Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montague Druitt/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by DrKiernan 17:46, 9 February 2010 [1].

Montague Druitt[edit]

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Was he a Dastardly Doer of Evil Deeds, or just a cranky cricketer? DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are not mutually exclusive. I am reading to discover the truth. Brianboulton (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical review: no dab links or dead external links, alt text seems OK. A quick check of the images doesn't reveal anything obvious. JulieSpaulding 12:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that alt text is good; images also look good. Ucucha 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton (see below for support statement)

  • Images
    • Licencing information on File:Montague Druiit 2.jpg looks suspect. If we don't know who took the photograph, how can we assert "author's death plus 70 years" as a basis for non-copyright use? A 25-year-old photographer in 1888 would have been 77 in 1940 - by no means infeasible. The statement This image is in the public domain in the United States because it is an anonymous work created over 120 years ago that was published without a copyright notice and without a subsequent copyright registration and was in the public domain in its country of origin at the time of first publication is not reflected in the license, and seems more based on assumption than fact. I believe that a fair use rationale would be fully justified, if PD cannot be established.
    • Much the same can be said of the second Druitt image which also carries a "death + 70 years" licence, though fair use could only be justified for one of the images.
    • Both Druitt images carry the same caption: "M.J. Druitt". In view of the lack of information about these images—dates, circumstances etc—is it necessary to have both in the article?
  • Other issues
    • Career section: it would help the reader if there was a brief mention in this section of the alleged reasons for Druitt's dismissal from Valentine's. Although this is dealt with later in the article, the reader is left rather hanging, at this point, by the unexplained "until he was dismissed on 30 November 1888."
    • Cricket section: It should be pointed out—lest Druitt's prowess as a cricketer be exaggerated—that Dorset was not (and still isn't) a first-class county in cricketing terms. Also, a brief explanation of the Incogniti Club would be helpful (some information here). Finally, he played for, not with, the Gentlemen of Bournemouth, and the phrasing "and bowled 5 out of the 10 wickets in the first innings" is inauthentic cricket reporting. I would suggest: "and took five wickets in the visitors' first innings."
    • Death section
      • New section should not start with "His"
      • "Stones placed in Druitt's pockets..." suggests involvement of a third party. "Placed" should be removed.
      • Having established that Druitt received little by way of a legacy from his father, and was forced to supplement his barrister's earnings by schoolmastering, it is curious that his personal estate was as large as reported. Has any explanation for this been offered?
    • Jack the Ripper suspect: "There are, however, serious problems with theorising on such circumstantial evidence." This needs to be presented in a more neutral manner, e.g. "Whitehead and Rivett, in their history of the Ripper murders, have pointed out serious problems with theorising on such circumstantial evidence."

An interesting, low-key addition to this grisly Whitechapel series. I will have no difficulty in supporting when the above issues are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've already made an extensive search for details of the image. I don't feel as if there's anything further I can add or do, within the bounds of a volunteer project. I've changed the license tag to accord with the position in the United Kingdom, where copyright on the image, as an unpublished anonymous work, expired in 1959 at the latest. I'm assuming that as I cannot find a registration in the States and it was first published when in the public domain in its source country that it is also public domain in the States. If it isn't then I'll remove it. I don't think strict image reviewers will accept that it can be used in fair use as it isn't necessary to see a picture of him to understand his life, so it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8.
  • I'm not expert enough on US copyright law to know if you are assuming the US position correctly, so we must await more expert advice. However, I think in a biographical article on a long-dead person where no free images are available, a fair use rationale would normally be acceptable. In understanding a subject's life it helps a lot to know what he/she looked like. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the close-up.
  • Dismissal moved.
  • Not a Dorset fan then? I'm only to happy to admit my ignorance of cricket. Dreadful game. Changed the cricket report as suggested. Thanks. What do you have in mind with regard to Dorset and the Incogniti?
  • Well, we don't want to alienate the Dorset readership by describing their county as second-class, so we could let that one go. As for Icogniti, a short descriptive phrase, e.g. "a gentlemen's touring team" should suffice.
  • Changed by moving the dismissal.
  • Removed "placed".
  • No, but one minority view I read on the internet (so not included in the article) is that he was not as unsuccessful a lawyer as people make out.
  • Changed to "Other Ripper authors, however, point out..." [2] DrKiernan (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: On the basis that the image question will be sorted out one way or another, and seeing that my other (pretty minor) concerns have been addressed, I'm ready to support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks for the review and suggestions. DrKiernan (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • Current ref 22 (Blackheath Cricket Club..) needs a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I enjoyed reading this a lot. Just a few quibbles:
  1. We need a publication date for File:Montague Druiit 2.jpg to show that it was published long enough ago that it's now PD.
  2. Would be nice to see some of the images a little larger than thumb size (e.g. Winchester is very small on my screen).
  3. I'm not keen on the lead. It seems hesitant, a little jerky. I'd like to see it fleshed out just a little with better flow.
  4. :I edited the lead a little to show what I mean, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, please feel free to revert. [3]
  5. "He played cricket and rugby for the college team, and was the winner of both double and single fives at the University of Oxford in 1877." We know he was at the university. Just "for the university in 1877" would do.
  6. Do pounds needs to be converted to dollars? I'm never sure of which things need conversion and which don't.
  7. "it seemed bound to create discontent": you need to say who you're quoting.
  8. "the total of the legacies in his will exceeded the value of the estate" and "In a codicil, Druitt senior had instructed his executors to deduct any money he had advanced to his son from the legacy of £500" -- what does that mean exactly?
  9. You have the dismissal and disappearance in the Cricket section, where it comes as something of a surprise.
  10. "One theory speculates": theories don't speculate.
  11. Looking at Google, there seem to be quite a few sources out there that aren't used e.g. Ripper Suspect: The Secret Lives of Montague Druitt by D.J. Leighton. [4] And I saw a claim that he was associated with the Cambridge Apostles, which sounds unlikely given that he went to Oxford but it's possible, I suppose. Are these sources unreliable?
  12. According to Robin Odell, Ripperology: a study of the world's first serial killer and a literary phenomenon, p. 90, Druitt's gravestone in Wimborne says he died on December 4. Is that a mistake? Actually, thinking about it, no one could know, except perhaps for the December 1 train ticket issue that a few sources allude to, which I don't think you mention. I'm getting the impression that there's a fair bit of detail out there that you haven't included.
  13. Some problems with flow e.g. repeating Druitt's name in successive sentences instead of "he". "On 30 November 1888, Druitt was dismissed ... One newspaper reported that Druitt "had got into serious trouble" ... In early December 1888, Druitt disappeared ... On 31 December 1888, Druitt's body was found ... Stones in Druitt's pockets ..."

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The argument for PD is on the file page. I have no further information.
  2. For people using other screens, the images might then be too large. I prefer to stick to the default parameters which are judged to be the best for most viewers. I have removed the "upright" parameter though.
  3. Fine.
  4. Changed.
  5. Conversion to dollars is not necessary in this instance.
  6. They are Tom Cullen's words. No-one else's. Removed. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Druitt senior advanced money to Montague during his legal training. This money was to be deducted from the legacy. I have re-phrased.
  8. Moved.
  9. Fixed.
  10. Leighton and Stephen are included.
  11. Death date changed; footnote added. Contents of his pockets added. DrKiernan (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responses:
  • I think you need a publication date if you want to use that image. Images on WP must be in the public domain in the U.S. There are a number of ways to show that, e.g. published before 1923, or not copyrighted in the country of origin on January 1, 1996. But I believe they all involve knowing when it was published. Does the licensing information in the books you cite on the image page not say something? There is usually a page at the beginning or end that lists permissions. Alternatively you could write to the authors.
  • Actually, that may not be right. From WP:PD: "Works having seen their original U.S. publication on or after March 1, 1989 (with or without copyright notice or registration) are protected until 70 years after the author's death (70 years p.m.a.); anonymous works, works made for hire, works of unknown authors or where the author's death date is unknown are copyrighted until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since their creation." So if this is an unknown author, it would be PD from 2008 at the latest. But if the author is known, that would change. I'll strike the objection.
  • Could you address the issue of comprehensiveness? I get the impression that there is a fair bit of material out there about him that you didn't include. If this were a long article I could understand that, but it's short so it would seem sensible to include anything significant that reliable sources have published. Do they all agree, for example, that he is not a serious suspect?
  • I think the train ticket belongs in the text, not a footnote, and it needs a source.
  • "seemed bound to create discontent" needs in-text attribution of some kind; otherwise it's just a dangling phrase with no clear reason for being in quotation marks. Same with "no evidence whatever," "outrageous fantasies," and any others.
  • "was the winner of both double and single fives at the university in 1877" -- did he play for the university? "At" is not clear. People generally play within the university for their colleges, or for the university against other universities, and the difference tends to be a stark one at Oxbridge in terms of quality, which is why it's worth pinning down.SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not state that all sources agree that he is not a serious suspect. It says most do. Both pro- and anti-sources are used throughout the article and I have attempted to balance them with due weight. I believe the only additional factual material is of a trivial nature such as he came third in a cricket-ball throwing contest at Winchester College. I'm not sure what else you want to add, but I get the impression that the material you want is the details of the conspiracy theories. There is a danger that by adding more and more detail of the theories the article will become unbalanced as POV-fringe views are given more weight than the majority view that these theories are groundless. His connection to the Cambridge Apostles comes through James Kenneth Stephen. I have already mentioned the Druitt-Stephen hypothesis and it's rejection. The links touted by Wilding are of the order: they were both homosexual (not proven in either case); they both went to public school (though not the same one); they were both barristers (though not at the same Inn, in the same chambers, on the same circuit, at the same assizes or sessions, or involved in the same cases or trials). His case is built on these coincidences, which is why it is so easily dismissed. Anyhow, I shall examine the possibility of adding further information to the last two paragraphs, unless it is the trivial details of his life that you want expanded.
  • I'll try to address the attribution of quotes while looking at the possibility of additional material.
  • The direct quote from McDonald is "In 1877 he won the University double and single fives." I was unable to track down further info. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At FA, an article should cover all the major issues put forward by reliable sources. A Google search shows that there are lots of interesting stories about Druitt out there that you haven't covered. If the theories are groundless in the view of reliable sources, you can make that clear -- X wrote that A, though Y and Z argue that A is groundless because ..." But the article can't simply leave out the material, or deal with it in a mealy-mouthed way. The reader has to be told what you and the sources know, believe, argue, suggest, and dismiss. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has major problems. I don't have time to go through them all right now, but for starters:

  • The article is lacking sufficient general info about the Ripper to understand the context of this person being a suspect. Most of the general information that is included is slanted and/or misleading in its brevity. For example, yes, five women were murdered. So were lots of others. Some people think only those five were linked, but just as many sources believe it was more or less than that. Any time any reference is made to "the last murder" in the article is wholly misleading, as nobody knows who the Ripper's last victim was. Some people think it was Mary Jane Kelly -- and it was apparently belief that it was and the suicide relatively around the same time period that brought Druitt up as a suspect -- but many people think there were others after her by the Ripper (invalidating the dead Druitt as a suspect) and some even think Mary Kelly was killed by someone other than the Ripper. In fact, lots of people think the sole reason Macnaghten thought Kelly was the last Ripper victim was specifically because otherwise his favorite suspect wouldn't work, and if it weren't for a lot of books releasing the information about Druitt around the same time and when there was a lack of police information being published the "canonical five" or "Macnaghten Five" victims probably never would have become as influential of an ideas as it did. Police and medical opinion was all over the map on which victims were linked together and which were not.
  • A lot of claims made in books are presented as if they were facts citing only a footnote to a book to back it up. Much in Ripperology is disputed. Sources for any claims should be cited in the body to present those claims as the beliefs of those particular authors, not to be presented as facts. Some of the sources used are pretty fringe. Some solid, dependable authors are not cited. As a particular notable example, footnoting some book by some not very well known or respected authors to try to back up the claim that m"most authorities today do not consider him a likely suspect" is pretty POV-y. Woods and Baddeley do not speak for the entire field, and most authors and researchers do not consider them anywhere near the top writers in the field. That's not to say that they are wildly out of touch on this particular statement, necessarily, but any sort of presentation about what a majority of anyone says in this field needs very solid sourcing, and that does not cut it.
  • Another example: "Consequently, it is easier for writers to concoct solutions based on a wealthy culprit rather than one based on a Whitechapel resident.[64]" That's an opinion touted as fact. This doesn't have much point in an article and is actually the opposite of reality. It's actually more difficult to concoct solutions based upon wealthy people because the more wealthy someone is the more likely they are to have been mentioned in papers or other documents in a manner that should rule them out as suspects. Nobody knows what random tramp on the street was doing day to day, but we know Druitt was far out of London not too many hours after some very important indisputable Ripper victims were killed.
  • One of the most well respected modern researchers on Druitt is conspicuously absent. Andrew J. Spallek's articles in the Ripper periodicals should be used as a source above about half of the books being cited. Spallek uncovered evidence strongly suggesting who first thought up Druitt as a suspect and passed the name along to Macnaghten, for example.
  • And there's just so much trivia thrown out, often just strung together in a choppy way, that people reading this just don't get the overall picture.
  • That said, the article itself isn't horrible (worst transgressions are acting like we know how the last victim is for sure and presenting a lot of weak sources very strongly), but it could be a lot better.

DreamGuy (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd rather just give a brief outline here. The detail of the murders is in the main article: Jack the Ripper.
    • Most authorities today do not consider him a likely suspect. How is that not factual? We have Spallek, Cullen, Farson, Howells, Skinner and Wilding saying he is. We have Vanderlinden, Rumbelow, Woods, Baddeley, Whitehead, Rivett, Frayling, Bennett, Marriott, Knight, Whittington-Egan, Leighton and McDonald saying he isn't. We also have 100 other suspects, so that's at least 100 other authorities saying that Druitt isn't the Ripper in addition to those listed. That is a majority.
    • Sir Christopher Frayling is obviously a reliable source. I see no reason to qualify his opinions when they appear to be representative of the field as a whole and are not disputed in a reliable source.
    • I've read Spallek's articles. I don't consider them reliable. His articles are in a non-peer-reviewed magazine and are not the subject of academic discourse. They are suffused with snippets hauled from the internet. His "evidence strongly suggesting who first thought up Druitt as a suspect" is the notorious Albert Bachert story told by "Dr Dutton". If I recall correctly, Evans, Skinner and Rumbelow, among others, suspect that the story was either made up by Donald McCormick for his 1959 book when he constructed his false "Dr Dutton" source or made up by "Dr Dutton" when he fooled McCormick into believing his fictions. These sources are no longer reliable and are rejected by the field at large. It might I suppose be used in the article in that context: explaining why the accusations about Druitt gained hold after 1959 and why they are now rejected. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2010 (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/Montague_Druitt/archive1&oldid=1048071560"