The royal baccarat scandal, or Tranby Croft Affair, is one of those particularly British scandals: royalty, high society, no sex, a pantomime villain and some of the finest sideburns seen in legal history. It involved allegations of cheating at a country house game of cards against a wealthy, respected soldier (and philanderer), some poor and shoddy footwork by royal advisers, and a court case at which the heir to the throne was forced to make an appearance. A stellar cast appeared at peer review to give advice and assistance, and I am deeply grateful to @Crisco 1492:, @Cassianto:, @Tim riley:, @Brianboulton:, @Dr. Blofeld:, @Wehwalt: and @Bencherlite: for their time and efforts. Further comments—from them or anyone else—would, of course, be gratefully received. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Support per my comments at PR. The post-PR comments only make the article better. I'll step aside for the image review as I uploaded many of them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Support Happy with the result of the peer review. One thing though, the trial section still looks quite long, did you shorten it afterwards Schro?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Support. Another peer reviewer, not commenting on images and satisfied that the text of the article meets all the FAC criteria. A splendid read and scrupulously balanced. Tim rileytalk 10:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to you all for your care and attention at PR, and again here: it is much appreciated! Doc, yes, there was a little trimming here and there (including a couple of quotes). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
Not provided in the archive, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
FN146: book title should be italicized
Hoyle: spell out county
Lee: volume need not be italicized
Ridley 2004: doi?
Doesn't have one. (The vast majority of DNB articles do, but not all, I understand). - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Tremeear: don't recognize the publisher here - is it a reliable one? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, SchroCat - in fact it's a 1900 book from a very good publisher (Canada Law Journal Company) so I've replaced the link and updated the reference thus. Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 13:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Excellent: many thanks for that, I was trying to work my way through Russian publishers to see what I could find out, but this is so much easier! - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
NM, all other points have been done, except where I've commented otherwise. Many thanks for looking over this, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Support Late to the party, I see. Had my say at the peer review. Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Even later than Wehwalt, as I was at PR. Support (not including images, which aren't really my strong suit. (Suit - baccarat - cards - geddit?) BencherliteTalk 13:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to you both: your comments at PR were extremely helpful, pertinent, and helped build one of the most complete and constructive PRs I've ever been involved with. Many thanks! (And Bench, suit? Ouch!) cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Image review: I don't often do these, but I've given this a go.
File:RoyalBaccaratScandal.jpg: I am not questioning the PD status of this image, but there is no source information. The source link goes to an unrelated site.
I think the original file came from Life (thus the watermark on the image), but there's nothing on the website now, and the page was never archived, which is annoying. Given it's certainly PD, is there another way we can show this, without the need to link to the Life page? - SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It is very annoying when this happens – why couldn't the uploader give proper source information instead of a perishable link? I don't think too much can be read into the Life magazine watermark – Life may have reprinted the image at a much later date. It is more probable that the image was originally published in a British magazine, but this might be hard to establish. I wouldn't like to see this article's promotion to FA held up on a technicality; you could temporarily replace this pic with one of the cast-iron images from later in the article, until the question of its source is cleared up. Unsatisfactory, I know, but hopefully only a short-term expedient. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I went with Plan B, and found a replacement, which should suffice. When I'm back I'll have a dig around for a something more concrete for the house party image, and add that somewhere too. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
That is probably your best option for now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Swapped. I think the 1920 date comes from the original file on Flickr, but that's about it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Sir Edward Clarke.jpg: Needs a tag establishing that it is PD in the US. If you want a pic with a definite publication date, this site has an image incorporating the 1890 date, which you could download. It's not as good as your image, but it's safe.
I've gone with another of the Vanity Fair images, which is a nice theme running through the article now. - SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
All other images are fine. General review to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: all image issues now resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Support – A truly wonderful article which has been skilfully researched and written by the nom. I have read this twice since my input at the PR and see no further issues. As such, I fully support the article's elevation to FA status. Cassiantotalk 22:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for your advice and assistance throughout: as always it's been hugely helpful! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Support with a few quibbles, thus:
I think this sentence needs adjusting: "Despite a strong and well-regarded closing speech by Clarke on Gordon-Cumming's behalf, the judge's summing up—described as biased by some—and the jury found against the lieutenant colonel." It was the jury alone that found against Gordon-Cumming, however much the judge's speech might have encouraged them in that direction
Christopher Sykes had succeeded to the Sykes baronetcy by this time, so ought to be called "Sir Christopher Sykes"
There's a bit of a muddle over dates here: "After it was decided the case would be heard by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Coleridge, during April, his court at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, was converted to accommodate the case, raising the height of the bench and witness box, and installing new seating. In May it was announced that the case would start on 1 June, and that entry to the court would be by ticket only." It's the "during April" that's the bother; would anything be lost be the removal of these two words?
Otherwise, well done in producing such a readable and comprehensive account. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for your time and effort here and at PR: I've followed your suggestions here too, with a tweak, an addition and a deletion in that order. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.