yorkshire..
• "Also" is repeated a fair bit, you might remove also from "Gordon-Cumming was also a womaniser".

Edward

• Can you link subpoenaed for those of us unfamiliar with the term?

Trial

Admittedly I find this a lot to digest, a lot of quotes, if anything a bit too much detail for me to read comfortably. Perhaps you could trim some of it and paraphrase some of the quotes to improve flow? Just a suggestion.

Thanks Doc: all done with the exception of the trial, which I want to take a bit of time to re-work properly. It's the area where I struggled most in writing for one reason or another, so I want a clear run at it for a re-write. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt, hopefully not too hung over

Very good and compelling. I spotted a few minor prose issues on my first read through, but I imagine my colleagues will tell you of some of them and they will be fixed. Here's my start:

Lede

• "a game that had questionable legality in Britain at the time." Is this really worth including in the first paragraph? There's little that is mentioned in the article as reaction to baccarat being of questionable legality, and much about whether there was cheating going on
• "were his two advisers" the body mentions that the prince had more than just the two advisers. Suggest striking word "his".
• "Stanley Wilson to be illegally adding to his stake" is this intended to be Wilson's opinion, or fact? Similarly, "observed acting" I might say "seen to be acting" which is a bit more ambiguous. After all, we do not know whether or not he was guilty.
• "who he considered to blame" for divulging it, or similar, as they were certainly sued.
• The legal sequence of events in the lede seems a bit muddled. Perhaps, "They refused and he filed a writ for slander. Despite the efforts of the prince's courtiers to have the matter dealt with by a military court [pipe to court martial?], the case was heard in June 1891. The atmosphere at trial was described as like a theatre, and the prince was called as a witness, the first time the heir to the throne was compelled to appear in court since 1411." and go on from there. But is the last bit actually true? What about the Mordaunt case?

• He went willingly(ish) into the box for Mordaunt after he'd been told that there was a legal requirement for him to do so (only the queen can turn down the invitation); this was one that he tried to wriggle out of desperately! - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• More later, though it may be a couple of days what with one thing and another.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks for popping over for comment—much obliged! I've followed all your suggestions, and look forward to reading any further thoughts you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Resuming. Sorry if anything I write is unconnected with reality, dealing from a copy of the article downloaded Friday.

Sir etc

• "In addition to ..." I would strike "his" in the first part of the sentence (you haven't mentioned them yet), "also" in the second part, and change "the premises" to "it". I would also suggest striking "the" before "royal mistresses". This is stylistic and you may prefer your own way.
• What was Sir Gordon's marital status?

Edward

• Rather than the 1866 scandal, which is a bit obscure, or in addition thereto, would it not be better to mention the 1861 assignation with an Irish woman that Victoria always believed caused Albert's death? After all, neither is particularly germane to the Tranby Croft incident (my acquaintance with was through one of Edward's bios and the Flashman novelette) but sets forth these elements of his character.

• I had toyed with the idea of his time in Ireland, but that was a low key, private incident in his life, rather than the high-profile Mordaunt one: I plumped for the later incident both for the public angle, but also the court appearance. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• I see at least one reference to "the Prince" (in brackets) though you more usually call him "the prince". You also abandon calling him Edward which I think is not the best course for reasons I will set forth later. (I know it is properly "Albert Edward" but I agree that the reader should not be confused).
• As an aside, I don't recall Victoria's conduct in the 1860s being too popular either, once sympathy began to wear off.
• "he carried" perhaps, "he brought"? I doubt he carried it personally.
• I would also mention the prince's marital status. I suppose it is implied in a way through his son George, but people might think poor Alex was dead rather than deaf.
• " the banker—and member of the Sassoon family—Reuben Sassoon." perhaps "Reuben Sassoon, a member of the well-known banking family.
• "to include the new industrialists such as Arthur Wilson." I would strike "the". As an alternative, this whole lengthy description of the prince's set can probably be boiled down to "old and new money".

Visit

• The subsection title seems overly wordy. What about "Preliminary events"?
• "After Sykes ran into financial difficulties he was unable to host the prince, " Perhaps "Sykes had run into financial difficulties and could not afford to host the prince" (as an aside, that was how Elizabeth I would ruin her enemies--come for an extended visit)

Events of 8-11 etc.

• Is it worth at some point giving the reader a brief summary of the rules of baccarat? They are simple enough after all. Or at least the relevant ones.
• "after this happened a second time" This may give more of the authoritative voice behind the allegation that Gordon-Cumming was cheating than perhaps you intend.
• "seats; seating at either of them" Perhaps to avoid the repetition, "... seats. At either of them, Gordon-Cumming would be surrounded by members of the ..." etc.
• " two night's play " This is not my strongest point in British English, but would it be "two nights' play"
• "died unexpectedly that night in Hull; although she and her husband did not attend the races that day," Was the racing that day or the following day? After all, if it was unexpected, they would have had no reason to refrain until the death, I imagine, which argues for the latter.
• "investigated the situation more closely" such as?
• "—and convincing him of Gordon-Cumming's guilt—" surely surplusage based on what has already been said in the paragraph?
• "The courtiers took the document to the prince" the phrase "the prince" occurs four times in this paragraph, one reason for breaking it up with a salting of Edwards.

Developments

• "He replied to the prince with" as it is unclear if the prince wrote the letter, perhaps, "Gordon-Cumming then wrote to Edward with ..."
• " the letter went unanswered from either the prince or courtiers" perhaps pithier with "it went unanswered by prince and courtiers".
• What happened at Newmarket? If nothing relevant, would it not be better to excise that from the quote?
• "a written summary of the account " of the account or the events?
• "although opinion was divided" perhaps "and opinion was divided ..." or "finding opinion divided"
• "even after his brother requested further action" I'm not clear what action the duke had already taken. Perhaps advice?
• "a military tribunal" given the touchy nature of the phrase today, can some phrase like "court martial" be used?

• I'm a little nervous about referring to the tribunal as a court martial, which would mean a breach of military discipline, rather than the civil legal code (I think!) The sources do not make it terribly clear, which doesn't help too much either. - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• "the Queen's secretary," you call her "the queen" earlier
• "Wontners confirming that civil action was taking place" the use of "civil action" twice in one sentence seems unnecessary. Can one (likely the second) be changed to "such a case" or similar?
• "the members rejected the opportunity," I doubt they saw it as an opportunity. Really, it looks like everyone was running for cover, except the civil courts which could not avoid it. Suggest an alternative phrasing.
• The location of the trial (the Royal Courts of Justice, perhaps) should be stated either in this subsection, or early in the following one.

Trial

• Unless the Punch drawing was intended to be an accurate depiction, you may want to throw in a "satirical" before "Punch". It must be: my knowledge of English law is idiosyncratic, but surely there would not have been an actual dock in a civil matter?
• Regarding the prose depicting the way the court appears, I think there are too many quotes, and that the reader can get the point with one or two less, certainly the Shore quote can be safely spared, as it is just an agreement with the previous one.
• Can anything be said about the substance of Gordon-Cumming's testimony, as elicited by his counsel?
• I would strike "(incriminating)". The reader has been told of the profound effect that had on Gordon-Cumming's military career.
• "two direct questions to the prince" What does "direct" add?
• " In comparison with Gordon-Cumming's time in the witness box, the prince" technically, the comparison is being made between "time in the witness box" and "the prince", that is, an interval of time and a person.
• "Gordon-Cumming returned to the witness-box" this seems to be the only usage with a hyphen
• "he was not brow-beaten by the lawyer's arguments" at least technically, the lawyer would not have made arguments during the testimony, though undoubtedly he would have made his views clear. Perhaps "questions" for "arguments"?
• "Although he had not played on the first night, Clarke considered him a potentially dangerous witness, as he may have held vital evidence." perhaps "Lycett Green" for "he" at the start, and the last part to "as he might have vital evidence."
• It's unclear to me if Mrs Lycett Green alleged that she had seen Gordon-Cumming cheat or not.
• "referring to Lycett as" This as far as I can tell is the first and only time you refer to him simply as "Lycett"
• Can the Hart quote be developed? It's the first time there is really a hint that there might be repercussions to counsel for, basically, opposing the prince (and the queen). Might want a footnote as to whether Clarke in fact did suffer such repercussions, or whether, as Solicitor-General, he was too prominent for such things? Did he ever thereafter receive any sort of honour that had to be approved by monarchy?
• Russell gave a summing-up, Coleridge gave a summing up.

Aftermath

• " the death of the prince" this was my other objection to the lack of "Edward"s, given that he was King at the time. Perhaps "Edward's death in 1910".
• "Teignmouth Shore's The Baccarat Case," italics?

Footnotes

• fn b: the figure in acres should be converted to hectares as well. Please check for other English system units not converted
• fn c: "the key to Tranby Court". Again, I don't have impression that people cared about the illegality of baccarat, but about whether cheating went on. After all, there was never any question but that Gordon-Cumming had played baccarat, but that wasn't what got him dismissed from the Army.

Good job. Looking forward to the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic: thanks very much, and a lot to get my teeth into. I've addressed a number of the comments already, with some of the others still to come, once it get back to my books in a couple of days. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Late-to-the-party comments from Bencherlite

Looking at the legal sections and not having looked at the above comments:

• "Lewis briefed Sir Charles Russell to act as the counsel for the defence" - I think the "the" is unnecessary here
• The article says that "After his opening speech, Clarke then questioned Gordon-Cumming for the remainder of the day", which makes me think that we then start the next paragraph at the start of day two. But in fact we have a "brief adjournment" and then the beginning of cross-examination, which runs into day two. (By the way, "the short adjournment" is legal code for "lunchtime", if that's what you're trying to paraphrase!)
• "After 20 minutes examination by both..." - should that be "20 minutes' examination"? I'm never sure... or "After 20 minutes of questions from both"
• Another timing issue - Gordon-Cumming is in the witness box until lunch on day 2; then Edward follows; then the court adjourns for lunch - have we gone into day 3 (looking later, I see we haven't) or are there two lunches or is there a bit of disagreement between sources here...?

Otherwise the legal bits look OK to me. A ripping yarn and I'm not surprised Flashman makes an appearance! Bencherlite^Talk 20:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed for casting an eye over: I've done the easy couple and will go back to the sources to clarify the other two. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The second two points now addressed: it was my clumsy reading and prose that was the issue on both points, which should now be much clearer. Many thanks once again. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Many thanks to the stellar cast who turned up to review: I'm deeply thankful for all your advice and assistance. - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)