Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan/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 GrahamColm 17:59, 14 July 2012 [1].

Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan

edit

Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 22:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Largely unknown outside the UK, Lord Lucan's story is one of this country's most famous murder mysteries. Hours after his childrens' nanny was bludgeoned to death and placed in a canvas sack, and his wife savagely attacked, this peer of the realm vanished into the night, never to be seen again. No body was ever found, and despite numerous sightings across the world, for almost 40 years his ultimate fate has remained unknown. A regular feature of the tabloids and broadsheets, including fresh claims made only this year, his story remains as relevant now as it did all those years ago.

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN90: why no date?
  • FN2: should indicate subscription needed. Highbeam and ProQuest links should also
  • FN104: formatting
  • Further reading: an Observer article published by the Guardian? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done and done. Observer articles are routinely published on the Guardian's website. Parrot of Doom 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're sister newspapers (Observer on Sundays, Guardian during the week). BencherliteTalk 20:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Supported below very interesting article, glad to see it at FAC. Just started a read through, only a few small comments thus far, great reading:
  • Make sure the citations are in numerical order: "a keen poker player.[7][2]" should be "a keen poker player.[2][7]"
  • I don't think it's required, but you might want to add modern-day equivalents to the amounts of money you mention.
  • You might want to mention London in the first couple sections, some readers may not realize where places like Park Crescent are.
  • "Despite the family's rich ancestry, the earl and his wife were agnostics and socialists and preferred a more austere existence to that offered by Tucker, an extremely wealthy Christian." I'm a bit confused here, what did agnosticism have to do with their austere lifestyle?
  • "Her mother remarried, and when her new husband became manager of a hotel in Guildford, the family returned to England." Is the second comma here neccessary?
  • "Lucan also acquired his father's titles;" & "Much to their managers' consternation, his four bank accounts were hugely overdrawn;" should these be colons?
  • "Champion of the West Coast of America" Just check, but is this a title? If not, I don't think Champion needs to be capitalized.
  • "The pressure of maintaining his finances, his gambling addiction, and Veronica's weakening mental condition eventually took its toll" Is the serial comma intentional here? I don't think you used it earlier.
  • "Lucan also applied to the discrete" Is this the correct "discrete"?
  • "He dated his girlfriend, 21-year-old Charlotte Andrina Colquhoun, who said that "he seemed very happy, just his usual self, and there was nothing to suggest that he was worried or depressed",[50] and dined at the Clermont with Graham Hill.[51]" Just checking, this is still on the 6th?
  • "While there she met Roger Rivett and on 10 June 1967 the two married, in Croydon" Do you need the comma here?
  • "She was by then listed on the books of a Belgravia agency" I'd suggest linking Belgravia here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the citation order.
Modern-day values - I've turned that rock over once before and suffered a bit of a shitstorm because of it, so I'd rather just leave that kind of thing to those who know best.
Added a London to the first line.
Lucan was/is the son of an earl, a peer of the realm. They're all fairly blue-blooded clingers on to the monarchy's tails, who are the representatives of the Church of England. It was pretty unusual for his parents, in their day, to turn away from the church, and even more unusual for such folk to become staunch socialists. What Lucan must have thought, living with an unbelievably rich Christian and returning home to a stingy socialist agnostic, we can only speculate on. There's a good deal to be said about his parents' socialism but I think that's better placed in the 6th earl's article, lest I go off on a tangent.
I think the comma is necessary else the sentence becomes rather short of breath.
"Champion of the West Coast of America" is capitalised in the source, I'm not aware of what the title represents.
I think the first requires a colon so I've changed that; the second, I don't think it serves as an introduction so I think the semicolon is fine.
I've restructured the "pressure of" sentence as it could be better.
Fixed "discreet"
Clarified the Graham Hill bit.
Restructured the Rivett marriage bit
Linked Belgravia. Parrot of Doom 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm back. Finished my read of the article and I'm close to supporting. Easily the most interesting FAC I've read since the Tichborne case--I wish we had more featured articles like this. I typed these comments up a few days ago, so some may have already been fixed since then:
  • Watch for consistency in comma use after opening time expression, I think you might want to remove these: "On the day Veronica Lucan was discharged from hospital,", "On Sunday, the" & "In 2007, reporters in New Zealand"
I think the first is fine (I tend to read things in my head, like a newsreader would). I've reworded the Corsair sentence. Use of commas after years changes throughout the article, not on any particular rule, but rather on how easy I think they make reading those sentences. The last "In 2007," really should have a "And" or "More recently", but that would introduce a bit of repetition.
  • "67 year old judge — would believe — and I no" & "sack ...Countess runs out screaming", and "BELGRAVIA MURDER — EARL SOUGHT" I believe spaced emdashes are frowned upon.
Ah yes but they're copied verbatim from the source, which I presume has copied the formatting of the original letters (I can check this).
  • "Lucan was last seen driving a Ford Corsair similar to this" Should there be a period here?
I'm not sure. Is it a partial sentence or a complete sentence? Borderline, I'm not fussed either way though.
  • Very minor issue, but this is the WP:PLUSING: "with some officers complaining"
Good spot, reworded.
  • Is there a good way to do this sentence with less commas? "Within days of the murder, reports began to appear about Veronica Lucan's statement to the police, including claims that she had pretended to collude with her husband, to ensure her safety."
Reworded.
  • Do we need the comma here? "including a lawyer hired for Lucan, by his mother." & "Ranson later changed his view, explaining that he considered it more likely that suicide was far from Lucan's thouga
Done.
  • Is the serial comma intentional here: "Ranson later changed his view, explaining that he considered it more likely that suicide was far from Lucan's thoughts, that a rumoured drowning at sea was implausible, and that the earl had left the country and settled in southern Africa." & "his assertions make no provision for the lead pipe discovered in the boot of the Ford Corsair, the claims by some that he discussed murdering his wife, or the lack of a viable suspect for the man he claimed to have seen fighting her."
Fixed the first by rewording. The second, I think the comma works better there. It's a long sentence.
  • "His heir, George Bingham, Lord Bingham, was refused permission to take his father's title and seat in the House of Lords.[118][119]" How unusual was it for something like this to occur?
Pretty unusual yes, it's a technicality but he can't take his father's title without a death certificate. I thought it more relevant to Lord Bingham's article though.
  • I see that you have heavily cited the Ranson and Moore sources, but not used several of the non-fiction works in the further reading. Why didn't you cite more of them? (I assume there are reliability issues?)
From what I can gather from online reviews, the others either repeat what sources I've used, or are complete rubbish (Jungle Barry for instance). Ranson was the detective in charge of the murder case so his credibility is sound, Moore's book (although somewhat biased) seems quite exhaustively researched (she just seems to hate women).
It's been on television a few times. I'd love to see a dramatisation ala Moors Murders. Parrot of Doom 20:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help spotting my many mistakes :) Parrot of Doom 08:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Crisco 1492
File:Lord and Lady Lucan.jpg - You have a, er, different format, but it looks valid. Image copyright is not held by the Daily Mail so it doesn't fall afoul of our rules against using non-free press images
File:Sandra Rivett Daily Mail.jpg - The image is huge for a fair-use image. It can be further trimmed. Image copyright is presumably not held by the Daily Mail so it doesn't fall afoul of our rules against using non-free press images
Cropped and reduced. Parrot of Doom 11:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ford Consul Corsair1965.jpg looks fine.
Prose comments from Crisco 1492
  • "Veronica and her sister, Christina, were schooled at St Swithun's School, Winchester, and after displaying a talent for art, she went on to study at an art college in Bournemouth." - Might need a way to show it was Veronica who went to study at the art college (which? is it in the sources?)
Reworded.
  • Is "The earl's daily routine consisted of breakfast at 9:00 am, coffee, dealing with the morning's letters, reading the newspapers and playing the piano. He sometimes jogged in the park and, while he had him, took his Doberman Pinscher for walks. Lunch at the Clermont was followed by afternoon games of backgammon. Returning home to change into evening attire, the earl typically spent the remainder of the day at the Clermont, gambling into the early hours, watched sometimes by Veronica." necessary?
Yes, because on the day of the murder that routine changed. I don't want to say so explicitly as I've been trying hard not to risk libel (Lucan may still be knocking around).
These were huge sums of money. They're there to ram home just how close to bankruptcy Lucan was. Parrot of Doom 11:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've filled those citation requests. Parrot of Doom 09:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A gripping story, familiar to most Brits over a certain age (e.g. me). I think, however, that the article needs further work. The following is a list of points picked up during a rapid skim-through; I haven't found time yet for a detailed reading, but hope to do so soon.

  • I found the opening of the lead rather weak. The declaratory sentences should at least state that Lucan was named at the inquest as Rivett's murderer, that he never reappeared, and that he has been the subject of many false sightings in the intervening years. These are the factors that have given the case its allure.
A lead for the lead? I'm not a fan. If people can't read past the first paragraph then perhaps this article isn't for them.
That's an interesting take, but you can't choose your readers. According to WP:LEAD, the first lead sentence should define the subject and say why he/it is notable; that is how readers who know little or nothing of Lucan will be drawn in. Your present opening gives no specific connection between the Rivett murder and the peer's disappearance. I think you should make this connection explicit, even if you feel you must keep the small details in the opening paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that makes sense to me. I'm just trying not to call him a murderer, after all, he's never stood trial. I've re-edited the whole lead, how does this look? Parrot of Doom 20:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better to me, now. Brianboulton (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's far too much small detail in the first paragraph, unnecessary at this point.
See above.
  • "Richard John Bingham" becomes "John" without explanation. By the way, eldest sons of an Earl have courtesy titles, so until he inherited he would have been known as "Lord Bingham".
I considered that but, considering the article also mentions Lucan's son (who is still Lord Bingham) I decided to make things easier for your average reader. So I used John in the section where his sisters are mentioned and switched to Lucan where he begins work. Then, when he inherits the title, I use either Lucan or "the earl". His wife is known as Veronica or Lady Lucan. I've added something to "fix" the "John" problem.
  • Some of the detail in the article seems rather unnecessary, e.g. "Raphael's wife, Eve, later became godmother to Lucan's first child, Frances", and "For a while, Lucan courted Lady Zinnia Denison, although she was uninterested and the relationship remained platonic". There is quite a lot more of this kind of stuff, which pads the article but is inconsistent with the supposed "summary" style of encyclopedia articles.
By all accounts Lucan wasn't particularly interested in women until he decided he needed an heir. Denison was a rich heiress but I can't say that without implying something that might be untrue. I haven't found anything about other girlfriends.
  • You mention his banking salary of £500, but don't say where his other income came from. This was apparently around £12000 a year, a very large income for the early 1960s. And this was evidently before he inherited. Where did the money come from?
That's an important omission that I've now corrected, thanks for highlighting that.
  • "Lucan became increasingly interested in her mental well-being..." Wouldn't "concerned for" be more appropriate wording?
Depends which source you read. If you read Ranson's "he dunnit" book, Lucan was obsessed with his wife. If you read Moore's "oh poor old Lucky he'd never murder anyone, but his wife would" book, Lucan was a devoted loving husband who was incredibly upset about his wife's mental problems. I think "interested" is a fairly neutral way of putting it.
  • "two oldest children" → "two elder children"
Done.
  • The subject should not be introduced in a new section (or paragraph) by a pronoun, as in "Some months later he moved again..."
Done.
  • "The doctor's report made there proved instrumental in the two-week-long hearing, which Lucan eventually conceded." It is unclear what this sentence means.
The following sentence helps clarify this. I might be able to add more but it'd be from an online obituary, a line to the effect of "the judge was unimpressed by Lucan's character". It seems a bit of a throwaway comment though, something that I don't feel able to expand on. I might be able to find contemporary reports in the papers, I'll have a look.
The wording could be improved, e.g. "proved instrumental in the outcome of two-week-long hearing..." And if this was a decision of a court, it's surely irrelevant whether Lucan "conceded"? Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will go over both sources again and see if I can find a judgement. Parrot of Doom 20:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The case was heard in chambers (secret) so there are no contemporary news reports. I've re-read the sources and added a bit more on the judge, here Parrot of Doom 22:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abbreviations such as "DCS" need to be explained, as many readers (especially non-Brits) won't be familiar with them
Done.
  • Likewise, you shouldn't force readers to use a link to discover who John Stonehouse was.
Done
  • "More recently, responding to claims by that the two eldest Lucan children were sent to Gabon..." Something missing after "by"? Also, beginning a statement "More recently" is vague; more recently than when?
Typo, done. Many Wikipedia articles are full of "In 2005, ", "In 2007, ", "In 2012, " - I hate it. I think using a bit of shorthand is a good replacement, these types of biography necessarily end with online sources and become breeding grounds for every new mention made. Parrot of Doom 09:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to provide more comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I find these criticisms to be the most valuable, I've written this single-handedly so the more keen eyes, the better! Parrot of Doom 09:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments on the first half of the article, mainly smallish quibbles:-

Lead
  • "he called his mother to collect the children..." I'd specify "telephoned", and add "asking her to collect..."
Done.
Early life and education
  • "on their return in February 1945" → "on their return to England in February 1945"
Done.
  • What is the relevance of the earl's agnosticism in the context provided? ("Despite the family's rich ancestry, the earl and his wife were agnostics...") And why is Tucker's religious belief noted?
See my answer to Mark Alsten at the top.
  • "At Eton..." I suggest you give a date for his arrival at the school, to maintain the chronology.
Unfortunately this isn't available to me.
  • Second lieutenant can be linked
Done
Career
  • There's a bit of a gap between 1955 and the meeting with Raphael in 1960. Do we assume that Lucan quietly pursued a banking career during these years? Or what else did he get up to?
Presumably he just worked, gambled and played; the sources I have aren't specific.
  • Again, we need a year for when he left Brandt's, and an indication of the timescale covered in the second paragraph
I only have an approximate year but I've added it.
Marriage
  • "Christina's marriage to the wealthy William Shand-Kydd introduced her to London society's elite, and it was at a golf-club function in the country that she and Lucan first met." The "she" refers to Veronica, surely.
Done.
  • "News of their engagement..." It's that pronoun thingy again
I'm happy with that - at the start of a new section I agree, but otherwise I think it's fine to start a paragraph with a pronoun, especially when the end of the previous paragraph makes it clear who's who.
  • "attended by dignitaries such as Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone..." I have an aversion to "such as" followed by a single name; would prefer "attend by, among other dignitaries, Princess Alice..."
Done (although I prefer amongst).
  • Close repetition of "family home"
Done.
  • "In 1956, while still working at Brandt's, he wrote of his desire to have "£2m in the bank"..." etc. This needs to be stated retrospectively: "he had written..."
Done.
  • Why use the slang "moniker" for "nickname"? Definitely not encyclopaedic.
I hate the word nickname. Moniker is a perfectly good word. I used soubriquet in one article, sometimes it does people good to see unfamiliar or rare words.
It's a perfectly good slang word. So are "bloke" and "geezer", but you don't find them in encyclopedia articles (though I could be tempted in future). Seriously, I think you should reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, following the births of George..." etc. The "however" is not justified, as there is no direct relationship with the previous sentence. A paragraph break is probably appropriate at this point.
Leftover from an old construction, done.
Separation
  • Constructions such as "While it is true that a series of nannies were employed at the house, the reasons for this are unclear" suggest an editorial standpoint rather than the requires neutrality. I would replace this with something like: "Of the series of nannies employed at the house, one, 26-year-old Stefanja Sawicka..." etc
Yes I struggled with this - there's no doubt that 46 Lower Belgrave Street was not a particularly nice place to work, but different authors blame that on different people (there's a hidden note to that effect). There's no way we can know the truth but I think your construction works better.
  • "Frances was collected from school later in the day." Say by whom.
Unknown. Presumably Lucan but I can't say for sure.
Gambling
  • "his behaviour became worrisome" - who was worried by it?
Restructured.
  • How/when did Lucan's mother become "Lady Osborne"? (remarriage, presumably, but this should be noted.)
Lady Osborne was Aspinall's mother. I've reworded to clarify. Interestingly, the UK's present Chancellor of the Exchequer is the heir apparent to the Osborne Baronetcy. Small world...
  • "he wrote to her son" → "he wrote to Tucker's son"
Done.
  • As with Stonehouse, James Goldsmith should be identified
Done.
  • The reference to "the discreet Edgware Trust" is a bit cryptic. Despite the bankerish name, they were moneylenders.
I've been unable to find out much about them, other than they were...selective...over who they lent money to.
  • Remove the intrusive "though" at start of para 2
Rephrased.
  • The long sentence beginning "Later that day..." needs attention (two "ands")
Done.
  • Clarify that British gambling laws at the time.. required... etc. Not sure about "required" followed by "open" and "close"; perhaps "required that casinos open ... and close..."?
Restructured.
  • Another unrequired "though" after 7 November"
No I think that's fine, waking early on the 7th was a break from his routine.

Will return when I can

Much appreciated. Parrot of Doom 17:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to support, but two queries. There's something excessive about mentioning speedboat racing three or more times in the first quarter of the article. This goes to my broader query as to whether the entire article is too detailed for an encyclopedia. Fascinating and well-written though it is, it takes me rather a long time to get the full picture of Lord Lucan, as distinct from the detailed picture of the alleged murder. But in my view meets all other criteria. Happy to hear other opinions. Good job, Parrot! hamiltonstone (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many will have heard of Lucan and that he "murdered the nanny", but few people know anything about him. Ask your average man on the street (of a certain age) and he won't be able to tell you anything other than the fact that Lucan was a toff. What did he do? What was he like? What were his interests? Basically, he wanted to spend his entire life being a playboy, but didn't have the income to fund it. I think its important to write as much about the man as is available, to give people an understanding of him so that they can place the murder in context and decide if Lucan is/was guilty. It's half a biography on Lucan and half Murder of Sandra Rivett. Parrot of Doom 09:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, and it's a great article, but there's something OTT about two sentences, only a couple of paras apart, both mentioning Aston Martins and powerboat racing. It also makes one think the article is repetitive. Surely we can just have one of those sentences? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thing is, the trip to America driving an Aston Martin and boating was a separate thing from his later pursuits, boat racing around the Solent (he led a race before sinking) and trying to get a drophead coupe. Parrot of Doom 22:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning to support Just a quibble, why is Ref 138's work stylised as 'news.bbc.co.uk', its domain? Surely it is 'BBC News'. Otherwise, very comprehensive and generally well-sourced article—have a book about him from Reader's Digest, "Great Mysteries of the 20th Century" or something in the attic. - Lemonade51 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always list the publisher in that manner. For instance, if I read something at telegraph.co.uk, I know it's been published there, but I have no idea if it has also been published in print (which would be listed as Daily Telegraph). So news.bbc.co.uk tells the reader that the source is the bbc's news website. If I saw the same report, but on the television, I'd write the channel name - BBC News 24, for instance. Parrot of Doom 13:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support provided spotchecks are done. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've read this article a couple of times now. I'm not sure that enjoyable is an appropriate description, but this is a superb article and extremely readable. Any questions that occurred to me I usually found answered carefully in the next section. Just a few queries, which do not affect my support and may be cheerfully dismissed out of hand. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Skilled player" and "heavy losses" do not really seem to go together. Was he really good, or did people just say he was? Or was he extremely unlucky?
He was certainly very good but like all addicted gamblers, he chased his losses. IIRC he also played craps, which has a much greater element of risk.
  • What was the Edgware Trust, as this is a rather tantalising redlink.
A discreet institution for lending money to rich people.
  • "bludgeoned to death with a piece of bandaged lead pipe": The article does not mention that the pipe found at the scene was taped until near the end of the article. It may help to clarify this on first mention.
Done.
  • On the day of the murder, what happened to the children? Lucan sent his daughter to bed, but nothing more is heard of them until his mother collected them. Trivial, but were they left alone in the house?
The article mentions that Rivett put the two younger children to bed.
  • His wife seems to have had fairly severe injuries, and it seems from the later part of the article that she was attacked with the pipe. Perhaps this could be made clear in the part where he attacked her? Also, while this may be beyond the confines of this article, why were two pipes needed by Lucan (in that they were both "taped"), assuming he was guilty? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't only attacked with the pipe though; according to Lady Lucan, her attacker used his hands as well. I thought it best to stick only to the verifiable, as to include witness testimony as fact would be to prejudice any trial (however unlikely that might now be). As for the two pipes, that remains a mystery. Parrot of Doom 08:17, 13 July 2012 (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/Richard_John_Bingham,_7th_Earl_of_Lucan/archive1&oldid=502330584"