Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashford v Thornton/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 SandyGeorgia 21:37, 20 April 2010.

Ashford v Thornton

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's ready. This is the notorious "trial by battle" case. I've known about this case probably since I was a teenager, but my research into it showed up quite a few things I didn't know about it. Possible nominee for April Fool's TFA if it makes it through this, er, trial by ordeal. It's not a long article (20K readable prose), enjoy it.Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 17:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Images and sources:
 * File:Gerichtskampf mair.jpg—Looks legit, but not everyone can read German :)
 * File:Thorn1.png—Since author isn't known, wrong license. Same with File:Ashford.png, File:Thornton.png
 * File:Lord-ellenborough.jpg missing author, date, source, and everything but the license.
 * Are there ISBNs for any of the other books? They appear reliable, but I'm concerned about the lack of additional (and newer) sources in this instance (I'm not sure if there's been newer information about the topic, et al.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't that much written on Ashford these days, and frankly what there is comes out of the same old sources. And quite a few sources get stuff wrong.  Do you want me to do anything about the German source?  I'll do research on the others.  None of the old books have ISBN's.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Gerichtskampf mair.jpg needs author death date for its tag, just saw that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the file from 1544?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If we don't have the author info, then it needs a different tag. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dates of death added. Fortunately they have Wikipedia articles.  Thank you for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've swapped the tags. I have not found anything yet on Ellenborough's pic, so I've swapped that one out for a shot of Westminster Hall.  I've also found and added an interesting 2001 source.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment " The learned judge concluded by reminding the" - bit high-fallutin'. Should we really be bandying words like that around? Certainly not without an inline citation. Ironholds (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've deprived the judge of his learning. It does say it in the source, but it's not worth an inline cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments: A fascinating story, but numerous prose glitches :-
 * Lead: "Such appeals..." We need to be reminded that this is Ashford's appeal. Suggest: "Appeals such as Ashford's..."
 * Legal
 * "another serious offence" is slightly ambiguous ("another" can mean "one more")> Suggest "or other serious offences"
 * "...within a year and a day of the death" doesn't cover other serious offences in which death of the victim didn't occur.
 * I've rewritten it; it is "treason, murder, or felony" but the source doesn't make clear who would bring the case if the case wasn't murder. It took a little skull sweat, but I think that paragraph is greatly improved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some curious language appears in this paragraph. "An appeal of murder" - is this an appeal against an acquittal on a murder charge? And "the wager of battle" is new terminology.
 * Explained.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume that the misplaced mdashes in the quote are as per the original?
 * Yes, the source is online if you want to doublecheck.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any information on why the proposals to abolish trial by battle were unsuccessful? Were the proposals defeated in Parliament, and what was the force of argument that won the day?
 * Really, the sound bites I've put in the article are about all the source has to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Death of Mary Ashford
 * "...of about 20 years of age" would be more in keeping with the idiom
 * "...but not yet a bank holiday, as it was for many years" I'm not sure I follow this phrasing. I think it means "but not yet a bank holiday, nor would be for many years)", but it may be simpler to omit the words "as it was for many years".
 * I've stricken the whole thing about the bank holiday, which is in the source but is probably of doubtful relevance. She worked that day, she was supposed to work the next, that is all the reader really needs to know.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "but planned" → "and planned" (no "but" about it)
 * "Thornton was about 24..." I would add "years old"
 * Suggest replace the "and" which follows "heavyset" with a semicolon
 * "Thornton stated that he had been intimate with her sister three times" To whom did he state this? To Mary Ashford, or to other individuals, or to the general company? Would it be better phrased as "Thornton was heard to state that..."?
 * He said it to the guy he asked who Ashford was, supposedly. It inflamed the public, but when the guy testified about it at trial, it went over like a lead balloon, mainly because there was never any real question that Ashford and Thornton had had sex.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Two wire drawers from a nearby factory..." It is not immediately obvious that "wire drawers" refers to factory workers and this wording is likely to cause some puzzled frowns. Can't they just be workers from a nearby factory?
 * "...a man and a woman traveled together" - needs to be "had traveled together"
 * "...she went to Tyburn the previous evening." → "she had been to Tyburn the previous evening." Also, shouldn't this be "Tyburn House" rather than "Tyburn"?
 * The Tyburn House was at Tyburn, an area which is still called that. By phrasing it that way, I can link to the proper Tyburn and give readers some geographical hints.  Is "had gone" OK?  Seems more natural to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be made clearer that Dales was a police officer, or the equivalent thereof.
 * Trial
 * "The inquest" → "An inquest..."
 * Inconsistent methods of recording times: you have "half past four" and "4.50"
 * "Mr. Justice Holroyd urged the jury..." As you have given him his full style and title in the previous sentence, here he should be simple "The judge..."
 * For tense consistency it needs to be: "and still have made it to the Holden farm..."
 * Appeal
 * I wonder why William Ashford's appearance is worth describing?
 * Because as Bedford's letter makes clear, Ashford was not much physically and in trial by battle, all sources agree, Thornton would have won. Some sources say "a stripling" "little more than a boy".  Basically, he was a wimp, and the general idea was it would have taken divine intervention on a Biblical scale for him to have beaten Thornton.  See also Clarke's attempts to plead his youth and lack of bodily strength.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "At that time, that counsel, for Ashford, was heard..." Very awkwardly put (three commas and two thats in seven words).
 * Aftermath
 * The less legal-minded may wonder what "brought in a bill" means, and may not understand the process whereby a bill becomes an act. Thus I suggest: "The bill became law in great haste, with all three required readings of the bill passing through Parliament on a single night."
 * I think the second and third paragraphs should be reversed, to maintain the chronology.

I don't see any problem in supporting when these issues have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought about it a lot before doing it that way. I've now reversed it, doing it your way, but I kind of like ending the article with the forever unresolved (absent the Last Trump) death of this young lady, the human tragedy at the heart of this story.  Thoughts welcome.
 * Thanks. I've made the changes, except where I indicated something else in comments above.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: all my points answered satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I've read through the article a couple of times and made a few very pedantic changes; but have insufficient time right now to bottom out a couple of issues of concern: 1) whether certain terms (e.g. affidavit) should be linked 2) I'm insufficiently familiar with FA criteria to be able to give informed support. However it has my full uninformed support as it is. One further suggestion for improvement might be to link Thornbury, Walter (1879), Old Stories Re-Told (new ed.), Chatto and Windus to the Internet Archive on the basis that the google version of the book is available as a snippet view only (in the UK, at least ... google offers different views to different geographic territories). The same might sensibly be done to The justice of the peace, and parish officer, Volume 1  albeit google is kind enough to offer the PDF. (I guess the same applies to the book linked from the infobox, too. In short, IA has every PD book on google, and does not have Google's restrictions on viewing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, those sound good, I just got home and I am going to sleep but I will make those changes later on. Thanks for the info on Internet Archive.  If you check out WP:WIAFA and feel it meets the criteria, feel free to support, but in any event thanks for your praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The article reads well and certainly seems to be comprehensive. I have a few comments to make, but they are incidental and do not affect my support. NW ( Talk ) 18:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The judge is referred to as "Mr. Justice George Holroyd". I would think that the appropriate address would just be "Justice George Holroyd"; why is the "Mr." pre-pended?
 * The usual English forms would be either "Mr Justice Holroyd" or simply "Judge Holroyd", but never "Justice Holroyd". The "George" would probably be left out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That Justice certainly seems to be acting more like a defense attorney than a judge. Do any of your sources go into an analysis of his actions?
 * Who suggested to Thornton that he had the option of trial by combat? Was it William Reader, his attorney, or did he come up with it by himself?


 * On Mr. Justice Holroyd, I have rephrased to avoid the issue. The source says Mr. Justice Holroyd, I inserted the first name in case he ever gets an article and for completeness.  It is, or at least was, not unusual for a English judge, in his summing up, to make clear his views on the evidence.  It is very different than an American judge would do, having done about ten jury trials in my career, an American judge sticks to jury instructions that have been either agreed on or argued over out of the presence of the jury.  And Holroyd was right, the alibi was so solid that absent very strong evidence, it was going to win the day.  That is why, when gathering evidence for the appeal, they concentrated on the alibi.  I am mildly staggered that Holroyd was part of the panel As for the idea of trial by battle, this was such an obscure legal point that it had to come from counsel, either Reader or another of Thornton's legal team (on the appeal, some of the leading lights of the Bar were in on the action.  No source covers the financing of this case beyond the little mentioned that Ashford sought contributions, but a fair amount of money must have been spent by both sides on legal fees.  I did read someplace that Reader stated that they were not wagering battle for its own sake, but because with the prejudice, they didn't trust in getting a fair jury, I will find that and insert it.  This was very much a cause celebre in its time and I have no doubt would be wall to wall coverage had it occurred today.  Many thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. Great, insightful and comprehensive article. Ucucha 12:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Comments Ucucha 02:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "that great pillar of the Consitution"—either correct or add sic
 * "the haste was due to a wager of battle being proferred in another case"—is "proferred" current English? According to the OED, it is obsolete, and does not fit this context.
 * Could this piece (hope the links works, it's called 'Ivanhoe,' Chivalry, and the Murder of Mary Ashford) be used as a source?
 * All those things have been done, with words replaced, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the two fixes. It seems you only added Dyer to the list of sources; couldn't information from it be included? It seems that he is arguing that Ashford v Thornton influenced Ivanhoe, which seems relevant enough to include. Ucucha 02:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice that one of the existing sources is also about the connection between Ashford v Thornton and Ivanhoe. I guess a sentence or two could be put in the aftermath section.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done that now. Hope that if your concerns have been answered, you'll be willing to support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the support. Well, three supports, no opposes, technical and image checks done.  I even have alt text, though I'm not certain of the state of the alt text requirement at present.  I see nothing in the way of promotion.  Many thanks to the commentators.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


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