Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edgar Speyer

< 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 Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [1].

Edgar Speyer

edit
Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk)

I'm renominating this biographical article for featured article status because of the subject's interesting life and status as one of only a few people to be struck-off as members of the Privy Council. The article was previously nominated on 2 December and the comments that it attracted were dealt with as far as possible. One "oppose" was outstanding when the candidacy was ended on 20 December 2008, although it is impossible to provide the additional information requested. Minor changes have been made to the article since nomination was ended. DavidCane (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I supported this at its previous FAC, and see no reason for withholding now. It is a well-written, comprehensive article about an interesting life. Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Support: A very nice article. I have a couple of comments before I can support it though. (They are not all essential to gaining my support, but if you chose not to implement them please explain why here). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be possible to place the quoted letter form Speyer to Asquith in blockquote format to differentiate it from the surrounding text?
  • The nine points raised by the inquiry: Were they the actual findings of the inquiry verbatim or is this a later synthesis by the editors of this page or subsequent historians? If it is a quote then this should be made explicit. If it is a later synthesis then there are a couple of punctuation errors that I didn't want to correct without establishing the lists origin.
    • They're my synthesis of the official report which was published in full in the Times on 7 January 1922 (ref 50). I think, I may have corrected the punctuation now but let me know if there is anything else which needs revision. --DavidCane (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legacy section feels a little bit short: I suggest providing a brief mention of the histories of the tube lines and the Proms since Speyer's death (which tube lines were they by the way?). Is the house in Norfolk still a hotel? Does it have any form of government listing as a heritage site? His wife and children - what was their subsequent history after his death? Has there been any scholarship into the inquiry that either agrees with or disagrees with it? Have there been any calls for his name to be posthumously cleared? These are just ideas, but I think the section needs to be improved and expanded before this can be promoted.
  • Thanks for the suggestions:
  • The Norfolk house is still a hotel and is grade II listed. I have added this with a reference.
  • His wife, who has her own article, was a poet and lived until 1956.
  • Nothing much is recorded of their children apart from society page reports in the New York Times of their various weddings in the 1930s. They don't appear to have done anything notable or married anyone notable.
  • The underground lines were the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway (now part of the Northern line), the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (now the Bakerloo line) and the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway (now part of the Piccadilly line). These are listed in ref 5 already but I have added a bit more in the legacy section.
  • There appears to have been no scholarly review of his denaturalisation and no real call for a posthumous clearance, however:
    • The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article (ref 1) does end with the following "His services to London's transport, music, and hospitals need not be obscured by the events of 1915; but, though it may be that he was guilty of no more than minor technical offences against the laws of his adopted country, there can be no doubt of his pro-German sympathies." This was included in the 1949 original Dictionary of National Biography article on Speyer of which the ONDB version is an update.
    • The abstract of the Leanne Langley talk (ref 21) ends with "Speyer’s rescue of the Proms preceded the BBC’s by a generation, his own point of departure in a cloud of political controversy in 1915 ensured his contribution would be tarnished – still a blemish on the nation – which deserves redress."
I decided not to include these views in the article as they are really personal opinions and there is no campaign as such to have him cleared.
--DavidCane (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds fair enough, although I have combined a couple of the floating one line paragraphs in the legacy section to make a more coherent paragraph structure. Hope this is OK.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Many issues were resolved at the last FAC, which I did look over, though I did not !vote because I thought it would pass then. Still leaves that effect on me. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
  • File:London Underground Electric Railways.png - Do you have any more publication information on the source for this image? Note that WP:IUP states: "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information)".
    • The image is from the cover of a free route map published in 1908. The publishers would have been the Underground Electric Railway acting together with the other lines shown on the map (CLR, C&SLR, GN&CR and the MR). A History of London Tube Maps has a colour version giving details and an image of the map itself. The copy that I uploaded was from a photocopy I was given of a similar one. I've changed the image license to {{PD-UK-unknown}} which is more appropriate. --DavidCane (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Qnshall.jpg - Do we know where this was first published? For pre-1923 licenses, this is good information to have so that we can consider transferring the image to Commons. Also, who is the author of this image?
    • I didn't upload this image but, during the previous FAC, I corrected its source info. It is from a previous version of this page which contains a slightly differently cropped version of the image. The caption there indicates that it is drawing of the opening concert for the hall in 1893. I imagine that it would have been first published shortly afterwards by the Queen's Hall's management.--DavidCane (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note Jamd and Getty Images, the image is now in the possession of the Hulton Archive. The year of creation is established to be 1893; however, no author or date of publication is listed. The key question here: is the image from a drawing or an engraving? If the former, then it would have been in the public domain in 1943 (according to Crown Copyrights). However, if it was from an engraving, then the issue of publication comes into play. If it is unpublished, then it would enter public domain only in 31 December 2039. If not, its copyright expires 50 years from the date of publishing. We have to ask: is this image found in Robert Elkin's Queen's Hall 1893 – 1941 (1944, which would have made the image PD in 1994)? NQHO states that "most of the facts and photographs for this article are taken" from Elkin's book; that means, there is a chance that the Queen's Hall image did not come from it. If it did not (and if the image was from an engraving), then this image is not PD. Jappalang (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for helping out here! DC, what have you been able to find out about this image in regards to Jappalang's questions? Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Jappalang for your research. I cannot say where the image came from or when it was first published, but a close-up view of the image appears to indicate that it is a drawing. For example, the shading under the boxes on the left and along the front of the stage seems to have been done as a wash rather than hatching - the more usual method for an engraving. That said, I do not think the image is vital and if it features on Getty Images I am quite happy to remove it from the article, if you think that is the appropriate action to take. I will see if I can find another for the hall.--DavidCane (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If it is a drawing, then there should be no problem with the image as PD in UK (although finding the proper license tag for its use on US servers would be another issue, see the FAC for Operation Brevity above). It would be best if there is a source that can confirm the nature of the image. Can anyone try to locate Elkin's book in his or her library and confirm if the image is in there (and if it is a drawing)? Jappalang (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I haven't been able to find an alternative, so I have removed the image and replaced it with one of the Whitechapel Gallery (File:The Whitechapel Gallery.jpg). This is an attribution share-alike image taken from Flickr, so usability is clear. It has the additional benefit of bringing a bit of colour to the article.--DavidCane (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All image concerns have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on sources, unstruck sourcing questions on previous FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the above note; the following three sources were questioned in the first FAC by Ealdgyth. After explanations for their use were given, he left them for others to decide on their suitability:
--DavidCane (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose by karanacs. I believe this is overall a very good article, but there are quite a few niggling things and an unreliable source. I am willing to strike my oppose provided the sourcing and the majority of the other small things I found are fixed.

  • Suggest that you spell out (and wikilink if appropriate) abbreviations the first time they are used in the body of the article, even if they were used in the lead. For example, UERL.
    • Done, although there are only two abbreviations used in the article: UERL and PC. The first is defined with its abbreviation in the lead and the second is defined in the Philanthropist and patron section. All other abbreviations are in the notes section and are defined on first use. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Speyer serve as UERL chairman at the same time that he was chairman of Speyer Brothers?
    • Yes, he was head of both at the same time. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see a need for the headings "Life to 1914" and "Life after 1914", as there is nothing in those sections that is not already including in the subsections. I would just move the subsections up.
    • I would rather keep them as it helps make a clear distinction between the period before and after the attacks were made against his name.--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the subheading titles make that pretty clear already. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose in the Financier section bothers me a bit. It seems clunky - I suspect that the prose could be tightened to get rid of unnecessary words and it would read much better.
    • Could you elaborate about which bits you have difficulties with?--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the hard part - I didn't see any one major thing that needed to be fixed. I just had to read the section a few times to follow what was going on. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The works were carried out by Detmar Blow and Fernand Billery in 1910 and 1911" - I am not sure what "the works" is supposed to mean here. I'm not as familiar with British English - perhaps this is something expressed differently than in American English?
    • Done. "The works" are the rebuilding works. To make this unambiguous I have changed this to "rebuilding work". --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about Speyer donating money to save the Needham Market bank seems to have nothing to do with the rest of that paragraph (which discusses his homes). That sentence needs to be moved, or a better transition needs to be created.
    • Done. I put it there because Needham Market is in Suffolk which is the next county to Norfolk (where his country house was), but have moved it to follow the King Edward's Hospital Fund donation where it's chronology also fits better. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • was described as "the sole monetary force which kept the Queen's Hall Orchestra afloat". - described by whom? Yes, this is cited, but is the quote from the source or someone the source is quoting?
    • This is from the source, John Bird. The link in the reference takes you to the page in his book on Percy Grainger where this appears. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps this could be attributed directly in the paragraph? "He was described by John Bird..." Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of Philanthropist and patron seems to meander around; the first half of the paragraph flows well, but then I feel like it jumps a bit from idea to idea. A bit of reorganization of the paragraph might help (and it might need to be two paragraphs).
    • I have separated the bits that are not related to music and joined them to the paragraph about the fund for Scott's expedition and have moved the bit on the violins up to the end of the second paragraph. Does that help? --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is much better, but the last two sentences in the music paragraph still seem tacked on rather than a good continuation of the paragraph. 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I've reworded slightly to try and pull them in more.--DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really important that he owned Stradavarius and Guarneri violins? That seems like trivia. It is especially inappropriate because the information does not appear to come from a reliable source (from the website..Cozio Publishing disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material displayed in the Cozio Publishing web site)
    • I think it is important for two reasons: his wife was a concert violinist and he funded the Proms concerts. Whilst she does not appear to have played professionally after their marriage, she did play in concerts at home and elsewhere and would have certainly have used these instruments. Stradivarius and Guarneri violins were prized instruments and, as now, they were often owned by wealthy patrons and loaned to violinist to play. It is therefore likely that he would have leant them for use in Proms concerts, although this is not recorded.
    • regarding the disclaimer: this is a standard legal disclaimer and is there because cozio.com is a business and operates as a place to buy and sell antique violins. For similar reasons, Wikipedia has its own disclaimers. Cozio.com is referenced on a number of wikipedia articles about specific instruments, e.g. Du Pré Stradivarius or Davidov Stradivarius, and is in fifteen of the references in the Stradivarius article where it is is accepted as a "generally reliable source". For the sources of the information on Cozio.com, see its library section which lists 2175 referenced documents. If you do a search on Cozio Publishing, the company behind Cozio.com you will find that they have published in conjunction with Sotherby's a book on Violins.
    • Incidentally, the portrait of his wife painted by John Singer Sargent (see her article) shows here playing a violin - probably the Guarneri.--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking beyond the reliability of the source (which also allows individuals to submit information), what you have written above would make the information about him owning the violins much more relevant in the article. Without that level of detail, however, it just appears to be a random fact. I see that this was removed, so I'll strike. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only one sentence about Speyer being on the Privy Council. Did he actually do anything? Was this an in-name-only type of appointment?
    • Being a member of the Privy Council is not a sinecure. Its members are advisers to the monarch and council meetings are held regularly. Although modern practice means that those that now participate are the members of the government, this was not the case at the beginning of the 20th century when King Edward VII appointed members from a larger range. Which meetings he attended and what advice he gave would be recorded in the National Archives. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did he do to impress Kaiser Wilhelm so much?
    • It's probable that he lent the Kaiser or his government some money. About the same time, his brother-in-law and partner in the Frankfurt bank, Edward Beit was "made a von" and took the name of his wife's family's home town (Speyer) as his geographic distinction. The Order of the Crown was the lowest ranking Prussian order and his rank in the order was the middle of six classes, so it was not a particularly high status award. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further investigations of Anglo-German relationships at the time indicate that he helped found the Anglo-German Union Club in 1907 with Sir Ernest Cassels and Bruno Schröder, so that may also may have had something to do with it - although it does not appear in his ONDB biography but Schröder's.--DavidCane (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information about the novels before WWI does not seem all that relevant to me. I would suspect that similar warnings were issued in newspapers, etc. Why pick out these two novels in particular?
    • Like the image of the Kaiser stubbing his toe, these were picked as examples of context. They are the two best known examples of the genre. The link under anti-German sentiment gives more detailed background. Yes, the papers were behind a lot of the sentiment and the Quex's book was serialised in the Daily Mail. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It still doesn't seem to fit. Why focus on the novels (which makes it feel like a manufactured concern that people aren't really experiencing) rather than on the real-life reports that increased the hysteria? If you want to focus on the novels, then we probably need some cited information that discusses their impact. As written, I just thought "so what - there are novels about all kinds of things and how does this impact Speyer?" Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The linked article on anti-German sentiment gives examples of the impact and provides citations, but, as I haven't read the books cited, I didn't want to add them here. Accusations against Speyer specifically are mentioned in the next paragraph.--DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure that each quote has a citation, even if that means the cite is duplicated across subsequent sentences. I saw several issues with this in the Revocation... section.

Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am worried about some weight issues. There is a lot dedicated to his resignation and the "Revocation of naturalisation". Is it appropriate to list all of the findings like that? Can't we have a small summary of results? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the recovation findings were very interesting and relevant. In reading the article, I had seen no real clues as to why he would have his citizenship stripped; this section answered that question. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is as brief a summary as I could make it and still explain the issues. --DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are biographies supposed to be 20% about a tiny portion of a life that is negative? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The course of Speyer's life was substantially and fundamentally altered by the events during and immediately after WWI. If the war hadn't come and he hadn't been subject to unjust anti-German attacks (remember he was born in the US and had been a British citizen for 22 years by that time), he would almost certainly have remained in the centre of British musical society and finance and as Chairman of the UERL and would be remembered for completely different reasons. Therefore, I think, a fifth of the article dedicated to this matter is not unreasonable. --DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is only required to establish the basis of having an article, not what the article is supposed to be about. This is a biography. I would expect a well thought out discussion of his life and not giving to one tiny moment that may have changed his life, but getting married, being run down by a bus, etc, can also change one's life. It seems like it is far too negative to dominate in such a large facet, especially when this guy is notable also for being on the PC. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry, I put a lot of thought into this and I cannot, with a clean conscience, support an article that devotes so much to one aspect of an individual's life in such an undue manner. He was a member of the PC, a very important role, and yet that doesn't even have as much size or even close to as much size as the "Revocation of naturalisation" section. It goes against every single instinct that I have in regards to biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A note on the above - he was a Privy Counsellor from 1909 to 1914. Nothing is said about this. 5 years at a position and nothing. We get him being kicked out for a section. Privy Counsellors are notable. Baronets are notable. I would expect at least a section at least twice as large as his removal devoted to his time as a Privy Counsellor. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst it is notable that he was a Privy Counsellor, what he did as one is not necessarily notable. It was an advisory position not legislative - a record of what he did would be just a list of meetings attended. Of these, the truly notable meeting would be the one on 7 May 1910 at which King George V was proclaimed King (see here for the announcement).
    Looking at recent main page featured biography articles, this concentration on the important aspects of a subject's life is not uncommon. For example, the Richard Hawes article concentrates on his 3-years as Confederate Governor of Kentucky. His four-year term as a member of the House of Representatives, when he actually had power to influence legislation, is covered by a single sentence. In the Robert Sterling Yard article, 35 years of his journalistic and publishing career (1880 to 1915) is covered in a single, three-sentence paragraph and the majority of the article covers his time in the National Parks movement.--DavidCane (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but your comments are 100% unacceptable. I will refrain from expressing the moral outrage that I feel in response to what you have stated. 5 years of a person's life and career cannot be ignored. There is a clear POV expressed in this article, and it is an anti-Speyer bias. You have contradicted most of the ethics that go into Wikipedia, and if this article is put in as an FA in its shape, I would be deeply ashamed at this community for allowing such a thing to happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on this point I think the coverage of these issues is fine. Privy Council does not explain these matters all that well, but in all probability his first meeting and the one proclaiming the new king were the only meetings Speyer ever attended. Being a PC was by this date a formal thing, though relevant for ministers etc, but for the likes of Speyer essentially just an honour. Probably a sentence explaining the very limited nature of the function should be added, since the PC does feature largely in the article. OR is however right that "notability" is the wrong word to use when talking about article content. The rest of the article looks FA quality, but I haven't read it all. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Ottava Rima I'm sorry to have outraged your morals in some way, although I am at a loss to see how simple comparison with the structure of other featured articles can have caused this.
    • I have not ignored the period of his life when he was a Privy Counsellor as you seem to think - much of the sections on finance and philanthropy cover this period. As for his activities in the Privy Council, I could put in the fact that he was present at the new king's proclamation in 1910, but that is really just triva. There really is nothing more to record.
    • My bias is most certainly not anti-Speyer and I don't believe the article can be read that way. If I was anti-Speyer, I would simply have left out everything in the pre-1914 part of the article which clearly show his willingness to contribute time and money to the public's benefit.
      • Personally, having read the decision of the committee that recommended his denaturalisation, I feel he was made a scape-goat. Of all the issues that were examined by the committee, the only one that really indicates foolishness on Speyer's part is his attempt to maintain a correspondence with his brother-in-law (and through him his sister) and to evade the censor in doing so. A number of the matters considered seem trivial in the extreme and there seems to have been no consideration given to his long-term support of the arts, the hospital, the King's fund or his service in putting the London Underground on a more sound financial footing (although, as an investor, he did have a personal interest in the last of these).
      • The section on anti-German bias gives a very clear explanation of why Speyer was under pressure and why he chose to leave Britain and is not anti-Speyer; nor is the section on his philanthropy.
      • In drafting the section on the committee's decision, I have used a far more neutral tone than that in which the decision was phrased and in which it was reported in the Press.
      • Personally, I think it is possible that the decision of the committee was at least partly political, a result of the split in the Liberal party. Speyer was a friend of H.H. Asquith, the former Prime Minister and leader of one branch of the party, whereas the committee was established under the National Government of David Lloyd George, the leader of the other half of the party and Asquith's political rival. There is none of this in the article as it is all my conjecture, personal point of view and would be considered original research.
    • As you will see in my answer above to Jackyd101 on the matter of posthumous rehabilitation, I decided not to include the comments from two of the sources used about the unjustness of his treatment because they are really just their personal views rather than a concerted effort at rehabilitation. --DavidCane (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cover this area? Really? I reread it. Not only are the times completely unstructured making it almost impossible to read the article as a biography in a standard biographical sense, the weight on two moments dominates the whole page. That is completely unacceptable in terms of weight, comprehensiveness, or the rest. If the position was only honorary, you can state exactly that and explain why. There are very few exact dates listed, there are very few exact moments, and I would honestly hesitate accepting the page as a Good Article Nominee in its current state. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To reinforce what I state. It took me two seconds to find this from Offer, Avner. "Empire and Social Reform: British Overseas Investment and Domestic Politics, 1908-1914 Empire and Social Reform: British Overseas Investment and Domestic Politics, 1908-1914." The Historical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1983), pp. 119-138.
    • It mentions: "By 1912 he was deeply involved in Brazilian railway schemes" (p. 124). There is no equivalent in the article. It also states that Sir Almeric Fitzroy, clerk of the PC, was upset that Speyer was placed on the PC. This is not in the article. There is nothing about an important individual named Sir George Paish and his involvement with Lloyd George through Speyer. There is also: ""Speyer then delivered the same message in a speech to the Institute of Bankers, which, if it did not actually signal the start of the Edwardian capital export boom, (as Paish later claimed), at least broadly coincided with it." (p. 125)
  • This is one tiny article that deals with the missing time period and how the position of PC needs more information. There is a lot more out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well thank you for that. You must have access through an academic membership as jstor.org is not open to individuals nor can it be searched by non-users. Its content is, therefore, effectively invisible to outsiders and my library does not subscribe to it or the Historical Journal referenced. The article does state that Speyer Brothers were involved in the finance of railway projects although, I admit, it does not mention Brazil specifically. If you'd like to forward the text of the article (you can paste it, and anything else from Jstor, here if you'd like) I will very happily incorporate information from it. Paish was a statistical economist who specialised in railways so I can see how he and Speyer would have crossed paths.
    • If you can give me the information, I will add a note on Fitzroy's being upset that Speyer was made a counsellor, but whether his opinion was of any value is debatable. He sound an interesting character as his ONDB entry includes the following: "His routine work, however, was simply to organize meetings of the privy council and to arrange for the formal presentation to the sovereign of legislation brought into force by orders in council. Much concerned with ceremony and protocol, FitzRoy read the official proclamation of the accession of Edward VII in 1901 and that of George V in 1910; in 1917 he also submitted a draft of the declaration by which George V changed the name of the royal family to Windsor. But despite FitzRoy's self-important air and his relish for being at the centre of events, attributes which attracted some mockery, he played no part in the formation of policy." ONDB also describes his indiscreet memoirs upsetting Queen Mary and a minor scandal in which he was convicted and fined for "wilfully interfering with and annoying persons using Hyde Park". Although subsequently cleared, this led to his resignation from the clerkship in 1923.--DavidCane (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point of the one article was to show that a cursory look through information could find something. You have many biographies listed, surely one or two has information on the time period. I can try to get portions of the article for you tomorrow. However, personal constraints keep me from being able to devote a significant portion of this. If it was the summertime, I would spend a few days at the Loc just digging up enough information to almost double the page. There seemed to be that much out there. He met a lot of important people. He gave quite a few speeches. He wrote some letters and some people wrote some letters about him. He was more memorable than what the article gives him credit for being. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. The prose needs significant work:

  • "Sir Edgar and Lady Leonora were the basis of the characters Sir Hermann and Lady Aline Gurtner in E F Benson's 1919 novel Robin Linnet." The characters of ... were based on ...?
    • The existing sentence seems preferable to me than the alternative formulation. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I see this has been changed. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... to point to a strip of material evidence that would induce any fairminded main to support the monstrous conclusions of this report." Does the source really say "main"?
  • "After their return to America, Lady Leonora began writing poetry and won the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry in 1927." After whose return to America?
  • "Accusations of his disloyalty and treachery appeared in the Press ...". Why is "Press" capitalised? The use of capitalisation needs to be looked at throughout the whole article.
    • This was requested in the Good Article review. Please identify any others. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have gone through the article again an believe that capitalisation is fully regularised now. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pre-opening estimates of passenger numbers proved to be greatly over-optimistic ...". When would an estimate ever be post the event?
    • Estimates can be done at any time as part of normal financial planning be it monthly profit, quarterly cash flow or annual turnover estimates. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I see this has been changed to preliminary. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... he came to London to capitalise on the emerging opportunities for new deep level underground "tube" railways there." Came to London? Is that where this article was written?

These are just a few examples. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I really think, if the above oppose is being maintained, that further instances should be provided of the "significant" work that the prose is supposed to need, otherwise the oppose is unactionable. Personally I think the prose is well up to standard, though I suppose it's always possible to quibble. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were just examples, as I said, and I am not satisfied that they have yet been properly dealt with. A few more examples:
  • "He was chairman of the Classical Concert Society until 1912 and, following financial problems experienced by Robert Newman, chairman of the Queen's Hall Concert board from 1902 to 1914, paying £2,000 per year (£160,000.00 today)[7] to underwrite the Promenade Concerts."
    I see this has been changed for the better.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speyer's friendship was recognised by the dedications to him of Becker's Three Pieces for Cello with Piano Accompaniment and Strauss's Salome." Awkward passive. Why not something like "Becker dedicated Three Pieces ... to Speyer, in recognition of their friendship."
    I see this has been changed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speyer collected ... room interiors". How can a room interior be collected?
You buy it, get workmen to dismantle the panelling or (harder) plasterwork, & re-erect it elsewhere. This was the great period for this, though many went to the US. The Victoria & Albert or Metropolitan are full of them - perhaps there are some in Manchester too. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a well known practice, but to avoid further complaints I changed it, reducing the significance of its meaning. I replaced the more enlightening term in an attempt to satisfy those who are not familiar with the practice. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The Sheppard reference states that many of these were obtained from the continent. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Nonetheless, suspicions against Speyer's German parentage ...". Against?
    I see this has been changed for the better.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant sections of the article, for instance Philanthropist and patron, are a series of short, disjointed sentences with no discernible flow.
    I have done some work on that bit to try and improve the flow. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, I think this article still needs to be thoroughly copyedited. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a fine article and a moving story told with an absence of flourish and irrelevant detail that renders this article all the more effective. I have gone through the entire article looking for prose and other issues. I find that it meets the FAC criteria. I am not persuaded by the rationale of the opposes. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The writing is mostly OK. I've looked at the lead and first few sections: here are a few suggestions.

  • Opening para: "the company opened three underground railway lines, electrified another and took over two more". Was the one he electrified among the three he opened? Unclear categories. (one of which he electrified, and ...?). Or use the wording further down.
    • The one that was electrified was separate from the three new ones. I have clarified this. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not compatible"; where a compound negative is available, probably better: "incompatible".
  • "he became a subject of anti-German attacks" --> "the subject" may be better.
  • "In 1884, Speyer became a partner in each of his father's companies. He headed the Frankfurt office for three years before taking control of the London office, Speyer Brothers, in 1887." Is it possible lose "for three years"? Seems redundant after the "1884".
  • "deep level underground" (hyphen) TONY

(talk) 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS Could you take the pennies out of 160 thousand pounds?
    • Done. It was annoying me as well. I have found out how to get rid of these. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In summary, I think Malleus's general concerns need to be addressed by a fine eye cast through it. Tony (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if they were "companies" they had directors not "partners", to be picky. Or were they partnerships? Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well spotted. They were partnerships so I have changed "companies" to the more encompassing "businesses". --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've struck my earlier oppose and am now ready to support based largely on the excellent copyediting job done by Mattisse. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 4 February 2009 (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/Edgar_Speyer&oldid=1138459220"