Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Burke and Hare murders/archive1

Burke and Hare murders

Burke and Hare murders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Burke and Hare murders/archive1

Nominator(s): User:SchroCat (talk) & Cassianto^Talk 12:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

As a final huzzah to the project, we have decided to plumb the depths of depravity to offer the ten-month alcohol-fuelled killing spree of two itinerant low-lives: the Burke and Hare murders. It's a fascinating case with strong cast, double-crossing, turning of blind eyes and a certain amount of covering up. Any and all constructive comments are welcome in this, our final FAC. Cheers – Gavin (talk) & Cassianto^Talk 12:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sagaciousphil

Lead

• Both sentences in the final paragraph of the lead start with the words "The murders ..." could one be re-jigged?

Background, Anatomy in 19th-century Edinburgh

• First para, 2nd sentence: comma missing after John Bell

William Burke and William Hare

• First para: link for Union Canal (Scotland) here rather than in second para; final sentence, shouldn't it be "the" Grassmarket?
• Second para: "William Hare was probably born in either in County Armagh ..." remove second "in" and also possibly third "in" before Newry?

Events of November 1827 to November 1828

• Second para, last two sentences — perhaps change one instance of "sources" to "reports" or some such to save close repetition?
• Third para, sentence starting "The novelist Sir Walter Scott, who took a keen interest in the case, also thought the miller was the more likely victim ..." should that read first (or initial) victim?
• Fifth para, "he bought the two women alcohol" needs initial cap for "he"; "During a row between Burke and McDougal—during which he threw ..." perhaps change to "A row broke out between ... ...—during which he threw ..." so during isn't repeated in such close proximity? "... and kept it in whisky for three months before dissecting it" perhaps "stored in whisky"?

Developments: investigation and the path to court

• Second para: "... speculative reports led to members of the public to assume that all missing people had been victims" to assume -> assuming? Or just "led members of the public ...."

Trial

• Second para: "Several hours were spent on legal arguments on the objection." perhaps "Several hours were spent on legal arguments about the objection."?
• Third para: " ... not all the witnesses on the list were called and Knox and three of his assistants avoided being questioned in court" maybe "Knox plus three" to save repetition of "and"?

Legacy, Legislation

• Refs need re-ordered at end of 1st and 2nd para.

These are very minor nit-picks and do not detract from my Support of this nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many, many thanks SagaciousPhil: all your suggestions have been acted on. Very much appreciated, as always. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Echoed from me, SP. Your comments are always hugely valued. Cassianto^Talk 06:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from User:Dweller

I love the topic and think this is a terrific article. I didn't complete my review at PR (apologies for that). As I get time, I'll continue my needling pedantic trawl and post comments here. If/when the delegate is looking to close this and I've not yet said "support", please ping me. Massive kudos to the authors. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Bark from a tanner: I'm guessing this doesn't mean wood bark. First, why would a tannery have bark and secondly, bark is far too light for the purposes. If it's unclear what's meant, can we replace with an obfuscation, such as "material".

• No, it's wood bark (specifically oak, which is needed for some hides); the word "tanning" derives from tannum, meaning oak bark. - Gavin (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• "to give the price of £7 10s" - ambiguous and not terminology that is familiar to my BrEng ears. He fixed the price, he paid the money or both?
• " the order in which the subsequent murders took place" pedantically, that could imply that the former was also a murder, when it seems it wasn't
• "but gave different sequences for the murders in each statement" doesn't belong in this sentence. It belongs with the bit about there being two confessions.
• Do we know why Knox paid such wildly varying sums of money for the corpses?

• Only the difference between the summer and winter rates; I suspect he paid less for the first body because he was dealing with people who didn't know the exact rates, but the sources don't provide a reason, unfortunately. - Gavin (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• "the policeman obliged" This is ambiguous. Normally, when you oblige you do something active, not passive. Clarify?
• General comment: we have an awful lot of sentences and (worse, in my book) paragraphs that begin in essentially the same manner: "In [name of month]", "On [specific date]", "At some point during [month]", etc. It's a style issue and tricky for you to fix, I know, but pulls down the overall outstanding quality level of the article

• I've made a couple of tweaks, but I think your eye may be playing slight tricks on you here. Of the 108 sentences in this section, three begin "In [month]", three begin "On [date]" and there is one other variant. This doesn't seem to be affecting the readability for me, although I am possibly too close to the text: Cass, you didn't write the section I did: how does it look to you? – Gavin (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Nope, I don't see any such paragraphs, and if I do, they are sparse. Cassianto^Talk 18:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

More when I can. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn

Great topic, and I look forward to reading. As a quick driveby comment, Nicola Morgan's teen novel Fleshmarket is about Burke and Hare, I believe. Might be worth adding. I'm surprised we don't have an article on the book. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful in terms of cramming this full of films, programmes, books, etc... I think we're at full capacity in terms of trivia, in my opinion. Cassianto^Talk 06:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• "or as the fictional inspiration for other works" From the last line of the lead; what do you mean by "fictional inspiration"?
• In the paragraph beginning "Most of the sources agree that the first murder", it'd be useful if you introduced that Joseph was a lodger earlier.
• "who Burke described in his confession" Shouldn't that be whom? Burke is the subject.
• "she was sold to Knox for £10" Earlier in the article you referred to bodies as "it"s rather than "(s)he"s. I think it may be useful to stick with the separation of a person and their corpse.

Pausing for now; a great read so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• "a warrant was sworn out" I'm not sure I know what this means.
• Do we know much about Margaret's background? I'm assuming she was Irish; a half-line in the "William Burke and William Hare" section may be good. Also, I see that she was referred to as Margaret Hare though she and Hare may not have married; again, making this explicit in the section may be good.
• "because he could not be brought to testify against his wife" We have an article on spousal privilege, if that would be a useful link.
• "as newspapers and broadsheets" Broadsheets are newspapers, surely? We wouldn't say "men and Englishmen".
• "editorialising that he should" Can you use editorialising like that?
• "A new word was coined from the murders: "burking", to" Words-as-words; this should be italicised, not quoted
• "circulating round the" Around?
• "in fictional literature" Wouldn't fictional literature be literature that is itself not real? "in fiction" would surely be fine?

Very engaging! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Josh, all tweaked per your suggestions. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Indeed, many thanks for your input here, Josh, and for your valued support. Cassianto^Talk 20:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Support based on the prose only. No view on the sources or images. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Josh; much appreciated! Cheers – Gavin (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Image and source reviews

Image review

• File:Burke_Murdering_Margery_Campbell.jpg: when/where was this first published?

• Source book now added. - Gavin (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Same with File:Cropping_a_Nox-i-ous_Plant;_Caricature_of_Robert_Knox.jpg

• This was a contemporary print; now noted on the licence. - Gavin (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Nikkimaria, all now worted. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Dead link
• Some books include locations, others don't - should be consistent
• Suggest including volume number for London Medical Gazette. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikkimaria: sources all now tweaked. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks NM, much appreciated. Cassianto^Talk 20:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Support Great article, just a few quibbles.

• "and the growth in demand for cadavers to dissect led to a shortfall in the legal supply of corpses" I might cut "growth in"

• Done. Cassianto^Talk 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• "bodies of executed criminals—including those who died in prison—suicide victims," my reading of this says that "those who died in prison" are included in "executed criminals".

• Done. Cassianto^Talk 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• " grave robbing by what were known as the resurrection men" I might cut the "the"

• Done. Cassianto^Talk 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Their victims were known in the locality." I can't piece together what this means

• This will mean people who reside in the area. I think it's pretty redundant so I've stripped it out. Cassianto^Talk 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• "mourning families" depends on the will, I'd imagine. Seriously, "bereaved" seems better.

• Done. Cassianto^Talk 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• "The second was an unofficial interview " to vary the official/unofficial, I might say "The second was in the form of an interview"

• Done. Cassianto^Talk 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• "while Burke lay across the body to restrict movement" presumably once it was a body, Mr Burke was redundant.

• I'm a bit slow on the uptake with this, unfortunatley. Cassianto^Talk 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Body implies corpse under some circumstances, but Burke only needed to restrain the victim until dead, I'm suggesting a change of word from "body".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that one earlier: now tweaked to "upper torso". Cheers - Gavin (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A very enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking a look and for your valued support. Cassianto^Talk 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Echoing that thanks from me too, Wehwalt: your thoughts are hugely appreciated. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad to.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

Support: the article had my full attention at peer review where I made many suggestions, mostly accepted, and did a certain amount of copyediting, too. Subsequent tweaks during this FAC have further improved the article, and I'm happy to support its promotion. PS: can you explain the meaning of "worted" which appears in the image review? Looks like a useful word to have around. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian: your thoughts are, as they always have been, very much appreciated. "Worted" is a neologism I'm trying out - a portmanteau of worked and sorted! Cheers – Gavin (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing to do with Worting, Hampshire I guess :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you very much Brian. Gavin is quite obviously slipping in to the professor the older he gets. Cassianto^Talk 14:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ceoil

I'm not fond of the link to serial killers in the opening sentence. Its an Easter egg; you would expect a related article to the "series of 16 murders", also, these guys were not serial killers in the usually understood sense - different motivation; really they were contract killers, though not in the usual sense either. Ceoil (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sliding to agree with you with regards to the fact they killed for the money and not for the kick, Ceoil, and I'd be happy to clarify that; however, "serial killer", by its very definition, surely, means a person who carried out a series of killings and says nothing of the mens rea behind them? Gavin, thoughts? Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I dont really care about the classification Cassianto, although if how they might be described in modern criminology is discussed in the lit, then I would put a footnote here with a brief summary. its more the linkage, piped to "series of 16 murders". Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're in Easter egg territory, but let me think on it for the night. (In terms of the motivation, I've looked at our article, and it points to the FBI's definition as including financial gain as a motive.) I'll return with the thoughts on the egg point. - Gavin (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

High quality sources, consistent ref formatting, fully licences images, engaging prose. I'm fixing any minor issued found as I read through. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

My contract/serial issue above not withstanding - have read through 80% of the text and poked around enough at the edges of the sources to have confidence - Support on the criteria I mentioned above. This was a very enjoyable few hours spent. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much for taking a look and the fixes. I'm pleased you enjoyed it. Cassianto^Talk 17:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Echoing Cass's thoughts on this: many thanks for your thoughts and edits on this one. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It was a pleasure, Gavin. Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent comments, Ceoil. Cassianto^Talk 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from John

It's a super article. I know this story really well and the article seems to tell the story well, and to be well-referenced and well-written. A couple of questions.

• If "The price per corpse changed depending on the season. It was £8 during the summer, when the warmer temperatures brought on quicker decomposition, and £10 in the winter months" then how come they only got £7 10s for their first corpse?

• Not in the sources - Gavin (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• the Sheriff-substitute, the Procurator fiscal and the Assistant Sheriff-clerk. - Need to fix the capitalisation.
• I share Ceoil's qualms about the link in the lead.
  • I blitzed the link. I'm now wondering about the opening and how to word it:

1. "The Burke and Hare murders were a series of 16 murders committed in Edinburgh, Scotland over a period of about ten months in 1828."
2. "The Burke and Hare murders are a series of 16 murders committed in Edinburgh, Scotland over a period of about ten months in 1828."
3. "The Burke and Hare murders were committed in Edinburgh, Scotland over a period of about ten months in 1828. The 16 killings were..."

SchroCat, any ideas on this? Would "are a series of 16 killings" be incorrect compared to "were a series of 16 killings" as we are now talking in past tense? Cassianto^Talk 23:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Cass, I've tweaked per BB's PR suggestion, which we missed for some unknown reason. - Gavin (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

More to come. --John (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:REFERS. --John (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

John, I think this has now been fixed. Cassianto^Talk 22:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• I now support. --John (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333

This is a great article, and I've enjoyed reading it. I've made a few copyedits, feel free to revert and trout to taste

• They received what was, for them, the generous sum - do we need "generous sum" here?

• I think we probably do, just to give an indication that they were earning good money, which provides the motive. Having said that, I'm not married to the phrase and could be persuaded. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• the demand for which increased as the science developed - my gut feeling is we can chop a word or two out to make this bit of prose tighter, but I can't think what off the top of my head

• Me neither! Cass, any thoughts on this? - Gavin (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm stumped. Cassianto^Talk 09:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• one of two sons, to middle-class parents - is the comma necessary here?
• Should death mask be linked in the picture caption?

• Bottom two both done. - Gavin (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

More later Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Ritchie. I look forward to the rest of your comments. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• there are no clear accounts of her later life re : Helen McDougall - this source says "Helen said to have emigrated to Australia" - is there any truth in that, or is this source unreliable? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Ritchie, That's not reliable. The main sources all say that there are a range of stories about what may or may not have happened (including Australia), but actually nobody really knows. - Gavin (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Burke was hanged on the morning of 28 January 1829 in front of a crowd possibly as large as 25,000; - this source says "an estimated crowd between 25,000 and 30,000], though other sources I checked all just mention 25,000. Is the 30,000 figure worth putting is a footnote or are we okay to dismiss it as not as good as the others. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Difficult to judge how good it is as a source - let me try and have a better look at it first. The main modern sources are all at the 25k mark, but we could footnote it to show that all the sources are unsure of the number. - Gavin (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• I sidestepped the source entirely and found a contemporary that gives a figure of 35-40k, which I've footnoted. This one, by the way, is way over all other estimates I've seen, so it shows what the upper end of the estimates can be. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I can't think of anything else, so I guess that means it meets the FA criteria in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support from Jim

A great read, and I really couldn't see anything I wanted to fix. I'm deeply shocked however, that you didn't mention the famous documentary on which most of my prior knowledge of this topic relies (: Jimfbleak (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Jim. Much appreciated. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Indeed, thanks very much Jim. Cassianto^Talk 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support

This is a fine article which has had a lot of research and thought put into it. A shame this is to be the last, but I understand fully the frustrations of the editors as this support vote is likely one of my last actions here. We hope (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Note to delegates I'm off. Thanks very much indeed to everyone who has taken part in what is, for me, and I dare so Gavin too, the last FAC for the project. The comments have been excellent and wide ranging and I hope the fixes that have been made by us both have satisfied each of your concerns. I look forward to this article's natural close, upon which, I hope, will bring with it a promotion. I wish everyone the best of luck for their respective future FAC's. Cassianto^Talk 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I had a dream that this would never reach consensus to promote and we'd just leave it open indefinitely and force you guys to create other quality articles in the meantime... Well, here's hoping that, despite the declarations to the contrary, we do see you back here some time. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2016 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)