Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Pierrepoint/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2018.

Albert Pierrepoint

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Albert Pierrepoint is an interesting individual. The first hangman of the television/mass media age, whose name became well-known in the press (and not through his efforts), despite the home office restrictions of secrecy regarding the role. He hanged some of the most notorious killers of the 20th century, including over 200 Nazi war criminals, the last men executed for treason and treachery (including William Joyce (also known as Lord Haw-Haw) and John Amery) and undertook some of the more contentious executions of the mid to late century, including Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis. Any and all constructive comments are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Moise
Hi SchroCat, I hope all is well in your neck of the woods. The article looks pretty good, only noticing small issues so far. I noticed a couple but may not be able to type them all up at once, just have a few minutes now.
 * The lead says possibly over 600 executions but the Approach and legacy section gives a maximum estimate of “up to 600”. Moisejp (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite right - tweaked the lead - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "In 2016 John Paul Hurley portrayed Pierrepoint in the BBC remake of Rillington Place starring Tim Roth and Samantha Morton." I think this means it's a remake of the 1971 film 10 Rillington Place? If so, it would be better if this were clearer.
 * I've re-worded as "the BBC production", as I am not sure it was a remake, and what I thought said remake isn't as clear as I thought it was! - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll do a second read-through soon to see if I notice anything else. Moisejp (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, all good here, thanks: I hope I find you similarly well? Both good points, and I've actioned them accordingly. If you have any more, I'd be glad to go through those too when you have time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm well too, thanks, Schro! Reading through again, typing up comments as I notice them:
 * "but received an invitation for interview six months later": I would say "an invitation for an interview" but if what you have is good British English, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good question. It sounds OK to me, but that may be my informal ear., which would you consider to be more correct? - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggest to be consistent with uncle Thomas vs. uncle Tom throughout the article. Moisejp (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (Minor comment) "round his neck... around Richter's wrists". For me, "around" sounds a little more formal and correct, but at minimum I'd suggest it could be good to be consistent. I haven't noticed if there are other instances of one or the other in the article. Moisejp (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The bottom two comments now done: I'll let Tim adjudicate on the interview question as I'm really not sure which is correct. Cheers -SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Curious how the choice of noun or verb affects the choice of preposition. I think I'd write "invitation to an interview" but "was invited for interview". But I think the present "invitation for interview" is perfectly idiomatic BrE, and not theoretically ambiguous as "invitation to interview" (to interview whom?) would be.  Tim riley  talk   10:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Brian Bailey is mentioned as "his biographer, Brian Bailey" in the As lead executioner, 1940–1956 section, then next quite a bit farther down as just Bailey, then shortly after that as Brian Bailey again. It might make more sense to repeat his first name in the second instance (and possibly remind the readers that it's his biographer, since the mention was so much earlier—up to you if you don't think that's too much) and then just by his last name in the third instance, where the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "either focusing on him, or with other executioners": A parallel construction would be better here. Maybe "either focusing on him, or on him with other executioners" but it's a bit repetitive. Another way to make it parallel would be ""either focusing on him, or [-ing verb]...". I don't have any perfect ideas off the top of my head, but maybe you have a good idea, or if you don't then you could also possibly leave it as is. Moisejp (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone with "or alongside other executioners": does that work for you, or do you think "or him alongside other executioners" would be better? - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "subject of several biographies": Just confirming, sometimes editors use the word "several" loosely. Were there definitely several? (You only give references for two.) Moisejp (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll stick with several: the two we mention in the same sentence are the main two that focus largely on him, but there are others (including the DNB) including those where several hangmen are covered, (Bailey's Hangmen of England, Fielding's The Executioner's Bible being two of the main ones). - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

My last few comments are quite minor, and I am happy to support on prose for this very interesting and well-written article. Moisejp (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Moisejp - your thoughts (and edits) have been most useful and welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Graham Beards
Just a quick comment for now (more later) this sentence in the Lead seems odd: " He wrote his memoirs in 1974 in which he concluded that capital punishment was not a deterrent, although he may have changed his position after that too." I don't understand the "too". Graham Beards (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Graham, Long time no see - I hope all is well with you. Yes, the "too" is utterly superfluous, and I've taken it out now. I'd be delighted as always with any comments you are able to come up with. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I read his autobiography a few years ago - let's hope he was a better hangman than he was a writer - and he came across as a cold, spooky man who clearly thought he had been chosen by God. I suppose nice people don't go into the business. This is an excellent article that does not rely too heavily on Pierrepoint's often self-contradictory autobiography. Graham Beards (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Graham, your comments are much appreciated as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from SN54129

 * Re. GBeard's point above of the lead; perhaps "...although he may subsequently have revised his opinion again", or something.
 * I've just struck out the too - let me know if you think that suffices - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "The traitor John Amery", "the murderer Ruth Ellis", etc. It sounds rather in Wikipedia' voice; elsewhere you describe what they had done and I think that works better.
 * I've tweaked them both, but by the time Pierrepoint went to work, it was the court's voice that was calling them that - not ours! - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, "Britain's top executioner" jars slightly, I think because officially he was "Lead Executioner", rather than "top", and the latter sounds a little like "West Ham's top man"  :)
 * Tweaked, although no-one was officially the "lead" executioner - all executioners were deemed "capable" by the Home Office, with no distinction between them. ("West Ham's top man"- isn't that a contradiction in terms?!) - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You refer a couple of times to Wandsworth Prison museum (per the source, I suppose?) but it seems not to exist anymore. Our link goes to the prison article, which doesn't mention it, and the exhibits that you mention appear to have ended up in various "Justice Museums" up north (going by the article on Pierrepoint (film), which discusses them). --struck: I do not think I know what I am talking about.
 * I hope it's still there - I was there on Saturday, and a bloody fascinating place it is too! The curator is an absolute mine of information about the place! - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The "As lead executioner" section is quite long; have you considered maybe making the chunk about the Nuremberg trials / Austria its own sub-section? It's certainly important enough, and it's probably the thing he's most well-known for outside the UK. Cool article though! Cheers,  ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me mull over the split for a while. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks SN - I've dealt with all your points, and I'll mull over the last one to see what would or could work best. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi anything to add here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, forgot about this. I've split the section further into war and post war within the overall "Lead executioner" section. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too, thanks . I see that has obeyed my every earthly command  addressed my points nicely ;)  it's looking good. Look: sorry to be a pain, but I've just noticed the sentence "After the war, Pierrepoint left the delivery business...he left the delivery business because [QUOTE]". Two things about this just jumped out at me. i) "delivery" as in "delivery business" is repeated; suggest dropping the second one, viz "He left the business because..." More importantly, ii) it's out of place where it is, in the middle of his war work—it says, "after the war", so suggest making it the last line of the section; that way it introduces the first line of the next. Or make it the new first line. Ether way, chronologically later. Sorry, I know this is all about wrapped up! Cheers,  ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There was an excellent and logical reason for putting it where it was, but I have absolutely no idea what that was now! I've dropped into the next section, where it should make a little more sense. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice work, dealing with both points together., I'm all done here. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1
1a: Support, with the caveat that the points below cover only the first half.
 * also, also, in the lead. Neither is strictly necessary, but please not two. We could add "also" to almost every sentence, otherwise.
 * Done - throughout, not just in the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "which led" ... "which he continued", within three seconds. "payment, leading to"?
 * Yes, now done - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * English can be ugly: "the family often had financial problems, exacerbated worsened by Henry's heavy drinking", and "that weighed approximately about the same as the prisoner"
 * I've done those in the lead, but I'll go through the rest again to see if any more examples catch my eye. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Caption: "Execution Box, No 8, containing all the equipment needed for an executioner". Any reason for the first comma? Dot needed. "Execution box No. 8, containing all equipment needed by an executioner"
 * No dot necessary in BrEng, but I've made the point moot by re-wording to "Execution Box number eight, containing..."


 * "would" occurs an awful lot when you recount what used to happen. Any chance of removing it? I see you don't use it here, for the habitual: "He and his assistant arrived the day before the execution". Why not introduce it clearly as the routing (you do that, anyway: "the practice was for Pierrepoint, his assistant and two prison officers to"), then to go plain past indicative? Tony (talk)  03:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This one should be cleared up now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Tony, your thoughts most helpful. I've made one quick fix before I have to start work, but I'll return shortly and complete the rest. Much obliged - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Image and source reviews
Image review


 * At the given size, it's almost impossible to see the outlines on the X-ray
 * Enlarged - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * File:Albert_Pierrepoint.jpg: looks like this was published elsewhere prior to the Flickr upload, anything to suggest the uploader has the right to release it?
 * I couldn't find anything, but I couldn't find anything to suggest they didn't have the right either - there is no published authorship of the image elsewhere that I could see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally I wouldn't be comfortable with the claim without anything more to support it - I suspect this might be a case of laundering. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's a fair point. I've done a fair amount of searching in the last day and can find nothing to support or deny the Flickr uploader took the image. It does look too small to be an original, however, so I've uploaded the same image as non-free. This is the only one in the article, and is used at the head of the page, so should be OK. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * File:Henry_Pierrepoint.jpg: per the tag, image description should include details of steps taken to try to ascertain author
 * Details of search added - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * File:The_traitors_Amery_and_Joyce.png: both of the images are dated after 1923, yet there's a pre-1923 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tweaked to have supporting licence. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done


 * Looks like the McLaughlin cite has a parameter error


 * Be consistent in whether online news articles include accessdates


 * Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Nikkimaria - the sources all tweaked now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil
Maybe merge the third paragraph into the opening. That way the opening gives a more extended of his career, while the now 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are of his life and views. Reading through, and impressed. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok have read it, brutal stuff, very well told, Support Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers . I'll have a think on the merging of paras. What we have was a move away from the previous version which wasn't great in having names too 'up top', which made the article seem more about them than Pierrepoint, which I think was what concerned when she made this comment on the talk page back in the early days of the re-write. We may be able to slim the list down to a couple of people if we have it in the opening para, maybe that would work, but we'd be losing some good names from the lead entirely, unless we have two lists of people, which wouldn't work.... let me think to see if there is a way that might work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This looks good to me. I’m sorry I didn’t help more: finding sources here is a real bear unless you’re in Dublin, which I’m not.
 * I really miss good libraries. That said, this looks very good, and I am happy to support. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, no problems - it was a bit of a struggle getting some of them - even getting just second hand copies of some of these is a pricey business! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
I peer reviewed the article, and my small clutch of (very minor) quibbles was dealt with then. Revisiting the article I think it meets the FA criteria. It is highly readable (in a chilling sort of way), balanced, well and widely referenced and as well illustrated as one could imagine, given the date of the subject. Very happy to support.  Tim riley  talk   22:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Tim, your thoughts at PR and here are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord note
This nom is going very well and nothing is really holding it back from promotion but given it's been open barely a week I'd like to let it go a bit longer in case anyone else wants their say. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, No problems - there is no rush on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.