Talk:Ely and Littleport riots of 1816/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

On first pass, this looks pretty solid: well written, sourced, and comprehensive in its coverage. Many thanks for your efforts on it, which I see from the talk page have gone on for some years. I only have smallish concerns so far, noted below. Let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've done some copyediting as I went for both style and grammar. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with, and please doublecheck me to be sure I haven't inadvertently added any errors.
• "Topped up" is slightly informal and idiomatic; can another phrase be found here? Agreed replaced by supplemented. Is this OK? --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• "In 1815 at least, " -- is "at least" needed in this sentence? Agreed  Done --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• "weekly meeting at The Crown" -- Is "The Crown" an inn, or some type of government building? (This may be a dumb question--I'm an American editor, so might not know the lingo.) Agreed Not dumb in any way. It was unexplained. "The Crown" was, er, is a bar, drinking hole or perhaps even a dive bar; we call them pubs. First occurrence now qualified with public house  Done --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• "The Special Commission[59] appointed judges were Mr Justice Abbott[60] and Mr Justice Burrough" -- this sentence is a bit grammatically confusing. Should this be "Special Commission-appointed", or is the main verb here "appointed"? Is it possible to move these footnotes to the end of the sentence to avoid the minor breaks they create? Agreed fixed? --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• This paragraph on the Special Commission also has a rather odd order to it; the Special Commission's justices are named, and only later is Lord Sidmouth's Special Commission explained. This might be clearer in a more chronological order. Agreed fixed? --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Mr Hunt was counsel for Jeffereson, " -- two points. First, it's probably best to give full names for those defendants being mentioned for the first time in the article. Second, is this a typo for the defendant "Jefferson"? Was Jefferson defended by both lawyers? Agreed (a) Jeffereson is spelling error - fixed (b) Warren (1997) does not explain Hunt's full name. Warren (1997) p. 12 is as given. Warren (1997) pp. 12–44 describes Hart as defender for various parties. Jefferson is with Hunt on page 12 and later in the week he is defended by Hart. Rather than explain all this, I have removed Jefferson being defended by Hart - fixed --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• "his Majesties government"-- should this be "his Majesty's"? Agreed  Done --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• The all-caps approach to names in the table seems to me unnecessary, but it's not an important fix for GA. Agreed  Done --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• The image File:A counciller-lwlpr10082-Thomas Rowlandson.jpg seems to be an unrelated illustration, and as such should be cut from the article--but perhaps I'm misunderstanding what this is an image of? Stet the caption for this image was in the text at one point but has been cut. The image is intended to show the reader what such a case may have looked like. The artist Rowlandson was of the time. I would prefer to keep the image. I have changed the caption. --Senra (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I still think the image is a bit borderline, but I suppose it would be okay with a better caption that clearly identifies what the image is; right now, it's unclear to the reader what the image is and why it's there in the article. Am I correct in understanding that this isn't a caricature of Abbott himself? Perhaps you could caption it something like "An 18xx caricature of a judge, illustrating how a contemporary courtroom would have appeared", similar to the above images. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Changed caption to "Caricature of a councillor for the defence of the time. Print by Thomas Rowlandson; first published 1801". Is this OK? --Senra (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but looking at the image again, I'm just not comfortable with it. It seems a bit wrong to me to add an unrelated image when it's a caricature; it has the unintentional effect of implying that the defense counsel would have looked like this somewhat grotesque figure. (As a side note, is it 100% certain that this image is of a defense counselor, and not a "councillor"-- a member of a city council? The source is unfortunately a dead link, so I can't get more info on the image's provenance. This may be another dumb question, but thought I'd be sure.)

I'm not convinced that an image of a courtroom is needed here at all, but even if one is, I wonder if a more realistic or wideview image might be found--a photograph of a historic preserved courtroom in the modern day, or just a less cartoon-y view of a court? I think to meet criterion 6b this will need to be changed, but I'm willing to get a quick second opinion on this if you feel the image is important to the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not agreed I feel that the image of a courtroom by a prolific (see also media) political cartoonist of the time adds to this article. I updated the link but the link still does not work. Find the image using Walpole LIbrary Search and the string "Rowlandson 1801". To move this forward, I have removed the image and updated the licenses on the other two images by adding {{PD-US}} --Senra (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a discussion on the issue could be started on the talk page to get a third opinion on it? I'm not opposed to it being re-added to the article if other users find it necessary/helpful, too. Anyway, thanks for your flexibility and your edits. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

On the home stretch! Looks like image concerns are the only remaining issues. Thanks again for all your work on this.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass