Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Sheppard

< 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Jack Sheppard

edit

This 18th-century thief was executed at the age of 22, but he became a working-class hero as a result of his repeated escapes from prison in 1723 and 1724. The case became a cause célèbre, and contributed to the ultimate fall from grace of the villainous Jonathan Wild (please also read Geogre's excellent featured article on him).

This article is largely based on Lucy Moore's 2000 work, The Thieves' Opera, and a peer review just finshed with only a couple of responses. Suggestions welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Support I'd love to support this article, as it is very well-written and tells a fascinating story, but the almost-exclusive reliance on one source is just too much. Were you not able to track down the other sources that you mentioned at peer review? I might be able to help you get hold of them if it would be useful. Also, have you looked for Defoe's "History of the Remarkable Life of John Sheppard"?
Your citations could use a little work. You need full references for "The London Hanged," for "The Road to Tyburn" and for the source that you cite from Project Gutenberg. They also should be listed in the references as well as in the notes.
I only found one phrase that I question, the description of Sheppard's "syncopated liberation." While it sounds nice, the meaning is less clear. MLilburne 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OBJECT. I agree with MLilburne's comments that more sources need to be used to reference this article. The reliance on one source makes this article not a comprehensive treatment (in terms of addressing all the available coverage). It is a remarkably well-written article, and if it were better sourced, I'd gladly support it. —ExplorerCDT 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I did not add the "syncopated liberation" passage - I have tweaked the wording a little.
On citations, I am afraid I am not sure what you mean by "full reference". I have added an ISBN for "The London Hanged". What else should I add for "The Road to Tyburn", or for the links to Project Gutenberg sources (more links than sources, actually)?
On sources, I said "largely based on" not "derived solely from". The bones of the article were based on work by Geogre derived from Howson and the DNB, although without inline citations; I have augmented it from Moore and other sources, for which inline citations have been added to the article. Inevitably, a recent work like Moore's synthesises the early body of knowledge, although half it is on Wild; I am not aware of recent non-fiction works specifically on Sheppard. I do mention some other potential sources in the peer review: the 2002 article would be nice, but I don't have access to an academic library; Hibbert's book would also be nice, but it dates from 1957 and I have not located a copy. The Newgate Calendar was already mentioned as an external link, but I have added some more specific citations. Tell me if you know of a source that should be included - even better, find one and add some notes (please!). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can get at Victorian Studies, so I've sent you a copy of the 2002 article, ALoan. (For me to pass on a copy to you, and for you to discuss it on Wikipedia, is a perfectly kosher use of my access, as far as I can make out.) I thought about adding some information from it and notes about it to the article, but... er... hrm... you do it. Bishonen | talk 13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Gosh! Very much thanks. Received and reading. (I also have a long list of articles on Mary Seacole...) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "full references," I mean what is specified here: WP:CITE#Full_citations. Personally I find the use of citation templates helpful (WP:CITET), but they're not required. For the footnotes you can use a shorter form (personally I use last name of author, short title and page number, but this is personal practice rather than a rule). Either way, "The Road to Tyburn," "The London Hanged" and any other source that you cite should be listed in full in the references.
I'll come back later to address the other points. MLilburne 13:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the sources are perfectly identifiable from the current information (don't I already have "name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication"?) Can I appeal to a citation guru like to help me out here if anything further is required. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, you have several sources that aren't listed under "References" (as opposed to in foonotes under "Notes") at all. I might be able to help you with that later, but it doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult... MLilburne 15:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right - I thought you were complaining about the absence of "full references". The sources listed in the "References" section are the only ones that I have used - I don't think it would be right to include the others, which is why they are only noted. I was just trying to be helpful by putting some additional information in the footnotes. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should include all the sources that the article cites, whether you used them or not. And ideally, you should really track them down. I'm still getting the feeling that the article really isn't comprehensive enough. MLilburne 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think it would be right to call a source a "reference" when it has not been used to generate or support the contents of the article. For example, the article says that Sheppard's story was written about in The Road to Tyburn by Christopher Hibbert in 1957, with a footnote giving the ISBN of a 2001 reprint. I think it is entirely right that I give enough information for the interested reader to find the book themselves, but I have not used that work as a source so it should not be included in the "References". Ditto, I have not viewed either of the silent movies, or the Tommy Steele film version, despite linking to IMDb pages on all of them, nor Stephenson's recent novels, nor Ainsworth's serialised novelisation from 1839, nor Montcreiff's melodrama from 1825. And, to be honest, I am not convinced that I need to. Having found a copies, I will read Defoe's account and Ainsworths version (I suspect the latter will be useless as a source on the actual Sheppard, by the way) and see if they add anything, but I suspect that the secondary sources I have used already are better able to judge what is worth mentioning than my own reading of a primary source. As for comprehensiveness, what do you think is missing? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section is called "References," not "Sources," so it seems to me that any book, article or website referenced in the footnotes has contributed enough to the article to be included in that section. It would help the reader look the book up if it was listed in the usual place, in the usual format. To tell you the truth, the way you've listed it now just looks odd.
As for comprehensiveness, what do I think is missing? Well, we've established that the article replies almost exclusively on one source, but that there are a lot of other sources available. These include: 1) the 2002 Victorian Studies article, 2) Linebaugh, who might have more to say, 3) Hibbert, 4) Defoe, 5) Ainsworth, 6) a rather interesting discussion of Sheppard's role in the so-called "Newgate novels," which I've just found here, and 7) any of the rather impressive list of sources cited therein. You're right in saying that Defoe and Ainsworth are useless as reliable sources for Sheppard's actual life, but they are very relevant to the "Legacy" section. While it's incorrect to draw conclusions based on primary sources, they do provide excellent illustrations for an article, and I'm sure that the Defoe, at least, would provide some pithy quotes. MLilburne 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[← Returning to the left margin]

I am sorry: I still disagree - I don't think every work mentioned in passing in the footnotes needs to be added as a reference. Would you rather that I removed the footnotes that include helpful information, such as links to Gutenberg versions, IMDb articles and ISBNs for items mentioned in the article? I repeat - they are not references: they are just pointers for additional information. As for articles that use a similar style, how about Dürer's Rhinoceros (now brought to you in featured versions in German and Spanish, and a FAC in French).

Thanks for the additional article: it was interesting. It is more about the reaction to Ainsworth's work as a melodrama/Newgate novel (a juicy redlink for someone, there) than about Sheppard per se, but I will add some extra sentences to the "Legacy" section in due course. The article provided by Bishonen will also help in this regard (it is also more about the reaction to the fictionalised account in Ainsworth's novel than the facts of the historical person). I would not want to give undue weight to later fiction based around the life of the real Jack Sheppard. (How much about Shakespeare's Richard III would you exect in an article about the King?)

To repeat: the article does not rely "almost exclusively on one source" - it is fundamentally based on two very good sources, substantially augmented from a third, plus snippets from a few others. I have read the Defoe "History", which does not add much to the article as it stands (understandably, as the secondary sources will already have used it); the "Narrative" may be more interesting (if anyone can point me to a version; again, I expect the sources already cited will have taken it fully into account). I may read Ainsworth for interest, but I doubt it is going to add much more. I don't have copies of Linebaugh or Hibbert, and don't see that they are essential - do you really think they are going to add anything material to the article as it stands? Finally, there are already a number of illustrations. What more would you like to see pictured? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I follow the same practice as ALoan and don't repeat in the references all the books cited in the notes. There are subtle reasons for that which are difficult to put into words for someone without the feel for it. However, I believe MLilburne's objections might be met easily enough by the addition of a "Further Reading" section beneath the References section, in which could be listed books etc. mentioned (or even unmentioned) in the article that do not appear in the References list.--qp10qp 13:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have added some snippets from Defoe's History and added it as a reference. I could not find too many juicy quotes, and I am sure he made up the reported speech anyway, but what he said people said is at least verifiable. Linebaugh has gone in as a reference (I'm sure the anon read him even though I have not). Hibbert has gone in as "further reading" - Geogre will add some references in due course I hope, and I will expand legacy a little when I have time in the next few days. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly get behind the idea of a "Further Reading" section. Should Howson be listed in Further Reading rather than References? It doesn't seem to be cited in the article.
I'll be keeping an eye on the article over the next few days, as some of my concerns have been addressed, but I'd like to see how it develops before striking my objection. MLilburne 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Geogre's parts came from Howson, even if there are no inline citations, so it ought to be in "References", I think. Some Victoriana should be added today, when I have time. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article, and best read I've had in a while. It must be fun writing sentences like "Sheppard was arrested a third time at Blueskin's mother's brandy shop in Rosemary Lane on 23 July by Wild's henchman, Quilt Arnold". I don't see any problem with the sourcing: about a small subject like this, the facts are finite, and I doubt any significant extra ones would be unearthed from sources other than Sheppard's recent biographer.
Linebaugh's views are peculiarly odious; if we must have them, may they not be buried among the clinker at the bottom instead of obtruding where they do?
By the way, it is mentioned Hogarth could have remembered Sheppard in Industry and Idleness, but is that not our boy a-dangle upstage in the sheet illustrated here? --qp10qp 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Linebaugh's views were inserted by an anon here. I don't care much whether they stay or go, although it is an interesting alternative view. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that they should stay, as they are relevant whether one agrees with them or not. Just one point: the citation should be at the end of the paragraph on Linebaugh, not right after his name. MLilburne 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was where I put the citation in the first place: someone else moved it. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linebaugh is ... making a point, as it were. I agree/d that the view should stay. The anon originally had a good deal more, as I recall, and we needed to trim it some. My problem is that, as a New Historicist, he's a reactive analysis, and I hate handing people strong readings (Harold Bloom's term for antagonistic/analytic/"deconstructive" readings) before they have the basic reading under their belts, and I always figure our first task is to lay down the dull first principles. Geogre 11:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the inevitable prose nitpick or two:
    • Is it possible to break up the "arrests and escapes" section with a subheading or two for navigability?
    • In the lead it says his arrests "were part of the downfall" of Jonathan Wild, but with no specifics; though this is explained in Wild's article, it could use a bit more explanation here.
    • "a ban, at least in London, on licensing any plays" - slightly confused, for two reasons. 1) Is it not clear from the source whether the ban extended outside London? 2) Forgive my ignorance, but what does it mean to "license" a play? (Also - this same phrase is repeated in the legacy section.)
    • "...but then began to be led astray" - not much dispute that he was astray, but the phrase still sounds moralizing.
    • Lead says "little more than a year" of his apprenticeship left, but the early life section says he served five out of the seven years, and the arrests section says he had "less than two years" left. These aren't necessarily inconsistent, but the descriptions are a little sloppy.
    • In the paragraph about Linebaugh, Foucault's "Great Confinement" is mentioned - if this is going to be referenced here, it could use a bit more description, though it gets a little fleshing out in Foucault's article. Having only a stereotyped set of mental associations with Foucault, I wasn't sure if the term was referring to actually putting people in jail or to some sort of foggy sociological phenomenon that happened to get that label.
    • "Wild and Field gave evidence against him at the Old Bailey" - "Old Bailey courthouse"? Some context is useful for the clicking-impaired.
    • "also preventing a plan to take his body to a doctor to be revived." - a bit confused again; even if it took him a long time to die, why would anyone plan to revive him in the middle of his execution? Opabinia regalis 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I have looked at your nitpicks and made some changes which I hope deal with them. I am not sure if the subheads are quite right; it is not entirely clear (to me, at least) whether there was a ban outside London (plays required a licence from the Lord Chamberlain until the Theatres Act 1968); and the dates are reasonbly clear, I hope (indenture for 7 years in April 1717; off the rails in late 1722/early 1723 - more than 5 years in, less than 2 to go; first crime in Spring 1723, little more than a year to go; left his master in August 1723. I may be falling foul of New Style/Old Style issues, of course). Further comments welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the subheads, though I won't cry if you take them out again; even with the images, that section is a very long block of text without them, and scrolls on for several screenfuls at low resolution. But making them consistently nouns (not "arrested and escaped twice") would read more cleanly. The dates themselves seem internally consistent; it's just the text estimates that sound a bit odd (just reading the text without keeping the specific dates in mind, it's not clear whether "less than two years" is a rephrasing of "little more than a year", or meant to refer to a larger gap of time). I'm still not clear on why there was a plan to take him to the doctor; was that normally done when someone took a long time to die during an execution? Or was it an attempted concession to the crowd? Lastly, one minor question: is "Edgworth Bess" really spelled without the second 'e'? Opabinia regalis 03:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and I apologize for being virtually vanished as this process has been underway. I have Road to Tyburn and Albion's Fatal Tree and others, so I can provide full MLA citations easily enough. The only difficult to cite sections are the ones about later usages of the Sheppard story. It's really shadowy, which plays ran when and for how long and didn't run, etc., and especially the film probjects. I will go through and try to add/note/support what's there presently. This article is a companion to the well-loved Jonathan Wild article, and I originally got involved only because what had been present had been wrong and come from some wide-eyed sources. Geogre 11:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Geogre - any additional notes that you can add will be gratefully received. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - the narrow range of sources is worrying. Is it not possible to cite from contemporary newspaper articles, published legal proceedings etc for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PocklingtonDan (talk • contribs) 14:24, 1 February 2007
    • But the primary sources have been recycled by the secondary sources, so Moore would have effectively cited and covered them. Wikipedia articles in general rely on good secondary sources, not primary ones. However, this is an easy objection to meet, and I could quite easily sprinkle some quotes from contemporary newspapers and pamphlets into the article and plump out the references, if you like, though it wouldn't alter the substance. I'll have a go at doing such a thing later on today, if ALoan doesn't mind, since I'd be upset if this article failed FA on counts of window dressing. qp10qp 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was away again unexpectedly. Thanks for adding some more choice quotes. The article is based on sources which are themselves based on the primary sources anyway (Defoe's "History" and "Narrative" and the newspaper account, already linked, for example). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no real need for the additions, of course, because the secondary sources already covered the primary sources. It's just rearranging the deckchairs, and opening a few out. I've been enjoying myself, though; the History is a lovely read, is it not? And Linebaugh is much better than I expected from the garbled, pretentious version of his views we had here. I'd be surprised if the article failed to make FA: it seems to me admirably reliable for the documented events (I challenge anyone to read one of the primary sources and find anything in it that substantially contradicts the present account). Very well done. qp10qp 18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blush, well, thanks. I would not bet my pension on 100% accuracy (particularly given the nature of some of the original sources) but I trust the ensemble is reasonably reliable. The sermon is at the end of the first external link too, by the way [1] ("mount the chimney of hope, take from hence the bar of good resolution, break through the stone wall of despair and all the strong holds in the dark entry of the valley of the shadow of death ... fix the blanket of faith with the spike of the church; let yourselves down to the turner's house of resignation and descend the stairs of humility"(!)) . -- ALoan (Talk) 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I quoted the extract through Mackay and removed the word "pulpit" because he suggests the sermon was remembered from a street preacher. I don't know if Mackay was right, or if there were other sermons (the plural may here stand for the exemplary singular). I've no idea how official the street preachers were in those days; these days they strike me as decidedly manic. qp10qp 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a really good article on a fairly obscure subject. It doesn't surprise me that it leans heavily on one or two secondary sources. That can't be avoided with some subjects. Well done. — Brian (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing other than to wait--sometimes it takes me a little while to make up my mind! I've switched to support now. It's an excellent article, and everyone who's worked on it has done a great job. I hope there are no hard feelings as a result of my original opposition... I think it's improved by leaps and bounds since it was nominated. MLilburne 10:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lovely - thanks :) No, no hard feelings - I agree that the article has improved substantially since it was nominated, which is largely due to contributions by other supporters here, for which also my thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional; if you'll expand your websources (IMDB and Trial summary) to reflect full biblio info—including last access date— I'll support. Also, wondering why you reduced size on Notes twice—to pick on people with poor eyesight? <grin> Would you mind just replacing all of that "stuff" in Notes with {{reflist|2}}, which accomplishes the double column, single size reduction more efficiently? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re references, I just usually add <references/> - I am not too concerned at how is displays as long as the information is there - but have switched to {{reflist|2}} on your suggestion. I have also switched to the {{imdb title}} template and added "retrieved" dates - better? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jack_Sheppard&oldid=1078801664"