Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Julia Martha Thomas/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 Ucucha 01:46, 26 August 2011 [1].

---

Murder of Julia Martha Thomas

Murder of Julia Martha Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Murder of Julia Martha Thomas/archive1

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this article; it has been well-received, and I aimed to write it to FA standard from the outset. I believe that it is a well-researched and well-written article that successfully documents its topic - a case that was notorious in its day but has since largely been forgotten about, though it sheds an interesting light on Victorian society. I would appreciate feedback on whether it meets the criteria for a featured article. Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Conley 2007

• Fixed.

• Newspaper citations without weblinks should have page numbers

• I don't have page numbers for all the newspaper citations (due to the poor state of preservation of some of my sources). I've provided page numbers wherever I have them.

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers

• I've added a few more locations, but generally I have given the location only the first time the newspaper source is cited. Should I be giving locations every single time?

• First time only is probably sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Check for consistency in citation punctuation

• I'm not sure what you're getting at here, could you clarify?

• Similar citations should use similar punctuation. For example, why does ref 5 have a period after the location while ref 9 has a comma? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. The reason was that some news sources used the cite news template, while others didn't. I've converted them all to use the template for consistency of formatting. Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, looks good now. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Web citations need retrieval dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sven Manguard

• Media Review A few issues, one opposeworthy.
  • The lead image, File:Kate Webster.PNG, has no source. Specifically, the source is "desconhecido", which if Google translate is correct, is Portuguese for "unknown". Unless a proper source is identified and put into the image description page, this image must be removed from the article and deleted from Commons. I know it's obviously PD, but that's actually irrelevant if there isn't a source. Until this is either sourced or removed, I have to oppose this FAC.
    • If this is sourced and kept, English translations are needed for the information in the Template:Information on the image description page.
  • All of the other images, save the color image, have "Anonymous" listed as their author. I find that highly unlikely (authorship might be listed somewhere surrounding the image or in the back of the paper) and therefore troubling. Normally I'd say that I have to trust the uploader here, however since the nominator is the uploader, I am going to say "please double check, thoroughly, for illustrator information".
• Sorry if this seems like I'm coming down hard on you. Attribution is important though. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Automatic oppose due to major issue in the media review. Oppose is nullified when the issue is solved. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are no bylines or credits of any sort anywhere in the newspaper (which ceased publication in 1913). This is not really a surprise as it was not common practice to use bylines or credits in British newspapers until well into the 20th century. (The Economist still doesn't.) I suggest that the best way to resolve this would be to attribute the "anonymous" images to the newspaper, as they all seem to have been produced on a collective basis - no individual, not even the editor, is credited at any point. It was clearly not the newspaper's policy to identify the authors of individual stories or images and there would certainly be no way of identifying them now.
• Regarding the lead image, it could probably be substituted for another one. However, I think you're mistaken about the source - it's given as "Arquivos Policia de Londres" or "Archives of the Police of London", i.e. the Metropolitan Police. The uploader's description "desconhecido" is given for the author, not the source. The image is a police mugshot taken (presumably) when Kate Webster was arrested. As such, it falls into the UK Government PD category of "a photograph created by the United Kingdom Government and taken prior to 1 June 1957". The authorship is not going to be recorded - it would have been some anonymous police photographer - but the source is clear enough. I'd already added a UK Gov PD template and I've translated the uploader's description as well. Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Alright. I've struck the oppose. I also reinserted the Portuguese text into the image description page, alongside the English text. Please check the template I used, for future reference, as it is polite to use those when there are multiple languages in involved. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Additionally, I checked the captions, as I was recently reminded that doing so probably fell under the image reviewer's responsibilities. Please make sure that you use punctuation in your captions in the future (I fixed it this time around). Sven Manguard Wha? 23:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Zanimum

• Support, given all the changes made. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sarastro1

OpposeComments: While this is a very good piece of work, I'm afraid I have to oppose for now. While very interesting, it may be a little overdetailed. Some of the background could be cut and some facts seem to be included simply to include them; the information on David Attenborough is not really relevant and is probably meaningless to the majority of readers who will not be from the UK. Also, the use of quotations seems excessive and I'm sure some of them could be paraphrased; there are plenty which are possibly superfluous; the description after her flight for example. I'm also uncomfortable with the number of parentheses; they interrupt the flow of sentences and often do not really add to the article. If the facts are relevant, why not include them in the main sentence. If they are tangential, either cut them or include them in notes at the end. Also, there are a few parts which go a little over the top in terms of descriptive prose; this style is not really suitable for an encyclopaedia. Although my oppose is not set in stone, I would like to see these general issues addressed throughout the article. I have also left some more detailed points. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that you think the info on Attenborough's involvement is irrelevant, as it's a key part of the story. First and most obviously, it gives the case contemporary relevance. Second, the discovery of the skull was the direct result of Attenborough commissioning work on the site. Third, if you look at the media coverage of the case (see [2]), Attenborough's involvement was the hook - internationally, not just in the UK, as he's known worldwide - and it was the hook for the recent DYK as well. I've reduced the coverage of this a bit but considering that Attenborough was indirectly responsible for the skull's discovery we can hardly not mention it. I take your point about the other issues with the writing and will address them later today.

• "many aspects of Webster's actions": a little cumbersome; why not just "many of Webster's actions"?
• "violated": A little strong for an encyclopaedia?
• "Apart from the sensational and gruesome nature of the crime itself, many aspects of Webster's actions violated social norms of the day (particularly Victorian ideas about femininity), which served to increase the notoriety of the case." In fact, this is a long sentence which may need splitting. I'm also not a fan of the parentheses in the middle of the sentence which interrupt the flow. And no need for "served to".

• The three points above: I've rewritten and simplified this line.

• "jewelry": Should this be in UK English?

• It was originally - someone seems to have changed it since. I've changed it back.

• Second paragraph of background has a lot of unattributed quotes; they need in-text attribution. There seem to be other examples throughout and these should be checked carefully.

• I don't think anything in the article is unattributed. In the specific paragraph you mention, every sentence is cited; the citation covers everything in the sentence, including the quotes. Putting a citation after every quote would lead to a lot of duplication, for instance (every citation here goes to the same source):

She was said to have an "excitable temperament" and the reputation of being "very much a tartar with her servants". She was regarded as "distinctly eccentric" by her neighbours and frequently travelled, leaving her friends and relatives ignorant of her whereabouts for weeks or months at a time.

• Is that really the way it needs to be done? I can do that if needed but it seems a bit messy.

• "After returning to crime on leaving prison…" Odd emphasis. What about, "On leaving prison, she returned to crime and was arrested…" or better, "On leaving prison, she was arrested once more for larceny [this is implied in the text at the moment but should be explicit] and …"

• Changed to "Not long after leaving prison she was arrested again for larceny", which hopefully works.

• "However, the activity at 2 Mayfield Cottages did not seem to be out of the ordinary, as it was customary in many households for the washing to begin early on Monday morning." Is the address needed here? And the sentence implies the disposal of the body took place overnight and the "cleaning" was done early in the morning. I think this should be clarified.

• I think the address is necessary. Mayfield Cottages was a semi-detached house - number 2 was where the murder took place, number 1 was where the landlady, who played a crucial role later, lived. If you just say "Mayfield Cottages" then it becomes ambiguous as to where the activity took place - it could mean either of the properties.

• "Webster put on Mrs. Thomas's silk dress and paid a surprise visit to her old neighbours in Hammersmith, the Porters, whom she had not seen for six years. She claimed that she had married, had a child and had been widowed and that she had been left Mrs. Thomas's property by an aunt. She identified herself as Mrs. Thomas, despite her total lack of resemblance to her late employer, and invited Porter and his son to the Oxford and Cambridge Arms pub in Barnes." OK, this loses me a little. She went to whose old neighbours, hers or Mrs Thomas's? And was she claiming to be herself come into prosperity or Mrs Thomas? Either way, this is inconsistent as she can't claim both.

• Try this: "On 4 March, Webster travelled to Hammersmith to see her old neighbours the Porters, whom she had not seen for six years. Wearing Mrs. Thomas's silk dress and carrying a Gladstone bag which she had filled with some of Mrs. Thomas's remains, Webster introduced herself to the Porters as "Mrs. Thomas". She claimed that since her last meeting with the Porters she had married, had a child, had been widowed and had been left a house in Richmond by an aunt."

• "After he dragged it up onto the river bank, he cut the cord encircling it and gave it a kick. The waterlogged container split open and disgorged a mass of flesh wrapped in brown paper." This is not encyclopaedic and drifts a little close to purple prose. I also think it may be over detailed.

• It's a pretty straight description of the man's own account. I've shortened it as follows: "After he dragged it up onto the river bank, he cut the cord encircling it and opened the box, finding inside a mass of flesh wrapped in brown paper."

• "was not straight": idiomatic phrasing.

  I've changed the sentence to: "Meanwhile, Church realised that he had been conned."

• "(Church subsequently made a healthy profit from the increase in custom at his pub after the trial.[39])": This is distracting and would be better in a note.

• In all honesty it's probably not necessary; I've removed it.

• "her actions had violated various aspects of what Victorian society regarded as normative behaviour.": this reads a little cumbersome and could be simplified; why "normative" for example?

• Sociology-speak, I'm afraid; I've replaced the entire sentence with the simpler line "Her crime was seen as both gruesome and scandalous."

• The lead and "Social impact" section make a point about her impersonating her victim, yet in the "narrative", very little is made of it apart from her odd episode with the Porters and when she was caught. Is there more?

• The point here is that she posed as her victim for two weeks after the murder. She seems to have spent most of the two weeks at home, apart from the episode with the Porters, which was necessary to dispose of the body - she couldn't carry it all herself. I've added a bit more further up the article to state what she did during that time, i.e. posing as Mrs. Thomas.

• "Many Irish people had emigrated to England since the Great Famine of 1849, but met widespread racism and persistent associations with criminality and drunkenness." I'm not too sure about "racism" as race doesn't really come into it here. Prejudice? Discrimination?

  Prejudice works better, I agree - changed.

• "but the fact that it was deposited on top of a layer of Victorian tiles showed that it had clearly been buried in the 19th century" The source does not make this inference from the place it was located. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Fair point. I've changed this to "but it had been deposited on top of a layer of Victorian tiles." Prioryman (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Replies: I am happy to strike the oppose as several issues have been death with and the article is starting to look good. However, I still believe there are over-detailing issues, which I will outline below. I have also found some issues with sourcing which concern me slightly, although not enough to oppose at the moment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstood me slightly about Attenborough, and I agree with what you have done. My issue was not with including Attenborough's role, but the level of detail about what he did before the skull's discovery. I think it is about right now.
• "Its notoriety was increased by the way that Webster had behaved after the crime and during the trial.": I'm still not sure about this line as the prose is a little lumpy. What about "Webster's behaviour after the crime and during the trial further increased the notoriety of the murder."

• That's fine, I've added that wording.

• Regarding the attribution of quotes: In the case mentioned below, I would say that yes, the quote needs a cite even if the following sentence uses the same ref. All quotes need a reference after them. The case you have mentioned above is trickier in terms of citation but I would say that it is just about acceptable. However, this is not what I meant. I was referring to attributing in the text the person who said the words. For example, the case you mention quotes several views of Webster but does not say who said them. Was it O'Donnell or was O'Donnell quoting someone else? Another example would be: "Webster's first appearance at Richmond magistrates' court was greeted by "an immense crowd around the building ... and very great excitement prevailed."" In this case the quote comes from the Times, so the sentence needs to attribute this: "According to the Times correspondent, Webster's first appearance at Richmond magistrates' court was greeted by "an immense crowd around the building ... and very great excitement prevailed."" All quotes need attributing like this as well as giving a citation.

• OK, I think I've pretty much resolved this now. I've removed a number of quotes and worked them into the text as paraphrases. Elsewhere I've attributed quotes in more detail.

• I think the Porters issue is cleared up nicely now.
• "Meanwhile, Church realised that he had been conned.": I'm still not convinced by conned; what about deceived? It is a little more formal.

• Agreed, and changed accordingly.

• "Her crime was seen..." By who? It is usually better to say who had this view: "The public saw her crime..." or "Commentators saw her crime..."

• Thanks, I've used the latter wording.

• I think there are still instances of over-use of quotes and overdetailing. Here are some examples, but feel free to argue with them: the background to Thomas before the murder seems over detailed, the wanted notice seems unnecessary, as do some of the longer quotes from the trial. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've reduced it somewhat; the wanted notice and some of the longer quotes have been taken out. I think the background detail is necessary though, as it sets the scene and dramatis personae for the rest of the story.

• Sourcing issues: I only have access to the Times sources, but checking these has revealed a few issues. I may be able to spot-check one other source in the next few days, but I cannot guarantee it.
• "After he dragged it up onto the river bank, he cut the cord encircling it and opened the box, finding inside a mass of flesh wrapped in brown paper." Original text: " ... noticed a not very large box floating in the water. It was tied around with a piece of rope. Wheatley opened the box, and found what appeared to him pieces of a human body, each separate piece wrapped up in strong brown paper." Aside from the fact that some of the text is not supported by the cite (although it could be argued it is implied, so that doesn't bother me too much), I think this shows some us of "flowery" language. Cut the cord encircling it is too much, given the source is so simple. Why not just "Inside, he found what looked like body parts wrapped in brown paper"?

• Fair enough. I've reworded it: "He recovered the box and opened it, finding that it contained what looked like body parts wrapped in brown paper."

• Other issues from this reference to the Times: "The body was in such a poor condition that it was not even possible to ascertain the age of the victim"; this is not said in the Times, which confidently gives the age of the woman as 20 to 30. Although this was not the age of the person eventually revealed to be the victim, it is not what the source says, and if you want to say this, I would argue another source is needed. And the quote should read "a young woman with very dark hair"; the other text cited is "amid speculation that the body had been used for an illegal dissection and anatomical study" which comes from "It was at one time supposed that the remains found were parts of a body had for dissection and anatomical study, but the facts are in opposition to this suggestion." This does not mention illegality.

• Fair point, I've removed the word "illegal". As for the condition of the body, I've simplified this to: "The doctor who examined the body parts attributed them to "a young person with very dark hair".

• "where he was to remain until he could be put in an industrial school." Original source: "where he will remain until he can be put into an industrial school" Slightly close to the source.

• Now reworded as "until such time as a place could be found for him in an industrial school". Better?

• Quote given in article: "an immense crowd around the building ... and very great excitement prevailed." Original source: "There was an immense crowd yesterday round the building ... and very great excitement prevailed." Although just one word is missing, such quotes must be given reliably.

• Amended to add that missing word.

• "On a subsequent occasion, the police had to cordon off the building to fend off the crowd outside." I can find no reference to this in the Times article cited. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nor can I, which is odd. I think I mixed it up with another source but I haven't been able to find which. Given the doubt about it, I've removed the sentence. Prioryman (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment, leaning to support: Everything looks OK that you have done, and I think this is almost there. I will give it another read through in the next day or two before I support fully, and hopefully complete some more spot-checks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruby2010

Support with comments

• "The head was buried around the back of the Hole in the Wall pub a short distance from Mrs. Thomas's house, where it was found 131 years later." I realize you discuss this later, but you need a reference here

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• "I formed an intimate acquaintance with one who should have protected me and [was] led away by evil associates and bad companions." Sentences with quotes need citations (even if the following sentence has the same citation).

• Sarastro1 raised the same point above; I'm awaiting clarification. :-) Prioryman (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• OK, I've added a citation now. Thanks. Prioryman (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked it over when it was at DYK, and the superior quality still remains. Nice work on an interesting subject. Ruby2010 comment! 22:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Mm40

Comment: None of the Harvnb links for D'Cruze work, and the single Gaute link (ref. 36) doesn't work either. Mm40 (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea why those aren't working - they don't seem to be any differently formatted from any of the working references. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the Harvnb format to be able to fix it myself. I'll ask around to see if someone can help. Prioryman (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

fixed - if there's more than one author, they must all be in the {{harvnb}} and the biblio needs them listed as "first2", "last2" instead of "author2". If you don't want all authors in the short-form ref, it's possible using "CITEREF" - give me a shout, if needed.  Chzz  ►  09:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, noted for the future. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Chzz

Being as I'm here (see above!) I have some comments. I've also made a few bold edits, which I'm sure Prioryman can check over.

• The murder of Julia Martha Thomas, dubbed the "Barnes Mystery" or the "Richmond Murder" by the press, - are those scare quotes really necessary / appropriate?

• Probably not. Removed.

• Please add alt text to the images. I'm not sure if that is a requirement, but it's easy enough, and a Good Thing™.

• I suspect it probably is a requirement somewhere, but you're certainly right about it being a Good Thing™. I'll work on that tomorrow. Now done.

• I'm not sure about one of the most notorious crimes in late 19th century Britain - POV? Unless I'm missing proof of this claim within the body.

• It's a rough paraphrase of comments by various commentators who allude to her infamy, not just at the time but for many years afterwards. I'll see if I can make this clearer by quoting more directly.

• I believe, throughout, it should refer to the victim as just "Thomas", not "Mrs. Thomas" (apart from first mention) - e.g. Part of Mrs. Thomas's remains

• A couple of comments about this. First, virtually all of the sources I used referred to the victim as "Mrs. Thomas" (see e.g. [3]) Second, I did actually start writing the article referring to her as "Thomas" before realising that this introduced room for confusion - as it is a male first name it raises the question of "who is this Thomas person and what does he have to do with the story?" I presume this is why other writers have virtually all used "Mrs. Thomas".

• resulted in the press "teeming with descriptions I consider that wiki-link unnecessary and confusing. There's a second, in the same section - and that should definitely go; advertised as "comprising Twenty Handsome Pages

• It wasn't a wikilink until you turned it into one. :-) It was merely a pair of square brackets indicating a place where a tense has been changed - a standard typographical convention. For instance, the original text of the advertisement you quote above read: "comprises Twenty Handsome Pages".

Probably more later.  Chzz  ►  09:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Sir" re. Dickie Attenborough: I wasn't sure about the use of "Sir" here, but it seems like a) you probably don't need the "Sir" at all, b) if you do keep it, it needs to be part of the link, ie ...the naturalist [[David Attenborough|Sir David Attenborough]]. instead of the current ...the naturalist Sir [[David Attenborough]]. (Discussion was User_talk:Tony1#Sir).  Chzz  ►  14:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Dickie is his brother Richard, a lord, not David, a baronet. I think I would prefer to keep it; it's how he's customarily referred to, so we might as well stick with convention. Your suggestion for the link style is a good one so I've done that. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

All the above is fine; thanks. Sorry for introducing the [ing] thing; it's a cleanup-script that always goes awry on those [...] things; usually, I spot it before saving. And apologies for mixing up my dickies. I will try and find time to read it some more.  Chzz  ►  12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarastro1 again

Weak SupportComments: This is now looking very good. I've read through again and just found a few nit-picky things. Once these are addressed, I am happy to switch to full support. However, I have been unable to do the spot-checks I hoped on one of the books and it is unlikely I will now be able to do so any time soon. The only ones I managed were those outlined above. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Employing a live-in domestic servant at her house was thus probably as much a status symbol as a fulfilment of a practical need." A little wordy, and "thus" seems over-elaborate.

• Changed to "Her desire to employ a live-in domestic servant probably had as much to do with status as with practicality."

• "On 18 April 1874 she gave birth in Kingston-upon-Thames to a son, whom she named John W. Webster": Minor point, but I'd be inclined to move "in Kingston-upon-Thames" after "son".

• Done.

• "She was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment at Wandsworth Prison." Slight redundancy here: maybe "sentenced to 18 months in Wandsworth Prison".

  Done.

• "On this occasion, however, Webster overstayed at the local alehouse and returned late..." Overstayed is an odd choice of word. Maybe "stayed longer than usual", or it implies she was staying after closing or something else "illegal". If you mean that she was required to be back, maybe a better phrase could be used.

• Changed to "visited the local alehouse".

• "An unusual and unpleasant smell was noticed by the neighbours." Maybe "The neighbours noticed an unusual, unpleasant smell" would be a little more elegant.

• Done.

• "A Mrs. Hayhoe, proprietress of a nearby pub..." I don't think we need her name, and "The proprietress of a nearby pub..." would be better.

• Done.

• "Leonard Reginald Gribble commented that..." I think a word on who he is would benefit the reader here; e.g. "Leonard Reginald Gribble, a writer/historian/crime writer, ..."

• Changed to "Leonard Reginald Gribble, a writer on criminology".

• "Miss Ives, who was Mrs. Thomas's landlady as well as her neighbour..." If this is the same Ives as before, the fact that she was the landlady belongs in the first instance.

• Done.

• "the game was up..." Idiomatic, and I would be inclined to leave this phrase out of the sentence.

• Reworded.

• "Webster was defended by Warner Sleigh and the case was presided over by Mr. Justice Denman." The inclusion of these names suggests significance, but a few words as to their importance would be helpful here.

• I've added an explanatory preface to Sleigh and linked Denman.

• "A final surprising twist..." Editorialising? I think this sentence and the next could be recast here; there is no need to set up the pregnancy claim by describing it as a "twist". I would simply give the fact.

• OK, I've reworded it accordingly.

• "The Law Times reported that "upon this a scene of uncertainty..." A very odd link here for "upon".

• It shouldn't be there at all. I suspect that's due to Chzz's script (see above). I've fixed it now.

• "It may be noted that John Church, the publican whom Webster had attempted to implicate, was himself a former servant who had risen to lower middle-class status and earned a measure of prosperity through his hard work and effective management of his pub. Webster, in contrast, had simply stolen her briefly-held middle-class identity." Another piece of editorialising here which does not really say much but does seem to pass judgement. If it is an opinion, it needs attribution. Otherwise, I think it should go.

• It's attributed already (to D'Cruze) - she makes the point of highlighting Church's status as a person who had risen to lower middle-class status by "respectable" means, i.e. the work ethic that the Victorians so valued. I've reworded the piece accordingly.

• "She had had a succession of male friends, one of whom had fathered her child outside wedlock, which suggested promiscuous female sexuality..." Although correct, "had had" never looks particularly good. What about "Her succession of male friends, one of whom had fathered her child outside wedlock, suggested promiscuous female sexuality..."

• Yes, much better - done.

• I noticed a couple of instances of numbers over ten given as words; I believe these should be changed to figures, per WP:MOSNUM. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I could only find two (and one was in a quotation, so I've left that alone). Were there others? Prioryman (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Support: While I'm sure there could be some further tightening in places, I think this article comfortably meets the criteria now and I am switching to full support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Amandajm

Comment: Finally, the fact that she was Irish was undoubtedly a factor in the widespread revulsion felt towards Webster in Great Britain.

There may be a lot of evidence to suggest that the her Irish nationality was a factor in the "revulsion" towards Webster, but this is an opinion, non-the-less. As an opinion, the author of the opinion needs to be cited directly, not merely with the title of the book in a footnote, as if you stating a "fact". There needs to be a statement that says:Such and such an author suggests that the fact that Webster was Irish contributed to.........

Amandajm (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I've amended the article accordingly [4]. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Support I'm late into the review but a large quantity of problems have been pointed out and fixed. I see no glaring and outstanding issues with this article presently. It's a nice read and the lead pic is scary business. Brad (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The prose needs to be checked; I already fixed "19th century Britain", but I also notice "whom had been twice widowed", and you need to be consistent in using either spaced en or unspaced em dashes (WP:DASH). Ucucha (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support – I made a few edits, which the nominator might wish to check. There is what Fowler calls a "jingle" here: "Webster posed as Mrs. Thomas for two weeks but was exposed" but I can't find an easy fix. Overall this is a well written contribution. The prose reminds me of the writing style of Ludovic Kennedy. Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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