Talk:Monmouth Rebellion/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 14:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Great work at Peer Review. I'll do this review later today. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Two external links are showing redirects; in general, when possible, link to the destination page.

• These were Gutenberg library links - I have changed them to cite book.— Rod ^talk 09:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise, the toolbox (upper right of this page) checks out. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• First up: I'd like to check this edit of yours; can you quote a couple of sentences from Miller for me that support the text? - Dank (push to talk) 21:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I do not have a copy of Miller - this was copied from James II of England (a FA) hence the copied template on the talk page:

• Perhaps the challenge should be there as this acts for attribution.— Rod ^talk 09:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to withdraw as reviewer. I've got an idea how this sourcing issue would be handled at FAC and A-class; I'm less sure about GAN, and I'd rather leave the tough calls to another reviewer. I've added the "second opinion" tag. Best of luck, and I'll keep an eye on this. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK Thanks anyway - I didn't know it was an issue.— Rod ^talk 14:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My view is that Wikipedia is an uneasy alliance (and sometimes a war) between people who take the approach that a nominator is ultimately responsible for everything, and people who see articles in more Darwinian terms. "Normal editing" tends to be Darwinian, FAC and A-class (which I'm more familiar with) are very by-the-book, and GAN reviewers and nominators tend to get pulled in both directions, depending on the time of day and who shows up :) I don't want to make a call on this because I'd rather give complete discretion to whoever does the review. Whether this passes or not, if you'd like to take the article to Milhist's A-class review, we can talk about how A-class deals with this there. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now found that Amazon has a "look inside" version of Millers book so can provide some quote to back up claims about Popish Plots, exclusion crisis, dissolution of parliament etc etc

• Popish Plot - "The prospect of a Catholic successor had hitherto seemed somehwat hypothetical. Charles was only three years older than James and seemed very healthy. The plot made the prospect of a Popish king seem far more immediate. - 1st page chap 7 Brussels and Edinburgh.
• Exclusion crisis- Some of Scott's arguments are questionable. His determination to show continuity leads him to deny that exclusion was a mjor factor in the "Exclusion Crisis", but Mark Knights has argued persuasively that the succession was one major aspect of a multifaceted political crisis. Contemporaries saw James's exclusion as the issue from which all others sprang. and MPs record on exclusion as a touchstone of their political allegiance.
• Dissolution - Moreover, he still believed that a new, less Anglican, House of Commons would be better disposed towards both the Catholics and himself. He was thus torn between the attractions of a dissoloution and his hopes of deriving some benefit from the present parliament.

Do these help?— Rod ^talk 16:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• • That will help, yes, I'll leave it for the next guy. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

I'll take over this one. Pyrotec (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pyrotec. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, for the delay. I'm going to review this nomination for end to end, but starting with the Duke of Monmouth section and finishing with the Lead. At this stage of the review I'll just be commenting on "problems" if I find them (minor ones I may fix as the go through the article). Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Duke of Monmouth -

• A very short paragraph, but at this stage of the review, I've not found any "problems" with it.

• Context -

• I pipelined "commonwealth" to Commonwealth of England as the section was deficient with such and explanation or link.
• Otherwise, this section looks compliant with WP:WIAGA.

• Plan -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• This section looks compliant.

• From Lyme Regis to Sedgemoor -

• I added a few wikilinks, to technical terms such as Dragoons, Militia (English) and muskets; but I also removed some WP:Overlinking - Frome for instance was linked twice in the same paragraph and Bridgwater twice in adjacent paragraphs in the same section. There may be more, that I've not yet found.
• Otherwise, this section looks compliant with WP:WIAGA.

• Battle of Sedgemoor & After Sedgemoor -

• These sections look to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.

• Literary references -

• Looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• At just two paragraphs, this is rather "thin" and it does not provide an adequate summary of the article as per WP:Lead. In particular:
  • It does not summarise the relationship between Charles II, James II and Monmouth. The body of the article makes it clear that Monmouth was well regarded (or similar words to that effect) in the West Country and after the failed Rye house plot waited in Holland with the hope of placing Charles II, but on the accession of James II decided to act. This involved various denouncements of James as well as military actions.
  • Many of his problems were due to lack of "organisation of his troops", arguably if he'd capture Bristol the results might have been different.
  • No mention of the coordination with another rebellion in Scotland, which failed and lead to loss of morale.
  • The lead finishes with the death of Monmouth, making no mention of the actions of the Bloody Assizes, Judge Jeffreys and James short-lived consolidation of power.
• Its probably taken longer to summarise the problems, than the corrective actions themselves. Probably all that's needed is a third paragraph, say expanding the current lead by 50%.

As the Lead can fixed, or should be fixable, by relatively minor efforts I'm going to put this review "On Hold". I would expect to be awarding GA-status once I regard the Lead as being compliant. I'm happy to clarify any points that need clarification. Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've expanded the lead to hopefully cover these areas.— Rod ^talk 21:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's much better now. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting and informative article on this topic of interest to the West Country.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Generally, Yes, but I have raised a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions in respect of File:'The Morning of Sedgemoor' by Edgar Bundy, Tate Britain.JPG

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article. Congratulations on producing a "fine" article on this topic. Pyrotec (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)