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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2017 [1].

---

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Davison was an interesting woman. Highly intelligent (Oxford educated in the time before women were awarded degrees), she joined the militant suffragette movement in 1906 and became one of the more active and high profile of its members. Always with an eye for high-profile activities to promote the cause, three of her arrests followed her hiding in Parliament over night.she is, of course, best known nowadays for her death following being struck by a horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby. Elizabeth Crawford, a historian who has written extensively on Davison, has been kind enough to read the article and to provide comments, directions and corrections where necessary; Dr June Purvis, another notable contributor to the literature about Davison, has also agred to read through the article, and I am awaiting any comments she comes up with. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A quick update: June Purvis has got back to me with warm comments on the article. There is one addition to make regarding the suicide, which I will do shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add and fill infobox. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that would be advantageous. There is no requirement to have one, and this article has been without one for some time, without any loss of understanding of the subject. Are there any thoughts you have on the body of the article? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the peer review --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts there; they were much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per my comments at the peer review, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your earlier assistance. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for taking on such an important topic.

• I find the ordering of the lead a bit odd; jumping from talking about her funeral to her early life is a bit odd. I understand your desire to have her death in the first paragraph; I think I'd be inclined to do it a little more like this, but it's up to you.
• Similar comment: I personally like infoboxes, but understand the concerns about them, and have no great objection to this article not including one.
• "Emily was the third child born to the couple; she had an elder brother, and a younger sister who died of diphtheria in 1880 at the age of six." An elder brother, a younger sister, and another elder sibling? Slightly confusing?
• "After her release she wrote to the Votes for Women newspaper "Through my humble work in this noblest of all causes I have come into a fullness of job and an interest in living which I never before experienced."" I can't help but feel that there are a couple of words missing, here. How about "After her release she wrote to the Votes for Women newspaper, saying that "Through my humble work in this noblest of all causes I have come into a fullness of job and an interest in living which I never before experienced.""
• "her suffragette colleague, Constance Lytton threw hers first," This doesn't read as well as it could. How about "a suffragette colleague—Constance Lytton—threw hers first,". Relatedly, it might be nice to note whether Lytton was jailed for her actions.
• Perhaps you could introduce Votes for Women as the WSPU's newspaper on its first mention?
• "for The Suffragette—the official newspaper of the WSPU—" So what was the relation between The Suffragette and Votes for Women?
• "35 miles (56 km) an hour" Would per hour not be more accurate?
• "as at 2017" of?
  • I think "as at" is the correct British version of the American "as of"; perhaps I could ask Tim riley to comment on this point to clarify? -SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the moment, yes, but the American usage will displace the English one before long, I fear (cf "on So-and-So Street" rapidly supplanting the long-established "in So-and-So Street"). Tim riley talk 21:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Collette also sees a more current trend in historians, "to accept what" Is that comma necessary?
• Could something about her Christianity be added to the lead? It was a surprise to see it first mentioned so far down the article. (Same for socialism, actually.)
• I wonder if it might be worth mentioning some key biographies/other texts foscussed on Davison in the legacy section? And who was the playwright for Emily?

• The playwright's name added; let me think on the first point. I've added it for some articles I've written, and not for others, and I'm always in two minds about them. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I quite understand the choice to place the paragraph on socialism in the "Legacy" section rather than the "Approach and analysis" section.

My first impression is that this is an excellent article, and one that will prove a highly valuable resource for readers. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Josh. Unless mentioned above, your comments have all been acted upon in these edits. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Highly commendable. I'm watching the page and may chip in with further thoughts, but I am happy to offer my support in the mean time. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Josh - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I often pass the house where she recovered from her hunger strikes. It feels wrong for me not to review this...

• I don't see a link to Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom. Would the link Women's suffrage in the first sentence be a good one to replace with the more specific UK article?
• After a church service in Bloomsbury, her coffin was taken by train to the family plot in Morpeth, Northumberland. -> I'm not convinced this is important enough to be included in the lead
• The lead doesn't say anything about her controversial position in the WSPU
• Maybe one to think about: add to the lead when the UK women were allowed to vote
  • Let me think about this one. The final decision to grant suffrage was less to do with ED and more to so with Emmeline Pankhurst's strategy during the war, and the war itself. SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• she went to a day school then -> I would add a comma: she went to a day school, then
• When she was 13 she attended Kensington High School and won a bursary -> was she 13 when she won a bursary?
• Activism: is there no source that says anything relevant in the lead up to joining the movement? Or why the WSPU and not the non-militant
  • No, there is no information on why she joined, or why she joined the WSPU, rather than the NUWSS. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Activism: Just one sentence on the start of the suffrage movement in the UK would be good for context. When did the NUWSS start?
  • I'm not sure we need to go back as far as that. We've got the start date of the WSPU, which is the key one, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• which prompted Sylvia Pankhurst -> bit of context here would be good, that she is a founding member of WSPU
  • She wasn't the founder - Emmeline was, but I've added some context for SP. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• publicising her message to the wider public -> is there anything on how that public responded to this?
  • Not to Davison. There is to themiltant campaign in general. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Davison was not one of the 122 people arrested -> was she part of the 300 women with the petition?
  • It appears not. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Jones suffered a -> I wonder if it flows better if details of what happened to Emily come first. Move the bit about Jones to maybe after the queen's comment?
• the Derby or walking -> and instead of or?
• A flag was gathered ...measures 82 by 12 inches (210 x 30 cm) -> I don't think this is in the right spot. It breaks the flow of what happened. Not sure if it even warrants proper mention. Maybe better off as footnote?
  • With apologies for butting in on someone else's review, maybe the information about the flag could be moved to the legacy section? The fact that it hangs in the Houses of Parliament, whatever its provenance, is important. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries about butting in. Yes, I agree that is important. Not sure about all the auction stuff though.Edwininlondon (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's best left where it is. The 'flag on horse' theory is widely known, and we deal with it all in one paragraph here; ditto the choice of the king's horse, which we do in the next paragraph. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Interesting to read you have enlisted experts to help. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Edwininlondon. Unless I've commented otherwise, I've dealt with your points in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Edwininlondon. No rush, just making sure this didn't fall off your radar. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view. It gives the reader a balanced, comprehensive study of the subject. The sourcing is impressive and the text is highly readable. I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 21:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Tim - your earlier comments were most useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "studied at Royal Holloway College, London, St Hugh's College, Oxford, and the University of London": which college at the University of London? By the time she graduated, Royal Holloway would have become part of the university. Was it there?
  • Yes, it was. It is probably slightly misleading to have it and Holloway there, so I've removed it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "£20 in 1892 equates to approximately £1,961 in 2017 pounds": approximately, to four significant figures? I am always dubious that to the nearest pound inflation calculations are actually as meaningful as the level of precision implies at >100 year remove.
  • Agree - I've rounded it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Was there any particular reason that Davison was targetting Walter Runciman in 1909? It is striking that she tried to throw stones at him twice in two weeks...
  • Clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Davison spent a night in the Palace of Westminster in June 1911.[22]" it is not clear to me what the relevance of this footnote is...
  • Tweaked slightly. We make a big deal of the other two stays in Parliament, and state that she stayed there three times, so we have to refer to it, even though the sources don't really give many details. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Currently the article implies that the only difference in eligibility to vote after the Representation of the People Act (1918) was the age difference (21 for men vs. 30 for women). Might be worth making it clear that the property qualification for male voting was abolished in 1918.
  • Yep, added. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all really nitpicky little details, though, and I'm happy to support promotion as the article is now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Caeciliusinhorto. Very useful comments, and I've acted on them all, hopefully to your satisfaction. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this review close to a month later, I just wanted to explicitly note for the closing co-ord that I agree with SchroCat's decision not to change the lead as Vanamonde suggests. I don't find the way it is currently presented jarring at all, and not mentioning the manner of Davison's death in the first paragraph of the lead – the thing she is best known for today to the general public – would, in my opinion, be jarring and confusing to readers. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Recused as coordinator for this one (I was just looking through, and this caught my eye!). An excellent, comprehensive article which I think gives the context particularly well. Just a few very minor points which do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Suicide attempt: We give her description of what happened, but this makes it a little vague. "as soon as I got out I climbed on to the railing and threw myself out to the wire-netting" does not make it clear where she was or what the wire netting was. I'm assuming inside the prison, but I think we can make it clearer as not everyone will know what a British prison would have looked like before WW1.
  • Yep, good point. I've added a short explanation before the quote, which should cover it. Let me know if you think it needs more. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Davison towards the end of her life, showing the effects of hunger strikes and force feeding": This is a caption for the photograph which says it shows her near the end of her life. But I think we need a source to give the interpretation that she is showing the effects of hunger strikes and force feeding.
  • Yep, added - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• We give an overview of modern opinion of her, mentioning the plaques, etc, but I wonder is there anything more to be said about how views of her have changed. Obviously, she was a pariah when she died for daring to interrupt a horse race but she is now officially "approved". How and when did this opinion of her change? And has anything been said recently about her place in the grand scheme of things? We talk about how the tide turned for the suffragettes but we avoid saying how much of how little Davison and her death played a part in this. (I know some of these are unanswerable and that the reply might simply be "no idea", but I just felt the questions should be asked!)
  • I'm afraid I'm going with the 'no idea' answer! It's not a point the modern sources pick up on: it's just taken that it is. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Activism section, we have four consecutive paragraphs that begin with a date. Perhaps a little variety could be added here?
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The images do not have alt text. I am aware it is not a requirement, but I always feel that FAs should demonstrate best practice.
  • Argh - my constant blind spot (no pun intended). I'll sort those now. -SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now done - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Just for the record, this is one of the first articles I've seen for a while where there are no duplinks! Which can only be a good thing. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Sarastro1 - you're thoughts are much appreciated. All done 9except fo thealt text, which I'll do now) - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: I checked to see what academic literature was available on Davison, just to see what was out there, only to discover that everything I found was in here already! All sources high quality, no question, so we are clear on 1b) and 1c). I have not performed any spot checks. Just two minor formatting points. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 19 (Pankhurst 2013, 6363) does not make it clear what the number refers to. Is it a page or a kindle location?
• In the source list, the Gullickson article does not give page numbers while all other journal articles do. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the SR too: both these now addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I very much welcome this article on a notable pioneer in the women's suffrage movement, and hope to see it as TFA on a suitable date. My concerns were raised and answered during the peer review, and the article has benefitted since then from other comments made in this review. So I have no hesitation in adding my support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Brian - I found your earlier comments extremly useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive work here, just a few minor comments. Feel free to revert any tweaks I make. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the phrase "where she was more settled" a bit vague. If no detail is available, you might omit it altogether.
  • I think it's probably OK - she was more settled there than her previous place, which is fine. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• About the descriptor "militant", particularly in the first paragraph of "activism"; I agree that the word is necessary, but I'm not certain it needs to be used three times in the paragraph. It would also be helpful, given the current tendency to throw the term around, to explain in a sentence what actions made those women militant, rather than just saying that they were.
• Is obstruction, in the legal sense, something that could be linked?
  • Not really. The closest things we have is this (which is what obstructing a police officer directs to), which is utterly unhelpful and quite misleading. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Actions of throwing stones": action?
• "before the police managed to stop her." unclear who the "her" is.
• "She used her court appearances" Again, "she" is ambiguous, as Lytton was the last one mentioned.
• "publicising her message to the wider public." Slightly redundant?
• I wonder if the sentence beginning "A question was asked" might flow better as "Davison's treatment prompted such and such to ask a question.."
• "have brought the vote to a million women" I think slightly more detail may be helpful here; as I read it I wonder "what about the other women?"
  • I think we would be in danger of swamping too much superfluous detail into what is supposed to be a biography of Davison: the link to the Conciliation Bill is there if people want to find out more. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the link it does not seem that way: all you need to say is "property owning women" or something like that.
    • OK, I've added, but it's slightly misleading in such a bald way, as there are other criteria involved too. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "the WSPU put in a temporary truce on activity" better as "the WPSU temporary halted its activity"?
  • Let me mull on this one. "Truce" is what the WSPU called it, and what the reliable sources tend to call it too. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. It's a very odd phrase, but not, as far as I can tell, incorrect.
• "Davison was not one of the 122 people arrested, but was incensed by the treatment of the delegation and broke several windows in the Crown Office in parliament. She was arrested and sentenced to a month in prison..." So she was arrested: was it later? I'm guessing some chronological information is missing here.
• "12 in The Manchester Guardian between 1909 and 1911." But this is before the campaign you mention...
• "the home straight" could this be linked? Most readers are unlikely to be acquainted with horse racing.
• Collete needs to be named in full at the first usage.
  • We sort of do - it's in a footnote that would have been dropped down on from one of the earlier sections, but I've repeated the information in the main body. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no knowledge of the source material; does any of it discuss her impact on the movement as a whole, an aspect not really mentioned in the article?
  • Nothing prior to her death; after her death we get the 'suffragette martyr' angle (which we cover), but the First World War and WSPU truce bring an end to any longer impact she may have had. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I was under the (possibly uninformed) impression that her profile rose because of the manner of her death; is this true? Is it worth mentioning?
  • Profile with who? She was well-known within suffragette circles, and her profile rose hugely to the general public on the point of her death because the news of her death was in the worldwide press, but we sort of cover this anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I had some concerns about lack of coverage in some other places, but I see you have addressed those above.
• I'm a trifle dissatisfied with the lead. I think it ought to mention her writings, for one thing; for another, it seems to jump back and forth a bit. A format I've seen used with success elsewhere is to have a brief first paragraph merely to establish who the subject was and what their claim to notability is, followed by one or two paragraphs for biographical details, and a final paragraph for legacy/influence/assessment. Your final paragraph seems fine, but for the rest we're going "Intro-activism-early life-activism" which is a bit odd. Of course, this is all optional, as there aren't guidelines for the lead beyond the basics.
  • We go 1: details and notability; 2 & 3: reflecting the same run as the article - Biography, Approach and analysis and Legacy. It's a format I've used several times before with biographies, and the lead repeating the same order as the article seems a sensible one

Many thanks for your comments. If I have not commented on a specific point above it's because I have dealt with it in one of these edits. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck most of my comments. Let me think a little further on the lead: I still think stone-throwing coming before college and joining the WPSU is strange. There's a couple of other points. Vanamonde (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's to do with her notability. The first paragraph sums up everything someone who wants to learn about her in 30 seconds: her militant tactics are a key attribute to her notability; her attendance at university is not. As you say, there are no hard and fast rules on the the order of the lead, and the approach I've used is a recognised one. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I have thought further about the lead, and I am still rather unhappy about it. I accept your point that the fact that Davison was a militant activist is important to her notability, and I am okay with the second sentence being given over to that. But, in that scheme of things I would strongly suggest crafting a new second sentence referring to her militant activism, and breaking the rest of the paragraph off to be inserted with her activities with the WPSU. I appreciate that you have somewhat more experience with FAs than I do, but even as somebody who has read a lot of political biography, I find the lead hard to follow. Not only is her activism broken up; information about her death is in three different places; information about her ideology is in two different places. This is roughly how I would organize it. Vanamonde (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I will have a closer look later, but my first impression is deeply unfavourable. Davison is notable because of the manner of her death - something the sources all agree upon. If we remove that from the opening paragraph then we do the readers a great disservice. I find the opening parargraph of your auggested version rather anaemic in not actually telling us why she was important. I'll have a closer look at the remainder of the suggestion a bit later, but RL intervenes this afternoon. – SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Take your time. FWIW, I'm happy for you to mess with that second sentence: it's more the rest of the shuffling that I wanted. Additionally, I do think that if her death is what she is primarily known for, and that is why you feature it prominently in the lead, then you should say so; "she came to national attention for the manner of her death after stepping out in front..." or something to that effect. Vanamonde (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We can't say that because it's not true. She is notable to history because of the manner of her death. - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Then say that. The typical "why are they notable" sentence is self-evident; this one is not. Vanamonde (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No. There is no need to spoon feed readers as if they are children. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not going to support this, because I am unhappy with the lead. It is scattered and incoherent; it's structure is such that details of Davison's militant activities come early in the lead to no purpose. Intentionally or otherwise, in my view this perpetuates a problem in coverage of civil rights movements; that of emphasizing a critique of method at the expense of purpose. I am not going to oppose this either, because most of my points have been addressed, and I'm not interested in haggling over details when the nominator has shown a marked disinclination toward taking serious feedback. The coordinators can make of my review what they will. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "...the nominator has shown a marked disinclination toward taking serious feedback". I do not accept that at all. I have accepted the majority of points in your review, and disagree only over your personal view of the lead - something about which there are no hard and fast guidelines, making it your opinion against mine only. I have said I will look over the remainder of your suggestions to the lead, and I will do so later, but I will not treat our readers as half wits or children. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was grumpier than I needed to be, and I apologize: It's been a long day. Let me amend my statement, which I have stricken above. I feel that you have an all-or nothing approach to comments; if you agree, you implement it, if you disagree, you do not. I don't think you have shown a willingness to meet me halfway on the issues on which we disagree. The rest of my comment above still applies. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an opinion I do not share, and which is not borne out by the number of your comments I have accepted, despite reservations. As it stands there are only two of your comments I have not followed through on, and I have given reasons. FAC nominators do not have to follow every suggestion if they think it does not improve the article.

Thank you for your review; it has been most useful, and I am sorry that a difference of opinion has led to the situation we find ourselves in. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I promised almost six months ago that I would never come near TFA/FAC again but feel sufficiently strongly about this FAC to make this one off exception. I have watched this interesting article develop from the early stages of the expansion, making some very minor edits before the peer review etc. The polishing and tweaking it's been given since then and during this FAC leave me in no doubt it meets the FA criteria. I disagree with Vanamonde's suggestion above concerning shuffling the lead around as I feel it presently conveys the essence and flavour of Davison, something that gets lost in the alternate wording. My only extremely minor quibble with the lead would be the second and third paragraphs both starting with the word 'Davison' but that is just one of my own pet peeves/foibles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC) I'll completely back away from TFA/FAC again now.[reply]

• Many thanks Sagaciousphil - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read this over the weekend, and found it to be a most enthralling article. I think there were one or two things I would have written differently, but I'm blowed if I can find them, so it's a support from me. I disagree with the comments about the lead, immediately after reading it I thought "this is an interesting and historical person; I want to read more" - exactly what a lead should do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Ritchie333 - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, I'm currently reading this through for the second time. It's a great article and a very smooth read. Minor question: "attempted commit suicide". Is that quoted correctly, or is it missing a "to"? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. This is an excellent read: well structured and comprehensive. Thank you for the work you put into it. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Sarah. Mea culpa on the quote - the "to" has now been added. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.