Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cleveland Street scandal

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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:08, 29 September 2008 [1].

Cleveland Street scandal[edit]

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)

comment would it be possible to get Image:AlVicarticle.jpg on a commons friendly licence? Fasach Nua (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can you nom a FAC with a broken image? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was. It was showing OK before I refreshed my cache. I'll remove it from the article and tag it for deletion. DrKiernan (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it back; it's been repaired. DrKiernan (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose—needs work. Here are examples just from the top.

US spelling for this article? ("fueling")
Wouldn't mind the usual formula for opening the article (see WP:LEAD).
"some cash"—remove "some". Same with "some hesitation" (make it "after hesitating for a number of minutes", or something like that—have you got the original account?).
"fifteen" and "14". And better "15-year-old"; check the other age numbers.
"representing" --> "equivalent to", since his wages it certainly wasn't.
Ref 1: usually I complain that there's too much inline ref citing (especially successive repetitions). But in a substantial paragraph, without referencing up in the lead, we need just a little reassurance earlier in the para; perhaps [1] after "Street" as well as at the end?
I do take it that every claim in the lead is referenced in the body of the article. Tony (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made. DrKiernan (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But the Prince Albert Victor image is probably not the best lead image. His involvement is not really got into until the last paragraph of the article and his involvement is apparently based only upon rumours and a second-hand accusation. Questions on copy-editing:

"Newlove named Lord Arthur Somerset, head of the Prince of Wales's stables, the Earl of Euston and an Army Colonel by the name of Jervois as visitors" - how many people is in this list?
"details of the case shuttled between government departments." - I'm not familiar with the use of "shuttle" like this, can a more universal word be used here?
"the obscure radical weekly The North London Press" - what kind of "radical", as a 21st century layman, I'm sure my sense of what "radical" periodical is is quite different from what was published in 1889.
"The judge, Mr. Justice Hawkins,...Mr. Justice Cave" - I don't think honorifics like Mr. are used in WP articles. --maclean 05:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ideally, I would like a picture of Cleveland Street in the lead, but I couldn't find one on wiki. I'll see if there's one elsewhere. I've made changes to address your other points: [2]. DrKiernan (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Just a couple of points, both related to the lead:-

The term "rentboy" needs a link or explanation (note: the link article is substandard)
The mentions of "Prince Albert Victor of Wales" and the "Prince of Wales" in close proximity might have some people thinking that they are one and the same person, rather than son and father. This relationship is made clear in the body of the article, but should be clarified in the lead.

Overall, an excellent article, clear and very comprehensive. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! [3] DrKiernan (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I assume you have Hyde at hand. I found a quote in a journal article that looks useful: "For fear of the contaminating publicity, the lord chancellor advised inaction in a memorandum he wrote to the treasury solicitor: 'The social position of some of the parties will make a great sensation and this will give very wide publicity and consequently will spread very extensively the matter of which I am satisfied will produce enormous evil' (quoted in Hyde 1976, p. 84)." The quote is from Adut, Ari (2005). A Theory of Scandal: Victorians, Homosexuality, and the Fall of Oscar Wilde. The American Journal of Sociology, Volume 111 Number 1 : 213–48. I trust you'll consult Hyde to verify the quote, if you want to use it. The article also has an interesting discussion of English libel tort that in part explains why the outcome of legal action was so often a "cover up". Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few quibbles

Male brothel section, second sentence in the first paragraph, "...equivalent to several weeks of his wages." seems very awkward to me. Perhaps the "... equivalent to several weeks' worth of wages." or "...equivalent to several weeks' wages."
Notable clients section, third paragraph ..."The boys were also given sentences which were considered at the time to be very lenient." What were the sentences? Also, the sentence here is a bit awkward, perhaps..."The boys were given sentences of (whatever they were), considered at the time to be very lenient."
Same section, when did Hammond escape to France and when did the French expel him?
Aftermath section, first paragraph, I think you probably need a citation for this paragraph, as it's citing public opinion.

Overall, a bit wordy in the prose, but easily readable. Excellent work, I'm happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with comments
Prince Albert Victor purchased rent boys and killed those women in Whitechapel? What a busy guy.
Sorry for not giving this a peer review when it was posted.
Can you include information at the end about the scandal in history, as in - what was its place? How do historians see the scandal now? How did it affect the monarchy, legal system, or equal rights for gays years after? --Moni3 (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I lost some very minor comments to server limbo a few days ago & can't remember them now, but article clearly meets the FAC standards. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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