Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ely and Littleport riots 1816/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ely and Littleport riots 1816

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am looking to improve the article through B-Class and eventually as a GAN. The riots started in the first months of 1816 in West Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire; in early May in Bury, Brandon, Hockwold, Feltwell and Norwich; finally, a meeting was held on 16 May in Downham before reaching Littleport via Hilgay and Southery on the 22 May by which time the crowd had grown even bigger. A rioter was shot dead in Littleport by a dragoon (on the orders of Sir Henry Dudley by a trooper of Major Sir John Byng's 1st The Royal Dragoons). Five  rioters were hanged by a government lacky of a chief Justice of the Isle of Ely (Edward Christian, yes Fletchers brother!). Is there anyone not bored yet who would like to help?

Thanks, Senra (Talk) 22:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana boomer

Hi Senra! It looks like you've done a great job with this article. Here are my comments:

  • Lead, "had the Bishop of Ely appointed right to try the rioters." Is "appointed right" a legal term?
  • My problem here is that I have no idea what you are trying to say with this sentence. What does it mean that he was "appointed right"? Also, this isn't really mentioned at all in the body - the fact that he was on the panel is, but how he got there (through Christian) isn't. The lead should be a summary, with no new information.
  • OK, wow, I had that completely backward. I thought you were trying to say that Christian did something to the bishop, not the other way around. What would you think of this wording: Edward Christian,..., had been appointed (as what, btw? Did he have a title?) by the Bishop of Ely and given the right to try the rioters. Or something of the sort. Also, would it be possible to include something in the body that is basically a sourced version of your comment on this below? Currently there is nothing in the body to explain why there were government representatives and a representative of the bishop both on the judging panel.
  • Lead, "passing the Vagrancy Act 1824 and subsequently the Metropolitan Police Act 1829." Should this be "Vagrancy Act of 1824" and "Metropolitan Police Act of 1829"?
  • Background, "52 shillings (£153 at present worth,[4] as of 2010)[5] per quarter". I'm not sure what "per quarter" is referring to. Is a "quarter" a measurement? Later note: Is this perhaps a quarter of a bushel?
  • Perhaps link to the article you mention?
  • Surrounding area, "onto Downham Market (Downham)". What is the need for the Downham in quotation marks?
  • Hm. This is somewhat confusing to a non-Brit, but I'm not sure how to make it more clear. I'll think about it and let you know if I come up with anything.
  • Surrounding area, "The magistrates agreed; a modus vivendi; a hollow truce; the yeoman cavalry had been called from Upwell, arriving at 5pm." This sentence reads like a series of partial thoughts. "The magistrates agreed" seems to point to them being agreeable to the work/2 shilling demand, but then modus vivendi means (AFAIK) that they agreed to disagree. How was this a hollow truce? Who decided to call in the cavalry - were the magistrates feeling threatened, the mob acting violent?
  • Littleport, "a disorganised group of 56 residents". Why were they disorganized, or what was disorganized about them?
  • Littleport, "where Robert Johnson was the landlord. Discussing the lack of work and the rising grain costs." First, why does it matter who the landlord was? Second, the sentence beginning "Discussing..." is a partial sentence that should probably be connected to the previous sentence. I wasn't sure how you would like this done, though, hence why I didn't do it myself!
  • Littleport, "Burgess, the lighterman". What is a lighterman?
  • Perhaps link to the article anyways? I honestly had no idea what the term was until I linked to the article.
  • Littleport, "the rioters destroyed his goods and chattels and stole some of his silver-ware. Vachell was later to receive over £708 under the riot act," First, I always thought that the plural of chattel was also chattel, with no "s" (I could be wrong, though) - and you might want to link it. Also, I've never seen "silverware" with a hyphen, but that could just be an American English thing. Second, did Vachell receive the money as reimbursement for his losses? Why him and apparently no one else?
  • Mostly done, just one part left.
  • Rather than adding a note next to every use of "as of 2010[7]" for dollar values, you could just put a note next to the first one that the reference covers all uses of this term. So: "Note x: All inflation numbers in this article are covered by the whatever index", or something of the sort. That would reduce the number of footnotes, which gets quite dense and distracting in spots.
  • Hmmm, I was actually just thinking one note at the beginning explaining the inflation index and then never repeating it again. Less little numbers that way. But, if you want to keep the footnotes by every conversion, this way works too.
  • Ely, "despatched". Wouldn't it be "dispatched"? I always thought that "despatches" were a military thing; again, though, I could be wrong :)
  • Ely, "On being told that they wanted 'the price of a stone of flour per day' and that 'our children are starving, give us a living wage'. The Reverend agreed though said he would have to converse with the other magistrates first; he asked them to return to Littleport but the rioters marched on." As it's written, the first sentence is a fragment. By just combining the two, it would make a run-on sentence, so it needs to be still split, but split in a different way.
  • Ely, "Ely magistrates drafted a response, pictured," You have already pointed (through the use of pictured) to the image in the lead. Using it here doesn't make as much sense, because the image is no-where near the text.
  • Execution, "costing five-pound five-shillings". What does it matter what the cart cost? Same for the chaise and rope mentioned shortly after this.
  • I see your point. However, there are a couple of points I should make here. First, there is no inflation guide here, so we can't see how much this is in today's money. Second, there is no explanation that this was more than was usually paid for similar equipment. With no point for comparison, it just looks like trivia.
  • It looks better, but it would still be nice to see some discussion of why this is important (i.e., that it was more than was usually spent). If you have a reference for it, of course!
  • One sentence sections, such as that of the "Media" section, are generally frowned upon. This could easily be moved into the "aftermath" section, and perhaps expanded upon a bit. Show why it is important to this article that this (what: play, movie?) involved the riots.

Overall, it looks good. It is definitely B class right now (although I'm not going to change the rating myself, usually only members of a project do that unless its for GA/FA class), and should be able to go through GAN fairly easily. In a few places there was, IMO, a little too much detail - I felt that it disrupted the flow of the story, and pointed out a few specific instances above. Other editors may have different opinions about this, however. Please let me know if you have any questions - I am watching this page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the points I consider completed and added comments under the others. Dana boomer (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More comments/strikes. No worries on the time frame - that's the great thing about a peer review! And honestly, the article would probably sail through a GA review right now. Most of the comments still remaining above (and even the full list we started out with) are nitpicks, fussy things that are probably headed more towards the comprehensive and brilliant prose criteria of FAC than the broad coverage and clear prose criterian of GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses by senra (talk · contribs)

  • comment Lead, "had the Bishop of Ely ... Not a legal term at all. Isle of Ely has been special for a long time. See e.g. "Academic dictionaries and encyclopedias:Isle of Ely". Retrieved 18 September 2010. --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment "had the Bishop of Ely appointed right to try the rioters" - I need help here I think. It is supposed to mean that the Bishop of Ely has had the right to appoint the Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely since 970. Under this long held right, Edward Christian was appointed by the Bishop in 1800. It was thus Edward Christians right (as he had been appointed by the Bishop) to try the rioters on his own. The government of the day disagreed. The government (Lord Sidmouth the home secretary) created a special commission to try the rioters and as part of this appointed two judges himself - thus by-passing Edward Christian. Christian ignored this and attended (and indeed took part) in the trials himself (as well as the two government appoint judges) --Senra (Talk) 22:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Background, "52 shillings (£153 at present worth,[4] ... 1 quarter = 2 stone; see Imperial_units#Mass. If you think this needs clarifying, then sure. Incidentally, I believe one quarter is a quarter of a hundredweight (cwt) and one quarter is half a bushel and one quarter is 2 stone or 28 pounds --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreed  Done Second, did Vachell receive the money as reimbursement for his losses? Why him and apparently no one else? He did recieve as a result of damages (now ecplained in article) but sources do not record anyone else getting damages --Senra (Talk) 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreed Execution, "costing five-pound five-shillings". ... Not sure. The intention here was to draw out the fact that they paid over the odds for the cart but I have not done this well. Let me work on this --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the time you have taken to go through this. If I have annotated with agreed I entirely agree and have either fixed it or will fix it. If I have fixed it, please strike. If I comment only, it means I have not made any changes and would welcome your further input (or strike whichever is appropriate) --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your continued support. This is very useful. I need a little more time. I will address the rest tomorrow --Senra (Talk) 22:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All done I think? By the way, I do not consider any of the above nit-picking. All your points seem reasonable to me. I will put this in for GAN (unless you disagree) or perhaps straight as a FAC? Thank you so much for your help --Senra (Talk) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It all looks good - very nice work! I usually go through GAN before FAC (the more eyes the better), but it can take a long time, so if you're in a hurry for some reason... Also, before FAC, I would suggest asking Malleus to take a look through it. He usually only does pre-FAC work (no sense copyediting if there are going to be major revisions later, I guess), but his copyediting has been a god-send to me. I can get through GAN on my own power, but FAC is a bit more difficult :) Please let me know if you have any further questions. Again, nice work, Dana boomer (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ely_and_Littleport_riots_1816/archive1&oldid=386642881"