Talk:Trial of Thomas Paine
 | Trial of Thomas Paine has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 13, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Trial of Thomas Paine appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 October 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Properly sourced but patently absurd?
edit"he was confronted by a mob who cheered him and shouted 'Damn Tom Paine, but Erskine for ever, and the Liberty of the Press; the King, the Constitution, and Erskine for ever'."
Sometimes one must take even a contemporary source cum grano salis. I think we can be sure no mob in history - not even an Age of Enlightenment English mob - has ever shouted anything quite so belabored. It sounds like an amalgam of several different things that may have been shouted, if indeed the entire thing isn't a narrative invention. Perhaps this would be a case where it would be best to frame the material as, "According to [source], he was confronted by a mob who..."
-J. Conti 108.20.137.173 (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Except the sources are several peer-reviewed academic journal articles and books by prominent historians. Given that they felt comfortable incorporating and quoting the primary source, I think we can. Ironholds (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Trial of Thomas Paine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 00:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll give this a review, seems interesting. Wizardman 00:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Here are the issues I found:
- "Having returned to England, he decided to write a reply to Burke," this is the first and only mention of anyone named Burke; do we have a full name/link? Also, a reply to what? This isn't clear currently.
- "The Libel Act 1792 required a bad motive behind publication,for a work to be libellous;" rm comma
- While the prose is certainly well-written, it does feel a bit heavy at times. This is fine for GA, but you might want to have a lay reader who isn't well-versed in this take a look before FAC if you're planning on doing that.
Just a couple minor things that took me a second-read through to find. Article on hold. Wizardman 16:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Wizardman: Both fixed! Thanks for the review :). Ironholds (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- That was quick; looks good, article passes. Wizardman 16:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Found guilty but what was his sentence?
editHe appears to have had business dealings in England soon after being found guilty what was his punishment? Rmhermen (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)