Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway/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 03:43, 13 January 2011.

Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway

 * Nominator(s): –  iridescent  22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't let the rather dull sounding title put you off, or give the impression that this is a dull piece about a formal ceremony. The opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway is right up there with Siege of Vienna and Storming of the Bastille as a true turning point in world history, and in terms of the history of engineering is as core a topic as Wright Flyer or Transistor. Before 15 September 1830 the nations of Europe were rural, quasi-feudal economies in which most people rarely travelled more than a few miles from their birthplace unless they happened to be pressed into the military or were persecuted into fleeing their country, and unless one happened to work for a few experimental collieries or textile mills, one would not only pass one's entire life without ever seeing a non-animal-powered machine, one would likely not even understand the concept of "engine". Within 20 years of the L&M's opening, Britain was a democratically-ruled industrial and military superpower, Manchester was the focal point of the world economy, and the rising nations of Prussia, Russia and the United States were coming to see the implications of being able to move large numbers of armed men at short notice to any point on their borders, and larger numbers of the land-hungry poor into the more empty parts of their lands.

All this is fairly well known—chronologically-arranged "history of the industrial revolution" displays usually begin in 1830, and Rocket is the first thing one sees on entering London's Science Museum's showpiece Making the Modern World gallery—but the actual events of the day are generally glossed over in histories. In reality, the opening of the L&M wasn't the triumphant unveiling it's generally presented as; it was a complete fiasco. Six and a half hours after they were due, four of the eight locomotives used in the unveiling limped back, after a day of death, rioting, mechanical failures and general incompetence, including the death of one of the guests of honour. The disasters of the day led to the event being far more widely reported than would normally have been the case for a corporate opening ceremony, and what stuck in the minds of newspaper readers around the world wasn't the chaotic lack of organisation or basic design flaws; it was that there were these new things called "machines" which were cheaper and faster than horses/peasants/slaves. A significant chunk of world history after that point can be traced directly back to the events of this one rainy autumn day in Lancashire.

This is a long article, with a long lead section. This is owing to its being effectively two full-length articles, Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and Death of William Huskisson. The two events are so intimately intertwined that it's impossible (and undesirable) to separate them. It also makes heavier use of contemporary quotations than is typical; this is intentional, as they illustrate so well the thoughts of the people who were there, trying to understand and to articulate something which was (at the time) entirely unique. – iridescent  22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

General comment: I am no fan of standard nom statements which begin "I am nominating this because...", but I feel that a 500-word essay is a step too far in the other direction. I'd hate to see this become the norm for noms here. I have completed a sources review, below. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments
 * Refs 18, 127 and 162 should be fully formatted showing publisher (English Heritage) and access dates
 * Ref 81 is accredited to the Liverpool Mercury, 1913. However, the material appears to be from a website quoting material from the Liverpool Mercury based on reports in the Northern Times, 3 January 1855. Furthermore, the home page for this website carries a message from the webmaster who says "I take no responsibility for the accuracy of the information on these pages", and advises referral to sources. In these circumstances it is hard to justify this sit"e as a high-quality reliable source.
 * Ref 111 is cited in support of this statement: "it was re-erected around 20 years later in Duke Street, near where he had stayed for his final nights in Liverpool." I am unable to find this statement in the source - can you identify it?
 * Ref 117 requires access date

Otherwise, all sources and citations look good. Verification checks limited to the few free online sources. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the long nom statement, I agree with you; note that I've never done this kind of essay-nom before. This is an exceptional case, in my view; the title of the article doesn't convey the significance of the topic. I agree that it shouldn't become common practice, but it pre-empts a question which would otherwise almost certainly be raised, of "why is the article so long?"
 * Regarding the English Heritage references, this has come up before; I personally don't particularly like the format, but IoE is the "official" way to reference EH on Wikipedia.
 * Regarding the "Liverpool Mercury" source for Brandreth's letter, this can be changed to something else if you prefer; I used this one because it's online, and thus potentially more useful to readers. Brandreth's letter was widely quoted; it turns up in The Cornhill Magazine, for instance.
 * Ref 111 says "The sculpture is now located in a new housing development off Duke Street in the city centre", which is the fact it's referencing. The fact that he spent his last nights in Duke Street is already given further up, in the "Funeral" section. I've duplicated the reference for this down to the later section as well.
 * Ref 117 is the inflation template. Access dates are inappropriate, as the figures it references (and thus the "access") are constantly automatically updated to remain current. – iridescent  17:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments. This is a truly massive article, with an equally massive nomination statement (which I didn't read). To give the article's prose the attention it deserves will take quite a bit of time. In addition to occasional copyediting, I'll be leaving individual prose comments on the talk page here. Please response to individual concerns there. My attempt at peer reviewing this article seems to have resulted in little more than the aggravation of the author and my time being wasted. Best of luck in all future endeavors. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Personally I like longer noms, and agree with the justification for this exceptionally long one. A very fine article.
 * "Huskisson had been a highly influential figure in the creation of the British Empire ..." does seem a little over the top. A more precise rephrase would be better. It's not strictly an FAC point, but this aspect of his career is not mentioned at the "main article", his biography, which also does not cover the material in note 2 to anything like the same depth. That note seems a little excessive for here & might be better transfered, or at any rate copied, to the bio. Likewise the bio should get a condensed version of the funeral & all the stuff on memorials should be copied there.
 * Ideally, I'd give a full explanation of Huskisson's career, but I was trying to avoid turning this into a parallel biography when we already have a William Huskisson article. It needs to have some detail on his career, to explain why he was there, why his death prompted such a reaction, and why he was so keen to talk to Wellington that he'd step in front of a train to do so, but I don't really want to go into detail on his early career. I don't think "highly influential figure in the creation of the British Empire" is overstating it; it was Huskisson and Canning who created the free-trade-between-colonies-high-tariffs-for-anyone-else system which knitted a bunch of scattered outposts in India, Australia, Africa and the West Indies into a single bloc. (The Tories were in one of their periodic Ourselves Alone phases at the time; Wellington only saw the colonies as strategic outposts against France.) – iridescent  19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't (apart from note 2 maybe) agree with other reviewers who feel there is just too much on Huskisson here, but I do think there is a problem when a "main article" link is used to an article which does not contain a high proportion of the material or detail here - mainstream biographical material, not on some specialized area of his career (I don't mean the events of the day itself). The solution is to expand the other article, which can easily be done with some copying and adjusting of the material here. As it is, "highly influential figure in the creation of the British Empire" is currently explained and justified by neither article, so a little of the material you evidently have should be added, probably to the bio. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think note 2 is necessary to provide at least a very brief explanation of what the bone of contention between Huskisson and Wellington was (and why Huskisson was popular in Liverpool and Manchester, places not known for their love of Tories in the wake of the Peterloo Massacre), without either clogging the body text with an explanation of the Unreformed House, or sending the reader off on a scavenger hunt. Regarding the "main article" issue, I agree that William Huskisson is in a very poor state, but it's unfair to criticise this article because of the poor condition of another article. It would actually be quite hard to expand Huskisson's article—as his DNB entry notes, he's the only significant 19th century British politician never to have been the subject of a modern biography (other than Garfield, which is explicitly about his role in the creation of the L&M rather than his whole career), so any expansion on him would end up being sourced from books on Canning and Wellington. Sub-articles that are in a better state than their parent articles aren't particularly unusual. – iridescent  13:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If no changes are made to the articles as they are now, then the "main article" link to the Huskisson bio should be changed to "Further information" or "see also" as this article contains more information on the aspects of his career it covers than the "main" one. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The line at the end of the long Fanny Kemble quote would be better at the beginning + "wrote" etc. The quote is referenced to her memoirs from 48 years later, but reads as if written at the time - was it from a letter? It would be useful to say, if only in the reference.
 * It's from a letter written at the time and included in her memoirs, but the letter is just addressed to "My Dear H" and "H" is not identified. – iridescent  19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case, it's best to put: "The actress, author and anti-slavery campaigner Fanny Kemble, who accompanied George Stephenson on a test of the L&M prior to its opening, wrote in a letter:" or similar before the quote, which is much too long (and fruity at the end) for the author only to be explained afterwards. It is also particularly important to make it clear from the start that she is not talking about the fateful day, which would otherwise naturally be assumed by the reader. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree; done – iridescent  13:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All the images are on the right, even right-facing ones that should face into the page. They are also oddly-placed, with an unnecessary aversion to putting them at the top of sections. Even on the default size setting, several overrun into the next section on my screen, which is ugly. Several look too small on the default setting, but then I always feel that.
 * I dislike using left-aligned images, unless there's a really good reason to do so. "All the images down the right side" is a MOS-approved format, even when it means some people looking out of the page. Some illustrations (Huskisson's portrait, for instance) are at the correct point chronologically, rather than at the start of their respective sections. – iridescent  19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Correct point chronologically" in that the top of the picture coincides with the point of his career when the picture was painted? That's c. 1831, per the NPG, ie the portrait is posthumous, which should be added (and to the image file). On my screen his mouth is at 1821, his tummy at 1828-29, his hand at 1830 and everything lower in the next section. But this is just silly - he should be moved up a paragraph. So should the Northumbrian, the "open carriages" and the last three before the plaque. Or are there reasons for those placements too? Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The image of Northumbrian is at the point where the Duke boards it. Moving it further up would make it cascade with the map, which really needs to be at that particular spot. The illustrations near the end—Huskisson's memorials, the abandoned Crown Street terminus, and Rocket as it appears today, are placed where they are to keep them more-or-less evenly spaced while still in their appropriate sections, and to prevent cascading on wide monitors. – iridescent  13:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Cabinetmaker James Edmondson" - are we sure he was not a coachbuilder, which would seem the obvious trade to use?
 * Double-checked—the source definitely says "cabinet maker". – iridescent  19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "A Railer" of Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine," - more "in" than "of" I imagine.
 * I think both are correct, but no strong opinion—changed to "in". – iridescent  19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wellington's carriage was then detached from the train and attached to Northumbrian, which set off at full speed for Manchester" I was a bit confused by the mechanics here. Weren't they on different tracks? Or if on the same track, how did they get the carriage round the engine? Was there a siding here or something?
 * Yes, they were on different tracks—the carriage on the south track was tied to the locomotive on the north track, and pulled laterally. (Thanks to Huskisson's accident, railway tracks were never again built as close together as they were on the L&M; we're only talking about a gap of a few inches between the tracks.) – iridescent  19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see much of this is explained by the passage about the chain a bit above; I worked through the article in several tranches & probably had forgotten that bit. So was "Northumbrian on the southern track, returning from Manchester" reversing? If so best to add the word (or at whatever point it was reversing).  I'm still trying to get my head round the sequence of the Duke's train. It sets off "divided into four carriages: the Duke's carriage, a bandwagon  and two passenger carriages", but "William and Emily Huskisson travelled in the Ducal train, in a passenger carriage immediately in front of the Duke's carriage". Then after the crash "Huskisson was loaded onto the bandwagon of the Duke's train, which had a flat floor.[74][75]  The remaining carriages of the Duke's train were detached and the carriage, hauled by Northumbrian, set off for Manchester". But when Northumbrian returns from Manchester "Wellington's carriage was then detached from the train and attached to Northumbrian, which set off at full speed for Manchester".  The initial description can't be in the actual sequence, and even so there seems to be a puzzle. Or is it just me?  Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The order of the Ducal train was initially: Northumbrian; bandwagon; passenger car (with the Huskissons); the Duke's carriage; another passenger car. Following the accident, Northumbrian and the bandwagon set off for Manchester with Huskisson, leaving the two passenger cars and the Duke's car. These three are attached laterally to the locomotive on the other track. Northumbrian then returns from Manchester, and the lateral connection is severed and the three carriages re-attached to Northumbrian, which takes them on to Manchester. It's something of a beads-on-a-string puzzle, but I can't see any obvious way to clarify it further. – iridescent  13:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I can! The first snippet I quote on this above follows neither the actual order, nor the social "order of precedence". If you conflate the first two snippets giving the actual train layout as you've just explained it, & add the odd word elsewhere "The remaining three carriages of the Duke's train were detached ....", ""Wellington's carriage, now at the front, was then detached from the train ..." it all becomes much clearer. I'd still like it clarified if Northumbrian was pointing at Manchester through all these manoeuvres.  Once you start describing physical events closely you have to follow through to a consistent level. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this change should make it clearer. I'm fairly certain Northumbrian was facing Manchester at this point (that is, it reversed from Manchester to Eccles); steam locomotives are just as happy running backwards as forwards and turning them is a slow process, and when Stephenson was fetching the doctors time would have been of the essence. However, I can't find anything that specifically says so. – iridescent  18:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not while the somewhat misleading initial sequence remains unchanged. I would suggest: "The Duke's train was drawn by Northumbrian, Stephenson's most advanced locomotive at the time with a 14 horsepower (10 kW) engine.[45][46]. Four carriages followed: a wagon carrying a band, a passenger carriage in which William and Emily Huskisson sat, the Duke's carriage, and finally another passenger carriage"  Something like that anyway. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion arises from the sentence "Wellington's carriage was then detached from the train and attached to Northumbrian, which set off at full speed for Manchester". I can follow things fine up until that point, but then I get confused. Does "detached from the train" mean that Wellington carriage was detached from both Phoenix and the other two passenger carriages, and that Northumbrian pulled only the Duke's carriage into Manchester? It could be interpreted that way, but I think what is meant by that sentence is that the three carriages left of the Duke's "train" (the bandwagon having been abandoned somewhere, presumably, or maybe it was still attached to Northumbrian) were reattached to Northumbrian and pulled on to Manchester. i.e. When Northumbrian arrived in Manchester the first time, it would have been pulling the bandwagon, but when it arrived the second time, it would have been pulling four carriages: the bandwagon, and the three passenger carriages. The impression that could be gained from the article as written at present is that the other carriages were all abandoned somewhere and only the ducal carriage was pulled post-haste to Manchester. Does that help explain why this is all a bit confusing? It might not be possible to state with precision where every carriage was at all times, but that is what people will be trying to mentally picture in their heads. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that work? You're right; I'd said "carriage" there rather than "carriages". – iridescent 2  17:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That solves one problem for me, but you still don't give the full sequence of the Duke's train correctly anywhere, and the changes above at the first mention still need to be made. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How about that? I haven't gone with your proposed changes above, as those stemmed from a (corrected) slip of mine in saying "the Duke's carriage" rather than "the Duke's carriages". The passenger car-Duke's car-passenger car set wasn't split at any point; the only part of the train which was detached was the front section, of Northumbrian and the bandwagon. Regarding whether Northumbrian was reversing, I can't find anywhere where it's mentioned; as I say above, it's unlikely to have been turned at this point but that veers into OR. (When it comes to steam locomotives, 'reverse' is a bit misleading. Aside from a few streamlined models designed to work facing a particular direction, and very large locomotives where the body obstructs visibility from the driver's cab, steam locos don't have a "front" in the sense an automobile or a modern streamlined locomotive does. They were just as efficient running bunker-first as boiler-first; the reason they generally ran boiler-first was to keep the smokestack as far from the passenger cars as possible. The problems regarding turning the trains at Manchester stemmed from getting the locomotives from one end of the train to the other without sufficient passing loops, rather than the actual alignment of the locomotives. It's entirely possible that nobody involved thought to note which way the locomotives were facing—and remember, aside from the railway engineers nobody here had ever seen a train before, so no-one would have had any concept of 'facing the right way'.) – iridescent 2  18:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Please don't try to tell me where my misunderstandings arore. In fact if you reread the earlier version you will see that the "slip" of carriage/carriages did not cause a problem as it fitted with the wrong sequence of the train you were giving earlier) Well, it's an improvement as the order is now given correctly, though the wording seems rather clumsy, but it still leaves "William and Emily Huskisson travelled in the Ducal train, in a passenger carriage immediately in front of the Duke's carriage." rather pointlessly stranded four paragraphs later, in the middle of a paragraph about something else. It should now be "the passenger carriage" I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The passenger carriage" is what it already says. Where the Huskissons sat in the train relative to Wellington is important—being in different carriages meant Huskisson and Wellington hadn't had the chance to talk at leisure during the journey, while being on the same train gave them the opportunity at the stop at Parkside—but introducing it earlier gives the Huskissons undue weight at this point in the narrative, to my mind. It could be moved further down to the "Parkside" section, but I think it needs to be included. – iridescent 2  20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "play the part of the juggernaut car" as the reference is precise, worth a link to Rath Yatra or Juggernaut.
 * Agree, linked – iridescent  19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The main point of note 11, that Huskisson was not the first railway death, should probably be worked in to the main text.
 * I sort of agree, but I can't see an obvious place to do so. I've moved the text from the footnote up into the "inquest" section, which I think works. – iridescent  19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support despite some unresolved points. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. I did the GA review and am happy to support for FA.--DavidCane (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I notice that bandwagon is linked, but is a disambiguation page. Do we assume the reader realises that the meaning meant there is the first one listed at the disambiguation page, or should the link go to the wiktionary page? I also noted that the wiktionary page asserts that the first attested usage of "bandwagon" dates from 1855, so if you have an earlier source using the word 'bandwagon' from 1830 or thereabouts, you might want to follow that up (not that it relates to the article or FAC at all, but I thought it worth noting). Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that though several articles from The Times are referenced, one that I've just finished reading is not used, namely "The Times, Saturday, Sep 18, 1830; pg. 3; Issue 14335; col A" (Death Of Mr. Huskisson). That has some details that are not present in the other sources I have seen, and gives a much clearer account of the more gruesome details of the accident itself, including the alignment of the leg with the rail (the leg was crooked at an angle) and the number of wheels that passed over the leg (three). From what I can make out there, the sentence in the article "Huskisson fell onto the track in front of the locomotive" is misleading - it seems that, from his position on the door that swung out from the ducal carriage, and following the impact with The Rocket, he fell face-down into the gap between the two trains (this is explicitly stated here), but that the crooked knee of his leg fell across the adjacent rail and several wheels passed across the calf and thigh, leaving the knee unscathed. It would help to give the rail gauge/wheel width, as well as making clear that The Rocket stopped soon after the impact, so was presumably not moving that fast at the point of impact. However, that newspaper article gives accounts from several correspondents, so whether it is acceptable to use those accounts (arguably primary sources), rather than use the filter of a secondary source that has done the work of pulling together old newspaper reports, is another matter. In any case, it would be useful for the reader to be pointed to these accounts provided in The Times. Carcharoth (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) One more point - is it clear or not which leg was crushed? Most accounts seem to say his left leg, but some say his right leg, for some reason. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no particular attachment to the word "bandwagon", other than as the shortest way to describe the car in question. As with almost everything here, the terminology of railways didn't yet exist—even such seemingly basic concepts as "goods carriage" and "return ticket" were artefacts of the L&M, and thus didn't yet exist. I've reworded it to "a flat bottomed wagon carrying the band", to avoid the need to use the term.
 * While I've used contemporary news reports for the planning of the opening ceremony, and for Huskisson's funeral, I've tried to avoid using news articles published by the London press in the immediate aftermath for details of the accident, as they're contradictory and based on garbled reports and speculation sent by pigeon or brought by riders racing down from Liverpool to London (the telegraph had yet to be invented, remember). The version of Huskisson's death I've given is that which was given at the inquest, and is also that given by both Simon Garfield's book on the accident and the National Railway Museum. His injuries weren't consistent with someone who'd been run over by multiple wheels—he had a single crush injury across one leg (consistent with being run over by a single, heavy wheel), not the multiple cuts and mangling one would expect from being run over by multiple wheels. (While medical treatment then was in its infancy, most of those present would have been veterans of the Napoleonic wars, and can be assumed to be fairly competent at assessing injuries.) – iridescent  19:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough (though I thought bandwagon came from the circus, rather than the trains? See the picture here - and the picture and quote here "Circus workers were skilled at attracting the public with the razzmatazz of a parade through town, complete with highly decorated bandwagons"). Do you think, though, that it is possible to get into the article a bit about how garbled some of the reports were? One of the Amazon blurbs on Garfield's book says: "There were a great many witnesses to the terrible accident which befell William Huskisson, but none could agree precisely what occurred. Some said his left leg fell on the track in one way, some quite another, and some said it was his thigh. A few observed a 'fiery fountain' of blood, but others saw only a trickle. Some claimed there was shrieking, but the rest believed he was rendered mute by the shock." That confusion doesn't come across at all in the article at present, but even a brief reading of the contemporary newspaper reports confirms the presence of conflicting contemporary accounts, something I think is worth mentioning in the article - do the inquest reports really not specify which leg was crushed? Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The etymology of "bandwagon" is exactly what it sounds like; a wagon carrying a band. (They've vanished from British life, but anyone who's seen an American parade will recognise the concept.) I've removed references to them. His injured leg was the right—I've made that clear. (You're right; it wasn't mentioned in the article.) I don't want to go too far down the "confusion" route; while a lot of people in the passing trains weren't clear what happened, and this led to garbled reports in the initial reports, what actually happened is clear enough in hindsight; lots of doctors were present, all making notes. This kind of "fog of war" reporting is common at accidents, even now, when people know that something has happened but aren't quite sure what. (Remember the garbled reporting on 9/11 or 7/7?) What is disputed is whether the doctors took the right course of action, or whether they should have attempted surgery even though it was almost certain to fail, on the grounds that something is better than nothing; I've covered that element of things. – iridescent  23:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Opening three sections - something has been bothering me about the length of the introductory and background sections (the first three). These, should, IMO, be consolidated into a single "Background" section. In particular, the Huskisson section of the article should avoid the early biographical details (such as birthplace and his youth in Paris), and should concentrate on three main things to the exclusion of almost all else: (1) His connections with the Liverpool area; (2) His connections with the embryonic train industry; and (3) His connections with the Duke of Wellington (providing the background for his later approach to shake the Duke's hand). The only other things that should really be mentioned are his wife, where he lived at the time (this is not clear from either article - I had presumed he lived in Liverpool, but presumably it was Eartham House in West Sussex) and his age at the time, 60 (to avoid people having to work it out for themselves). It also feels strange to have a background section on Huskisson pointing to the main biographical article (which has several inconsistencies with this article), and to then be pointed from there back to this article for the death details. A summary of the main notables present on the opening day might be better. i.e. the article doesn't really get going until the "Opening day" section (and this is confirmed by the lead section, which ignores most of what is said in the first three sections). All the stuff before the "Opening day" section could be ruthlessly trimmed and consolidated into a single "Background" section that places events in their context. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see consolidating the first three sections into subheads within a "background" section (which I've done), but disagree that there's much fat to be trimmed from Huskisson's bio. His background as a major public figure needs to be made clear, as that's what makes him significant to the impact of the opening of the L&M. Had he been a normal backbench MP, the whole thing wouldn't have got the worldwide press coverage it did, and neither the industrialisation of England, nor the reform of Parliament, would have had the kick-start given by Huskisson's death. (I've mentioned that he lived at Eartham, but have intentionally avoided any variant of "...where he lived for the rest of his life". Pre-railways, the upper classes had both a country house and a town house, and while Eartham was formally his home he's likely to have spent most of his time in London.) – iridescent  00:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The important point is that he didn't live in or move to Liverpool and was based in and around London. I know that is normal for the times, but not all readers will take that fact in unless it is made explicit. It is a relatively minor point, though. On another minor point, the Emily Huskisson legacy sentence doesn't yet mention the memorial she had erected to Huskisson in Eartham church, as described here. I still think actual consolidation is possible, but won't press the point until or unless I can give an example of what I'd write as a background section here, though I have added to the lead that Huskisson was a former cabinet minister. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the memorial in Eartham ought to be mentioned. The ones I've listed (Liverpool, Pimlico and Chichester, plus the Huskisson Memorial at Parkside itself) are full-scale large monuments, whereas the one at Eartham church is just a plain inscribed tablet—while we don't have a photo of it, you can see it poking out from behind the organ here. (The ornate memorial of which we have a picture is to Huskisson's great-nephew, also called William Huskisson, and not to the man himself.) It can certainly be added; I'll leave it to others as to whether it's warranted. – iridescent  13:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The one at Eartham church may be just a plain inscribed tablet, but I'd like to know what it says, and it possibly could be a more personal and intimate memorial than the other ones. You might have both the Huskissons turning in their graves at the thought of this memorial not being mentioned. The other memorial, as you say, is to his great-nephew, which is why I didn't mention it here. I made both that point, and the one about the organ, here. Hopefully a picture will be forthcoming. I'm going to look at the whole article again this weekend, but there shouldn't be much more to comment on. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - after a final read-through. I still think the article only really gets going once we reach the "Opening day" section, and the lead section and background section (especially the 'Rainhill Trials' section) could still be trimmed or rewritten to avoid confusing or losing readers early on. Overall, though, those are stylistic objections, so I'm still happy to support. I'll place my suggestions about the lead section on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - 1 dab (Bandwagon), no dead external links. -- Pres N  06:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Support - with one quibble.
 * Inquest:
 * "The coroner himself, Mr Milne, arrived at 10.00 am and was in a hurry to proceed as he had another inquest scheduled that afternoon, but the inquest was unable to proceed as Lord Wilton, the only sworn witness scheduled to attend the inquest,[103] could not be found." Can we vary/change a couple of the inquests in this sentence to avoid repetition?
 * I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and turned up no issues with plagiarism. The sourcing looks good to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Double checked the use of the Inflation template: use is acceptable. Off to Template:Inflation-fn to cause trouble with the poor citation quality there. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


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