Talk:Edward Dando/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 17:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. Done a quick read-through and it's obviously in good shape: I'll do a more full review over the next few days, with points for general improvement separated out from the strict matter of the GAR. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

General comments
I should say that I'm really enjoying reviewing this article - it's a fascinating topic written with a fair bit of panache. I'm particularly impressed by the judicious incorporation of context (e.g. of Dickins on oysters) to flesh out the story and set it into its time.

This is only the results of a very quick look-over so far: I'll give it another go in the next few days. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all your speedy replies and edits so far. I've now done another look and added a few more comments; I think I should be good to go with the template and 'proper' review once those are replied to. Again, very nice work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead/General

 * We'd normally start with 'was a British thief' or similar - I appreciate that's difficult when his nationality is uncertain, but is it worth clarifying in the first sentence or paragraph that this 'story' takes place in Britain? Resolved UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * More generally, throughout the article I don't have a strong sense of place: I see from the lead that we're generally in London or Kent, but I'd like a clearer sense of where all this takes place. In the second paragraph of the 'Biography' section, for example, the article mentions an 1830 court appearance: do we know where this court was? I wonder whether a map might be helpful - something like the one at this example?
 * I think this would be a problem. We’d have six or seven red dots in London, then one on Kent, the scale would likely be so small the London dots would appear as a cluster - or the map so large to show the discrete dots in London and the one a fair way off in Kent. - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - perhaps a general map of where London, Kent and (see Biography below) Guilford are would be helpful? At the moment, it's obvious to a reader familiar with British geography that this all happens in a fairly distinct area (vaguely within the ambit of what we'd now call the southern end of Greater London), but that's not spelled out in the text for anyone who doesn't already know where those places are. I'm thinking of WP:POPE here.
 * Do we know exactly (roughly?) where in Kent the associated dot would be? Kent's a big place, after all: my suspicion is we're effectively talking about south-east London (e.g. Dartford), which would be consistent with the impression I have of Dando mostly wandering around south of the Thames, but it makes a difference if it's Margate or Canterbury, which are forty or fifty miles away, UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All we know is that he was arrested at one point in the parish of Chilham. The sources say he was in more than one place, but don't give any more detail. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood - should what we do know (e.g. the name of Chilham) be added to the article, then? Similarly, the reference to St. Augustine's Goal, currently only visible (to those who don't use screen readers) in a picture, would be good to bring into the body text. Similarly, that image would benefit from alt text: most readers will derive value from reading it, and therefore a transcription would help those who can't access the text directly. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the parish of Chilham to the mention. I'm not sure about the gaol: it no longer exists and we don't have an article, so it's not too enlightening.Yes, adding alt text is something I need to do, particularly pre-FAC: I always forget and get picked up on it every time. I'll do that shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not going to quibble on that: I've always got half an eye on future articles, and that someone may be researching St Augustine's Gaol or wish to write an article on it, and so this one could then become an early part of their research. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Punctuation before quotations needs a bit of a look at per MOS:QUOTEMARKS: if the quotation is a full sentence, there should be a comma or, if it is long, the sentence should break off and there should be a colon (e.g. 'his reply was as follows: lengthy quotation'). If it's short and runs seamlessly into the sentence, there should be no punctuation. Resolved as far as GAR requires. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to go with Fowler and avoid punctuation before, particularly colons, which is American English. - SchroCat (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine as a general principle - there's two points of the MOS that might cause a problem, though:
 * A comma is required when it would be present in the same construction if none of the material were a quotation
 * It is clearer to use a colon to introduce a quotation if it forms a complete sentence, and this should always be done for multi-sentence quotations (emphasis mine). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine. When I take this to FAC I know of at least one reviewer, probably two, who will instruct me to remove them. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The FAC also requires compliance with all aspects of the MOS (criterion 2). GAR doesn't, so I'm perfectly happy to pass on this matter for now. If it's essential both to include large amounts of quoted matter and to avoid colons, you could use the blockquote template, or break the quotes into two.
 * On a related note, the Pickwick Papers quotation (in Biography) is certainly in character speech: it should be clarified that this is not in Dickins' voice, especially as it so gleefully uses non-standard English. I don't know the context, but it might be interesting and germane to the article to say who is saying this: is it someone the reader is meant to be laughing at, or taking seriously? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * FA reviewers are flexible on Criterion 2 where either Engvar or readability are affected, which is fine - it's a very different process to GAN.
 * I will add some small detail on who is saying it and from what book, but "is it someone the reader is meant to be laughing at, or taking seriously" presupposes a knowledge of the work and character: some will understand the spirit of the words, most won't, I suspect. - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Added the character name. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with this one, and we're certainly above the requirements for GAR, so no further objection here for now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Would an infobox be useful here? There's no requirement for one, but they're quite useful to summarise detailed biographies for the casual reader who isn't going beyond the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UndercoverClassicist (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn’t. The lead holds all the information, in context and with nuance. - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough: I'm not going to argue with that at GAR. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * He would often leave a house of correction and go on an eating spree the same day} - from the article, this seems to have happened three times. 'Often' seems like a subjective term, vulnerable to a charge of editorialising: is there a good reason not to say 'on three occasions, he left...' or similar?
 * There are oblique references to it happening on more than those three occasions, but there isn't enough clarity in the sources to give further examples. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems from the article that Dando became something of a symbol or folk hero (see his quotation comparing/contrasting his behaviour to that of 'his betters') - is that a fair reading, and if so, should the lead reflect it?
 * It's the opinion of one modern academic. I can see why they say that, but I think the fact it's an opinion of just one person doesn't make it strong enough. We cover the use of the name in slang and of the songs and poems, so that should suffice. No point over-egging the pudding. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it would be over-egging: the paragraph beginning 'The academic Rebecca Stott' is wholly dedicated to Dando's symbolic significance, and it's odd to have such a significant chunk of the article (as well as, honestly, what makes Dando so interesting, particularly to his contemporaries) completely unreflected in the lead. I appreciate that this is largely a matter of taste, however. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead reflects the main points of the article as it stands. Any more would be bloating that breaches WP:LEADLENGTH. - SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to agree to disagree on this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Biography

 * Before sentencing him to three months in prison, Birnie asked about Dando about his prison clothing - does this mean that Dando had turned up in court wearing (mismatched) prison uniforms? I think that could be clearer if so. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Resolved. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear in the sources, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Featherstone says clearly that by 1831 he wore entirely prison clothes. I've only got the Google Books version available, so can't give you a location/page number, but search in here for 'Guildford Middlesex House'. She is quite clearly talking about the same quotation, and includes part of a physical description that he "generally wears a goal dress" - which seems to be an extension, and therefore perhaps the source, of the one cited at notes 6 and 32. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it needs anything, but I've tweaked it a little. - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I'm happy to strike this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that "non-payment of food" (emphasis mine) makes sense: for food, perhaps, but I'd consider rewriting.
 * Yep, tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the "Guilford" referred to throughout the same as Guildford?
 * Yes, a repeated typo - now corrected. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a context to the Dickins quote ("was buried in the prison yard and they paved his grave with oyster shells") - is this in a novel, and if so, is it in character speech?
 * Not a novel, nor speech. It is in a letter. - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Dando had been arrested two years previously after consuming 2 pots of ale and 2 pounds (0.91 kg) of rump steak and onions and then refusing to pay - there's an inconsistency with numbers as figures/words here. I'd generally spell out small integers in body text: Dando had been arrested two years previously after consuming two pots of ale and two pounds (0.91 kg) of rump steak and onions, then refusing to pay
 * I generally do too, but as the MOS says not to mix up words and numbers, then because of the 0.9kg figure, we have to use the number. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood: so, for consistency, should it be 'arrested 2 years previously after consuming...'? MOS:NUMNOTES isn't massively clear here: the issue is whether the 'two' of 'two years' is comparable to the 'two' of 'two pots'.
 * I'd suggest that arrested in 1828 solves the problem and is clearer, not requiring the reader to remember or check back at when this episode is happening. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have said that I'd already changed it to "2 years". We only mention 1830 a few words previously, so I don't think readers will struggle with it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The magistrate sentenced Dando to three months in the Guildford house of correction and warned him that if he repeated his crime, he faced transportation - do we know why he didn't? Was the magistrate exaggerating, or were later judges lenient? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not covered. He possibly didn't come up in front of the same magistrate again, but the sources do not give any indication either way. - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the 1826 date sourced to the Observer? It doesn't seem to be in Featherstone, at least. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. - SchroCat (talk)
 * I think it would be wise to rephrase to reflect that, or to add a secondary source, if one exists? WP:PRIMARY is the issue here. If the Observer says (projecting backwards in time) that Dando first committed crimes in 1826, it's a statement of fact to say that the Observer said it - however, to say that the Observer was correct to say so is an interpretation, and WP:PRIMARY would prefer a secondary source to back that up. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Added another source, although there are others. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * See comment above re. map/sense of place.
 * As above, this isn't going to be of much benefit. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to agree, though I do think it should now be clarified that Guildford is in Surrey and about 30 miles or so from London, and perhaps that Kent neighbours London, for the benefit of readers who don't know their English counties. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve clarified Surrey. I’m not going to add distances or what neighbours where - that’s outside the scope of the article and relatively meaningless, given the London boundaries have shifted considerably since the 1830s. SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Old money': I'm not sure that the CPI measure is quite the full picture here. 3s 6d is 'worth' about £17 by inflation, but also represented a reasonable sum of money for most people: a third of a week's wages for a labourer, for example. Some more detail on the question of how much money we're talking about, perhaps in the footnote, would be helpful — at the moment, the impression is that Dando 'stole' a fairly trivial amount, which I'm not sure is accurate or how it was seen at the time. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Now added a couple of average wages for comparison. - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would help if one of those, at least, was moved up to give context to the original reference to 3s 6d, and particularly the slightly-misleading (or, more kindly, incomplete) footnote about it being equivalent to £16 - that's about an hour's pay today, but about a day's or more in the 1830s. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I'll leave it where it is. It either sits in the middle of the paragraph, looking out of place, or it goes down as a third footnote. I could, I suppose, add it to one of the other footnotes, but people often don't read those (particularly if on a mobile or tablet), so will miss it entirely. Having the prices and wages all in one paragraph is a better way of dealing with it, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Having the prices and wages all in one paragraph is a better way of dealing with it, I think
 * I'd agree, but that isn't what we have here. We've got one price in one paragraph, with the suggestion that we should think of 3s 6d as 'about £16', then - two paragraphs later - the clarification that we should think of it as more than a day's pay (so more like £160).
 * I'd expand footnote c to read something like:
 * 3s 6d equates to approximately £16.67 in 2021, according to calculations based on the (NB word currently omitted) Consumer Price Index measure of inflation. Between 1830 and 1833, the average wage for a bricklayer's labourer was 3s 2d, or around [value, if you like].
 * UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out, people on phones and tablets don't tend to read the footnotes until the end of the article, so they won't pick up on any reference to the value of income until the end. I'll crowbar it into the paragraph if you insist, but it will be a little ungainly and what follows won't flow so well. - SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * One way to do it (not too ungainly, hopefully):
 * Dando's April 1830 arrest followed his eating 1.75 pounds (0.79 kg) of ham and beef, a half-quartern loaf, 7 pats of butter and 11 cups of tea, coming to 3s. 6d — slightly more than an average day's pay for a building labourer.
 * I'll bow to your crowbarring skills if you've got a more elegant method. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: does 'average wage' mean 'average daily wage'? Worth clarifying if so. Also, not a problem for GAR, but that statistic doesn't seem to be sourced on first mention. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is sourced already: reference 12. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see - I'd move that reference back to the fact it specifically supports (especially as that cluster is followed by another sentence, so isn't obviously a bundled cite for e.g. a paragraph), but that's a matter of taste and above GAR. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Cultural legacy

 * There's a few things quoted here from primary sources (in particular, the last poem and the Fraser's Magazine material). In general, it's good practice for 'in popular culture' and similar sections to be sourced from secondary sources (that is, an academic or other source mentioning that Dando was portrayed in e.g. Fraser's Magazine) - see WP:IPCV. Have these treatments also been mentioned in any of the secondary scholarship cited here? Above GAR standards, so kicked down the road for now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s an essay, rather than a guideline. The guideline policy is WP:PRIMARY, which we keep to here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant policy is MOS:POPCULT, which includes (excuse lengthy quotation):A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources (emphasis mine). A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item.


 * Articles often include material about cultural references to the subject of the article. Sometimes this content is in its own section ("in popular culture" is common, but also "in the media", "cultural references", "in fiction" etc.), and sometimes it is included with other prose. When not effectively curated, such material can attract trivial references or otherwise expand in ways not compatible with Wikipedia policies such as what Wikipedia is not and neutral point of view.
 * That's a guideline, not a policy, which means it is flexible and needs to be addressed with common sense. There is sufficient secondary source back-up throughout the section to ensure we have examined the cultural impact. This is illustrated by the examples provided. The second paragraph quoted is not relevant here. The article will be on its way to FAC after this, which means it will have numerous watchers ensuring it is "effectively curated". - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well - another matter that's above the GAR requirements, so perfectly well left until FAC. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Referencing and references

 * The Featherstone refs seem to use "location" for their page numbers, others to use the normal "page/pages": is there a reason for this?
 * Yes: it’s an ebook with location, not pages (listed as such in the bibliography) - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That solves that one! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a few untitled articles cited from newspapers: are page numbers available for these, or some other indication to help readers work out exactly what is being referenced?
 * The page numbers are listed in the references. I’ll repeat in the sources in the morning. - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is all done now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

GAR Template

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * Very much so. Some MOS question-marks that are above the bar for GAR, so shouldn't be an impediment here.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * As for 1a, I have raised some quibbles about the lead, but I'm satisfied that it's sufficiently compliant with MOS:LEAD to go through here.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * The clear division between source types is a nice touch.
 * a. (reference section):
 * The clear division between source types is a nice touch.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * No remaining issues here.
 * c. (OR):
 * No issues here.
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Earwig's happy, and I read through some of the key sources in the course of conducting the review, and can see no evidence of plagiarism or close paraphrase.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * Passes with flying colours.
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article has been continuously, incrementally improved over the last few months, but there are no edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * No issues here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All images are captioned succinctly: FAC may wish for more information on their provenance, but I'm happy at a GAR level.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * This is a very good article, and I greatly enjoyed reviewing it. Thanks to User:SchroCat for their engagement with the process and timely response to my comments, as well as for their hard work on the article before (and no doubt after) this review. I note that they intend to take it to FAC, and wish it and them all the best for that - no doubt there will be more quibbles and changes, but I'm sure it will come out well.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * No issues here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All images are captioned succinctly: FAC may wish for more information on their provenance, but I'm happy at a GAR level.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * This is a very good article, and I greatly enjoyed reviewing it. Thanks to User:SchroCat for their engagement with the process and timely response to my comments, as well as for their hard work on the article before (and no doubt after) this review. I note that they intend to take it to FAC, and wish it and them all the best for that - no doubt there will be more quibbles and changes, but I'm sure it will come out well.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * This is a very good article, and I greatly enjoyed reviewing it. Thanks to User:SchroCat for their engagement with the process and timely response to my comments, as well as for their hard work on the article before (and no doubt after) this review. I note that they intend to take it to FAC, and wish it and them all the best for that - no doubt there will be more quibbles and changes, but I'm sure it will come out well.
 * This is a very good article, and I greatly enjoyed reviewing it. Thanks to User:SchroCat for their engagement with the process and timely response to my comments, as well as for their hard work on the article before (and no doubt after) this review. I note that they intend to take it to FAC, and wish it and them all the best for that - no doubt there will be more quibbles and changes, but I'm sure it will come out well.