Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sir William Gordon-Cumming, 4th Baronet/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2023 [1].

Sir William Gordon-Cumming, 4th Baronet

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon-Cumming was the key figure in the Royal baccarat scandal. A friend of the Prince of Wales for 20 years, he was accused of cheating at cards which brought to an end his military career and social life. From the viewpoint of the 21st century, he is an odious individual with few redeeming features, but even back in his lifetime there are people who would have agreed with that. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Tim and Tim as PR attendees who asked to be nudged when we got to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

My few quibbles were dealt with during the peer review. On rereading for FAC I have found nothing else to fuss about. Meets the FA criteria in my view: cogent, balanced, well illustrated, nice range of sources, and a good read. It's under 2,000 words, but well covers all that needs covering. Tim riley talk 13:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim, your comments there and here are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim O'Doherty

Chipped in at PR; the article has changed very little from my review at that point in time, adjusted only to fit Tim R's comments: therefore, support on prose and comprehensiveness, will let others do image/source formatting etc. reviews. An enjoyable read on a thoroughly unpleasant character whom I knew nothing about beforehand. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim, your comments there and here are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

  • Anne Pitcairn née Campbell (died 1888):
    MOS:BIRTHDATE
    doesn't like the brackets here: if her date of death is important, it should be in flowing text.
  • Should any of G-C's illustrious relatives be included under the |relatives= parameter in the infobox?
    I don't think so - there's a navbox at the foot of the page and links in the body to baronetcy, and everyone else is a bit too far removed from WGC to give any beneficial information about the subject himself. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very fair. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though the estates totalled 38,500 acres (156 km2), they yielded poor revenues; the annual income from the estates in around 1890 has been described as either £60,000 or £80,000.: the inflation template explains this as over seven million quid, even at a conservative estimate. Maybe I need to ask for a pay rise, but I'm struggling to see that as anything other than a fortune. There's a bit of a grammar mixup in that footnote as well, caused I think by the text duplicating what the template automatically writes.
    I agree it's a significant figure, but possibly not as much as it could be for 38,000 acres if it were on more fertile or profitable lands. We're only following the source in the description here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I sympathise with the unhelpfulness of the source: as it's written, this is pretty confusing. Perhaps some more context, from additional sources if necessary, would help: was that a particularly meagre income for a man of G-C's social standing? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone the other way and removed "poor revenues" (which they obviously weren't) to "poor quality land", which is supported by the extant source and the second source I've added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that "Dallas" ought to be clear in context, but you might still think about giving some sort of clarification: perhaps "the village of Dallas"?
  • Scots Fusilier Guards (later the Scots Guards: presumably we have a precise date for the later?
  • He was promoted to regimental lieutenant and to the rank of captain in the army: this comes up a few times: I'm not clear on quite how this double-ranking system worked, and it would be helpful to have a brief explanation.
    Still to do; it was relatively common for the time, but I'm not sure whether it's a brevet rank or not, I'll have to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the death of her son, Napoléon: I'd certainly put this comma in, but I know your usual attitude to them: was this one a typo?
    No, I actually meant this one! - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the Guards Camel Regiment in the Desert Column: do the GCR rate a redlink (sounds like a particularly interesting article)? Separately, I'd explain what the Desert Column was.
    Redlink: A quick Google Book search shows there's a number of references, so added
    Desert Column: still to do - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Done - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • regimental major: see above on double ranking; as there's such thing as a "brigade major" (=chief of staff), I'd suggest a separate rephrase here to be clear that he was just one of many majors.
    Still to do, as above - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Rocky Mountains in the US: spell out United States on first mention.
    Don't need to per
    MOS:Abbreviations#Exceptions - it's one that's so common everyone knows it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Fair enough: there's always another MoS page I haven't come across! UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, from that page: Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality. Don't need to, but there's advantages in doing so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wild Men & Wild Beasts. Scenes in Camp and Jungle: I know it was usual at the time, but this reads very oddly with the full stop. Usual practice nowadays is to give subtitles after a colon: I'd suggest doing that per
    MOS:CONFORM
    . I notice that this has already been done in the bibliography.
  • He insisted they had been mistaken, and explained that he played the coup de trois system of betting: reading this, I got the strong impression that G-C was innocent, or at least that the whole thing could have been an honest mistake. Then, I read a very able editor's account of the Royal baccarat scandal, and was left in no doubt that he had cheated. Could we bring the two more into line?
    Still to do. I wouldn't say he definitely did or didn't cheat: the family members seemed sure he did, but he was equally defiant that he didn't. I'll try and work on this a little though. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworked this bit to make the timeline, actions and responsibilities a little more clear. How does it look now? - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure if he cheated, but I suppose that's the point. It could possibly be slightly clearer as to why what he did was cheating, but I think it's probably clear enough to anyone who has a vague idea of what's going on in a card game (which is however a far higher bar than e.g.
WP:POPE). On the other hand, I'm not totally clear why it wasn't a trivial matter to sort out: the bone of contention seems to have been whether the additional £5 was part of the next stake or being passed off as part of his original stake. Wouldn't it have been obvious which by how much he asked the "losers" to pay up? Appreciate that this is more likely an ambiguity in the events than in their retelling here. Out of interest, has anyone ever suggested that G-C was stitched up by the others out of (understandable) personal animosity, or that this played a role in why all concerned seem to have sided against him? Separately, is it worth including the titbit from the main article that playing baccarat at all was technically illegal? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Even further to this, I'm increasingly confused: it sounds like he was accused of adding £5 to his own stake when he was winning - surely then he could only have additionally "won" his own £5 and so made no profit? I'm not sure I really understand how he would have benefitted from the alleged crime. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rework this a bit, but he was accused of adding to his stake after he won, but before he was paid, so he was risking £5 on the hand, but being paid for a £10 gamble, thus increasing his winnings. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah: paid by the banker, by the other players or similar? This isn't just a case of everyone puts their money into the "pot", and the winner wins the pot? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 'illegal' bit added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As is the fact he increased his winnings directly from the bank. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal baccarat scandal seems to suggest that he made his first offer in early-ish January, just after the prince refused to meet him and G-C undertook to take legal action, and his second on 10 June. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - I was checking in the wrong source for the info. Now added - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the locals from near his estate had decorated the station and pulled the carriage through the streets by hand: we need some sort of punctuation or rephrasing to break these two clauses, given that decorated is governed by had but pulled isn't.
  • The prince: I think we should reiterate which prince we're talking about here: he hasn't been mentioned in this section.
  • Edward wrote to his son: do we know which one?
  • He later told his daughter that "among a host of acquaintances I thought I had perhaps twenty friends. Not one of them ever spoke to me again": as above, drop the that.
  • Others of his friends only relented after the death of the prince, who was by that stage Edward VII: give the year of Edward's death in the text so that readers don't have to check it.
  • with a reduced household of seven: does household here mean "servants"?
  • the middle class society: hyphenate middle-class as a compound modifier.
  • Not sure about chronic as an adjective for infidelity: it's a little bit of a
    metaphor
    and I worry that its connotations of disease (cf. chronic alcoholism) are very slightly exculpatory.
  • the Labour Party politician Ramsay MacDonald: could he do with a slightly more grandiose introduction? He would have been leader of the party by that point, I think.
    Former and future leader in 1916: Arthur Henderson was leader for most of the First World War. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any value in stating either of those? I can see an argument either for "Labour politician and former leader", as that reinforces the size of the fight G-C was potentially picking and avoids the foresight bias of "future PM": on the other hand, the latter is how he will be mostly known to readers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone with "the former leader of the Labour Party", although I suspect that someone will try and shoehorn in "and future PM" at some point! - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major Alexander Penrose Gordon-Cumming, MC.: per
    MOS:POSTNOM
    , we don't generally give post-nominals in body text, impressive though these are, except for the subject of the article or where the post-nominals themselves are the object of discussion.
  • Tomes' first name is given on second mention.
  • a womaniser, particularly with married women: can this be rephrased to avoid the repetition?

All the straightforward ones done. Still a few bits to do that need a little research and/or thought, but these should be sorted soon. Many thanks for the comments so far - you have, as always, tetigisti-ed the rem with these. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more, I'm afraid: increasingly small nits.

  • née Campbell: this never looked right to me: I think it should be in brackets (as it would be if replaced with the English "born"), or perhaps comma-ed off.
  • Gordon-Cumming was educated at Eton and Wellington colleges: Very optional: is it worth giving some context here: perhaps educated at the English boarding schools of Eton and Wellington, or making some reference to the fact that these were probably the two most elite schools in the country?
  • I'd like to see Florence Garner's name in the lead: I know she's only a minor character, but it feels ugly to reduce her simply to "an American heiress". It's a relatively short lead and I think there's space to share the limelight: there's also value in consciously pushing against the unfortunate tendency in this site and others to downplay the prominence of women, particularly wives, in the stories we tell.
  • chief of the Clan Cumming: I don't think the Scots at least generally use the the here ("chief of Clan Cumming").
  • has been described as: not sure this is quite the right phrase for an income: perhaps listed as or given as.
  • renamed to the Scots Guards: I don't think we want the to.
  • The long bluelink on "purchased an ensign's commission" takes away the chance to link "ensign", which I think would be a good idea as the rank is no longer used (except in strange Guards contexts).
  • The inconsistency of and in the title Wild Men & Wild Beasts: Scenes in Camp and Jungle bothers me, though I can see an argument either way for applying or not applying
    MOS:CONFORM
    .
    I know there's an inconsistency, but as it's the published title, I think we need to adhere to the original. -
    MOS:CONFORMTITLE ... which is exactly the same set of rules, but for titles) - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm not sure we do: I see
MOS:& has Quotations may be cautiously modified, especially for consistency where different editions are quoted, as modern editions of old texts routinely replace ampersands with and (just as they replace other disused glyphs, ligatures, and abbreviations). In other words, I think the MoS is pretty clear that the mere fact of its being original is no obstacle to replacing it with and, though it certainly doesn't mandate doing so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, done—albeit reluctantly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gordon-Cumming was invited: by whom?
  • two Lycett Greens, Stanley Wilson, Berkeley Levett and Mary Wilson: as we haven't introduced these people in this article, I'd give at least the names and relationship of the two Lycett Greens, and contemplate introducing these characters a little.
    I've introduced all them much earlier, along with others who were present. Too much, or does it give a better idea now?
    Ah yes, my oversight. Perhaps "both Lycett Greens" or "Ethel and Edward Lycett Green"? The phrasing "two Lycett Greens" just reads slightly oddly (as if Lycett Greens are an interchangeable commodity?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No oversight - I only added them there after your comment! The commodities are now separately named. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's right that we can only learn that the trial was held at the Royal Courts of Justice by mousing over a link: the principle of least surprise seems to be, well, surprised here.
  • The Prince of Wales was present, and sat on a red leather chair on a raised platform between the judge and the witness box; his appearance was the first time since 1411 that an heir to the throne had appeared involuntarily in court: could we explain why he was involuntarily in court (had he been summoned as a witness?)
  • according to Gordon-Cumming's biographer, Jason Tomes: it might help head off a charge of bias to gesture towards Tomes' being a much later biographer.
    I've added that he was the biographer for the ONDB - does that work? If not, I can always say he was WGC's biographer in the 2010 entry in the ONDB? - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put the year in, at least in approximate terms ("biographer in the 2010 edition of the..."): to me, that's the important thing; that he's a much later scholar rather than a personal friend, as it wasn't totally uncommon for "great men" of the period to have biographies written by sympathetic literary acquaintances. However, to quote a wise editor, I'm me and you're you: I think the current solution does enough to establish Tomes' credentials. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK: done anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • would not be asked to Marlborough House: we haven't actually said where or what this was, at least not in this article.
    Still to do - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the couple had five children, but it was an unhappy relationship: better grammatically as their relationship was unhappy?
  • I notice we've cited his Times obituary: is there anything interesting in there that would be useful to a reader in reconstructing how he and his actions were viewed by the time of his death?
  • Only a very small amount about "a gallant career had been tragically ruined": now added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would put an Oxford comma after Gordonstoun near Elgin in "Early Life", as Gordonstoun is near Elgin but not particularly near Dallas.
  • Wilson's wife, Mary, their son, Stanley Wilson, and their daughter, Ethel and her husband, Edward Lycett Green, who was the son of the local manufacturer: the and after Wilson makes things a bit clunky: probably best to replace with as well as or similar. What do you mean by "the local manufacturer"?

Nothing to apologise for: I enjoy your comments and the effect they have on the article! Will attend to these shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done again, except where flagged up. Happy to have more of these to go through, but will also go through some of the other sticking points too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UndercoverClassicist, I've done all of these now, but happy to hear any more, or hear comments on anything above you still think it outstanding. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Sir_William_Gordon-Cumming.jpg: if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
  • File:William_Gordon-Cumming_Vanity_Fair_5_June_1880.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks Nikkimaria. Both these attended to with updated licences. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

Placeholder for now. Will finish and add my few comments tomorrow. JennyOz (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - thanks JennyOz - I look forward to them! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Schrocat. Lovely chap you have written about! I intentionally did not look at the main scandal article while doing this part of my review. I will do after any replies here.

Lede

  • "adventurer" is used twice in first para
  • he sued five members of the host family - but Levett was not related to the hosts?
  • but the judgement went against - no middle e in court judgments (at
    WP:SPELLING
    "judgement is preferred in British English (except in the sense of a judge's decision, in which case judgment is preferred)". Which spelling do sources have?
    Done all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • The
    big-game hunter
    '? (or similar)
  • ditto aunt -
  • At the age of eighteen he inherited the baronetcy - his father died and he inherited...? Or does it go without saying?
    I think it goes without saying - that's the normal course of events. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • His inheritance included three Morayshire estates: Altyre near Forres, Gordonstoun near Elgin - the link to Gordonstoun goes to the school, is that intentional? (I've made a further mention of Gordonstoun below.)
    Deliberately. The house and estate was called Gordonstoun before the school. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done this section - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military career

  • suffered from asthma - is suffered an accepted euphemism? had will do?
  • was blind in one eye - no explanation available? born/injury?
  • 1877) in 1868 - tad unsmooth - (renamed in 1877 the Scots Guards)?
  • mentioned in dispatches - spelt despatches in UK?
  • He also found time for independent adventure - independent travel and adventure?
  • a hunter will need to take on an - would need?
    Done all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal baccarat scandal

  • In September 1890 Arthur Wilson - link Arthur Wilson (shipping magnate)?
  • their son, Stanley Wilson - link Stanley Wilson (British politician)
  • Edward Lycett Green, who was the son of a local manufacturer - bit more than "a local manufacturer", ie is Sir Edward Green, 1st Baronet?
  • Captain Arthur Somerset - not this delightful fellow Lord Henry Arthur George Somerset? He was head of the prince's stables, his article calls him Lord Arthur Somerset (not Henry) tho he may have been 'out of the country' at the time?- or just a coincidence
    Just a coincidence, I think. I can't see any connection between the two in the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • thus increasing the money paid to him by the bank - maybe a piped link here to
    Banker (card player)
    will help tie prince the dealer as also 'the bank' (Again, I haven't read the scandal page yet.)
  • On the first night of play, Stanley Wilson thought he saw Gordon-Cumming add two red £5 counters onto his stake after the hand had finished, but before the winnings had been paid, thus increasing the money paid to him by the bank—a method of cheating known in casinos as la poussette; he alerted Levett, sitting next to him, and both men thought they saw Gordon-Cumming repeat the act on the next hand. - is that too long? (even though well-punctuated!) Maybe new sentence at "he alerted ..."
  • After two evenings of play - should it be 'After the second evening of play...'?
  • Lycett Green, Stanley Wilson and Edward and Arthur Somerset accused - I thought on first reading that Edward referred to PoW - maybe swap to 'Arthur and Edward Somerset'?
Actually, considering there are 6 different Edwards in the story, (Prince, Lycett Green, Somerset, Clarke, Grayson, and the current prince), that was the only trigger of confusion ... but...
  • maybe up at "Several members of Edward's inner circle". which follows so soon after "Edward Lycett Green", "Edward's" could be 'Several members of the prince's inner circle'
  • Somerset accused Gordon-Cumming - confronted and accused?
  • on the nights of Monday and Tuesday the 8th and 9th - not a problem but what sort of "weekends" do you enjoy over there???
    Long and enjoyable ones (if you happen to be uber rich and a playmate of royalty!) - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • £5,000 against each of them - damages?
  • the judge's summing up was "unacceptably biased" - biased towards/against whom?
  • The jury deliberated for only thirteen minutes before finding in favour of the defendants; their decision was greeted... - maybe 'its' for the jury instead of "their" (or do we not speak of a jury as a singular entity?)
    It's a BrEng thing: we interchange its and their for groups - groups are made of individuals, so we're happy with either, is the logic. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The jury deliberated for only thirteen minutes before finding in favour - actual date helpful?
  • prolonged hissing from some members - clarify hissing aimed at the jury's decision or at Gordon-Cumming?
  • The day after judgement was passed - spelling per my question above
  • remained convinced of the innocence of his client and, in his 1918 memoirs, wrote "I believe the verdict was wrong, and that Sir William Gordon-Cumming was innocent" - repetitive? not sure what to suggest, "convinced of the innocence of his client" to 'convinced the jury erred' or 'convinced of his clent's version/explanation...
    Done all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • the day after the trial - concluded
  • was Gordon-Cummings's best man - remove s on Cumming
  • locals from near his estate had decorated the station, and pulled the couple's carriage through the streets by hand - ambiguous? did they bring it empty to the station or does it mean they greeted them at the station then conveyed them from there by hand?
  • The Prince of Wales was determined Gordon-Cumming should remain ostracised and he let it be known that anyone who acknowledged Gordon-Cumming or accepted invitations to shoot at the two Scottish estates he owned - ambiguous? perhaps 'The Prince of Wales was determined Gordon-Cumming should remain ostracised and he let it be known that anyone who acknowledged him or accepted invitations to shoot at the two Scottish estates Gordon-Cumming owned
  • acknowledged at court - pipe link Royal court seeing story previously talking of the legal institution
    Done all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later life

  • remained outside high society - distanced from?
    I think "outside" is more accurate. He was completely ostracised, so not even distanced. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was by that stage Edward VII - add King
    Added. I'm not sure it's needed, but I'm never sure of what the MOS says about title use - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • could continue to indulge himself in golf, - himself not needed?
  • who funded their life but eventually resorted to alcohol abuse. - why "but"?
  • they began to live apart. [1] They - remove space before ref
    Done all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Private life

  • William Cavendish-Bentinck, 6th Duke of Portland, a friend of Gordon-Cumming, wrote of him - add colon?
  • The writer Elma Napier, Gordon-Cumming's daughter - he had more than one so 'a daughter of' or 'one of Gordon-Cumming's daughters'
  • and he admitted that "all the married women try me" - is "admitted" the right word here? He sounds like the sort of cad who'd boast about it.
  • he visited Harriet Street where - that's the Belgravia property? need to add 'in Harriet Street' before Belgravia?
  • After Gordon-Cumming's death in 1930, his house at Gordonstoun was obtained by Kurt Hahn, who turned it into the eponymous school. - hmm, depending on intention of link to Gordonstoun I mentioned above, would this be better as something like 'his estate near Elgin was obtained by Kurt Hahn, who founded the Gordonstoun School there'? (Gordonstoun was the name of the estate rather than a house?)
    As far as I can tell, it was both house and estate. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • a. equates to approximately equivalent to - are both "to"s intentional?
  • c. at Khartoum, Sudan during - geocomma after Sudan
  • j. again after the judgement had been given - same spelling question
    Done this section - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Arnold, Catharine - authorlink
  • Neillands, Robin - authorlink
  • Matthew and Tomes - not contesting but why is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography considered a journal?
    Done this section - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Succession box

  • what does that open bold markup do (at Altyre and at Years)?
    Not an area I have done anything with, but looking at it, it looks like it suppresses overbolding in the box. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done this section - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poss cats

  • Category:Scottish gamblers
    Done this section - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's me for now. As mentioned, once I hear back from you I'll read the scandal article to see if I have any further questions. JennyOz (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks JennyOz. All sorted, I think. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SchroCat. I've looked at changes and read scandal article and see nothing else to annoy you with. Happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JennyOz - as appreciated as always. Sorry it was on such an odious individual, but hopefully one of my next ones will be a nicer person! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire! Articles about ratbags are interesting. That he cheated with women (even friends' wives and mistresses) was a far less social transgression than possibly cheating at cards is an interesting reflection. He should have been sent downunder and we could have turned him into an upstanding, god-fearing fellow like Mr Oxford! JennyOz (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was enough wild game for him to hunt to keep him busy downunder! By a bit of a coincidence my next subject (another of those who disturbed Victoria's peace) is one someone who ended up in Oz too, although a slightly less auspicious character than Oxford! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

  • Sources are of good quality
  • Spot checks: 12, 13, 27, 53 -okay
    fn 64: page no longer exists - see if it can be restored from archive

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers Hawkeye7. Luckily the BFI page was in the archives, so now added that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

Staking out a spot. ~ HAL333 21:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my belated comments:
  • There's a sea of blue issue with "boarding schools Eton" but it's not a big deal
  • where he would stalk tigers on foot --> "where he stalked tigers on foot" for concision
  • hunting in the Rocky Mountains in the US and in India, where he would stalk tigers on foot — I have to assume he hunted cougars/mountain lions in the Rockies, not tigers. Unless they were were imported and released on some kind of exotic game ranch
  • Tweaked the above two with one edit. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a serial list following a colon, would an "and" be needed before "Levett"?
  • Where is this?
  • It's beside the double image of Gordon-Cumming and Edward, the paragraph starting Despite the pledge of silence. ~ HAL333 17:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resorted the sentence to avoid having to use one. - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where entry was by ticket only" - what does this mean exactly?
  • "In 1916 Gordon-Cumming ensured that the former leader of the Labour Party, Ramsay MacDonald, had his membership rescinded from the Moray Golf Club because of the latter's opposition to the First World War." — could you clarify what this golf club has to do with the Labor leader and WWI?
  • It's more about his interaction with a major politician, even later in life when he was supposed to be out of 'society' - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it doesn't make it too awkward, could you include equivalent USD value for the prices in the footnotes?
  • I think that as it would need a double conversion (ie from historic GBP to current GBP, then into US$), then the accuracy would be too awry to be able to use. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I got. Well written. ~ HAL333 20:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Hal. Just one question above, where I'm not sure where it refers to. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hal - all now sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 19:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

  • Books: There is a Magnus either side of McHugh. I think that one only gets to use one convention per list.
  • Clark: The OCLC is 837472347.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sir_William_Gordon-Cumming,_4th_Baronet/archive1&oldid=1181588072"