Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peterloo Massacre

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:14, 12 April 2008.

Peterloo Massacre

[edit]

Project nomination. I realise that it's unusual to nominate an article on behalf of a project, but that's what I would like to do here. On 16 August 1819 cavalry were ordered to charged into a crowd peacefully protesting for parliamentary reform, resulting in the deaths of 15 and injuries to 600–700 men women and children. The event was largely discounted by the authorities, although it has recently been described as Manchester's Tiananmen Square, and one of the British historical events most in need of a proper memorial. This article is the result of the Greater Manchester WikiProject's efforts to provide a fitting and honest account of the events of that day in August.

We believe that it meets the FA criteria, and we welcome any suggestions for improvements. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks very strong and good refs. However, some sentences are a bit repetitive such as
By the beginning of 1819 the pressure generated by poor social conditions was at its peak, and coupled with the lack of suffrage in northern England had enhanced the appeal of political...

It is exactly repeated in the Background section, as with several other statements. However, this is a mere problem and simply does not look professional, so not too much of an issue. Also, I did a bit of copy editing, I hope it'll do. I'll read some more later and keep posting my comments.--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply What makes http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/trlout_gfx_en/TRA25555.html a reliable site?

Funding for Culture24 comes from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) through Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA).

And from http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/etc/about/TXT51315.html

Some of their recent awards:

  • Highly Commended - Tourism Website of the Year, for 24 Hour Museum - Tourism ExSEllence Awards 2006
  • Winner - Education, for City Heritage Guides - New Statesman New Media Awards 2005
  • Finalist - Education, for Show Me - 9th Annual Webby Awards 2005, USA
  • Finalist - Children's Learning, for Show Me - BAFTA Interactive Awards 2005
  • Winner - Best Arts, Culture and Heritage Charity - Charity Awards 2004
  • Commended, Educational Initiatives, Museums and Heritage Show Awards for Excellence 2004
  • Finalist, Best E-Services Solution, Best Of The Web Awards, USA, 2004
  • Best E-Services Solution from the Best of the Web Awards, USA, 2003
  • Best Public Information Website at IVCA/Biz Net awards at BAFTA 2002
  • Web Site of the Year, Charity and Public Service Publicity Awards 2002
  • Best Educational Site, BT/New Statesman awards 2002

Richerman (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Aside from the one or two citation issues above, the prose is excellent and the reflection of the content (shown by the sheer number of copy-edits) is outstanding. Good and appropriate use of images, maps and tables. Meets FA criteria in my opinion. Rudget (review) 11:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I'd like to support, but I think further work is needed in the following areas:My comments below have all been addressed satisfactorily.

  • The lead is a bit too long and a bit too detailed. For example, since all the figures are given again in the Background section immediately following, I'd say the first paragraph could be shortened to: "...the reform of parliamentary representation through an increase of the franchise" - or words to that effect, and end the para there. I think para 2 could likewise be abbreviated without loss of meaning.
    • Also in the lead, the last sentence is a bit tantalising was it stands. Perhaps it should read "...came second to the Putney Debates..."
  • Backgound
    • Current equivalent for 40 shillings?
    • Not too clear what you mean by "rehearsals"
    • Chronology point: you have Bamford mentioning the date 16 August before you have properly introduced this date into the narrative.
    • The last paragraph could beneficially be made into two, possibly three sentences.
  • Assembly (This is a very long section - could it be split?)
    • The rank of Lieutenant Colonel is usually hyphenated
    • "best dressed" in quotes requires citation
    • Chronology again, in the sentence dealing with casualties. "...a view supported by casualty lists" would be better reading: "a view that would eventually be supported..." etc.
    • It's 12 noon, not 12.00 pm
    • The sentence beginning: "They formed two lines..." is a liittle unclear, needs a bit of tweaking
    • It's odd to describe a field in square yards. Three acres, perhaps better? Only a thought
  • Charge (Another very long section)
    • The note in the big blue quotes needs to be more definitely separated from the main text, perhaps by putting it in a box?
    • Position of apostrophe: it should be women reformers' flags, since "women reformers" is a plural term. In fact "women reformers" is an ambiguous description - it could refer to people who reform women.
    • The word "although" is the wrong link-word for the two halves of the sentence beginning: "Peace was not restored..." A simple "and" would do.
  • Reaction and aftermath (length again)
    • Again the feature quotes slightly disturb the text
    • Numeral 4 should be in words
    • Describing the foundation of the Guardian as a "memorial" to the Peterloo Massacre seems a bit POV-ish. More neutral would be "direct consequence".
  • Cultural References: A bit close to a Trivia section for comfort.

All-in-all, well presented and highly informative. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply. Thanks for the comments.
  • The lead has now been shortened along the lines suggested, and the Putney Debates added so as to remove the titillation.
  • Chronology issues fixed.
  • I don't believe that Lieutenant Colonel is normally hyphenated by the British Army.
  • 12 pm changed to 12 noon in Assembly.
  • Changed "although" to "and" in Charge.
  • Changed "memorial" to "direct consequence" in Reaction and aftermath.
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept what you say about Lieutenant Colonel. I assume you'll be dealing with my other points shortly. Forget about the "size" comments if you wish, it was only in my mind that you might subdivide these longer sections, but it's up to you. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply.
  • I've rejigged the last paragraph of Background to explain the reference to rehearsals. Basically the contingents were being drilled in marching, so that they could be seen to arrive at the meeting in good order.
  • I've put the big blue quotes inside boxes.
  • Tried to clarify the "They formed two lines..." in Assembly.
  • I've changed "women reformer's" to "women reformers'". Hopefully the context will make it clear that it does not refer to a group trying to reform women.
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the above. That leaves three points outstanding: "40 shillings", area of the field in square yards, and the "Cultural Refs" section. With regard to 40 shillings I believe this does need some indication of modern equivalence. Does anyone outside Britain even know that 40 shillings was £2 sterling? As to the field area, I personally would give the acreage not the square yards, but it's not a sticking point. I am not happy with a Cultural References section as a matter of principle. The first two paragraphs could be promoted to the Commemoration section. The third paragraph is in my view trivia and I don't think it enhances the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how one would convert 40 shillings to modern units; the value of 40 shillings at Decimal Day would be different to today. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40 shillings is £2, which is easily convertible to a modern streling value - I don't understand the above comment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40 shillings then is the equivalent of about £1,800 in todays money. I've added that to the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm supporting, but could you just check that £2 in 1820 was worth £1,800 in todays values? That's a multiplier of 900! - doesn't seem credible, has an extra nought got in?
Ooops! I misread the conversion; it's the equivalent of about £80 today. Sorry! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point (which on reflection wasn't clear!) was that the value isn't static, but this seems to be resolved. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Refs 36 and 37 can be combined.
  • Inconsistent page numbers, eg. "p.8", "p. 6."
  • Some dates need linking.
  • Ellipses should be formatted as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Ellipses
  • Some inconsistent number formatting, eg, "2 MPs", "two-week trial", "twenty years", "10 minutes"
  • Non-breaking spaces needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "no. 6", "4 years"
  • "comprised of people from" - "comprising"
  • Logical quotation should be used. Epbr123 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation belongs outside the quotes in these:
  • and "to consider the propriety of of the 'Unrepresented Inhabitants of Manchester' electing a person to represent them in Parliament."
  • reported that "seven hundred men drilled at Tandle Hill as well as any army regiment would."
  • that "he had had enough of Manchester meetings."
  • as "hot-headed young men who had volunteered into that service from their intense hatred of Radicalism."
  • has written that "it is not fanciful to compare the restricted freedoms of ..."
  • it would "zealously enforce the principles of ..."
  • Support Comments An interesting read on an important event! Thanks for working on this article! I found it well-written and well-illustrated (all images are in the public domain or GFDL). Most of the research looks solid. Here are my comments:
  • This source was published in 1911. Anything in it needs to be verified using other, more reliable sources.
  • Chesterton, G. K. [1917] (2007). "Chapter XVI. Aristocracy and the Discontents", A Short History of England. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 0548726000. - another early twentieth-century source - Can this fact, "The assembly was intended by its organisers and participants to be a peaceful meeting", be cited to something more reputable?
  • Is the infobox necessary? It detracts from the image and all of the information in the box is easily accessible in the lead.
  • By the beginning of 1819 the pressure generated by poor social conditions was at its peak - The previous sentence describes poor economic conditions - why is it now "poor social conditions"?
  • Peterloo was a key event in Manchester's history, and led directly to the foundation of the The Manchester Guardian. - Peterloo affected national politics and was a shocking event at the time (hardly local) - this is all explained very well in the article but not in the lead. The lead downplays the significance of the event - could it be revised a bit?
  • Is it possible to get a picture of the only surviving banner?
  • Hunt's carriage arrived at the meeting shortly after 1:00 pm, and he made his way to the hustings. Alongside Hunt on the speakers' stand were John Knight, Joseph Johnson, John Thacker Saxton, Richard Carlile and George Swift. - Is it possible to describe these with little phrases? Richard Carlile was a radical publisher, for example.
  • Could the "witness accounts" be integrated into the article? The separate section is not as elegant as the rest of the article. I would also suggest cutting down the quotations a bit.
  • The "Commemoration" section feels a bit listy at the moment - is there any way to make it flow as well as the rest of the article?
  • There are too many headings for all of the "References" - why "notes", for example? Also, why not combine the "Further reading" and the "Bibliography" into a real bibliography that will help readers coming to the article looking for good source material?

Nice work - I really enjoyed reading this article. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to support his article - well done all! Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Thanks for your copyedits and your comments. We'll get onto all of them asap, but if I can just deal with your last point first. Those books listed in the Bibliography are those that have been cited in the article; those in Further reading are additional sources that are relevant, but which weren't used in the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that, but I don't think that is a helpful distinction - the notes make that clear. The "Bibliography" is most helpful to users looking for sources on the topic - breaking them up into two different lists is not at all helpful and rarely done elsewhere. Awadewit (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think it would make more sense if this read "poor economic conditions" since everything mentioned in the previous sentences is related to economics. Can you explain why the word "social" is being used? Awadewit (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, I've come round to your way of thinking. I think the unspoken implication was that poor economic conditions led to poor social conditions, but that case isn't made in the article, so I've made the change. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about moving the Shelley reference to the "Aftermath and reaction" section? His poem was actually part of the reaction, and discussing the twentieth-century works a little more in terms of their commemoration, if that is what they do (this is hinted at in the article). Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peterloo was a key event in Manchester's history, and led directly to the foundation of the The Manchester Guardian. - Peterloo affected national politics and was a shocking event at the time (hardly local) - this is all explained very well in the article but not in the lead. The lead downplays the significance of the event - could it be revised a bit?"
  • "It was a national topic for many years afterwards, but I don't think there's any evidence that it changed anything; the whole thing was simply suppressed. The government at that time was afraid, and rightly so, of insurrection. Anyway, I've made a change to the lead to reflect what you're saying. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article itself, it did affect national politics. It did not necessarily promote reform, but see these sentences from the article: This was the first public meeting at which journalists from a number of important, distant newspapers were present and, within a day or so of the event, accounts were published as far away as London, Leeds and Liverpool.[68] The London and national papers shared the horror felt in the Manchester region, and the feeling of indignation throughout the country became intense....The immediate effect of Peterloo was a crackdown on reform. - This has always been my understanding of the event as well from my reading - that it horrified the entire British populace and that the government used it as an excuse to crack down on reformers. Again, the lead still focuses on the Manchester effects, such as the creation of a newspaper. I can't emphasize enough how much this event affected the national imagination. Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the other books you used on Peterloo cite this work without caveats? The problem is that historical research was done very differently in the early twentieth century. Although the authors cite their sources, the methods they used for data collection and analysis are very different from those used by historians today. That is why we usually verify anything found in a text that old using a more reliable one. Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any Wikipedia guidance on this? My concern is that we're saying a book from 1911 isn't reliable, but 1969 is. The Victoria County History books are used throughout Wikipedia, including other GAs and FAs. I suppose some references to it could be converted to others, but is it strictly necessary? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V#Sources - The concern is that within the field of history, works written before the middle of the twentieth century used substantially different methods are therefore not considered as reliable within that discipline. If the information cannot be verified in more rigorous and reliable sources, one begins to wonder how reliable that information is. That is why I am asking it to be sourced to better sources. FAs need to be sourced to the best research - we want the "best of Wikipedia" to truly be that. This article is very good - let's use the best sources to back it all up 100%. Awadewit (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find that most histories of the Manchester area use the Victoria History extensively. They do need updating of course, but "better" or "more rigorous and reliable" stuff will be very thin on the ground. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we say "where possible", then? This is also a pretty famous event, with several books written on it alone (see bibliography). I would think that those books would cover all of the necessary information. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(to Awadewitt) Whilst I appreciate the idea that reliable sources should try to use recent reliable sources, I don't see any information in WP:V#Sources that specifically comments on the point that "The concern is that within the field of history, works written before the middle of the twentieth century used substantially different methods are therefore not considered as reliable within that discipline." Sorry for the recursion here, but I'm just wondering if you can give a reliable source for this specific claim, as it does have an impact upon other articles being submitted for GA or FA status if it can be substantiated?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An expanded answer to your question: FromWP:V: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." - First, early twentieth-century history sources are not known for undergoing the same kind of rigorous peer review and fact-checking that current historical scholarship undergoes. Second, the most "appropriate" sources in this "context" is what historians would deem reliable - and that is modern historical sources.
From WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." - Again, I emphasize the problem with fact-checking in older sources - it was not as rigorous as it is now. Second, the most "appropriate" sources for claims made about history is modern historical scholarship - that is what the experts in that field rely on. Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. I do accept that what you say is likely to be the case, from my own knowledge of research standards in my own specialist subject, but your sentence: "First, early twentieth-century history sources are not known for undergoing the same kind of rigorous peer review and fact-checking that current historical scholarship undergoes" would seem still be to be a claim that can be verified with reference to suitable sources in the same way that one would require for facts claimed in articles submitted to this FA process, particularly as it it doesn't form part of the policies you quoted, except by some inference and extra unreferenced facts that otherwise could be labelled by some as WP:OR. I know this matter is now a diversion from the excellent article (and excellent review comments which have been made, by the way) but I think the policies for verification, or the inferences one draws from them, can be assessed according to the same rules they are a part of. Whether they need to be is a different question. However, I think this might be continued elsewhere if desired.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed a message on your talk page. Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to take a photo of the banner in the next couple of weeks providing they allow photography in the library. Richerman (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is a comprehensive article on a significant event in British (political) history. With reference to the criteria, the prose is engaging; claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge; and, in my opinion, views are presented fairly and without bias. It is a credit to the encyclopedia. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whether a source is reliable does not depend on the date; rather, on what it is, and what it's being cited for.
    • The Victoria County History is being cited for:
    • The Corn laws raised prices [as they wer intended to], which caused unrest. This is almost subject-specific common knowledge.
    • A letter from Lord Sidmouth to the local authorities. There is every reason to believe the VCH would quote it correctly; this is the sort of thing they got right.
  • On the other hand, any source by Chesterton is polemic; it would be if he were miraculously writing in 1991. it is a reiable source for his opinion only; anything else he may or may not be right on, as suits his convenience. it would and does require a second source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Peterloo_Massacre&oldid=1138468932"