Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1858 Bradford sweets poisoning/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 11 August 2024 [1].

1858 Bradford sweets poisoning

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 1858 a mix up over two barrels of white powder led to twenty deaths and over 200 ill with arsenic poisoning. Food purity laws had not been thought of and arsenic was readily available over the counter, which was a recipe for tragedy - and all for a few sweeties. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "The adulteration of food had been practised in the UK since before the middle ages" I might add something like "with chemicals" or some such to state what they were adulterated with.
    I've outlined that in the following sentences. It's not always chemicals: leaves were added to tea and flour to mustard, for example. - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The extent of the arsenic-related deaths was such ..." I assume we are talking about accidents AND murder here. Why not start with "So many people died of arsenic poisoning ..."?
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anything said about the taste of arsenic trioxide?
    Added (thankfully without the need for OR!) - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there information about where the arsenic comes from? Is is a by-product of some process?
    We've got in there that arsenic trioxide is industrially produced: is anything more needed for this article? - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The medical historian James C Whorton" Anything after the C?
    Oops. . added
  • I don't know if this would help you or not.
    Thanks for that. I read that one when researching; the core of the important information is all in The Times too, which is the one I cited.
  • In the references I see The Daily Telegraph unitalicised.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorted - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Wehwalt - much obliged. - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

edit

I'll get to this soon. Apologies for not being able to get to Elinor Fettiplace in time. joeyquism (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on chemistry myself (it was one of my lesser-attended subjects), so I will not be able to comment on accuracy. I am, however, keen on good writing and candy, both of which are certainly featured in this article. I've noted a few things below for the sake of being thorough, some being nits - feel free to refuse with justification:

Lead

Background

  • I believe the following sentences would flow better if merged with a semicolon: "Cost was the reason adulterants were used. Sugar, for example, cost 6½ d per pound; the adulterant cost ½ d per pound."
  • Same with these: "So many people died of arsenic poisoning that legislation in the form of the Arsenic Act 1851 was introduced. It was the first piece of UK legislation to attempt to control the sale of a poisonous substance."
    Both done - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak

  • As a Yankee, I was initially confused by "7½ d" (perhaps I just lack numismatistic knowledge) - I now understand this to mean pence, though I could be wrong and be actively embarrassing myself right now. Would it be worth it to write it out, or include a link to £sd?
    It's linked in the above section (when we discuss "6½ d per pound;")

Investigation, arrests and court case

  • "On the Sunday morning the local police" - Should this be just "On Sunday morning"/"On the following [Sunday] morning", or is this a grammar variance thing? In America it's usually just "On [day of the week]", but I recognize that this is a British-specific article, so if this is considered proper British English, feel free to chastise me for my ignorance.
    This is fine in BrEng (both are acceptable, but this makes a little more sense in this instance). - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal's wife also admitted that she had found other fragments and thrown them on to the fire" - May have missed it in context, but I'm not seeing any prior mention of a fire; in this case would it be clearer to say "thrown them into a fire"?
    The definite article is a little more widely used in BrEng than AmEng, and while both are usable here, we'd probably prefer it here as there was one fire in the location. If there were multiple, we'd use "a". - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of Wednesday, fifteen people has been reported dead" - "has" should be "had"
    Yep, good spot. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • "The deaths led to calls for legislation to stop similar events occurring" - Add "from" between "events" and "occurring"
    I think both are correct in BrEng, but this way feels/sounds more natural to my ear. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The medical historian James C. Whorton considers the Act 'was next to useless'" - Should this be "considered"? Also not sure of the inclusion of "was" in the quote.
    Not only is Wharton still alive, but his text, with his opinion, is also still in existence, so "was" is correct". - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I very much enjoyed reading this article (though not to say I endorse the subject matter's happening). I do question my own critiques at times here, particularly those related to grammar, so if I've made any faux pas or caused any offense, please let me know. Looking forward to your replies, and I hope you're having a wonderful beginning to your week. joeyquism (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks User:Joeyquism. All sorted, except where commented on above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies! I have no further comments; glad to support. joeyquism (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

edit
  • File:The Great Lozenge-Maker A Hint to Paterfamilias.jpg - PD (but needs US tag)
    Now added - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Arsenic trioxide.jpg - PD
  • File:As4O6-molecule-from-arsenolite-xtal-3D-balls.png - PD
  • File:Bradford,1863.png - PD, with US tag
  • File:West Yorkshire UK location map.svg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
  • File:John Henry Bell (1832-1906).jpeg - I think this needs the UK PD tag too (and should be ported to commons TBH)
    Transferred, source and licence updated - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Generalissima; all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me - Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - I realized I actually had one prose question. I have no idea at all what a lozenge is in this context; I'm familiar with throat lozenges but I doubt that's what these Victorian children were eating. I assume it's a sort of hardy candy? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the sources don't make it too clear (although I'll go over them again to check there are no little hints I can include). I think, much like throat lozenges, these were a boiled sweet, much in the line of humbugs, but that's a bit of OR. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did a little googling and according to this history of candy, lozenges originated as a type of gummy fruit-flavored medicinal candy, and the name mostly referred to their diamond shape. As time went on, they seem to have stopped being gummy and many have lost their traditional shape and medicinal nature, but they remain mostly fruity. So basically - fruit candy, I think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've gone back over the sources, I suspect you're probably right, although two sources refer to them being humbugs, which is a hard-boiled sweet (literally boiling the sugary syrup and letting it dry into a hard sweet. The description we have of the manufacturing process (it's in the article in the last paragraph of the Background section) doesn't mention boiling the sugar at all, which would suggest a more 'gummy'-style sweet. All this is OR, unfortunately, so I think we may be best just leaving the description in place as the only explanation, rather than trying to 'translate' it to a modern type of sweet. - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by RoySmith

edit
  • I don't know if I'll do a full review, but one thing jumped out at me. In File:As4O6-molecule-from-arsenolite-xtal-3D-balls.png, there's six oxygens, not three, as the name "arsenic trioxide" would indicate. Presumably this is a dimer. I don't think there's any need to do a deep dive into the chemistry, but this obvious (to anybody trained in chemistry) discrepancy needs to be at least be mentioned. Oddly enough (and that's an understatement), Arsenic trioxide, which is the deep dive, doesn't mention this either, but that's somebody else's problem. RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a chemist by any stretch, so thanks for that. Caption now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chemist Arthur Hill Hassall was prominent in the field of food analysis and the first person to systematically study food through a microscope. The source says "Hassall became well known as the first food chemist to make a systematic use of the microscope to detect fraudulent additions to food." That's not quite the same thing. Over at DYK, we've learned to be wary about claims of somebody or something being a "first", since those claims so often turn out not to be true. In this case, there's a couple of issues. One is "being well known as the first" is not the same as actually being the first. The other is that the source talks specifically about food chemists, but you expanded that to all people. For all we know, there was somebody doing this kind of investigation earlier but they weren't a food chemist. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded. - Many thanks for your comments, and I'd be delighted to hear more, if you have any. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    arsenic trioxide is the common name for the substance and the As4O6 is the molecular form it takes at standard conditions. So the caption was OK to start with. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've put it back to the original. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a read-through now...

  • highly poisonous arsenic trioxide I think we need a source for "highly poisonous". https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/MMG/MMGDetails.aspx?mmgid=1424&toxid=3 says "Arsenic trioxide ... is one of the most toxic and prevalent forms of arsenic" but that's a relative measure. Later on it says "When arsenic trioxide is burned, it releases ... arsine gas ... which is highly toxic" which implies that the unburned substance isn't.
    "highly poisonous" is hyperbole. I would just say "poisonous". Substances that kill in milligram quantities could be called "highly poisonous".
    Went with just "poisonous" - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • practised in the UK since before the Middle Ages the UK didn't exist in the middle ages, so that's a bit of an odd statement.
    Changed to "Britain", which both did and didn't exist - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • harmless additions, such as chicory, I think you want a semicolon after chicory, not a comma? On the other hand, this is a monster sentence; maybe break it into several? Something like "First were harmless additions such as chicory (full stop) Alternatively, adding flour to mustard ... tea leaves (full stop) And finally, toxic additions such as ..."
    No, it needs a comma, as it's a list of three things that were the first category of 'harmless additions'. The rest of the sentence (also a list, split by semi-colon) comprises explanation and examples of what is in the other two categories. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see that now. But I still think breaking this up into multiple sentences would improve readabiltity. I did a little research about commas vs semicolons and found this bit of advice: "There is no rule limiting the number of independent clauses in a single sentence, however, the reader’s ability to comprehend the sentence will certainly decrease if a compound sentence “rages on and on,” even if the conjunctions and punctuation are correct." I think that applies here.
    It's not just the two-level list, there's constructs like introducing alum, gypsum or chalk into white bread or tree or shrub leaves into tea leaves. I had to read that several times to figure out that it needs to be parsed as "introducing [(alum, gypsum or chalk) into white bread] or [(tree or shrub leaves) into tea leaves]" RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, reworked a little now. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those adulterating foodstuff used nicknames to hide the practice it took me a few readings to figure out that "those" refers to "the people doing the adulterating" and not "the foodstuffs". Some rewording might clarify this.
    Good point, tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • cost 6½ d per pound I see you've already discussed this with Wehwalt, but the use of "d" can indeed be confusing for those not familiar with historical British coinage. I know you linked "d" to Penny (British pre-decimal coin), but a single-letter link isn't easy to notice, so I suggest something like "cost 6½ d (pence) per pound" and link "pence".
    Let me think on this one - it's a rather non-standard approach and this format hasn't been an issue in other articles I've written, so I want to have a look round at other examples. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • soft furnishings what are these?
    I believe Americans call them "softgoods". - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps link to Consumables? RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not right (it includes stationery etc too). I've linked it to the Wiki dictionary, which should cover things. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • coloured with soot or indigo t Link to Indigo dye
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I suggested earlier the use of "dimer", but I'm not actually sure I gave correct advice. I've asked for help from a SME.
    It may be a dimer, but that is not so important in the context of this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is used as a wood preservative... Chromated copper arsenate would be a better link target.
    I think that would be an WP:EASTEREGG - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was thought that the cause of the deaths was cholera I would establish context by mentioning that this happened during the 1846–1860 cholera pandemic.
    Interestingly none of the sources mention the cholera outbreak, so we'd be possibly guilty of SYNTH or OR if we connect the two, but I'm going back through the sources to see if I can find a connection. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not OR to observe that 1858 is between 1846 and 1860 :-) But, yes, you are right that it is OR to infer that "the reason people suspect this was cholera was because of the ongoing pandemic". Perhaps "The Halloween sweets that poisoned Bradford". bbc.com. which says Initially, the doctor who saw nine-year-old Elijah Wright in the early hours of Halloween 1858 thought the boy had died from cholera. Surgeon John Roberts thought the symptoms - vomiting and convulsions - were consistent with the disease, which had been rife in England. is what you need to connect them? RoySmith (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, now added. I found some information about the similarity of symptoms between the two as well, so that all looks much stronger now. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all my concerns have been addressed, so adding my support. As an aside, when I saw this listed, what draw my interest was thinking about the scene in It's a Wonderful Life where the pharmacist Mr. Gower accidentally mixes poison into some pills he is making, killing a patient. That scene takes place around 1920 or so, 60 years after this event. Apparently such accidents were still commonplace enough that it would be believable to movie audiences. RoySmith (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks RoySmith. Funnily enough, even though Wonderful Life is one of my favourite films, I simply hadn't made the connection, but it's a very interesting thought that they happened within a lifetime of each other. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium

edit
  • Three men were arrested—the chemist who sold the arsenic, the sweet maker and the market seller who sold the sweets - That doesn't line up with the rest of the article, which goes on to tell me that the three people were put on trial, the sweet maker, the chemist and his assistant.
    Good spot - altered. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image shown for arsenic trioxide structure seems like it is the structure of arsenolite, the crystal mineral (with a formula As4O6) rather than arsenic trioxide. Maybe that be noted somewhere as a footnote since it's somewhat confusing to read "trioxide" and see 6 oxygen atoms.
    There's been quite a lot of back and forth on this, so I've just taken the image out altogether. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was also used as a poison for murder. So many people died of arsenic poisoning that legislation in the form of the Arsenic Act 1851 was introduced; .... I think the phrasing here is confusing, was the arsenic poisoning cases deliberate, accidental or both
    Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corollary to the above, can the previous statement be more rigorous, "many" seems a bit nebulous, are there numbers of how many peeps died of arsenic poisoning in 1850 that can be cited as a reason, or was it just public opinion ?
    There are no figures in the sources to back this up, just an acknowledgement by the authorities that there was a problem that needed dealing with. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • for people to see them in the morning.
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and in 1862 three children died at Christmas after eating sweets containing arsenic. That's a specific example the book cites to illustrate the fact that adulteration happened even after the passage of the mentioned act, it's not part of the actual reason why the Act was ineffective which is how it is portrayed in the article.
    I've taken it out - it doesn't add anything to the point. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Sohom, now all addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LGTM, I can't find much else to critique, I'm interested in supporting the nom. Sohom (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Graham Beards

edit

The map is rather dark. I improved it but the Commons has tightened it's rules regarding overwriting of files: only the original poster can do so. Thoughts? Graham Beards (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, That's a bit annoying of them! I can email you if you're happy to send me the file and I can upload? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes let's do that and if you think it's not an improvement, no problem. Graham Beards (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect - thanks Graham. New image uploaded (although you may need to clear you cache to see it in place). Much better. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I improve a commons image, I generally upload the new version under a new title, i.e. File:Washington Square by Matthew Bisanz (adjusted).jpg. No worries about overwriting the original. RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and I am happy to add my Support. Thank you for all your work on the article. Graham Beards (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

edit

Loving your current tear through British food history. I read Swindled a few years ago and immediately thought of it when I opened this; delighted to see it in the refs already. Comments within the week, throw popcorn if I don't make it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn thrown! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the sweets produced in Bradford, powdered gypsum was supposed to be purchased" passive voice here
  • "firstly were harmless additions, such as chicory, adding flour to mustard and watering down milk." the last two are self-explanatory, but what chicory does or is isn't clear from context.
  • "cheese with mercury salts" - should be "mercury salts added to cheese", since it's the salt that's the additive not the cheese
  • It may be too much detail for this article, but it's not clear from the text if all of the things mentioned as adulterants (ex. salts of copper and red lead) were known to be dangerous and were being illicitly mixed in instead of safer ingredients, or were added for their useful effects ignorant of actual danger
  • "Cost was the reason..." I might move this sentence up to para 1; I think it fits better there logically.
  • "Sunday, Police Constable Campbell, was sent to investigate" - rm second comma
  • Why is Police Constable capitalized but chief constable isn't?
    Because our MOS is counter-intuitive and second rate. The use is correct as far as MOS:JOBTITLE instructs. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair
  • "Eventually up to twenty-one people died..." it feels odd that this sentence ends solely with the footnote. Do the refs in the footnote cover the ~200 ill as well? (imo the 20 vs 21 thing could be in-text vs in a footnote but I won't insist)
    Yes, both the refs support it, but I've lifted the footnote into the main text for you, so it's cited inline now. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. Quite an interesting little tragedy - I find myself feeling a little sorry for everyone involved. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PMC - all sorted. As always, thanks for your suggestions. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! I'm a support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

Three minor points, none of which affect my support:

  • "Sulfuric acid" – seems a work of supererogation to take the stuff all the way to America and back when they could just add sulphuric acid at home.
  • "Joseph Neal, who made the sweets on Stone Street" – next time we lunch at my flat look out for what I'm slipping into your pudding: "in", not "on" in the King's English, for the umpteenth goddam time!
  • "Mary Midgley, a seven year old girl" – I'd shove a couple of hyphens in here.

That's my lot. Happy to support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Glad(ish) to see SchroCat following in the beloved Brian Boulton's footsteps in regaling us with death and destruction on all sides. Be that as it may, I support the elevation of this article to FA, Tim riley talk 13:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. I always try to leave in at least one 'on x street' for you. It's all part of an experiment to see what your breaking point is: I sense I may be close! - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Penitentes

edit

This is a really toothsome article, despite the dire subject matter. Just a few quick comments, the resolution of which—as with PMC above—won't affect my vote to support.

  • An inquest was opened the following day. - Perhaps link to inquest?
  • ...the Food Adulteration Act 1860 was passed into law... - Since the Act itself has no article, would it be possible to add just a single sentence about what it did (or purported to do)? Reading that the poisoning helped motivate its passage and then immediately reading that it was considered ineffective makes me curious about what its contents were.

Cheers. — Penitentes (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penitentes, Many thanks for these: both now enacted in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! — Penitentes (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sauce review

edit
Books are all from reputable publishers and scholarly authors; all nice and modern sources (although of matters of arcane local history, older sources may be OK too: historiographical fashion changes like it's á la Milanese). Why are the ISBNs inconsistently laid out. With Davis Kindle ed., what does 487 denote. The journals are an excellent selection of blind peer-reviewed articles, except for History Today. Contemporaneous newspapers are used sparsely but wisely—always a tricky tightrope!—and are all absolute papers of record. And the BBC  :) As for websites, ODNB is generally reliable (joke: just don't tell Iridescent!).
This is a good fun, readable, but educational article of the kind you excel in Schrocat. Just reading it gave me early-onset diabetes, I think! By the way—nothing to do with the source review of course—but when you talk about the uses of Arsenic in Victorian England, it might be worth mentioning the prevalence of Arsenic eating? (And that's a redlink?!)[1][2][3] ——Serial Number 54129 21:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Moon, Jina (2016-04-26). Domestic Violence in Victorian and Edwardian Fiction. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4438-9207-0.
  2. ^ Haller, John S. (1981). American Medicine in Transition, 1840-1910. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-00806-1.
  3. ^ Burney, Ian (2021-01-26). Poison, detection and the Victorian imagination. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-5261-5863-5.
Many thanks SN. I've tweaked the ISBNs, so they should all be consistent. For Davis, it's the location in the e-book (older versions of books had no page numbers, but a location 'address'), so I've used that, which I've done in a few other FAs. I'm a bit surprised that's a red link - German WP has a page on it (Arsenikesser), but I think it may be a possible step too far away from this page. Thanks for the review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2024 (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/1858_Bradford_sweets_poisoning/archive1&oldid=1239854301"