Wikipedia:Peer review/Profumo affair/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Profumo affair[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

To any in the UK under 50, the names Profumo, Christine Keeler, Stephen Ward won't mean much except to students of political history with a particular interest in the late political career of Harold Macmillan. The Profumo affair broke in the spring and summer of 1963, with relevations of an affair between the dashing Secretary of State for War, John Profumo, and a 19-year-old "model", the delectable Christine Keeler. As the press gorged itself on lascivious details, rumours of all sorts of high-level jiggery-pokery filled the papers; Macmillan's slogan "You've never had it so good" was rewritten as "You've never had it so often". There was a dark side, too; a scapegoat was required, and was found in the form of Dr Stephen Ward, who on pretty thin evidence was convicted of vice offences and committed suicide before he could be sentenced. There are currently plans afoot for his legal rehabilitation. Anyway, as the paper boys used to say (though I never actually heard them say it), "Read all abaht it" – and comment as you will. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • There is, meseems, more than a touch of post hoc ergo propter in the last para of the first sentence. WP:SYNTHESIS, I believe, is the jargon. I think the most you should say is that the affair weakened Macmillan and his government. Otherwise I think the lead is a masterly and wholly fair summary.
      • You may well be right. There were three statements in that sentence: MacMillan's confidence was dented; he resigned through ill health; the Conservatives were defeated in 1964. The first two are related, the third is independent – Macmillan's resignation did not cause the Conservative defeat. I believe, however, it is correct to mention that defeat as a possible consequence of the affair. I have reworded accordingly, please tell me what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nicely neutral now, I think. Objection withdrawn. Tim riley (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Profumo
    • "Profumo's tenure as War Minister" – as that wasn't his formal job title, but just an encapsulation of it, I think the caps are inappropriate. (Same goes for the first line of the lead, now I think about it.)
    • "an ex-professional soldier" – i.e. now an amateur one? "formerly a professional soldier" or "a retired army officer" perhaps?
  • Keeler, Rice-Davis, Astor
    • "shops, offices and cafés, none of which lasted long" – she really was the kiss of death if they all closed when she worked there. Perhaps "a series of short-lived jobs in…"?
  • Brief liaison
    • "Profumo is equally adamant" – the present tense seems strange
    • Quote box – aren't the Russian limos "Zils", not "Zis"?
  • Personal statement
    • "She was required to forfeit her recognizance of £40" – being a G&S buff I am familiar with "liberated then on bail, on my own recognizances" (and I see we have Pooh-Bah's corroborative detail later), but for many readers a blue link will be useful.
  • Retribution
    • "Most newspapers considered the extent of the defection significant, and forecast that Macmillan would soon resign" – a swift and unsystematic rummage in the archives of The Times, Guardian, Observer, Express and Mirror bears out the first half of this sentence, but I didn't spot any predictions that Macmillan would soon resign. Does the source really say "most" papers said this?
      • The source quotes the Daily Telegraph ("Premier likely to resign soon"), the Daily Mail (It's all the immigrants' fault! Down with Europe! "Mac: The End"), and the Mirror ("His future, short of a miracle, will be brief"). That's three – there were probably others, but I have altered "most" to "several". Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a widespread amorality" – more like immorality, I'd say.
  • Aftermath
    • "The report was read with great interest by the public" rather understates the case, I think. Apropos of the (unprecedented) small-hours release of the report The Observer reported, "Crowds clamoured outside the Stationery Office and the British public so far forgot its aversion from staying up late that it used up enough electricity watching special programmes to supply a fair-sized city." Citation is to hand if you're interested, but no obligation to purchase.
      • I have slightly altered the text ("awaited with great anticipation"). There is an existing footnote that mentions the midnight crowds. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dramatisations
    • I hear from a friend who went recently that the Lloyd Webber musical is playing to poor houses, so you may need to update that sentence shortly.
  • Notes
    • Footnote 6 – you mention that Paget didn't say this, but what he did say was wonderful: "When self-indulgence has reduced a man to the shape of Lord Hailsham, sexual continence involves no more than a sense of the ridiculous." Also, the refs are in reverse numerical order at end of second sentence.
      • Yes, I have that quote and other juicy morsels from Hansard. Much as I would like to shaft the egregious Hailsham, such comments are not really part of the Profumo affair, and regretfully I don't think any more should be included. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find. I don't see how this topic could be better dealt with than it is here. You will, I hope, let me know when you get to FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review. Minor fixes all done, otherwise see my comments above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

I don't think I've repeated anything that Mr Riley says above, but apologies if I have done so! Most of these are just nit-picks.

  • ”Ward's conviction has been described as an act of Establishment revenge”: The old chestnut: described by who? (Although this one could safely be ignored, to be honest, as it works as it stands. But someone usually comments. Although when I think, it might be me that usually comments…)
    • A fair point, but as the issue is covered in the article I think this can stand. Let us see if the matter comes up again. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The repercussions of the affair severely damaged Macmillan's confidence, and he resigned as prime minister on health grounds in October 1963. His Conservative party was marked by the scandal…”: I’m not sure that the main body quite connects these events as closely as they are connected here.
    • I am still pondering this, as Tim has issues around the same point. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”In October 1962 Vassall was jailed for 18 years…”: For spying presumably. I think it is worth saying so explicitly.
  • ”the former Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Thomas Galbraith resigned from the government pending enquiries”: This is a little confusing as at first sight, it looks like he resigned as Civil Lord of the Admiralty, but I see he had a different post at this stage. Without becoming bogged down in detail, could we say what role he held? Or maybe drop the Civil Lord of the Admiralty part and just say that he was his boss?
  • ”and combined his political and military duties through the Second World War, in which he served in the Northamptonshire Yeomanry.”: This is the first mention of his military duties, but as written it looks a little like he had military duties before the war. Maybe just drop “his”?
  • Minor point: Will non-UK readers know what a “safe seat” is?
  • ”involving the ending of conscription”: Is there any way to avoid two close “-ing”s? Maybe “Profumo's tenure as War Minister coincided with a period of transition in the armed forces, when the ending [or abolishment?] of conscription led to the development of a wholly professional army.”
    • Above five points all dealt with, more or less as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”His performance was watched with a critical eye by his opposition counterpart George Wigg, an ex-professional soldier.”: I’m not sure we need this here; the same point is made later when the scandal began to break.
    • I think it reads better if I remove the second mention of the point, which I have done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Stephen Ward, born in 1912, qualified as an osteopath in the United States.”: I wonder is there a way to re-arrange this so that we don’t introduce him as an osteopath twice.
    • I don't think it can be done easily, but I'm open to suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”and sought Ward's help to this end, allocating him to a case officer known as "Woods”.”: The wording seems a bit off here; if they were looking for his help, would it not be “allocating to him a case officer”?
  • ”Keeler maintains that although Ward asked her to obtain information about nuclear weapon deployment from Profumo, she did not do so.”: This is presumably Stephen Ward, but is a little confusing at first sight as we have just mentioned Viscount Ward.
    • I have clarified this, though I think it looks distinctly odd and I may have further thoughts. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Profumo is equally adamant that no such discussions took place.”: I think this is the literary present, but given that he is dead, I’m not sure he can still be adamant. Perhaps these opinions should be in the past tense?
  • ”Edgecombe was similarly violent and possessive; he and Gordon clashed violently on 27 October 1962, Edgecombe slashed his rival with a knife.”: Is there a word missing (such as “when”) after the semi-colon. Also, we have “violent … violently”.
  • ”Her unexplained absence caused a press sensation;[67] every newspaper knew the rumours concerning Keeler with Profumo, but were afraid to report any direct connection; as a result of the Radcliffe inquiry they were, in Wigg's later words, "willing to wound but afraid to strike”.”: We have two semi-colons in the same sentence, which may be one too many.
  • ”Such statements are, by long-standing tradition, made on the particular honour of the member and are accepted by the House without question.”: Given the sorry state of British politics in later years, is this still the case?
    • Indeed it is; a member's "personal statement" is still accepted as the unquestionable truth. Profumo broke a very strict taboo by lying in a personal statement; this particular convention holds as firmly as ever, even though lies are common currency in the House in general debates. Brianboulton (talk)
  • ”On Tuesday 4 June Profumo saw the prime minister, confirmed that he had lied, and resigned from the government and from parliament.”: Did he still think he had been found out, or had something else rattled his cage?
    • I find that I rather over-telescoped the sequence of events. I have now expanded a little. I guess that he either thought that he had been found out, or that he was about to be. Either way, he confessed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A generally excellent read; I planned to do this in stages, but read the whole thing at once. Very interesting stuff; I'm a little too young to have been there first time around, but remember some of the revival of interest in the late 80s with the film. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, as always helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cliftonian[edit]

I read through this yesterday and found very little to quibble with—really excellent stuff as usual. I will try not to repeat anything Tim or Sarastro have already said; apologies if I do. Just a few thoughts:

  • "Eugene", being a nickname, should really be in quotation marks, shouldn't it? (we don't give his actual name, Yevgeny, at all in the body of the article). I would put Captain Yevgeny "Eugene" Ivanov
  • "Eugene" is an anglicization rather than a nickname, but I take the point and have made him Yevgeny in the main test. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps tweak the lead image caption slightly to make clear this is a relatively contemporary picture—John Profumo at his desk in 1960, as Secretary of State for War
  • There are quite a lot of places where "Russian" is used rather than "Soviet"—I think a few usages of "Russian" would help to reduce awkward repetition, but we should really prefer the proper contemporary term "Soviet", in my opinion
  • Agreed. There is only one "Russian" left in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Personnel" seems an odd choice for the section title; as if we're describing members of a military unit. Perhaps substitute "People" or similar, or perhaps just remove this and turn the level three subheaders ("Profumo", etc) into level two subheaders (I actually think the latter solution would perhaps be tidier)
  • The "name" subsections are currently level four. I have tried them at level three, and I think this works. I agree that "Personnel" was a poor title; I struggled with it, but your solution avoids me having to find a substitute. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keeler, Rice-Davis, Astor" perhaps "Keeler, Rice-Davis and Astor"?
  • Perhaps mention Ward was English (mentioning he qualified in the U.S. might lead some to believe he was American); I think an unobtrusive way to do this would be to expand the first sentence of his section to "Stephen Ward, born in Hertfordshire in 1912 ..."
  • Perhaps mention the Slade School is in London (also check capitalisation of "School")
  • Not necessary I think to mention that the Slade is in London, given the link and "in his spare time". The school's formal title is the Slade School of Fine Art. As "School" is part of the formal title I think capitalisation is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would start the second paragraph in this section at "Ward hoped to visit the Soviet Union ..."
  • In the caption on "the scene of the notorious swimming-pool party", perhaps expand to "the notorious swimming-pool party where Profumo first met Keeler"
  • "it is possible that Profumo hoped for a longer-term commitment and that he offered to set Keeler up in a flat" I would recommend giving more details as to where this suggestion comes from and on what reasoning
  • The source gets the information from Keeler, hence the "it is possible". I have reworded, and cited it direct to Keeler's claim. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Profumo did not pay Keeler for her services" seems to me to imply that she was a prostitute. perhaps just "Profumo did not pay Keeler"

I hope these help. If I see anything else I will note them here. Well done again; I think this is already ready for FA myself. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Except as indicated I have adopted your suggestions and thereby improved the article. It will around PR for a while yet, so if you do have further thoughts, please leave them here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Beautifully put together, as always, and I struggle to find much in the way of fault. The following are particularly 'nit-picky', so accept or ignore as you see fit.

  • "Profumo did not pay Keeler for her services, apart from a few small presents and once, a sum of £20 as a gift for her mother.[38]" It may just be me (probably is), but this does seem, in it current form, to suggest that the presents and £20 are payment for services.
  • I've tinkered with this - I think it's better now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "information about nuclear weapon deployment". Should this be "weapon's deployment"?
  • I've made it "the deployment of nuclear weapons" which reads better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she entertained friends and perhaps clients": I think a little clarity may be needed here. As it reads, there is a suggestion of prostitution, but I don't think that's been suggested before.
  • It has been suggested before, in the sentence you raised above: "Profumo did not pay Keeler...", etc. What she got up to in Dolphin Square is referred to ambiguously in the sources, which sort of hint that although she wasn't a prostitute in the accepted sense of the term, she sometimes got paid for sex. I have adopted the same slightly nuanced approach. If anyone wants to expand the Christine Keeler article (which I have recently tidied up) there is no doubt more to be said on this issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

Only one more comment and a couple of minor ces made: feel free to revert if you don’t like 'em).

  • "Telegraph's critic recommended the production as "sharp, funny – and, at times, genuinely touching"[168] Robertson records that..." A full stop or semi-colon after the 168 reference?

All good and a worthy piece to cover the incident. I shied away from asking JP any questions on the two occasions I met him, and I'm always rather glad that I didn’t raise the spectre of it yet again for him. Please drop me a note when you take this to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ces are fine and I have dealt with the missing punc. Interesting that you met Profumo. I used to run into him from time to time on the Metropolitan Line in the late 70s and early 80s, when I was teaching at North London Poly and he was heading for Toynbee Hall. Never spoke to him, though. Thanks for your review comments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Bencherlite[edit]

  • The lead says "The Criminal Cases Review Commission has requested that the verdict be referred to the Court of Appeal" when in fact all that has happened is that the CCRC has been been requested by campaigners to look at the case and refer it to the CA.
  • My newspaper source quotes the government's spokesman, Lord Ahmad, as saying that the case "was being reviewed by the CCRC", which is not as far as I have indicated in the lead, but slightly further than you suggest. I have amended the wording accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The later wording, "In January 2014 the case was being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with a view to allowing an appeal" is potentially ambiguous, since one talks about the Court of Appeal "allowing" an appeal but here it's being used in the sense of the "the CCRC allowing an appeal to take place" i.e. to use their statutory powers to bring the matter before the Court. Perhaps "In January 2014 the case was being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has the power to investigate suspected miscarriages of justice and refer cases to the Court of Appeal." [1] is a basic ref for the CCRC's powers if you need one.
  • I've adopted your wording, and added the explanatory ref. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly off-topic, but the navbox gives the title as "The Profumo Affair" - if the lowercase version is thought best, then the navbox perhaps ought to be tweaked to follow.
  • I find I can't edit the template. The "E" link goes to a page that says WP has no such template. I don't understand these things. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BencherliteTalk 22:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these most useful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have fixed the template (the template is {{Profumo Affair}} but was calling itself "The Profumo Affair" in its code, hence making it uneditable from articles! BencherliteTalk 23:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • Most interesting, as I did not know the finer points of this scandal. Well put together. Note that I am working from a copy of the article several days old since I'm doing this offline.
Lede
  • The year "1963" dates the controversy twice in the first two sentences. Possibly cut it to once, but also date the dalliance the two had. I would suggest cutting "In March 1963" but adding "in March" after "Commons".
  • Is there a link which would make clear the implication of it being a personal statement, rather than, I suppose, one in his capacity as minister?
  • No link available. The character of "personal statements" is described in the article; however, for the benefit of lead-readers I have added an explanatory footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The repercussions of the affair severely damaged Macmillan's confidence" Confidence in him or Macmillan's confidence in something else?
  • I suggest cutting the (Eugene) and the word "thus" from the present first sentence of the second paragraph.
  • The Cliveden sentence seems a bit out of place and may be happier batting first in that paragraph.
  • The considerable use of the passive voice in the lede seems worthy of another check.
  • "The exposure of the Profumo-Keeler affair, and rumours of other scandals, drew official attention to the activities of Ward, who was charged with a series of immorality offences." Perhaps for lede purposes, you could shorten to "Ward was charged with a series of immorality offences." I think the rest is too much detail for lede purposes.
  • I think we heed to flag "other scandals" in the lead, since there is significant mention of these in the text. I have revised/shortened the lead in other ways. Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "parliament" lower case?
Government and press
  • Civil Lord of the Admiralty". I think a link would be helpful if available.
  • No link, so "the responsible minister"
  • Since you mention "government" and "political masters" before linking Macmillan government, I would move that link up.
  • Does "various" add anything?
Keeler etc.
  • "although their relationship was not sexual." this seems like an awfully definite statement given that any relationship would have been behind closed doors and all that. And especially given her next gig.
Ward etc.
  • "Slade school" properly capped?
  • "a possible defector" possibly " a potential defector"?
Cliveden etc.
  • "simultaneously" I think this construction might not be the best, possibly it could be deleted and "the same weekend" inserted at some appropriate point?
  • "He also said that Ivanov had asked him (Ward) for information" mildly awkward, perhaps "Ward also stated that he had been asked by Ivanov for information …"
Brief etc.
  • The references in support of the first sentence are not properly ordered.
  • Who are those who have stated their belief with respect to the characteristics of the Keeler/Profumo affair? Historians? Politicians? The Mail?
  • "Profumo did not pay Keeler for her services, apart from a few small presents and once, a sum of £20 as a gift for her mother" Were these payments or just … gifts? Payment implies a bargained-for exchange to my mind.
  • "watching her every movement" Peacock words or no, it's certainly dramatic. Perhaps excessively so for an encyclopedia. In the era before CCTV, I imagine he used his eyes. Would "stalking her" go too far?
  • "awkward hours" I'm more familiar with "awkward moments", usually involving the spouse coming home unexpectedly. But "hours"?
  • "engaged with Rice-Davies" perhaps some risk of double entendres. Especially since "relationship" is used later in the paragraph (twice) to refer to an association which looks likely to have been sexual.
  • "Keeler ended her relationship with Edgecombe shortly afterwards on the grounds of his domineering behaviour" Cannot this be shortened to "Keeler broke up with Edgecombe shortly afterwards because of his domineering behavior."
Mounting pressures
  • "Mounting pressures" see suggestion re double entendres.
  • "press behaviour during the Vassall case was making the press nervous" Avoid 2 x press.
  • " who failed to" Perhaps "who did not"?
Investigation etc.
  • "Ward then attempted to give details to the press, but no paper would print the story." I don't know about "attempted", it seems he did give the info to the press.
  • "from parliament". Correctly lower cased? Also, this might be an opportunity to pipe to "Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds" or similar.
  • Not sure that the technicalities of resignation from the UK parliament are that interesting, and the piped linked would create rather an unsightly blue smudge. Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the account of Profumo's resignation should be followed by the press reaction, either within that section or to start the one immediately following.
Retribution
  • "widespread amorality" Amorality or immorality?
  • "and released on bail pending trial" The last two words seem unneeded.
  • sub judice a link may be needed here since American newspapers do not follow that practice.
  • "pursued other related stories" I would slice "other".
  • The accounts of Ivanov's fate seem a bit inconsistent. Can this be cleared up?

Looking forward to the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time and trouble. Some of your points had been caught in earlier reviews. Except as indicated I have adopted your suggestions (sometimes with a little variation). Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Thincat[edit]

I stayed up rather too late last night reading this! I think more could be said about the affair's influence beyond politics. In Britain in the early 1960s influence was shifting away from the establishment, and from age to youth. I recall the affair being very central to all that. Is anything sourceable? A lot of what I learned probably came from That Was the Week that Was, not the BBC news or Panorama. It wasn't so much that the affair created this shift, but rather that it provided something for the counterculture to feed from.

A couple of points on wording.

  • "Keeler was generally outspoken about her conquests". Is she being quoted? Did she regard them as "conquests"? Would "liaisons" be preferable or perhaps you are trying to avoid using that word too often?
  • "When he was denied entrance" seems very formal. "When he was not allowed in"?

Also,

A really nice article indeed. Thincat (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you comments and kind words. I have replaced the over-formal wording as you suggest. As to TW3, some people imagine that it had a major role in the exposure, but memory can play strange tricks. The programme went off the air shortly after Profumo's denial, and didn't return until late September, when Profumo had gone, Ward was dead and the Denning Report published. So its involvement with the affair was limited to a few vague references before the scandal broke, and to some later analysis and mockery.

You mention the centrality of the affair to the loss of influence by the establishment. That is a good point, indirectly addressed in Pamela Cooper's comment about the incipient transformation of the old aristocratic Tory party, and the Economist's references to the changed (i.e. less deferential) relationship between press and politicians. I have added a quote from Davenport-Hines's book (by far the best dispassionate analysis of the affair, in my view), commenting on the gradual death of deference to the Establishment after 1963, and its consequent loss of influence. Brianboulton (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I remember it well. To my surprise, the Davenport-Hines book is held by our library so I've reserved a copy (but I've had to go on the waiting list). Thincat (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On your suggestion for a photo of Wimpole Mews, I'd be inclined to desist for the moment. I could use this, but the three existing in-text photos are all of buildings of one kind or another. That's because suitable uncopyrighted images of the main figures in the affair are pretty well impossible to find—there is a photo of the 45-year-old Keeler that may be free, but she's too old in it for our purposes. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later: having studied the Commons photo of Wimpole Mews I find that it actually shows No. 17, so I have included it after all. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Profumo_affair/archive1&oldid=595005053"