Wikipedia:Peer review/Albert Pierrepoint/archive1

Albert Pierrepoint

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Albert Pierrepoint is an interesting individual. The first hangman of the television/mass media age, whose name became well-known in the press (and not through his efforts), despite the home office restrictions of secrecy regarding the role. He hanged some of the most notorious killers of the 20th century, including over 200 Nazi war criminals, the last men executed for treason and treachery (including William Joyce (also known as Lord Haw-Haw) and John Amery) and undertook some of the more contentious executions of the mid to late century, including Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis. Any and all constructive comments are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

Not much from me

General
- "Focussing" is grudgingly admitted by the OED and Chambers, but the traditional form, "focusing", is much nicer, to my mind.
- You are inconsistent about piping the "Sir" when linking to knights. Gowers is piped but Monty, and M. O'Dwyer are not. I much prefer the former form.
- You have slightly inconsistent ways of referring to nicks, too: HM Prison Pentonville, but Strangeways Prison, and Walton Gaol.
As lead executioner, 1940–1956
- "although it was questionable if he were a British citizen, and therefore ineligible for the charge" – this seems to change direction halfway through: I think it should be "...and therefore eligible for" (or, perhaps better, "subject to" or "liable to")
- "Two weeks after Ellis's execution, he hanged Norman Green" – the last man mentioned is G Lloyd-George. Best use Pierrepoint's surname here.
Retirement and later life
- "stayed over night" – I think "overnight" would be more usual here.
- "a letter from the sheriff for £4" – "for £4" might perhaps be "offering £4".
- "The Home Office considered ... they decided" – not quite sure about the plural pronoun. Arguable, but it feels off-key to me.
Notes
- Note e – I'd be inclined to omit the mildly editorial "only".
- Note g goes off the rails. I think you need to cut the words "a little"
- Note h – "advisor" – unwelcome Americanism in place of the traditional BrE "adviser".
Obiter dicta:
- Delighted to see Sir Ernest Gowers in a cameo role – one of my heroes.
- Clive Revill! I had no idea he specialised in playing official executioners: he was Ko-Ko, Lord High Executioner, in the Sadler's Wells Mikado back in the 1960s.

That's my lot. Excellent job. On to FAC, when pray ping me. Tim riley talk 19:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, as always - all very useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Keith D

Just a few points

The link to City of Bradford cannot be correct for his birth as this was not formed until the 1974 reorganisation. Probably the settlement link to Bradford is more appropriate, though do not know if Clayton was actually in Bradford then.
Similarly the reference to Huddersfield, West Yorkshire is incorrect as West Yorkshire was created in the same 1974 reorganisation. Before 1974 it would have been the West Riding of Yorkshire.
Minor grammar correction needed in sentence "They travelled to the Mountjoy Prison, Dublin for a the hanging." remove word "a".
In following sentence "It was scheduled was 8:00 am, and took less than a minute to undertake." - second "was" change to "for."
In section "As lead executioner, 1940–1956" we have both "Wandsworth Prison" & "Wandsworth prison" used.
Think "although it was questionable if he were a British citizen" should be "although it was questionable if he was a British citizen".
- The subjunctive "were" here is fine, although not using it and going for "was" would be equally acceptable grammatically. Tim riley talk 19:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Books" looks like this is alphabetical, apart from the first entry for Dernley. May be reorder.
The "See also" section is out of place per WP:ORDER and should be before the "Notes and references"

Thats all. Keith D (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Keith D. All have been done with the exception of the was/were point, as both are correct. Many thanks for your thoughts on this - it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]