Talk:Ursuline Convent riots/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

I realize that GA standards have changed somewhat since this article was passed in 2006. However, its problems including significant issues related to content, which should have been an issue in the GA nomination.

Issues of form

Failing 1b, 2a, 2b:

Incompletely cited
Inconsistent formatting of citations and sources
There are sources listed as such that are not used in citations; these should either be "Further reading" or "External links" as appropriate (or cited)
Lead contains facts not present in body (e.g. convent site is now in Somerville, and see below on anti-Catholic sentiment)
Lead should probably be at least two paragraphs
Quotations, even long ones are (now) not normally to be italicized

Issues of content

Failing 2c, 3, 4:

No reason is given for Reed's connection (or lack of) to the riots. How did her name come to be associated with the mystery woman? Why is she at all important to these events?
No background is given demonstrating the claim in the lead that there had been a "rebirth of extreme anti-Catholic sentiment" prior to the riots. (This requires showing that there was once "extreme" anti-Catholic sentiment, that it died down, and then came back.)
There is no further context on anti-Catholicism in New England: what other examples of it were there in the years before and after the riots?
Why are the actions of Boston authorities given primacy over those of Charlestown? (article should more clearly mention they were then separate communities)
What sort of "troops" did the Boston mayor have authority over? (Are these local or state militia, or police? If militia nominally under state authority, who gave state permission for their use?)
Why and how (legally) did the Boston mayor place enforcement personnel in Charlestown, a place not in his jurisdiction?
"He was pardoned by the governor": who was the governor?
The "historical interest" section is somewhat irrelevant, and smacks of OR; that there is historical interest is trivially true if reasonably modern sources are used, and does not need to be called out. It also introduces the name "Maria Monk" for the first time. If there is historiographic controversy or debate over these events, that might be worth covering.

Will leave open until August. -- Magic♪piano 22:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of action, I am delisting the article. Magic♪piano 15:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]