Talk:Cato Street Conspiracy

Peer Review by Jwhurst

At first glance of this Wikipedia entry, I can see that the organization of your page is very well done. The table of contents and titles of each specific section help me to understand exactly which route you are taking when explaining this conspiracy. The opening paragraph gives a great, brief overview of the ideas that will be covered further down the page. Another thing I noticed at a glance is the amount and important links out of your page to other Wikipedia pages. These pages are very important to give the reader all of the information they need to understand your topic. Your page has a great story-like organization. Reading through the sections gives a great order of events while explaining motives throughout. There are very few weaknesses in in your page. However, I do see that only two sources are cited at the finale of your page. With all of this great information, I would like to know where specific information comes from. In line citations would show the reader which source yields which information. The list of external links is also good for the reader to link out and learn more about your topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhurst (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review - Backman2013

Peer Review - Backman2013 Strengths: This is a very unique topic. I've never heard about it before. The article is well-written and seems to be pretty unbiased. Although the writing can break down into jargon in spots, it is easy to follow and is informative. It did a good job of breaking down the motivations behind the plot and its immediate consequences.

Weaknesses: There is a lack of in-line citations. Since there is so much specific information in the article, facts need to be cited individually in order for readers to see where it is coming from. For example, the British punk band from the trivia section could be named and have a link to a potential Wikipedia page or other website.

Peer Review Tarheelnotdeadyet

This is a good entry and a hard topic. Because this event is deeply tied into and related to other related history, it is wonderful that you included so many outside links. The article is well written and flows nicely. Although, there are a few places that could be touched up. The second sentence of the introduction left me a little confused. I thought you could be more clear on where exactly the violence took place. Just from the introduction, I couldn’t tell if the event happened in the “meeting place” or somewhere else; specify where in London the shooting in the side picture occurred. The article starts off sounding very academic, from the introductory section through “governmental crisis” the reader is presented with strictly, and clearly laid out, factual information. The tone shifts in the “discovery” section toward a more narrative flow. From the discovery section through “legacy” the article reads more like a story. I think this is fine but something to be aware. Where the first three sections could stand on their own, the ladder three are best when they are read in direct relation to each other. The article starts too built upon itself. If a person just wanted to known about the legacy, they would first have to read the rest of the article in full. Perhaps try and build less of a narrative (which is hard to do, with history) and resort back to the introduction’s and “origin’s” sections factual based writing.

Overall this article is great and well organized.

I think you could expand of the Legacy section. Use historians in the article. Give quotes of noted scholars whose work pertains to the topic. Based off of their inferences, you could provide more interpretation of the conspiracy’s impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarheelnotdeadyet (talk • contribs) 14:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Backman2013 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backman2013 (talk • contribs)

Peer Review - Klmeyer13

This is a good choice of topic and you have a solid introduction. However, the last sentence of your introduction confused me. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like you're saying that some people "believed [...] attempts", which doesn't make sense to me. Also, you state that the subject is notable because of strongly differing opinions, but the two opinions you state seem like they're both negative. I think you should revise for clarity here.

The writing is otherwise really impressive, and the subtopics flow logically. You do a great job linking to other Wikipedia articles. You might want to give more background information about George Edwards if any is available.

I definitely felt that your article was well-researched, but I noticed that a Wikipedia editor requested more citations. I understand if you got the bulk of your information from one or two sources and don't want to repeat citing them too frequently, but you should at least include one citation per subtopic (there are none in Origins, Discovery or Legacy).

Also, the "Trivia" section is cute and interesting, but I'm unsure if it really follows the traditional Wikipedia format.

Overall, great job.

Klmeyer13 (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccogar (talk • contribs) 04:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As a first note, I'm happy to say that no other records of the Cato Street Conspiracy seem to exist on Wikipedia, which is fantastic. What a great topic choice!

Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard

I'd like to congratulate all of you on a job well done with respect to writing style. Each and every sentence is of a varying structure compared to the one before it, which lends the page an unquestionable air of skill, knowledge, and competence. Furthermore, each section is of a perfect length to avoid exhausting the reader with heavy facts and needless details.

On a similar note, however, the Origins and Legacy sections are rather short compared to the wealth of information that I'm sure is floating around out there, either in libraries or on the Web. (It might be a fun idea to add a few more Trivia bullet points as well, or else to incorporate both facts into the article itself and delete this section entirely. In addition, you might want to add the British punk-rock group as a disambiguation at the very beginning of the article rather than at the end; see the very first line of text on this page for more details.)

Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context [and what might be missing?]

Additional ideas for a more comprehensive approach to origins and legacy (pre- and post-event, you might say) might be to address its importance from a modern-day standpoint: Why is this important, and why is it the subject of books and plays? What can we learn from it and what similarities might be drawn to more recent governmental events around the world? Be careful, though: It's important to maintain a neutral standpoint when adding to the Legacy section, which I'm pleased to say you've maintained thus far.

As for the origins of this event, this relatively short paragraph seemed almost rushed compared to the balanced prose in the rest of the page. Is there a way that you could include a few more background details of, say, the Spencean Philanthropists (is there an Internet or book source that refers to them more closely?), Thistlewood's history, or their overarching anti-governmental plans? Your penultimate sentence in this paragraph could, in itself, provide enough content for another paragraph on its own.

Well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate [are there a variety of sources/viewpoints?]

It's unquestionable that you've conducted thorough research on this topic, although the Wikipedia administrators might be right when they recommend the use of inline citations throughout the page. This doesn't have to be a difficult feat: While in the Edit screen, simply click the "Cite" button and select the resource format you wish to cite (e.g., book, journal, Web page). You can then enter the information of that source, which will be placed automatically in the References section at the foot of the page. Not only does this get the Wikipedians off your back, but it increases credibility while reading the page itself.

Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias

As previously mentioned, you've excelled at presenting the information here in a way that almost parallels a history textbook in the sense that each and every sentence is ambiguous as to your own personal feelings toward the issue. Although I know the event itself is almost inapplicable to our modern society, any sort of political issue is easy to present with a biased voice, and you've done a spectacular job of masking that voice while writing. Bravo!

Formatted appropriated: it follows Wikipedia style guidelines.

On a very surface-level basis, I'll note that I love your alternating use of floating images between the left and right sides of the page. I might add that the caption below the last picture is a bit long, and that the dates of birth and death for each person in the sketch might not need to be posted.

Also related to formatting is your use of inter-Wikipedia links--that is, the double use of brackets around words that might mean nothing to unknowing readers. The words you chose to link out to other Wikipedia pages seem to have been very carefully planned and don't repeat after initial definitions, which is both clean and easy to follow. With a combination of structured sections, concise details and reporting styles, and well-chosen images, I'm happy to say that this page is looking great! Good job.

Jbodford (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall, I feel that this is a very good article. It is written in a neutral manner, as it presents the facts of the event without favoring any party. This is particularly important for an article about a controversial issue such as the Cato Street Conspiracy. I also think that the article is very well-written, as it is written in way that is both easy to understand and engaging. I also feel that this article is fairly comprehensive, as it provides a good amount of information on the event as well as background information and the aftermath. To make it more in-depth, I would suggest adding more information about the trial by focusing on what happened to each individual in court. You might also want to give more information about George Edward’s involvement with the Home Office, if you can find any. I would suggest looking up information on the subject and individuals involved in the conspiracy in the library. George Edwards even has an autobiography that is available online through the UNC library (http://search.lib.unc.edu/search?R=UNCb6332643). It is hard to review the research for this article, as it does not have inline citations, so I can’t tell how the information is used. The sources listed at the bottom of the page seem good, but it is important to cite them within the article. Other than the lack of inline citations, the article is formatted correctly according to Wikipedia standards. I feel that this is a good article in general, and could be even better with additional information and the citation of sources.

Thechriskennedy (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a few tell-tale 'non-British-English' features of the current text. I could correct them, but would be reluctant to do so if that obscured the origin of some further agenda. May we know more about the source? 86.142.183.174 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Well-written: I think your group did an excellent job with your writing style. Each sentence seems to flow very well, I didn't find myself getting lost while reading it like I have with some other WIkipedia articles. Good work!

Comprehensive: Your topic seems comprehensible thus far. Possibly add more information to the trivia sections and maybe break up the other sections, but other than that...good job!

Well-researched: Your article does seem to be very well-researched considering all of the information and facts you have about the topic; however your reference page does not display this. I'm not sure if you used just those few sites for all of your information or not, but maybe add more references and cite more throughout your article? Just a minor suggestion, other than that your article is very well-written!

Neutral: Neutral, no bias from what I can see!

Formatted appropriated: I think your page looks great! I love all of the images throughout the article and I think you followed the Wikipedia outline perfectly.

Overall: I loved reading your article, great job!! Morganf313 (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

peer review by kchubb28

well-written- I think you did a great job writing this article. It seems to be written in a professional manner and I didn't see any grammar or spelling errors. I like that your intorduction is short but provides a lot of great information quickly. The "see also" section is a great addition and really helpful for someone who would like to learn more information on the topic.

comprehensive-This is a very interesting topic which you provided a signification amount of information for.

well-researched- It seems like you were able to get a lot of information but you only reference two sources. If there were other sources that you used than I would suggest adding them to the references section. If you did find all of this information from two sources than I would suggest look at our websites, articles, etc to find different information from different perspectives/sources so that you can provide a comprehensive understanding of the Cato Street Conspiracy without being biased.

neural-Seems to be unbaised! good job

formatted appropiately-You did a good job making this page look like a real wikipedia page. Great use of photos and dividing the information into sections. You may want to consider adding one of those side boxes that are commonly at teh top right hand side of wikipedia pages that give basic facts and overall information so that the reader can find things quickly.

kchubb28(talk)

Title: common words > lower case

I do not see why the common noun 'conspiracy' has an upper case initial letter. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Events typicaly have names with all capital initials. Like ‘Gunpowder Plot’. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:395D:A79B:3C5D:D65C (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Chances of success

Was there any ever real chance of this succeeding, even if the murders had been done? Why did they think a unit of the Guards would support them? Or was it to support the infiltrators(the article is not clear)? Some citations to reliable historical studies would improve the article. 213.205.240.235 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)