Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London Monster/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 April 2025 [1].

London Monster

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another footnote-to-a-footnote from history, the London Monster was as much a case of mass panic in London as it was about the man or men who attacked women, stabbing them in the buttocks, thighs or chest. This has been through a complete rewrite recently and is ready for a run at FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Some things to look at on images:

  • Captions/alts need some copy-editing ("her hear is made up"?)
  • File:Miss_Ann_Porter,_who_was_so_Barbarously_treated_by_the_Monster_(The_New_Lady's_Magazine,_1790).png is missing a US tag and the source link is dead. Ditto File:John_Julius_Angerstein_1790.jpg
Thanks Nikkimaria for a proper image review. I'll work on these shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria; all sorted, I think. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like File:John_Julius_Angerstein_1790.jpg is still missing a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't because it says on there "This photographic reproduction is ... considered to be in the public domain in the United States", but I've added one anyway, just to be sure. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

[edit]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt; all sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I reviewed the text offline at SchroCat's request before this FAC. All my comments were addressed, and having reread for FAC I have no more carps or quibbles. If I add that I prefer SchroCat's grandes dames of historic kitchens to his dodgy loonies on the streets of old London, that does not mean I think this article of anything less than FA standard. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and at least there are no corpses lying about as there tend to be after, e.g., Gog's articles. (I'm off to the latter's First Treaty of London FAC next.) – Tim riley talk 19:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I know Tim, my articles do tend to have a depressingly high body count. Plus dark snippets like the government of England selling people into slavery in the mid-17th century. But my latest offering has no such unpleasantries, being even more peaceable than this monstrosity from SchroCat. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Tim. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

Another trek through the strange annals of British history. Sign me up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "...and there were up to seven attacks in one night." It's not clear if this is once as an outlier, or frequently (given the later detail about 44 attacks between Jan and June, possibly we could clarify "toward the later portion of the spree" or something like that)
    • Also, I don't see this mentioned in the body, although it's possible I'm missing it
  • "Such was the number of attacks ... historians are unsure if the Monster was one man or several." I think it needs to be "that historians are unsure"; it reads a bit awkwardly without it
  • "Some women wore protection in the form of a copper petticoat (for the wealthy), or a cork lining or porridge pot for the less well-off." I might reword this a bit so that either both clarifications are in parentheses or neither is
Attacks
  • "The first attacks ... was in March 1788" plural not agreeing
  • I might link worsted as it's not too common a word these days
  • "started making" could be simplified to "made"
  • "narrow Jace very remarkable" narrow face? (I'm assuming wonky OCR here)
  • "They included two sisters" I would say "The victims included", because "they" right now refers to the attacks, which doesn't read quite right
  • "There was only one reported attack in February 1790 and the victim's clothes were cut, but she was physically unharmed; in mid-March Mrs Charlotte Payne, the lady's maid to the Countess of Howe, was another victim who was cut by being kneed by her assailant." This sentence feels a bit breathless. I would split it up at the semi-colon at least. You could replace "and" in the first segment with a semi-colon and replace "was another victim who was cut" with "was also cut" to tighten the prose a bit.
Arrest and trials
  • Nice concise explanation of the weirdness of the charges, I would have been very confused about the charge of damaging clothing otherwise (although it is bizarre to me that damaging clothes is a felony worth hanging and assaulting people with knives is only a misdemeanour - how things change!)
  • "There were sceptics of the conviction of Williams, including Angerstein, who was concerned about the discrepancies in the various descriptions of the attacker and several newspapers began questioning the verdict." It feels odd to move from general to specific back to general in one sentence. I might move Angerstein to his own sentence, leaving an opening sentence mentioning sceptics and newspapers.
  • "Swift's cross-examination was aggressive, and he made Ann Porter faint twice while she was on the stand and smelling salts were applied" you've got two "ands" here, it reads a bit breathlessly
  • Did the Monster attacks stop after Williams was arrested?
Media coverage
  • "There was limited newspaper coverage ... although their coverage" Coverage twice in one sentence, although I'd suggest rewriting entirely to tighten anyway. Something like "Although early coverage was limited, newspaper reports brought the matter to the attention of Angerstein." maybe?
  • "Some women began to fabricate stories of being attacked and even of injuring themselves" were they fabricating stories of injuring themselves? Or should this read something more like "a few even injured themselves"

That's all for now. I haven't read UC's comments, so these may overlap with theirs, with apologies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC: All dealt with, I hope satisfactorily! Thanks as always for your time and efforts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, looking good to me and I'm happy to support. Looking forward to the next one :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I'll drop by here; will do my best to wait my turn until the others have gone through. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be in a lull, so here's a first read-through:

  • The London Monster was the name given to an attacker of women in London between 1788 and 1790. Renwick Williams, a Welsh maker of artificial flowers, was arrested in June 1790, given two trials and sent to Newgate Prison for six years. The Monster's modus operandi: there is, strictly, a non sequitur between these three sentences. I'm sure a lot of people were arrested in June 1790, and here we have only inference to suggest that anything marked Williams out as special among them. I think we need to say something more explicit, i.e. that Williams was at the time considered/suspected to be the Monster.
  • attack them with a knife, normally cutting the clothing, but also slicing into buttocks, thighs or breast: taste, perhaps, but this reads oddly to me. Cutting their clothing ... slicing into their buttocks, thighs or breasts sounds more idiomatic, I think? In particular, the singular breast sounds like a cut of chicken: if we mean chest or torso, I would say that.
  • historians are unsure if the Monster was one man or several people.: we seem to be making a distinction of gender that I don't fully understand. Or several people implies that at least some "Monsters" need not have been men -- but if this is the case, shouldn't we say one person? On the other hand, if we're certain that the Monster was a man, why not one man or several? See, later, several victims of the Monster said they did not recognise Williams as their attacker, although some women did, on a similar point.
  • Most of the women in the first two years were described as being young, elegant and attractive women, although this changed in 1790 to a wider range of victims: similarly, this seems to imply that he started attacking men. If we don't mean to, we should cut the second women, which is repetitious. I would also, just for flow and idiom, add attacked after most of the women.
  • a reward of 100 guineas (£15,940 in 2023): suggest equivalent to £15,940, since they're of the same value rather than being the same thing (£1 is equivalent to about $1.20, but you can't give someone $1.20 if they ask you for £1). It was just over £5, and £5 then is £5 now, it's just that you could buy more with £5 in those days.
  • some of the recorded assaults included a group of men involved: this seems a bit mealy-mouthed: some of the assaults were recorded as being committed by a group of men? A bit of officer-involved shooting going on here, I fear.
  • The first attacks by the individual who came to be known as "the London Monster": didn't we say in the lead that it might not be an individual?
  • In May 1788 Maria Smyth, a doctor's wife, was approached by the Monster: similarly -- I'm a bit confused as to how we know it was "the Monster", rather than a different rude and violent man (I doubt London was short of those). Who actually said "this is the Monster", and when?
    • This is a point over which I mulled for a while: what to call the attacker without repeating the phrase "the attacker" to the point of boredom for writer and reader alike. The sources (both contemporary and modern) all refer to the attacks as having been committed by "the Monster", even when it's only circumstantial that they may have been the same person, so I've followed suit here. As to who coined the name, we cover that in the 'media' section later on ('It was the press that labelled the attacker a "Monster"'), but the date is unknown and the name "Monster" was picked up by the public quickly and became the common name in a very short space of time. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll chew on it too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK: this is very much a personal take, but one solution would be to reinforce our view that "the Monster" is fundamentally a sociological construct/narrative/explanation, rather than necessarily a concrete living being. To that end, what's notable about these attacks is that they are later interpreted as the doing of "the Monster" (who may have been one person, many people, or a confused mixture of things), rather than that we know definitively the identity of the person who carried them out. As such, I'd be inclined to lean on the passive voice here: "Maria Smyth, a doctor's wife, was approached by a man..." and similar. We can verify that she believed this person to be the Monster, and that others did too -- we're thereby adopting the same approach as we use for e.g. UFO sightings and visions of the Virgin Mary; that we convey the report as a report without passing judgement on its veracity. I think the current version is fine, and there's no serious concern as long as we're being no more bold than our sources, but another approach might be a little neater and cleverer. NB that this would involve some minor rephrasings and rearrangements throughout (most notably, in the lead, separating out the myth from the man -- so leaving Williams until the last paragraph and being less bullish in the first about whether the Monster actually was a single person. At the moment, we contradict ourselves: in the first sentence, we say he was "an attacker"; in the last, we say that's doubtful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • cocked hat flapped on one fide: side?
  • without a flick, or any thing in his hands: do we know what a "flick" is?
  • age, deformities or even indiligence were no protection: the Wiktionary link doesn't help much: indiligence there is defined as "not taking care", which seems to be the opposite of a protection. Any idea what Bondeson was going on about? Separately, we should attribute the quote inline, as it's very much a matter of interpretation/opinion rather than fact ("his lust for blood had increased" is not a factual statement about a person who may not straightforwardly have existed). More to the point, I'm not sure the "deformities" ever come up? If we're just saying "this man started to sexually assault women the writer considers undesirable", I think we might be on difficult territory -- one, it's a bit infra dig to be passing judgement on the attractiveness of the victims of crime, but it also plays into uncomfortable tropes about sexual assault being a kind of compliment, or myths about a woman's attractiveness or clothing as being part of the reason she was assaulted (see here from UCL on that last point).
    • I take your point on the 'attractiveness of victims', but this was a twisted part of the history that is covered later on in the final para of the 'Monster mania' section, with women wanting to be thought of as one of his targets - even to the extent of injuring themselves. The rest of your point dealt with, I hope. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is another one I'm chewing on, and more of a "problem", in my eyes. I think you handled it well when it came up later -- you pointed out that a perception had (by then) emerged that the Monster's (early) victims were attractive and socially elite, and so people began faking Monster attacks to make themselves seem as though they belonged in that circle. However, we're now making that more than hindsight, but it doesn't seem to have any relevance in the story until later on -- we never actually indicate anything about the age or "deformity" of any of the 1790 victims, though I'll note that several of the earlier ones were married and at least one was a servant, which might seem to puncture the narrative that they were all hugely fashionable a little. So, that's one thing, but then we have the issue of whether we need to quote Bondeson here, and I think the underlying attitude here (not least the word "deformity", which is -- at best -- extremely ill-chosen, and when you think through the implications of that choice, none of them reflect well on him) is idiosyncratic enough that we don't want to echo it in Wikipedia's voice. If we must say that the Monster's early victims were uniformly attractive, and that he seems to have widened his scope later on, I think we should paraphrase. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Reworked. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've just had a look at the source (Bondeson p. 46f), and there's quite an important WP:TSI consideration here. Bondeson is writing in Angerson's persona throughout this paragraph: even the bits which are not direct quotations are fairly clearly intended to be summaries of his writing. This fits quite nicely with the preceding paragraph, where Bondeson is clear that it's Angerson who was making the aesthetic judgements about the women, and puts in a gentle barb about how subjective these judgements were. It's also pretty clear that this is Angerson writing with a purpose -- to raise the profile of the crimes in the public eye and (presumably) to encourage people to support his efforts to catch the Monster. Can our text be re-reworked to fit with that? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reworked to show it’s Angerstein’s thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
              • Needs a more fundamental rework, I'm afraid -- the mini-paragraph (Anherstein thought that the victims in 1788 and 1789 were elegant and attractive women. In 1790 he considered that changed when he became less selective in his choices and his victims fell outside that description.) no longer makes grammatical or, honestly, logical sense. One option (once the spelling of "Angerstein" is fixed) might be to move this down to the point where Angerstein actually gets involved (as Bondeson does), to use it as part of the explanation as to why A. got involved at this point? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                • Serves me right for trying to do it in a rush and not checking it properly! I've reworked it now to give the context there. I'd rather keep the paragraph there to mark the change in emphasis between the preceding attacks and what was to come. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                  I suppose that's precisely my problem: that we are presenting it as a real and important change that the Monster suddenly started attacking ugly women. As I read Bondeson, he doesn't vouch for either: he situates that change entirely in Angerstein's mind, and makes clear that it's partly a function of who Angerstein considered attractive (and, more implicitly, the value that Angerstein put on attractiveness as a relevant factor here). Without getting too philosophical (is someone's attractiveness even a matter of verifiability?), why does Angerstein's subjective view get to frame all the objective stuff about what happened in 1790, especially given that WP:PRIMARY applies (though our phrasing in the article seems to imply the opposite)? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                  No, we're presenting it as Angerstein's thoughts. And his impressions on the matter are important, given the role he took in matters and the impact that his involvement had on matters. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                  I agree, but I think they should be introduced as part of his intervention and interpretation of the case, not promoted to an authoritative statement (though I acknowledge your diligence in keeping it out of WikiVoice) of what was actually happening before he becomes a character in the narrative. At the very least, under WP:PRIMARY, we would need a secondary source to use it in the same way ("As we learn from Angerstein, the Monster's habits changed..." vel sim), and we don't have that in Bondeson. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                  I'm not sure I'm in full agreement with you, but in any case I've rewritten with no reference to Angerstein at all. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Angerstein's quote end in a full stop?
    At present, we're having our punctuational cake and eating it: it follows from the previous sentence with a colon, so it's considered part of the text there, but then the next sentence starts with a capital letter after it, despite there being no final punctuation. Personally, I don't get too excited about preserving starts and ends when excerpting something, but if you're more fastidious than me, how about ending with ellipsis? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrs Drummond, who returned home from the theatre to find that not only had her clothes been cut, so had her hair: and presumably didn't notice this at the time? This seems to be a departure from the previous MO, which involved loud, lewd suggestions.
    • Correct on both points! I didn't see the need to spell out those two points, but if you think I should, then I'll check the source to see it's not OR to add something. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While assaulting her, the attacker verbally abused her too: again, taste, but I don't see what too adds here, given while assaulting her, and so I think the old advice to omit needless words applies.
  • The men walked off laughing, while she was left bleeding: similarly on this, perhaps -- wouldn't we assume that someone who had just been stabbed would bleed? Sounds a bit taboid-esque, if you'll bear the accusation -- like something designed to generate pathos for the victim and contempt for the attackers. On Wikipedia, I think we should let the reader come to that conclusion themselves.
  • Do we have any of those letters in the London papers? Would be interesting to know if any famous names wrote them, or to get some idea of what sort of people were concerned here.
    • There are descriptions of some in Bondeson, but no famous names highlighted. Some are from the victim's husbands, but most are just described as "letters", without identifying the senders. - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maria thought she saw her attacker on 14 April at a public auction; he followed the name to his home and established he was a man named William Tuffing: is this a typo for man? If not, I think it needs a bit of explanation, and he should be restated as "her husband" or similar (I can understand avoiding William here).
  • At a hearing on 19 April several of the victims were brought to him to identify him, but none thought him the same man: ambiguous: do we mean that no two of them gave the same name for him, or that none of them thought that he was their attacker? I think the latter?
  • The offer of a large sum of money when the average wage in the UK was 221⁄2 d a day: I think we should give some idea of the equivalence here -- roughly how many times more is £50 than this? Most people can't do LSD calculations, even in Britain.
  • None of those brought into the court were identified by Porter and the other victims as being the attacker: or the other victims, unless we mean that none were unanimously identified (but might have been identified by some victims).
  • I assume note 30 (the Clark source on average earnings) should go after the "influx of information" sentence -- I don't think it supports anything in the next one?
  • The attacks continued into May 1790, when there were seventeen that month: do we need that month? Perhaps "the attacks continued with seventeen more in May 1790"?
  • I think it's worth giving the date of the Coventry Act (1671); it's interesting and germane that the prosecutors were forced to rely on very old and arguably inappropriate legislation here.
  • Many of these were jeered and mocked by the crowds in the court, possibly because they were French, according to the historian Cindy McCreery.: Were they French according to McCreery, or jeered because of it according to McCreery.
  • M. Aimable Michelle: I would cut the M. -- we don't give "Mlle Reine Michelle" or "Dr. Cindy McCreery".
  • There were sceptics on: happy to be overruled, but isn't it sceptics of? I'd say I was "sceptical of his story".
  • asked why one of the attacked women who stated Williams was not the culprit had not been asked to give evidence: tricky to parse, with the string of negatives. Can we rephrase to make it clearer?
  • Williams was taken to the Hicks Hall on Clerkenwell Green on 13 December for the sessions trial; he replaced his barrister with Swift: copy the citation out of footnote h to show that it supports this as well, if indeed it does.
  • It was agreed that his offence did not fall within the statute for which he had been tried and that he would have to face a retrial, but for a misdemeanour, rather than a felony and on 8 December: firstly, a long sentence -- advise felony. On 8 December .... Secondly, do we know which statute was actually used here?
  • as easily as a crocodile sheds tears: suggest linking crocodile tears, as it's a very English idiom.
  • her father had returned her in disgrace two weeks later: not sure I'm happy with in disgrace here -- we can't pass moral judgement in Wikipedia's voice. We can, however, say that her father or other people called her a disgrace, or similar.
  • Madam, I do not see that my person is not as good as the Captain's: "captain" of his ship to Australia? I'm not seeing Williams' point here.
  • It was the press that labelled the attacker a "Monster" which, in McCreery's opinion, "emphasised ... [his] inhumanity".: as above, it would be nice to know when this was.
  • the less well-off would use a cork lining or, according to Bondeson, a large porridge pot: do we have reason to believe that Bondeson is doing anything other than taking Gillray's cartoon (too) seriously?
  • homosexual acts were illegal: being pedantic, this was only true between men; homosexual acts between women have never been illegal in the UK, though they could be punished in the Armed Forces during the later 20th century.
  • The criminal historian Drew Gray thinks it likely that Williams was "unable to achieve sexual satisfaction in any other way", and as such he shares a similar psychological profile to Jack the Ripper.: I'm surprised that we've got so far without mentioning Jack the Ripper -- there seem to be a lot of similarities here in terms of the overlap of sex, views of women's value vis-a-vis sexuality, unknown or multiple perpetrators and mass hysteria. Has nobody else made the connection?
    • A few others make some reference, even if only in 'a century before JtR...', but Gray was the only one (I think) who identifies an overlapping psychological profile. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A worthy addition to a growing series on London neer-do-wells: I hope the comments above are useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks UC. All, I hope, covered in this edit, except where I've pushed back or queried above. I'm happy to talk through those ones further, particularly if I've missed the point of what you're saying. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: we have, at one point, a "servant-girl". I would advise reworking, given that "girl" can be diminutively and somewhat datedly applied to adult workers: either a [young] servant (we wouldn't say "a servant-man") or, if we mean "a child", something that indicates that more clearly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to just "servant", as the source gives no indication as to her age. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses and new comment, UC. All dealt with here and I look forward to your 'chewing over' results! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I will keep chewing on the other one, but I think we've solved the Angerstein/Bondeson problem, and that was my only real worry about the article meeting the FA criteria. Again, a very impressive piece of work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks UC. Your comments are always excellent value and I thank you for them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I kinda wonder why some sauces are cited by book chapter and others by whole book. Is History Today a good source? Are British Heritage and History Today actually used anywhere? Source formatting seems consistent (I assume the DOIs are added only when available) and the books used have favourable reviews. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for picking up the review. I've listed a whole book when it's one writer of the whole piece; the ones by chapter are where it's only one relevant chapter in a book edited by a third party. I think History Today is more or less okay as a source. It's not the strongest one in the world, but as we're looking at a slice of history that the academic sources don't cover, I think we're okay with it here. Yes, British Heritage and History Today are both used as sources and I think I've caught all the DOIs. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, you ok with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
History Today seems like it might fail the high-quality requirement there. Does Bondeson have an independent reputation and/or are there other sources citing or reviewing this HT article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bondeson (literally) wrote the book on the London Monster, so would qualify as a subject specialist. There is nothing wrong with History Today as a source, particularly in areas of history that the academic sources don't focus on and especially when it has only been used once. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any further thoughts Jo-Jo? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure, but I'll pass this. I remember that HT had some issues on the high-quality front, but I can't find any corroboration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "There is likelihood that copycat attacks took place". This seems a little halting. Perhaps 'It is likely that ...' or some other more flowing formulation?
  • "Shoemaker states that the publicity from Angerstein and the press likely meant copycat attacks took place". Why the North American likely rather than the UK probably? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog. Both sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2025 (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/London_Monster/archive1&oldid=1284242956"