Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Melford Stevenson/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 Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [1].

---

Melford Stevenson

Melford Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Melford Stevenson/archive1

Nominator(s): John (User talk:John), Malleus Fatuorum (talk)

Melford Stevenson was a controversial English judge described by one of his peers as the worst judge since the Second World War. Renowned for the severity of his sentencing, he almost single handedly quashed student protest during the 1970s. But he also had a lighter side, and I hope you'll agree that we've done the man justice. Malleus Fatuorum 08:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Image check. There's only one, with an appropriate non-free use rationale. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Leaning to support. Interesting, hilarious and exasperating in turns, as doubtless was the man himself, I enjoyed the article. There seems to be material in the lead that is not in the body text: i'm thinking particularly of this: "Retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Robin Dunn called him "the worst judge since the war", prompting several high-profile legal figures to come to Stevenson's defence,". Suggest this be reproduced at an appropriate point in the article text. Other than that - great job. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  I don't entirely agree with that "nothing in the lead that isn't mentioned in the article body" idea, which is why there's a citation. Take a look at wife selling for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. This is a pretty polished article, on a somewhat interesting figure. Just some minor niggles regarding citations:

• Can't see date for Ref 13
• Likewise authors for Ref 34
• Should Ref 14 be Telegraph Media Group, to follow suit with the other Lemonade51 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I think all those issues have been dealt with now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: A very readable and enjoyable one. No real problems here, just a couple of minor points; feel free to ignore them. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• There are two short paragraphs in the lead. Is there any reason they could not be combined with another paragraph?

  Possibly, but as there's an abrupt change of subject in each case I think the present paragraphs are justified. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Stevenson's "fluent delivery, distinctive voice, remarkable sense of timing, and pungency of phrase soon marked him out as an advocate of note."": Does this require in-text attribution?
• "Stevenson's decision to "subject the prosecution witnesses to a minimum of cross-examination",[15] and his "near silent performance in court",[16] have been severely criticised by Muriel Jakubait, Ellis's sister.": Again, does this require attribution? At the moment, the implication is that these are Jakubait's words.
• "Stevenson was of the opinion that had he been allowed to, he "could have successfully prosecuted Adams on six murder counts": In what way (at least in his opinion) was he not "allowed to"? Presumably, because he could not cross-examine, but this does not quite come across explicitly in this section.

  The defence opted not put Adams on the stand, therefore he couldn't be cross examined. I'll look at that section again and see if I can make it any clearer. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The ODNB article suggests that the there was a delay in his appointment as a judge owing to his eccentric reputation. Is that worth including?
• Another minor point: the lead gets across some of the criticism he faced, but the main body seems a little light on this. But it may be my imagination. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  That may be in the eye of the beholder; others have voiced the opinion that the article is too critical of Stevenson. It's a difficult line to tread, but I think the article is just about as neutral as any other major account of Stevenson's life. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments: I haven't got far, yet, but here are a few points from the first few sections:

• It might help readers if you identified Wickham Steed, rather than requiring them to use the link

  I've added a brief explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• According to Crockford's Clerical Directory, the form "Reverend Stevenson" is deprecated. In this case it would be "John Stevenson..." – but perhaps Congregationalists do things differently.

  I have no idea, but the ODNB calls him "Revd John George Stevenson", so take it up with them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• The phrase "of which he became treasurer in 1972" is in the wrong tense at this point in the article, since it is foreshadowing an event still 50 years in the future. Thus: "of which he would become treasurer in 1972"

  I don't agree; that's a typical American abuse of the subjunctive. MalleusFatuorum 01:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I had hoped for a more constructive response, but let it pass. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  You mean you hoped I'd just change it because you say so? Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am with Malleus here. --John (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• The "himself" at the end of the Early life section is unnecessary.

  I don't agree. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why is it necessary? It serves no purpose other than to extend the sentence; there isn't any confusion with another Melford Stevenson. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  It isn't "necessary" any more than including vowels in the middle of words is necessary, but it makes the sentence more readable IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• On this one I think Brian has a point. I tried to compromise though. --John (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• There is a distinct lack of information about what he did in the 1930s. Perhaps he did nothing remarkable in those years. But the trouble is, it makes nonsense of the "Early career" title of the next section, because the events described—becoming a KC, a bencher, a Recorder, an advocate at the war tribunals, passing 50, etc— are not "early career" milestones. They are indications of recognition in the maturer stages of a legal career. If there is nothing substantial to say about his career in the 1930s, I would still include a couple of general sentences indicating that he made steady progress in his career, blah blah blah, and then retitle the Early career section with something more appropriate.

  Good suggestion, I'll pad that out a little. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  I've added a bit and moved a bit, see what you think now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• The section is still misnamed "early career". This needs to ba addressed - it is not his early career being described. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't agree that it's misnamed; it describes his early career. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• His "early career" which lasted beyond his 50th birthday? You cannot be serious. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• He had a long career. By my calculation its mid-point was in 1952, so Malleus has a point here. --John (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Careers of 50+ years are not divided into just two parts, whereby the first 25+ years are deemed "early". Typically, early career means the years where one is working to establish oneself; in Stevenson's case I would argue that this phase ended with his appointment as King's Counsel. The subsequent years, in which he serves as a recorder and bencher, and is involved in high-profile cases, are years of consolidation and achievement. I am not suggesting major structural changes, merely that the offending section title be changed to something more representative of the content. Brianboulton (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with this. What would you suggest? --John (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps "Career at the bar"? Logically, the "Early life" section should end at "... articled clerk in his uncle's legal practice", the rest being transferred into the next section, beginning: "Stevenson was determined to become a barrister..." (the term "barrister" should be linked at first mention, for the benefit of non-UK readers). Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• You mean like this? --John (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that looks good. I have changed the pronoun to "Stevenson" as it's a new section. Also, there is no reason why you shouldn't keep the Ellis and Adams cases in a "notable cases" subsection, though perhaps "Notable criminal cases" would be better. I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll be back to read the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Further comments: I have read the rest of the article. My main concern is about comprehensiveness; there isn't much of it (1600 words) for the life of a distinctly notable, even notorious member of the British judiciary. A few specific points:

• He served as Recorder of Rye before his appointment at Cambridge (see ODNB)
• Just two "notable cases" are described. Even if details are lacking it would be worth mentioning his involvement in a few other cases, for example the Crichel Down affair which was a newsworthy government scandal in 1954.
  • Done --John (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• I would have thought his involvement in the Kenyatta appeal was worthy of a bit more detail, rather than the brief mention in the "early" career section.
  • Done --John (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• A piped link to liberal elite might be appropriate for "liberal establishmant"
  • Done --John (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Since Prescott's 15-year sentence is mentioned, it should also be noted that this was reduced on appeal to 10 years.
  • Done --John (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• The account of his judicial career as provided is pretty well a summary of gaffes, incautious comments and unpredictable judicial behaviour. At the end we have Roskill's comment that "he showed great mercy to those whom he saw to be victims rather than aggressors." It would be a good idea if examples of this benevolence could be cited, to mitigate the Judge Jeffreys picture otherwise given.
  • I've tried to address this by using material from the ODNB article. I can only use what can be sourced and I think I have run out of steam. It's up to reviewers whether they think I have done enough. --John (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• In the citations I think that "Roskill" should be given his full name, as in the text. Also, in my experience the online ODNB articles are often not the same as in the printed ODNB; they are revised much more frequently. So the citation should give the publisher as "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Online".

  "Roskill" is the name the article is published in the ODNB under; as you know, it is not uncommon for the aristocracy to simply use one name. I've added the "online" to both ODNB citations. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I know this, but American and other readers may not. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

While the article is well written, it reads more like recorded highlights than a proper biographical article. One problem is that there doesn't seem to be a full biography of Stevenson, which is perhaps surprising. However, I am not sure that full use has been made of available material, and would like to see the article expanded. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I find your "recorded highlights" comment rather strange, and not a little insulting. If you want to see a "proper biographical article" then you'll have to wait for someone to write a "proper biography". I can assure you that full use has most certainly been made of all the available material, of which there is not as much as you seem to imagine. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand Malleus being a little miffed by the comment as he has done the lion's share of the work on the article; however I too am frustrated by the relative paucity of sources. I will have a look at any possible expansion tonight. I appreciate and sympathise with the comments and accept they are well-intentioned towards improving he article. Let me see what I can do. --John (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for having the grace to realise that my comments are well intentioned and are designed to make the article better. I am surprised that Malleus, who has known me as a reviewer for years, takes such surly umbrage at my relatively mild remarks, but there we are. I appreciate that sources are scarce, but I'm not absolutely convinced that full use has yet been made of what is there, hence my references to Crichel Down and the Kenyatta appeal. Malleus's insistence that a lawyer beyond fifty years of age, who is a Recorder, a bencher and a KC is still in his "early career" is taking obstinacy to new levels; perhaps you can persuade him to see sense. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

(Later) You have done pretty well in expanding the article by 300+ words from admittedly scant sources. There may not be much more to be had - though you should mention his recordership at Rye, his first semi-judicial appointment. I hope the "early career" impasse can be settled; otherwise, I have just one remaining issue, which concerns the lead. Notwithstanding Malleus's defence elsewhere in this review, I think the lead at present is an unsatisfactory introduction to the article. The main problem is not its organisation into short paragraphs, but the general organisation of the lead material. Stevenson's claim to fame is as a controversial and outspoken judge, and the body of the article reflects this. However, the first paragraph of the lead is almost entirely taken up with his role in the Peleus affair, as though this was his main distinction. This paragraph needs to be rewritten to clarify for the general reader who Stevenson was, and why he was notable/notorious. The rest of the lead material can be reorganised accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I will try to look at this later tonight. See above for my work on the "Early career" argument; if you agree that this is ok we can hopefully put this one to bed. --John (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the Recordership at Rye.--John (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And I expanded the lead slightly. How does it look now? --John (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind if I fiddle a bit with the lead, in my sandbox? I'll come back to you shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. I need to take a break anyway. --John (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've posted a slightly altered lead section. The main change is that I have added some "punch" to the opening sentence, as a means of drawing in your readers - their interest is less likely to be aroused by the bland statement that he was a barrister and judge. A few textual adjustments follow as a consequence, but essentially the rest of the lead is unchanged. Could you ping my talkpage when you're ready to comment, as this page isn't on my watch. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. I corrected a typo and switched around the words in one sentence to reduce the passive voice. I can definitely live with it as it is now. --John (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Support: the amendments and addition have raised the standard of the article, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Other editors may still find the odd prose glitch, but I am sure these will be minor and will have no significant effect on the article's overall quality. Of course, if someone comes along and writes a full-length biography of Stevenson, then I daresay the whole thing will have to be rewritten. But that is for another time. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the thoughtful comments which I think have definitely resulted in the article being improved. --John (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• Per WP:LEDE this article should have one or two paragraphs of text in the lede. You have four.

  Where did you get that idea from? Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  WP:LEDE, as stated.

  I disagree that the article should be restricted to one or two paragraphs even if God himself believes otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough, it's not set in stone and I agree that merging some of the paragraphs would be illogical. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• "intending that he would join the family firm once his school education was complete." - Perhaps a way to clarify it was Stevenson

  I've expanded on that slightly. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• "eventually becoming head of chambers himself" - Is "himself" really necessary? I think it's not

  I think it is. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• "One commentator described him as a "shameless performer" " - Do we know who? Anyone notable?

  No, I'm afraid we don't know who, as the article quoted from has no byline. Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• nolle prosequi is technically Latin. Why isn't it italicised (both here and in the article)? We italicise de jure and de facto

  We don't italicise any of those, as they've all been incorporated into the English language. Perhaps once we did, but not now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• "For the first four years he was assigned to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, but after his transfer to the Queen's Bench Division he began to attract press attention." - Perhaps a way to avoid repeating "division"?

  Can't see one. Malleus Fatuorum 16:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• "liberal establishment" - Liberal according to?

  That's a cited quotation from Massingberd. Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  I noticed that, but was wondering if it was Stevenson's reading of them or Massingberd's. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  Massingberd's. Stevenson probably just thought of them as "constipated Methodists". Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• The paragraph about his resignation is quite abrupt (a single sentence). Any more details? Reason?

  He was 76 years old when he retired, already beyond the normal retirement age, but having looked into this a little more closely it appears that there was no mandatory retirement age for judges, which resulted in some speculation that he may have been subjected to some pressure. I've added a sentence explaining that. Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps the bit on his electoral campaign should go into the section on his career

  Hardly, as he lost the election. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I did a copyedit, be sure to double check it.

  There seems to be a bit of controversy over inserting non-breaking spaces, so I've stopped doing it, but your edits look good to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Looks solid, leaning support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Are my other comments not worth responding to? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  I think they've all been responded to now? Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  Yep, just a small niggle. "... which resulted in some speculation following the announcement of his retirement from the bench in 1979 that perhaps his unpopularity with certain sections of the media and establishment had led to pressure on him to step down." Aside from being really long, this sentence has a small redundancy: if it's speculation, than "perhaps" is overly cautious. Speculation is by nature not certain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Couple of brief comments (having commented previously on the talk page at an earlier stage).

• eBay shouldn't be used as a source for an image, even one being used under a non-free license with a fair-use rationale. The ODNB use the same image, but source theirs from the National Portrait Gallery. I mentioned this on the talk page in my earlier comments, though there I was referring to a different eBay copy of that portrait. Unless you can be 100% certain that the copy on e-Bay is there legitimately, I wouldn't use that. If you want clarification on what sources can legitimately be used as a source for non-free images, I suggest asking at WT:NFCC (or somewhere around there). The NPG images are here. They have a vintage print and a half-plate negative, both purchased in 1996. (On second thoughts, no longer sure about this, so am checking this elsewhere first)

  My understanding is that we have to say where we got the image from, and it wasn't from the NPG, which doesn't have the portrait online. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  I added more detail to the image page to make the image history and provenance clearer. Other than that, the issue of whether this image should be used or not is something I've raised elsewhere, so I'm striking it here as it shouldn't become an issue at this FAC as long as the rationale is OK (which it is). Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• On the talk page I mentioned the lecture/talk he gave to the Medico-Legal Society on 9 March 1978 at the Royal Society of Medicine titled 'The privilege of silence'. It seems that lecture/talk was published in the Medico-Legal Journal, volume 46, page 63 (see here for the journal details, and here for the index that lists Stevenson). I may at some point order a copy of this and see what it says. The reason I mention it here is that I think it would be a useful addition to the article in the sense that some readers may wish to follow up reading this article by reading something that Stevenson wrote (or said), and this seems a suitable example. There may be better examples to point readers towards, but is there anything else published that Stevenson wrote outside of legal documents? Did he write newspaper commentary or columns or anything like that?
• On a point of order, the quote ending the first paragraph in the lead needs sourcing: "One of his fellow judges, Sir Robin Dunn, described him as "the worst judge since the war"." - also, when was this said and where? Was it 1994, some years after his (Stevenson's) death? Is the source later used for those that came to his defence (The Times, 1 November 1994) sufficient to use here? (dealt with this myself)
• On sources, the ODNB article is used (as it should be). Of the obituaries, the one from The New York Times is used and the one from The Times. Are you aware of the one that was published in The Guardian? It probably doesn't add much, but can be accessed through ProQuest which is available through most UK libraries. The details are: 'Last of the grand eccentrics' (PANNICK, DAVID. The Guardian (1959-2003) [London (UK)] 29 Dec 1987: 13). There are also valedictory articles published when he retired, such as this one from The Guardian: 'Goodbye to the Garden House judge' (ADAM, CORINNA. The Guardian (1959-2003) [London (UK)] 10 Apr 1979: 23.). That could be useful (the picture is a different one, though of poor quality, but the article does seem to confirm that he was a member of the Garrick Club), though judging how much to use such sources is a balancing act (clearly, as you've used the obituaries from The Times and The New York Times, you are amenable to sometimes using such sources). He also wrote the following (short) article in his retirement, though it is likely of only passing interest: 'A judge's guide to sentencing the criminal' (Stevenson, Melford. The Guardian (1959-2003) [London (UK)] 17 Sep 1979: 14). The one thing that puzzles me with the sources are the citations to Massingberd 2001. Looking at the source list, this is 'The Very Best of the "Daily Telegraph" Books of Obituaries' - are you quoting from an obituary of Stevenson that was re-published in that book? If so, that should be made clearer.

  We had some difficulty in locating a source definitively confirming that Stevenson was a member of the Garrick Club, but I've found one now and added it. Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not quite sure what you're asking for and why with regard to Massingberd 2001, but I've added a note to each of the Massingberd citations saying that the obituary was first published in The Daily Telegraph on 29 December 1987. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  I would include details of the obituary and the page range within the collection, treating each obituary in the collection as a separate article and citing in that way. Just as you would include the title of the obituary if citing from the original newspaper, so you would include the title if citing it when reprinted in a collection of obituaries. Does that make clearer what I was getting at? Giving the original date of publication (which I had not thought of) is even better. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  OK, I think I've got that now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  That's great, thanks. And thanks for incorporating the 'Goodbye to the Garden House judge' article into the sources you have used. That article includes other interesting background as well, such as comments on his record as regards cases being sent for appeal and verdicts overturned at appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  I've added a closing quote from that article that seems to round off the story in terms of his appeals record. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Another point of order, this time on the ODNB citation. The author citation given in the ODNB is "Roskill, rev.". I'm not sure where the 'rev.' bit should be put in the Wikipedia article's citation, but it should be there. What that indicates is that the article was revised between the time Roskill wrote it for DNB publication (he died in 1996, the same year the article was originally published in a DNB supplement) and the time of ODNB publication (in 2004). In this case, the revision is anonymous, and was someone other than Roskill (this is indicated by the lack of square brackets around the 'rev.' bit). The conventions used by the ODNB for their 'rev.' terminology is given in the 'Help' section if any of that is unclear. The important thing is to include "rev." and put it in the correct place in the citation, though where I'm not sure. You could follow the placement used in the ODNB's suggested citation format. It doesn't matter hugely, as I've read the 1996 DNB version and it looks identical (any revisions appear to have been minor). But if you are citing the 2004 ODNB article rather than the 1996 DNB article, you do need to include the "rev." bit. (now dealt with)

  When this issue has cropped in the past I've preceded the revising author's last name with "(rev.)", which I've done the equivalent of here even though we don't know who the revising author was. Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of matters that may be only of passing interest: (i) does anyone know what the medals he is wearing are, or were for? Do you get a gong for being on the Privy Council and being knighted? (medals now identified) (ii) Are there more details (dates and programmes) available of these "guest appearances on television"?

  The medal on the right looks like the standard 1939–1945 War Medal, the one on the left is one of the Second World star medals, perhaps the France and Germany Star, no idea about the middle one. I haven't come across any source that definitely identifies Stevenson's medals though. Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  As for the guest appearances on television I'm afraid the answer is no, at least none that we've been able to find. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  I found a bit on this. I'll put it on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  What seems useful from that is that he made regular appearances on Granada TV's The State of the Nation in 1979, so I've added a sentence on that. Malleus Fatuorum 12:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Overall, after a quick read through, the article looks great and has improved since the last time I read it. If I'm ever passing through Rye (I'm sometimes in that area of the country) I'll keep an eye out for his memorial tablet in the church, and if I get hold of a copy of that article from the Medico-Legal Journal (unless someone else looks it up before then), I'll pop back with a note if there is anything of interest that could be quoted. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments: I left a few comments a while ago on the talk page. The article is doing a great job in squeezing the maximum information out of rather scant sources. It is unfortunate that there is no substantial published biography of Stevenson that can be used as as source, other than the ODNB, which makes me suspect that there may be some areas that are not dealt with as comprehensively as they deserve. For example, which of his cases (if any) set important legal precedents? Were his rulings usually upheld on appeal, or overturned?

We obviously can't go beyond what the sources say without entering into the realm of original research, and none that I've come across give an opinion on whether his rulings were usually upheld on appeal or not. Obviously some were and some weren't, but nobody seems to have tallied them up yet. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

But more particularly,

• a few more of the cases in which he was the judge could be mentioned, such as his (likely) involvement in the trial of the traitor Theodore Schurch (better source needed), but more securely in the first trial of St Albans poisoner Graham Young, the trial of the Cambridge rapist Peter Cook, and perhaps also the first inconclusive trial of George Ince for the murder at the Barn motel in Essex (a famous mistake of faulty identification at the first trial, but acquitted at the second trial due to an alibi from Dolly Kray, wife of Charlie Kray), and the trial of Christoper Bryant for corruption in relation to construction contracts in Birmingham (see City Architect of Birmingham)

  We've failed completely to find any reliable source for the Schurch stuff, which we really did want to include. I'm not certain the other trials are sufficiently notable with the passage of time, but if John disagrees then I've no objection to adding a little bit about at least a few more of them. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• there are recent cases that cite his judgments (for example, on contempt of court, or the requirements for a breathalyser result to be legally valid, with more details on the talk page)

  There are a few, but I'm struggling to see their significance. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• the article says Heinz-Wilhelm Eck was "the only U-boat commander to be convicted of war crimes". Karl-Heinz Moehle also a German U-boat commander who was convicted of war crimes (he is in the List of successful U-boat commanders; his trial is Case 54 of Volume IX of the Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, published by the United Nations War Crimes Commission). Further, Hajime Nakagawa (I-37 and I-177) and Toshio Kusaka (I-26) were also submarine commanders and were convicted of war crimes, although you might quibble that Japanese submarines are not U-boats. The source used in the article, uboataces.com (the article calls it uboat.net: a reliable source?) actually says "the Kriegsmarine had only one U-boat commander convicted of war crimes" (emphasis added). It might be more accurate to say that Eck was the only German convicted of war crimes for his actions as captain of a submarine. (Incidentally, the Peleus trial is reported as Case 1 in Volume 1 of the UN reports if you would like a better source for the trial itself.)

  Hmm, not sure about this. Strictly speaking Karl-Heinz Moehle ceased to be a U-boat commander in June 1941, when he was given charge of the 5th U-boat Flotilla. The war crime he was convicted of (passing on the Laconia Order to newly trained U-boat commanders) did not happen when he himself was a U-boat commander. And as you say, Japanese submarines aren't U-boats. We could perhaps add a note explaining that Moehle was not in command of a U-boat when he committed his crime and hadn't been for more than a year before the Laconia Order was issued. If Moehle were to be considered a U-boat commander in 1942 then so would Dönitz have to be. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Malleus here. U-boats were German submarines (and in WW1 Austrian ones as well), so the Japanese examples are not relevant. Moehle, and Dönitz too, were former U-boat commanders at the times of their trials. I believe the wording of the article is strictly accurate as it stands. If you feel a clarification is important maybe we can figure something out. --John (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition:

• in his early career as a junior barrister, the ODNB says he did mainly insolvency and "running down cases". Is "running down" insolvency-related, or perhaps car accident/personal injury? The ODNB also says he did divorce and libel cases as a silk, not primarily criminal cases, which may explain why he was first assigned to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division when he joined the bench.

  I understand "running down" to refer to the process of winding up a company voluntarily, as opposed to being forced into administration by creditors. certainly nothing to do with road traffic accidents anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• he seems to have turned down the chance of promotion to the Court of Appeal, but like most High Court judges he sat occasionally on the appeal bench. Did he sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? Anything significant in the appeals he heard?

  There's no evidence to suggest that sat on the Judicial Committee and no reason to suppose that he might have done. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Lord Roskill was a retired Law Lord (not High Court judge) when his ODNB biography of Stevenson was published in 2004. The article makes it appear that Roskill was replying to Sir Robin Dunn's comments, but their comments were separated by 10 years: Sir Robin Dunn was a retired Court of Appeal judge when he made his remarks about Stevenson in his memoirs, Sword and Wig, in 1994. The report in The Times in 1994 also quotes Dunn's remarks about Stevenson's "savage sentencing" diverging from guidelines set by the Court of Appeal, and would often be reduced on appeal; and that Stevenson could not resist a witty interjection. It also mentions another quote from Stevenson in a bribery case: "You have tried, and to some extent succeeded, in converting Birmingham into a municipal Gomorrah." (this in relation to the Bryant trial, I think: [2])
• Marcus Lipton introduced a motion to the House of Commons in 1976 asking for him to be dismissed from the bench, due to comments that Stevenson had made about other judges, for which Stevenson later apologised (perhaps the "constipated Methodists" comment? This was apparently in reaction to appeals in three of his cases being allowed on the same day.)

  The Marcus Lipton thing, coinciding with three of Stevenson's decisions being overturned by the Court of Appeal in a single day may indeed be significant, so I've added that. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Stevenson was also involved in The Sunday Times/thalodomide injunction/contempt of court case, which eventually went to the European Court of Human Rights.

  He was involved in loads of cases, but I'd prefer this article didn't degenerate into a list, and instead tried to tease out some kind of a consistent narrative of the man's career. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on shape and ribbon colour, I suspect the medals are the France and Germany Star and possibly the Defence Medal and War Medal (which are worn in that order, I believe: see British campaign medals). -- Ferma (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the tentative medal identifications made here by you both (Malleus and Ferma), many thanks to you both for that). It is something that could be added to the image page (with caveats), but not to the article (unless sources are available). One point of correction about Eustace Roskill - he died in 1996. The article he wrote on Stevenson (along with a couple of others he wrote) was published in 1996 by the DNB in one of their supplements. The 2004 date is when these articles were published as an ODNB articles. The points you make about Roskill and Dunn still stand, but I wanted to correct the point about Roskill being a retired Law Lord in 2004 (he was retired in a more permanent sense by that time). Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ucucha (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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