Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom/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 10:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC).

Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom

 * Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Note, as per a recommendation below, this article has been moved to Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom
 * FAC page and relevant links now moved as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, anatomical science sits uncomfortably atop a fence separating the needs of the living and the expectations of the dead. This uneasy relationship stems from an unfortunate series of events, the ramifications of which are obvious even today.

Early 18th century anatomists had access to about 10 corpses annually, a paltry amount that proved completely insufficient to supply the demands of a burgeoning area of medical science. Even a statute allowing doctors and students access to the corpses of murderers (of which there were many) wasn't enough, so the medical profession simply circumvented the law and got its corpses fresh from the graveyard. The men who did this, resurrectionists, were hated by pretty much everyone except the anatomists, who unsurprisingly, weren't exactly popular themselves. Matters came to a head when, attracted by the significant sums of money fresh corpses were worth, men turned to murder. Parliament created an Anatomy Act, which killed off the illicit trade in corpses by making it legal for anatomists to get their hands on those too poor to object.

I found it all rather fascinating, so here's an article on it. Parrot of Doom 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from MasterOfHisOwnDomain: I'm with you on it being a fascinating subject, and splendid work on the article so far! A few things:
 * Links to Grave robbery, United Kingdom, Cadaver (either article or wiktionary?) and also "anatomical research" to Gross anatomy? Would help the general reader (I admit to being vague about the definition of cadaver…)
 * The Murder Act is apparently in 1751, not 1752.
 * resurrectionists, does this require perhaps " "?
 * "Wherefrom", eloquent but also somewhat archaic, simply "from where"? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've linked United Kingdom, anatomy and cadaver, I've left grave robbery alone as frankly, this article offers a much better description of what was involved than Wikipedia's article on the subject. The Murder Act seems to be known as both (it was enacted in 1752).  I think it's best to use 1752 as that was the year the law changed.  I don't think resurrectionists requires quotes, it may be uncommon now but it was common enough back then.  As for wherefrom, I'm happy to use unusual words, it's how we expand our language. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure WP's policy is constructed around whether or not users derive pleasure from using a word… But I won't argue with it for now. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First instance of Murder Act link is redirected to Murder Act 1751 (other is fine).
 * "in 1694, Edinburgh allowed anatomists to dissect corpses …" the quotation that follows is without a citation.
 * "For example, William Shakespeare's epitaph reads" is there a reference that actually suggests that this epitath relates specifically to grave robbery for anatomical purposes? Otherwise seems to be original research.
 * "late 18th century anatomists" — 18th-century.
 * Image caption: "A caricature of John Hunter makes his escape from two watchmen." — 'as he makes his escape'?
 * "A "volley of bullets, slugs, …" is not proceeded by a citation. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a citation to the Edinburgh quote. Shakespeare's epitaph is cited.  I've hyphenated the 18th-century bit.  The image caption is correct, the image of John Hunter is a caricature.  For the "volley of bullets" quote, that's covered by citation 36, which I feel is close enough to the quote. Parrot of Doom 19:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Image review and spotchecks
 * There are no problems with the images.
 * I have copies of Richardson and Wise and have checked all the citations to these books and found no issues. I have spotchecked some of the other sources using Google previews and there are no problems with verification or close paraphrasing. Graham Colm (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked footnotes 3, 4, 6, 12 and 13. I think the authors should watch for close paraphrasing in future, as I consider the passages below to be very close. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Italy led Europe in anatomical teaching ... British anatomists often travelled there to study - Harvey, for instance, had studied at Padua." (source)
 * "During the 16th and 17th centuries Italy became a European leader in the study of anatomy, with English anatomists travelling there to study. For instance, William Harvey ... studied at the University of Padua." (article)
 * and
 * "1506, James IV of Scotland gave royal patronage to the Edinburgh surgeons and barbers, which allowed them to dissect the bodies" (source)
 * "1506, when King James VI of Scotland gave royal patronage to the Barber-Surgeons of Edinburgh, allowing them to dissect the bodies" (article)
 * Sometimes, there's only one way to say something. Close paraphrasing can be unavoidable. Parrot of Doom 08:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * During the 16th and 17th centuries English anatomists were attracted to Italy, where the leading anatomy schools were situated. For example, William Harvey ... attended the University of Padua.
 * 1506, when the barber-surgeons of Edinburgh were allowed to dissect the "bodies of certain executed criminals" under the patronage of King James VI of Scotland.

Support. Parrot of Doom and I have worked on a few articles together in the past, and I hope we will again in the future as he's a great researcher, but I've had nothing to do with this one beyond a little bit of copyediting after he asked me to take a look at it. As far as I'm concerned it's well written and meets all the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Support - I've read it, and can't find any significant problems.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage. Given the name I edit under here, commenting on this FAC seems almost mandatory!
 * There are a few oddities in reference formatting. Several Notes are articles in periodicals, but have the article title in italics and the periodical in standard typeface (see Notes 2, 19, 36, etc.); italicization in the bibliography (Ritchie) looks correct, though. All the ISBN numbers are ISBN-10; if available, these should be replaced with their ISBN-13 equivalents.
 * Also, I have questions regarding the article's title and scope:
 * [Snipped irrelevant examples]. Scope is now better defined by the new title; no more objections in that direction, and no need for unrelated-sources cluttering up the thread. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And, finally, was the practice of grave robbery / body snatching ever criminalized, even after the end of the resurrectionists' era circa 1844? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Body snatching is probably a better title to use. I developed this article from nothing and to be frank, haven't really given the title that much consideration.  I'd be happy to move the article but that's probably best done once the FAC process has run it's course.  The article is wholly about the shortage of bodies for anatomical research and what people did to circumvent it; therefore, modern issues regarding tissue harvesting aren't relevant.  This is purely about men digging up corpses in the dark of night.  Malleus has already changed some things in the citations, to be honest there are so many different opinions on what templates to use, I just stick with the simplest I can find.  I never even pay that much attention to how they appear, so long as people can read and understand them. Parrot of Doom 16:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the goal is to restrict the topic to the 18th to 19th century practice motivated by the anatomy trade, perhaps a shift in the overall wording in order to facilitate a move to Resurrectionist is in order (or, actually, to some disambiguated version of that title, but that's beside the point)? After ~1844, there are, largely by definition, no more resurrectionists, but there is arguably still body snatching. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that, probably something like Resurrection in the United Kingdom (it occurred in the US too but I'm not getting involved with that). Changing the article's wording would be a very simple task.  Criminalisation of resurrection is a good point, I'll check to see if there's anything out there.  I know the Anatomy Act didn't criminalise it. Parrot of Doom 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom might be better, but I'd recommend changing the title now; it's not unprecedented to change an article's title during an FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of the options, I think Malleus's suggestion is the most preferable one. And, yes, even in the short time I've been a regular at FAC, I've seen several in-process title changes; it's important to make sure the lead and tone wordings match the new title. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've moved the article and copyedited most of the grave robbery out (some can be left in as people would sometimes take just a piece of a corpse). Parrot of Doom 00:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally: I think there may be more sources that can be included here. I've got partial references for a few, and will try to track down full citations. An 1896 article in The Lancet 147 (3777): 185–187 discusses another method used, involving a 5–6 meter horizontal tunnel, and removal of one end of the coffin, instead of the vertical tunnel and pry method currently described in the article. I think there may be some Scottish sources to include also, based on the slightly different (if largely unenforced) legal status there. The September 14, 1829 issue of the Glasgow Herald apparently has an account of the "prosecution" of a resurrectionist under Scottish law -- I use scare quotes there, because they literally let him off with a warning. There's also an account of a public mass-disinterment to check for stolen corpses (spoiler alert: very much so), given in the March 9th, 1829 issue of the Glasgow Herald. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Lancet article sounds interesting. Regarding the contemporary news reports, be careful, a lot may be based upon heresay.  I doubt very much any newspaper proprietor would be happy at any of his reporters writing about resurrection in anything but the most disapproving language.  Certainly, few if any of them are impartial, which is why I've included only a few in this article.  I guess what I'm saying is, use your nouse and filter out the hyperbole! Parrot of Doom 18:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Naturally. In fact, I can do you one better: a modern article that references those Glasgow Herald reports, with commentary and analysis, plus comparison to the modern debate regarding organ retention, and acknowledgement of what the charge was for prosecuted resurrections in Scotland (violation of the sepulchres of the dead): Hopefully that can fill in quite a few of the holes! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Trifling Comments from Ceranthor
 * It would be helpful to just spell out JHU as Johns Hopkins University Press; the rest are all spelled out and it just avoids any possibility of confusion.
 * Could you link Brill Publishers (BRILL)? When I saw BRILL, I thought of the fish.
 * Done and done. Parrot of Doom 22:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Support: I noticed this article at GA a while ago, but was unfortunately beaten to it. A really unusual and interesting article which answers any questions which I had. Nothing obviously missing, and the prose is excellent. Just a few minor points, which do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support A great read - I love the terseness of that last sentence. "By 1844, the trade no longer existed."  ceran  thor  19:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments, unfortunately I'm not entirely happy with that ending, but it's all I've got. Parrot of Doom 22:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Corpses and their component parts became a commodity, but although the practice was hated by the general public, since corpses were not legally anyone's property, this clandestine method of securing them for study occupied a legal grey area.": I think this is a slightly long sentence, and perhaps a little too much going on. The "since" is ambiguous: does it refer to public hatred, or the grey area? I read it as referring to the hatred at the moment, but depending on your view of comma usage, it could be either.
 * How about this?
 * "The Christian church forbade human dissection until the 14th century, when the first recorded dissection of a human corpse took place in Bologna.": We have "human ... human" and "dissection ... dissection". The second "human" seems a little redundant, but I'm not sure the double dissection is avoidable.
 * How about this? There aren't too many synonyms for these words so I've struggled a few times :)
 * "as were infants who had died in childbirth": Looks a little like the infants were giving birth. Would "stillborn" work?
 * Probably not, I think most people would presume a stillborn child to be dead in the womb (but I'm ignorant of the precise terminology). I've tried this change, is that better?
 * "while bribes were paid to officials present at the gallows, sometimes leading to an unfortunate situation where corpses not legally given over for dissection were taken anyway": Maybe it is a style preference, but does "in which" work better than "where"? Also, is "unfortunate" editorial judgement?
 * I agree, I'll change it to "in which". The use of "unfortunate" is basically a synonym for unintended, I thought it was a simpler way of getting across how distasteful a practice such thefts were, without resorting to a sentence about it.
 * The article mentions resurrectionists a couple of paragraphs before it defines what a resurrectionist is.
 * Good point, fixed.
 * "There are cases of criminals who survived the short drop, but dissecting the body removed any hope of escape from death's embrace…" So they were dissected alive if they survived the short drop? Or was that public perception? I'm assuming that this is giving the public's view that dissection removed the slim possibility of surviving hanging, but perhaps this could be expressed more clearly. Also, "escape from death's embrace" seems a little too lyrical.
 * Death wasn't entirely understood (neither was birth, for that matter). The short drop method of hanging killed people by strangulation, which is why you'll find reports of relatives and friends pulling on the victim's legs - to hasten death.  As some victims of hanging did indeed manage to "come back to life", some people believed that the anatomist removed any hope of that happening.  This was important, because someone who'd been hanged and who had lived through the procedure, would essentially be a free man.  There were also arguments about the anatomist destroying the body and leaving the soul nowhere to return to, on judgement day.  I hacked a lot of that away from the article as it's more to do with anatomy than body snatching.  I'm not attached to "death's embrace", I was just trying to find a neat way of ending the sentence.
 * There are few quotes which do not have in-text attribution. My preference is always to include attribution for the ease of the reader, although the MoS does not insist for part of quotes. And the quotes are all partial sentences. So you can ignore this one if you like. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, however, where the inline citation would be only a few words away from the end of the section being cited, I never bother. Too many little numbers... Parrot of Doom 23:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from John
 * It's a super article, well done. A few fairly minor suggestions:
 * Lead para
 * "recently deceased"; could we de-euphamise that?
 * "Nevertheless" could be omitted
 * Recently deceased was Malleus's addition, he's a better writer than me so I don't know. I like nevertheless though, as it helps press home the point that even though the resurrectionists weren't breaking the law, they'd still get a good kicking if caught.
 * I like "recently deceased", and I much prefer it over what was there before, "recently dead", which just doesn't sound right to me. I don't see it as any kind euphamism anyway – that would be something like "recently passed on" in my mind. But it's your article, so your choice. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What about "those who'd kicked the bucket?" Or "popped their clogs"? ;)  In truth I don't mind either way. Parrot of Doom 17:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Legal background
 * "such an eventuality" A bit wordy
 * "Attempting to bolster the supply" Can you bolster a supply?
 * I've changed the first to "Worried about possible disorder, in 1749". The second, yes you can bolster supplies - I would presume therefore you can also bolster "a" supply?

(more to come) --John (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Commodification
 * "The 13th-century polymath Leonardo da Vinci " should read "15th-century"
 * "not because they held any intrinsic value to the anatomist, but rather because they were used to refurbish the living." could be trimmed slightly.
 * Well spotted, I must have been confusing years and clocks :) As for the second point, I could trim it, but there's a good deal to say about prosthetics and the like, I'd rather leave a question in the mind of the reader.  I think shortening it may risk glossing over it.  Who knows, I may expand upon this point with a new article. Parrot of Doom 13:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * John, if you were still planning to add further comments, pls do, otherwise I believe this is about ready to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Support – This contribution meets all the FA criteria. It is an excellent, and exceedingly well written, synopsis. The prose, IMHO is better than one of the major sources (Richardson). I too liked last sentence, despite the nominators reservations. It was indeed a trade, and there was good money to be made by the perpetrators – and reputations to made by purchasers. These body snatchers actually did a great service to humanity – albeit for the wrong reasons – because much of our early knowledge of anatomy was, in part, derived from their clandestine activities. Although the subject can at first come across as merely macabre, it is an important aspect of the history of medicine. The nominator is an excellent researcher who has done the project a great service by bringing this subject, from scratch, to a featured standard. Please note I contributed to the GA assessment. Graham Colm (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment – In the third paragraph of the "Legal background" section, I think "giving judges the ability to substitute gibbeting for dissection" has the punishments in the wrong order? Also, in the "Public view" sub-section, the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph ends with an unlinked "anatomy theatre" and then the first sentence of the second paragraph ends with a linked "anatomical theatre", which I found a bit odd. Anyway, excellent article, though I don't trust myself to review a FAC until I have submitted one of my own. Waltham, The Duke of 16:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks for pointing those errors out. Parrot of Doom 23:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments on lead by Cwmhiraeth Many readers of articles in Wikipedia never get further than looking at the images (macabre here) and reading the lead. Doing likewise, several things caught my eye in the lead:
 * "... deliver them to their clients." - I don't think "clients" is the correct relationship between the parties involved.
 * Why don't you think that? Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's exactly the correct relationship. Resurrectionists sourced bodies and sold them at a profit to those willing to pay - clients. Parrot of Doom 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You've already stated that the anatomists were their employers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a fair comment, I've shortened that sentence. Parrot of Doom 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Their role became popular due to a severe shortage of cadavers for anatomical research." Popular with whom?
 * Popular with those involved in anatomical research, which is what is implied. Parrot of Doom 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A statement such as "They were useful to the anatomists as there was a severe shortage of cadavers for their research." would remove any ambiguity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is any ambiguity. The implication is clear. Parrot of Doom 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "...to substitute gibbeting with dissection" - I don't understand this phrase.
 * I don't see why, dissection could replace gibbeting. Parrot of Doom 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Gibbeting" is not a commonly used word and most people will not know what it means. Maybe you mean that instead of being executed, a criminal is cut up by anatomists? If so, how did the criminal die, or was he dissected while still alive? Or perhaps your meaning is that that gibbeting followed by dissection could be substituted for an execution followed by burial? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're correct, gibbeting isn't a commonly used word, which is why it's linked. I do not understand what is difficult to understand - you substitute one thing for another (replace the 2nd with the 1st) or one thing with another (replace the 1st with the 2nd).  The remainder of the sentence makes it clear why I've used the latter. Parrot of Doom 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "The role of the resurrectionists therefore occupied a legal grey area." - How can a role occupy a grey area?
 * Changed to "The resurrectionists therefore operated in a legal grey area". Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "...made extraction more difficult." - Extraction of what?
 * Extraction of corpses. Added that clarification. Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Parliament responded with the 1828 Select Committee on anatomy" - I expect you mean "by setting up" the committee.
 * Changed as per suggestion. Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Following the discovery in 1831 of Burking in London, a bill submitted by Henry Warburton, author of the Select Committee's report, was debated in Parliament" - This is an unsatisfactory sentence, even with the wikilink.
 * Don't take this the wrong way but to simply say "this is wrong" isn't very helpful. Tell me what exactly you think is missing. Parrot of Doom 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Following the discovery in 1831 of Burking in London" is an incomprehensible phrase. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly comprehensible to me. Is English your first language? Parrot of Doom 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I also object to the expressions " a handful of bodies" and "wherefrom". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy with them and won't be making changes there. Parrot of Doom 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 *  Oppose - I shall not be supporting this article's candidacy . I can only repeat Axl's comment when he failed the article at GA. "You clearly have no intention to collaborate to improve the article." If this article were to become a FA, the dreadful sentence "Following the discovery in 1831 of Burking in London, a bill submitted by Henry Warburton, author of the Select Committee's report, was debated in Parliament" might appear on the Wikipedia front page! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Like Axl, you've made suggestions which appear to be matters of personal preference only. And like Axl, your comments aren't particularly helpful; other commentary offers specific advice on how to improve problematic sentences.  Your statement, that I don't wish to collaborate to improve this article, is demonstrably untrue. Parrot of Doom 08:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a little more specific, I believe the lead section contravenes the MOS guidelines. For example, these say "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined", neither "gibbeting" nor "Burking in London" could be called a common term and neither is in any way necessary to be used in the lead. An omission in the lead, in my view, is that you do not explain who anatomists (another uncommon word) were, what they did or why they wanted bodies. Anatomy is not wikilinked in the article as far as I can see.


 * Gibbeting was a legal punishment. The section mentions the death penalty, Parliament, a Murder Act, a new law and judges.  Just how much context do you require?  The word is linked, I think that's quite enough.  As for burking, that too is linked.  Your suggestion that neither is required in the lead is, I can only assume, an opinion borne of ignorance of this subject - the two are quite essential.  I've linked anatomy in the lead (it was already linked in the article body so plainly you didn't look far). Parrot of Doom 22:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding a wikilink to "anatomist" in the lead. I am unable to find a wikilink for the word "anatomy" or "anatomist" in the rest of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The main body of the text is interesting, engaging and largely well-written in my opinion. I have not studied the text in detail nor considered whether the lead is an adequate summary of its contents, but I did come across this sentence "In London, late 18th-century anatomists may have delegated their grave-robbing almost entirely to body snatchers, or as they were commonly known, resurrectionists" and I wondered in what other ways the anatomists succeeded in removing corpses from graves? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "and I wondered in what other ways the anatomists succeeded in removing corpses from graves?" - didn't you read the preceding section, which explains that anatomists used to do the job themselves? Parrot of Doom 22:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see that stated in the article. Merely the suggestion by a historian that students might have been "involved in exhumation" and not that anatomists might have dug up the corpses themselves. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I give up. I don't think you'd be happy with any changes I might make because I think you have a lazy understanding of the subject, and wish everything to be explained to you in great detail.  I shall therefore pay no more attention to your criticism. Parrot of Doom 09:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have changed my opinion above to oppose. The nominator has not responded positively to constructive criticism I have made and has made little effort to address my concerns. My view of his lack of cooperation with other editors is reinforced by his reply to DrKiernan below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Two minor comments I see no reason to use the obscure lanthorn (which requires linking) in preference to the more usual lantern (which need not be linked). The footnote on the different meanings of the word "mort" drifts off on a tangent that is not related to the subject matter of the article. It should be shortened or cut. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The source material uses lanthorn. I'm always curious as to why people don't like obscure or unusual words.  Don't people enjoy their vocabulary being expanded? Parrot of Doom 08:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The fact that "the source material uses lanthorn" indicates that the parts of the article with an unusual or poetic turn of phrase have been lifted from the sources and leads me to suspect that the issue of close paraphrasing is more widespread than the two cases I've already identified. This would not be concerning if the sources were out of copyright but the sources for both my examples above and the sentence using "lanthorn" are modern.
 * The claim in the lead that the practice was "popular" is not supported by the sources. DrKiernan (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So basically, you're accusing me of plagiarising material. Go and fuck yourself.  And fuck anyone else who agrees, I don't give hours of my time to have to face revolting accusations like this. Parrot of Doom 13:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on, there's no need for that -- I strongly suggest you redact it now. Evidently you were not so upset by DrK's examples of close paraphrasing as by his suggestion that it might be more widespread. If you found his wording harsh, you can say so in other ways.  I haven't seen this sort of response when I've pointed out similar things in articles and also suggested the writers review for other occurrences. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done to you both, nice work. Since when has it been permissible to extrapolate from the fact that a nominator chooses to employ an archaic word used in the source to suggest that plagiarism must therefore be widespread in the article? I find that exceedingly disagreeable and not a little dishonest, as I do your support of DrKiernan's outrageous accusation. If there's any "redaction" required it's from you two jokers. Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I indicated my comments were minor points only. I pointed out that two out of five footnotes examined were closely paraphrased, but also implied that this was minor (by saying "minor comments") and stated directly that no action need be taken on them at this article ("should watch for close paraphrasing in future"). The comments would have passed unnoticed if Parrot of Doom had either ignored them or addressed them. Instead he chose to be rude and dismissive, and admitted "close paraphrasing can be unavoidable", even though I demonstrated above that it was easy to avoid it. As I've already pointed out my concerns are easily addressed by changing half a dozen words. Given the trivial nature of my comments, I suspect that Parrot of Doom's disenchantment stems from other causes. DrKiernan (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not party to what has triggered Parrot of Doom's reaction other than what I've read here. He certainly has a slight tendency towards colourful phrasing that I'd be reluctant to employ, and a love for using the same archaic words such as "wherefrom" and "lanthorn" that the sources do, but I think it's going too far to suggest that as prima facie evidence of widespread plagiarism, so I can understand why he would be upset. If I had access to the sources I would offer to take over this nomination, but although I can get hold of some I don't have access to Richardson. So we'll just have to let the nomination wither away quietly now I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well we'll see. That PoD feels frustrated is clear enough but there's a difference between questions of close paraphrasing and wild accusations of rampant plagiarism. I don't blame PoD for wanting to be treated with respect for the hard work he's put into this; the reviewers are just as entitled to respect for the effort they put in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My opposition could be reversed if the points I raised on the lead wording were addressed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been bold and attempted to address your comments. And I'll attempt to address DrKiernan's as well later, assuming total war hasn't erupted by then. Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The points I raised about making the lead more accessible to general readers have now been addressed and I no longer oppose its promotion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

With regard to "lanthorn", the source (Richardson) says: "The bulk of the work was done at night, using wooden shovels where noiselessness was crucial, and a 'dark lanthorn' - a device commonly used by burglars: designed to shed light where necessary, but not attract attention". I don't think "lantern" has quite the same meaning.Graham Colm (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A dark lantern is a specific type of lantern: it has a flap with which the light can be obscured. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A reliable source (the OED) agrees: "Dark-lantern". 1650. A lantern with an arrangement by which the light can be concealed" So why not use dark-lantern in the article and define it  within emdashes. "Lantern" alone, does not convey the full meaning. Graham Colm (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Or any similar solution. DrKiernan (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to say that reviewers have achieved a consensus on solutions to these recent objections? Graham Colm (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly happy with what's been done. I don't think there's any doubt that the accessibility of the article for the general reader has been improved. Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it seems we got there in the end -- thank you all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.