Wikipedia:Peer review/Tichborne Case/archive1

Tichborne Case
This peer review discussion has been closed.

A legal case that transfixed Victorian Britain and had repercussions beyond its basis issue of was he or wasn't he. The legal decision, and the general opinion of historian and commentators is that he wasn't, but there is just enough doubt to keep open the possibility that he might have been. If none of that makes sense, please read the article., and many thanks for any comments. Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by Wehwalt
 * Lede:
 * "otherwise known" This doesn't convey much to the reader, I'm afraid.  I recognize the careful word choices you've made in the lede.  But this one leaves a body wondering what was meant.
 * Travels
 * "well informed by letters of his doings" I would write "letter", but perhaps this is a Britishism.
 * "were he alive and present, Roger would have become the eleventh baronet." Were he known to have been alive in Oz, he still would have become the eleventh;
 * Claimant appears
 * The reader may be curious as to how Lady Tichborne had so much money. Dower rights?
 * Those old family estates were full of entails and provisions for relicts of deceased baronets; and Lady T, although illegitimate, was a member of a noble French family. So although the sources don't discuss her finances, it's a pretty safe bet she was well heeled. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support and opposition


 * "Furthermore" Tone down slightly to "Additionally", I would.
 * "enquiries were in Wapping" Were made?
 * Was the Claimant actually bankrupt, or just broke (insolvent, perhaps)?
 * Annoyingly, the sources just say he was "bankrupt", without specifying any legal processes or indeed in what name he was declared bankrupt. But I think most readers will understand that he was broke, and the word "insolvent" is perhaps les familiar.
 * Orton
 * "Orton's existence independent from that of the Claimant, " A bit unclear.
 * "despite repeated attempts to find him." I'm not sure you mean "him"  Also some clarification
 * "rapidly lost face value" Only if the ink ran.  Perhaps "quickly traded at a considerable discount".  As an aside, I'm reminded of the Phileas Fogg Bonds in the Verne work.
 * "the civil case" I don't see any prior mention of the civil case in the body, though you did mention the Claimant undergoing some declarations.  I should either drop in a mention earlier or else perhaps make it "the civil case the Claimant had followed to establish his identity".
 * Civil case
 * "ejection" Surely ejectment?  At least a pipe ...
 * I would not write out "versus",
 * I would make it clearer who Lushington was, and who the anti-Tichborne barristers represented. I imagine the younger brother leased to Lushington, and of course if the younger brother had no title ...
 * Suggest a convert template with the acreage.
 * " the current Solicitor General " Perhaps "then the Solicitor General"
 * Appeal to the public
 * " in the forthcoming perjury trial" I'd delete.
 * "the civil hearing" civil trial, or first trial, key word is trial.
 * " in pursuit of legal justice" Perhaps "when seeking justice in the courts".
 * "notorious and controversial" considerable overlap here, perhaps choose one?
 * "of conspiracy to pervert justice." A supposed example of perversion might be helpful.  It's too legalistic as it stands, I think.


 * Criminal case
 * Again, I would shorten versus to v I am guessing that you are avoiding abbreviations in headings, I think this would be an exception.
 * "Legal forces" I'm bothered by this, but I don't have a better.
 * Why is the one-word quote "monster" needed?
 * I suppose because "slanderer" and "perjuror" were intended as factual descriptions, and "monster" was figurative. But I have removed the quotes. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * " could not give evidence or receive cross-examination" How about "was not allowed to take the stand". or "was not allowed to testify"
 * Appraisal
 * "in Australia; Orton kills Roger, and assumes his identity."Maybe "in Australia, with Orton killing Roger and assuming his identity."
 * "these stories" These theories?
 * The article is "Tichborne case". The PR is under "Tichborne Case".  Just saying.
 * I enjoyed the notes very much. Very well done as usual.  Long stretches with nothing to say did not mean I did not look!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review. Mostly I've followed your recommendations (or come close), otherwise I've briefly commented. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Shall read critically tomorrow, but at first read-through for typos etc I find "Kenealy" and "Keneally" and similarly "Stonyhurst" and "Stoneyhurst". More tomorrow. I think I'm going to enjoy this. Tim riley (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments from Tim riley


 * I struggled with the family history section, and resorted to sketching a family tree to keep up with who was who. I'd be happy to run up a jpg version for your consideration if you agree that such a thing might clarify matters for the reader as mere prose cannot. Later: see User:Tim riley/sandbox6
 * Chart adopted with grateful thanks (see your talkpage). If you want to vary it please feel free, but I think it does the job as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless I missed it, there is no mention of what happened to the baronetcy and the estate after Alfred's death (and the Claimant's failure). It's not central to the matter, but perhaps a footnote would be of interest.
 * I will add a little to the final section. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

These apart I have only a few comments:
 * Travels and disappearance
 * "financial recklessness rapidly brought the estates to near-bankruptcy" – not all that near, presumably, if it was worth the Claimant's while to try to get hold of them and if Lady Tichborne could settle £1,000 a year on him at the drop of a hat. Later: I see you mention the residual worth of the estate in the Civil case section below, but all the same a brief word or two here would put "near-bankruptcy" into perspective.
 * It's an excellent point, and one that has iritated me, since neither of the main sources are helpful in clarifying what "bankruptcy" means in this context. Woodruff says Alfred owed £40,000, a large sum but only a small fraction of the total worth of the properties. I imagine that the bulk of the estate was tied up in family trusts, of which Alfred was the main beneficiary in his lifetime, and that he created a personal cashflow problem rather than actually bankrupting the estate - though he did give up living at Tichborne Park.  I have slightly altered the text, but can't really do much more, since this would involve guesswork or OR. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Recognition in France
 * "The Claimant then disclosed" – to me, "disclosed" has at least a suggestion that what is disclosed is true. The OED doesn't agree with me on this, but I just mention it. Perhaps "confided"?
 * Orton
 * "born 20 March 1834 in Wapping" – "born on 20 March …"?
 * Financial problems
 * English "advisers" and American "advisors" in successive paras
 * Judges and counsel
 * Inconsistency of piping of "Sir" between Cockburn (piped) and Mellor and Lush (not piped). I strongly prefer the former: I find the latter looks messy and breaks the flow of the sentence.
 * Summing-up, verdict and sentence
 * I'd like a bit more on the grounds on which Kenealy was disbarred. Surely if his behaviour in court overstepped the mark all that outrageously he would have been done for contempt of court then and there? Or doesn't that apply to counsel in a case?
 * I am a little reluctant to expand on Kenealy's behaviour, having mentioned his confrontational style, his clashes with the Bench, his character assassinations of witnesses and his conspiracy theorising. He certainly was given much leeway by the judges; it was his peers on the Oxford Circuit and Gray's Inn that chopped him down. The Lord Chancellor's action was more or less an afterthought. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Popular movement
 * Loud applause for your "Bernard Shaw" rather than "George Bernard Shaw"; I've fought this good fight on and off for ages. But you've Georged him in the Bibliography section.
 * Appraisal
 * "with Orton killing Roger and assumes his" – "and assuming his…"?
 * Notes
 * Footnote 5 introduces stones as well as pounds and kilos in a slightly inconsistent way. (I'd prefer stones throughout, but I'm an Ancient Briton who doesn't do kilos and can't divide by 14 in his head.)

That's my lot. Let me know about the family tree. No obligation to buy, as shops of my youth used to assure us. – Tim riley (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this review, with many worthwhile points and the diagram for good measure. As always, no comment means I've followed your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Fascinating and extremely well-done. I made a few minor proofing changes, and here are a few more suggestions. I wonder if DNA tests on the Claimant's remains might still be possible; I found non-RS blogs mentioning this idea but nothing RS. Don't know if such tests would be legal, feasible, or conclusive.
 * (McWilliam, who published in 2007, doesn't raise the DNA possibility, nor have I seen it discussed elsewhere in a reliable source. Apart from possible legal obstacles, a practical obstacle might be that the Claimant was buried in a pauper's grave along with many others, over a hundred years ago; is it likely that his remains could now be identified? I don't think anything can more be usefully said at this point, though the npossibility of some forensic breakthrough can't altogether be ruled out, at which point the article can be updated. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead
 * "a butcher's son from Wapping" - Link Wapping?

Family history
 * "when Henriette had passed her twentieth birthday" - Digits: 20th?


 * "on condition that he changed his name" - I would use "change" rather than "changed". Conditional rather than straight past tense, I suppose.


 * "In 1849 he sat the British army entrance examinations" - Should that be "sat for" rather than plain "sat"?
 * In British idiom we normally "sit examinations" rather than "sit for". Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Travel and disappearance
 * "while Roger travelled on to in Peru where" - Either "to" or "in" but not both. Probably "to".


 * Not sure if it's worth pointing out these minor digit thingies: "Roger spent ten months in South America... " "if he was alive, Roger became the eleventh baronet." Might be 10 and 11, depending on how you feel about utter consistency, a hobgoblin of proofreaders.

Orton
 * "A former sweetheart of Orton's" - Maybe just "Orton". The language seems to be evolving to make the "of" and the possessive a married pair, or maybe not.

Civil case
 * "The estates included, apart from Tichborne Park's 2,290 acres (930 ha), manors, lands and farms in Hampshire, and considerable properties in London and elsewhere, which together produced an annual income of over £20,000,[37] equivalent to several millions in 21st century terms." - I had to figure this one out. Maybe em dashes would help: "The estates included&mdash;apart from Tichborne Park's 2,290 acres (930 ha)&mdash;manors, lands and farms in Hampshire, and considerable properties in London and elsewhere, which together produced an annual income of over £20,000, equivalent to several millions in 21st century terms."
 * I have found a rewording that avoids mdashes but I think makes things clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence and cross-examination
 * "Anthony Biddulph explained that he had accepted the Claimant only after spending much time in his company." - You might remind us here that Biddulph was a cousin.

Claimant's release
 * "after serving ten years" - Digits?

That's all I have. Best of luck with this. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Except as noted I have made the fixes you suggest. Thank you for your helpful review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments as you know I checked the images already and read the article then. I have some comments, and will leave the two most important now, with other quibbles to follow on a careful re-reading.
 * The lead should have some idea of the years of the two trials - it has the year of Keneally's election and the Claimant's release from prison, but not the years of the trials themselves.
 * This ref from a RS mentions a "genital malformation" which both Roger Tichborne and the claimant had (and which I imagine had the effect of making the claimant's claim much more believable - hard to fake a genital malformation). I did not see this mentioned in the article, though I have not re-read the whole thing carefully. I think it ought to be mentioned as it helped me understand why anyone might believe the Claimant was Tichborne.
 * Your source rather skates over the facts. While there is no doubt that the Claimant had this genital malformation, whether Roger Tichborne did is not supported by hard evidence. Kenealy's attempts to establish this through circumstantial and hearsay evidence failed to convince the court. I have, however, added a brief appropriate sentence. (If it had been established conclusively that RT did have the malformation, there could have been little doubt that the Claimant was genuine). Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasn't Lady Tichborne (Roger's mother) a relation too? ''A distant cousin, Anthony John Wright Biddulph, was the only relation who accepted the Claimant as genuine;[37] however, as long as Lady Tichborne was alive and maintaining her support, the Claimant's position remained strong.[16]
 * Katherine Doughty or Kathleen? (both are used)
 * I think I had Kathleen Ferrier on my mind. Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking into the images I found that many photos of the Claimant and other involved parties were widely sold and collected at the time. There were even figurines made of some of the parties - I do not hink this has to be a large part of the article, but a sentence or two could probably be added.
 * Sentence added in the Popular movement section. Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting article, and please let me know when it is at FAC. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and comments. Apart from my responses, the minor fixes you suggest have been made. I woild like to have this at FAC later this week, when I have sorted out some (unrelated) issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: I would welcome your final comment on the lead image, which unfortunately carries a visible moiré effect. This could be an FAC issue. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I do not see the moiré effect that much, but I can ask at the Wikipedia Graphics Lab if the image can be cleaned up. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, here are what two different image experts said at the Graphics Lab - I closed it diff Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Graphist opinion(s):I'm a little unclear about what you want done to this. I don't actually see a moiré pattern in the image, just a grid overlay which appears to be there to show how various facial features match in all three images and thus is an integral and necessary part of the image. Is that what is being referred to? If so, I don't really see that anything needs to be done to the image. Centpacrr (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly he's talking about jpg artifacts. At any rate, I touched up a few spots and dirty edges. – JBarta (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)