Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell/archive1

Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... Frank Russell, the second Earl Russell. He wasn't prime minister like the first earl, Lord John Russell, nor a famous philosopher like the third, Bertrand Russell. He had three marriages, all of which ended badly, and other events that marred his life, but he still accomplished a good deal. He was also the last person convicted in a trial before the House of Lords, and the first celebrity to get a Nevada divorce, the two being directly related. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Suggest scaling up the trial image
 * Scaled.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * File:Frank,_2nd_Earl_Russell.jpg is claimed as own work, which given the date seems unlikely to be true
 * I've fixed this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * File:Frances_Elliot_Murray_Kynynmound.png needs a US tag, and to satisfy the UK tag the image description should include steps taken to try to identify the photographer
 * Since it was published in the US in 1911, I've changed to a US tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem that the file has been changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Since File:Russell2.jpg is hosted on Commons it needs a tag for country of origin. Ditto File:Russell_leaving_trial.jpg
 * The first is done as an engraving (non photographic) with author unknown more than 70 years ago. The second is signed, though I can't make it out, so I've deleted it since presumably it could be made out.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * File:Russell,_Countessc.1910_(23083012452).jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see. I'm content to rely on the knowledge of the LSE (and Fae) regarding the item.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would anticipate LSE would reflect the status of the work in the UK; what is the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've addressed that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
Happy to support. No complaints about the content – clear, most readable and impressively referenced – and just a few anglicisations and other minor tweaks to suggest, none of them important enough to affect my support.
 * Lead
 * "likely because authorities there" – for some mysterious reason this is not a BrE idiom. Even more oddly, an adverb in front of it would make it perfectly idiomatic, but without one the normal BrE form is "probably because". There's another "likely" in the Trial before the Lords section (third para). The "most likely" in Second Marriage is impeccably BrE.
 * "antiwar" (and also in main text) – the OED prescribes "anti-war" (though I ought to mention that Chambers is happy with "antiwar").


 * Education
 * "longtime" – both the OED and Chambers hyphenate that one.


 * Trial before the Lords
 * "dueling" – "duelling" in BrE.
 * "pled" – the past tense of "plead" in standard BrE is "pleaded", though I see from Fowler that "pled" is not only AmE but Scottish too, and is also found in some English dialects. (A swift rummage in the archives suggests, as I rather expected, that "pled" was once standard English here – Spenser uses it in The Faerie Queen, but by the 18th century "pleaded" was standard.)
 * "occupied by journalist W. T. Stead – I shan't bleat on about false titles but I will point out that you give Stead (and Asquith) spaced initials but T.J. Sanderson and H.G. Wells (and possibly others I haven't spotted) unspaced ones. Better to be consistent one way or the other, I think.


 * Second marriage
 * "practiced" – in BrE the noun is "practice" but the verb is "practise".


 * Third marriage; First World War years
 * "wed" – the current (2015) edition of Fowler says of this verb that because of its brevity "the word is de rigueur in the popular press" but it is "irretrievably naff" in more serious writing. I see no reason to argue with that.
 * "gambling at bridge" – I imagine this would be auction bridge (a bit early to be contract bridge?) and if so it might be an idea to link to it.


 * Labour politician and death (1921—1931)
 * "The book was well-received" – Oh, I hate hyphens! I think that one has a well-received book but that a book is well received.
 * "permitting local authority" – either a missing "a" or "any" or else the noun should be plural, I think.
 * "quickly walked back" – not an idiom familiar to me, though it isn't hard to work out its meaning here.

That's all from me. The article seems to meet all the FA criteria, and I gladly support its elevation. I'd never heard of this character and I have much enjoyed making his acquaintance. –  Tim riley  talk   09:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. All of those done. Thank you for the review and especially for instruction on the finer points of the language.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Moisejp
Hi Wehwalt, hope you're well. I'll review this soon. It looks interesting! Moisejp (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: Have finished first read-through. Hope to get to second read-through very soon. Moisejp (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Am now finished reading through. I guess other reviewers must have caught all the main issues because, mostly, I only found a number of minor punctuation issues that I took the liberty of adjusting myself. My one comment is that I got confused in this passage in the Trial before the Lords section: "Russell could not have waived trial before the House of Lords had he wanted to; he wrote in his memoirs that the privilege of peers cost him dearly, as he probably would have been sentenced to a token day in prison at the Old Bailey, and the verdict of the House of Lords could not be appealed." I feel like there are unstated bits of the explanation that the reader is assumed to understand. For one thing in "as he probably would have been sentenced to a token day in prison at the Old Bailey" do we need a precision of "if such-and-such factor had not been true"? Maybe I also don't understand well enough how the court system at the time worked for lords and non-lords and all of the resulting implications. If this part could be spelled out more clearly in the text, I'll be very happy to support the promotion. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * just checking to see if there is going to be anything further coming here? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll add a bit shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit. The idea is that as the state had spent a very large sum of money trying him, with a huge pageant in the Houses of Parliament a token sentence would have looked ridiculous. Russell was, by the way, the only peer ever sentenced to a term of imprisonment by the Lords, though I did not consider that worthy of mention in the article). Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The changes look good. I support, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
Me too, interesting indeed. One immediate thing - the Ravenscroft Hall linked in the 2nd para. of Early life isn’t the right one. Cheshire’s a fair way from Trellech. The Russell house is this one,, which is more generally known as Cleddon Hall. Ah, my youth in the Wye Valley wasn’t entirely misspent. Will get to a full review shortly. KJP1 (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt - I've done a quick Start class, Ravenscroft, as a replacement. KJP1 (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made that change. Many thanks. Looking forward to the review. Frank is an interesting fellow, indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "the next several years was marked" - something's not quite working here. "the following years were spent in acrimonious litigation"... or something like that.
 * I changed to "saw" acrimonious etc
 * "served there through 1904" - "until" would probably work better for a non-US audience
 * OK.
 * Early life
 * "Frank was allowed to do much as he pleased, roaming the countryside" - he did whatever he wanted while roaming the countryside? Or "roaming the countryside" was the only thing he liked to do? Either way, the "roaming the countryside" seems a little stray?
 * Phrase prefaced by "including".
 * First marriage
 * "Mabel appealed and the verdict was overturned in the Court of Appeals" - "Court of Appeal, linked and singular?
 * Trial before the Lords
 * "Russell was sentenced to three months at Holloway Prison as a first-class misdemeanant" - a very legalistic term that will puzzle many! Would a link to Misdemeanor help a little? Although the section on English & Welsh misdemeanors is very incomplete.
 * Cut.--Wehwalt (talk)
 * Third marriage; First World War years
 * "They fell in love in a visit he paid her, without Mollie, over New Year's 1914" - "the New Year of 1914"?
 * "He was allowed, though, to serve his sentence in the first division at Brixton Prison" - I found this, and the following, long, sentence, rather confusing. Could it be broken up a bit and "first division prisoners" explained, perhaps with a footnote? We don't appear to have anything to link to - though this is quite nice,.
 * I've avoided the technical term (which would have applied also to Frank in 1901 and Lady Scott in 1897).
 * Wehwalt - Nothing but trivial quibbles here. It's a grand article, although quite why you decided to rescue the Earl from his, entirely warranted, obscurity is beyond me! See what you think, and then I'll be pleased to support. KJP1 (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. Yes, Frank was not a completely pleasant character but nevertheless interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Very pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720
Non-expert prose review.


 * "his efforts bore little fruit." I'm concerned that this might be an MOS:IDIOM. Maybe "his efforts were mostly unsuccessful."
 * "At Balliol, Russell read Classics." Wikipedia's article on classics uses a lowercase c, so I believe for consistency this should also be lowercase.
 * "He was generally impressed with America, but disliked New York." Does this refer to New York City or New York state? Please clarify in the article.
 * "He was not entirely idle, though, involving himself with an electrical contracting company," I don't think though is necessary here, and removing it will also remove two commas which will help with flow in my opinion.
 * "He began to take up his seat in the House of Lords, in September 1893 being one of 40 peers who supported the unsuccessful Irish Home Rule bill." -> "He took his seat in the House of Lords in September 1893, being one of 40 peers who supported the unsuccessful Irish Home Rule bill." ?
 * "end his marriage to Mabel Russell at last." At last is not needed; I suggest removing it.
 * "Frank Russell married Mollie on 31 October 1901." Since they were married in Nevada, should this say "remarried" or some other similar wording?
 * I think note a needs a citation.

Those are my thoughts. A well written article. Z1720 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review, I've made those changes, though doing it a bit differently in a couple of cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support My concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review/pass
Placeholding, Wehwalt, should get to this tomorrow UTC if that's OK. SN54129 13:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The Dorset Historic Churches Trust seems rather...parochial? But it's not referencing anything particularly radical.
 * That was added by an IP who did some work in the early part of my article improvement. I'm inclined to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Similarly with 1903 and All That; this is the official organ of the Registration Numbers Club and about as esoteric as they get! I suppose the guy publishing it might be an expert in his field: "Advisor & Archivist, John Harrison, a veritable knowledge base when it comes to both UK and Irish vehicle registrations." But that does still rather depend on how reliable one deems the RNC in the first place...
 * Any association with a publication that gets through that many issues probably has something going for it. Doubtlessly the club has a small scope, but I wouldn't dismiss them just for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Harpster 2014. Well, difficult to appraise this as my machine refuses to download it as a security risk! So that's slightly off-putting from the start. I also can't find out much about it; its editorial staff, it says, "is quite small, but is very familiar with and passionately interested in the history of Nevada".
 * I accessed that article from here, a website administered by the University of Nevada-Reno. They seem to be good with the reliability of the website.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * However, the vast majority of sources are high quality, modern research published in both peer-reviewed journals or reputable presses, with only a couple of prewar examples (even then, which seem to still be published today). I'm somewhat surprised that of the four non-anonymous pieces under "Further reading", now of these were able to provide material for the article? There is a view—which I don't necessarily subscribe to—that an FA shouldn't need any further reading because it is already comprehensive. That's probably too binary. But in these cases, where they literally have the topic in the title, it's hard to imagine that they're only peripheral material?
 * Glad to have the SR, not worried about timing! Three of the four are by Derham, and they are subscriber only. However, given we use her bio of Frank extensively, I think that perspective is well-represented in the article, the articles are not later than the book. The fourth is a 1959 book I wouldn't mind reading. But given that the book is about trials before the House of Lords, and only has a chapter on Frank's, and we have other sources that cover the same territory, I don't think it's essential in the same way it would be if this article were specifically about trials before the House of Lords, or about Frank's trial there.


 * So, apart from a couple of queries regarding the quality of a couple of sources, and regarding comprehensiveness, there are very few problems indeed. And a nice article to boot :) sorry for the delay in getting around to the SR, Wehwalt.  SN54129  13:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Much obliged indeed for the review, I've responded to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)