Talk:Coldbath Fields riot

Coldbath Fields riot has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 10, 2022. (Reviewed version).

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour Low‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

A fact from Coldbath Fields riot appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 January 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a jury ruled that the killing of a policeman during the Coldbath Fields riot was justifiable homicide?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coldbath Fields riot.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

An 1899 depiction of the riot

... that a jury ruled that the killing of a policeman during the Coldbath Fields riot (pictured) was justifiable homicide? Source: I've cited it to a book in the article but you can also find it in the online sources, eg: "The coroner's jury that examined the death of Culley returned a verdict of 'justifiable homicide'. The jury justified its verdict on the grounds that the crowd had not been ordered to disperse under the terms of the Riot Act, and that the 'conduct of the police was ferocious, brutal, and unprovoked by the people'." from: "Public Order: Heavy-Handed Policing: The Killing of Constable Culley". International Centre for the History of Crime, Policing and Justice. Open University. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Palácio das Cinzas

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 20:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Article is DYK-eligible and well sourced. Appears neutral. Quite well-written, too, although that isn't a DYK criterion. Earwig looks good. Hook is hooky, good length, sourced. Image is PD and quite crisp at DYK size. Approved! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P4

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coldbath Fields riot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 17:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review the article.

Review comments[edit]

Generally, the main issue is concerned with the quality of the prose—the article would have benefitted from being copy edited before being nominated. However, I found the article to be an interesting read, supported by excellent references.

Lead section[edit]

Link Southwark.

Done - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add commas after the Reform Act of 1832, started the violence, dispersed the crowd, and two officers. This section, and elsewhere, lacks sufficient commas. Please check the article for other places where commas are needed.
and planned to disperse it – ‘in order to disperse it’?

I am not sure there is a direct link between the infiltration and planning to disperse the meeting. Had they not been able to infiltrate the NUWC I think they would still have planned to disperse the event - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are varying figures for the number present at the meeting of between 70 and 600 police officers and 300 to 6,000 members of the public. - consider amending to something like ’Figures for the number of police present varied between 70 and 600 officers; figures for members of the public who attended varied between 300 to 6,000.’

Good point, done - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a portion – consider replacing with ‘a number’.

Done - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but no man – 'but no-one’.

Done - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as it had not been signed – what is the it being referred to here?

The declaration, have used "the document" to avoid repetition - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider enlarging the image (to upright=1.25), as at present the detail is hard to see, and the image is after all the hook that will pull the reader in.

Done, thanks also for improving the image - 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I would add the source of the image to the caption, as it's not contemporary (Arthur Griffiths, Mysteries of Police and Crime (1899), “Fight Between Police and Mob at Coldbath Fields in 1833”).

Done - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 of the 14 lines (on my screen) actually describe the riot itself, which doesn't seem much. I would reduce the first paragraph, which contains a lot of background information.

Trimmed most of the first paragraph and reduced lead to two paragraphs - Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 Background[edit]

Link Metropolitan Police in the caption, and perhaps amend c. 1840 using {{circa}}.

Removed this image, per below - Dumelow (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which had struggled – I believe it should be ‘who had struggled’.

Changed - Dumelow (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rapidly growing looks better hyphenated imo.

Changed - Dumelow (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The public were highly suspicious of the police, viewing them as an extension of the arm of the state. – Did all the public feel this way?

Good point, changed to most and added additional source

by discipline issues is rather vague, could an example be provided, perhaps in a separate note?

Expanded in a note, most of the disciplinary issues were due to drunkenness (especially around Christmas) - Dumelow (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The public derided the police – all the public?

Changed to "some publications", and provided more detail in a footnote - Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was little respect and much resentment; two officers had been killed while on duty in 1830 alone. - It 's not obvious that these clauses should be connected. It also needs to be made clearer who were being disrespectful or resentful—the police, the criminal fraternity, politicians?

Removed the first part - Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the police as an infringement – can people be an infringement?

Changed to "establishment of the police"

called a meeting on open ground – presumably ‘called a meeting, to be held on open ground’

Changed - Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Not GA) The two images sandwich the text (see MOS:SANDWICH).. I would use Template:multiple image to solve this problem.

Removed the first image, it doesn't add much as the police of the period are depicted in the main image - Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 Riot[edit]

Introduce and link David Goodway (I would also link him in the References section).

Linked. I've tried to introduce each of the historians. The paragraph got a bit bulky and distracting so I've switched it to a footnote.

Link public house (Pub).

done - Dumelow (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

had a low level of knowledge of how best to deal – ‘had little experience in dealing with’?

Agreed, changed - Dumelow (talk)

The refs that follow a NUWC meeting need to be swapped around, as multiple citations should be in numerical order. This issue occurs elsewhere.

Had a run through and think I picked up all these - Dumelow (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Wise (2012) gives only ... outnumbered 10-1 seems clumsy and inconsistent – I don’t see why the four authors need to be given prominence here. The text needs to be rewritten to reflect this point.

I've dropped them to a footnote. If still a bit much I can take another look - Dumelow (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is disputed – by whom?

Changed to "contemporary reports are unclear", the source doesn't go into much detail on this unfortunately - Dumelow (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and another reported that the police were drunk should be in a separate sentence, to help shorten the overlong sentence.

I've switched things around a bit in this paragraph, due to changes with the quote below - Dumelow (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider block-quoting the Times quote. (The quote comes from ‘The meeting of the National Union’, Tuesday, May 14, 1833, issue 15164, p. 5. The Times Digital Archive, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS84697262/TTDA?u=nl_earl&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=5007ac3a. (I can provide the full text of the article if you would like it).

Thanks, I've expanded the quote a bit and added a few details from the rest of the article - Dumelow (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 Aftermath[edit]

Link Member of Parliament, in caps, using Member of Parliament (United Kingdom).

Done - Dumelow (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

often anti-police – sounds too informal.

Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imo Campbell is a peripheral figure, and does not warrant being illustrated with a portrait. Ditto Cobbett.

Removed both - Dumelow (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link Hackney; Thames; Twickenham; steamer (presumably Steamboat; St Pancras (St Pancras, London); guinea (Guinea (coin)).

Done - Dumelow (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(what would now be deputy chief constable) can be omitted as superfluous.

Removed - Dumelow (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rendering it – what is it referring to here?

Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a full stop after of a British jury, not after the quote marks (see the image in the http://www.open.ac.uk/ source).

I've always put the full stop outside the quote when it's the end of a setence but I've perhaps been doing that wrong, changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upon arrival they were greeted with a cannon salute and a cheering crowd who had turned out despite the rain. - needs copy editing.

Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imo it comes over as strange that Joseph Sadler Thomas is not mentioned before, being accused as he was for his behaviour during the riot. Is his role during the riot known?

I've introduced him earlier on, seems he commanded one of the more significant contingents of police at the riot - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider including this facsimile of a broadside sheet issued after the inquest, which contains a lot of interesting details.

Good find, added. Though I'm wary of adding detail from it where it doesn't appear in a secondary source, as it is supportive of the jurymen - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, and as a primary source it shouldn't be used as a citation. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 Legacy[edit]

for decades – consider amending to ‘from the 1830s to the 1870s’ (as given in the citation).

Went with "until the 1870s" - Dumelow (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reformed and increased the size of the police in London – ‘reformed London’s police force and increased their numbers’ sounds better I think.

Changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Green died of injuries sometime after the event so only Culley and Blakelock died during a riot. I see no need for this to be included (and he died of his injuries the day after riot, so surely the statement is misleading).

Agreed, removed - Dumelow (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Culley no-one was convicted of the killings of Green or Blakelock – ‘No-one was ever convicted of any of the deaths.’ sounds better?

Agreed, changed - Dumelow (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5 References[edit]

(Not GA) See here for the debate in Parliament on the death of Culley. It's a long read, but an invaluable source for anyone interested in researching the riot, and I would include it in an External links section, if you don't want to use it to expand the article.

Agreed, added as external link - Dumelow (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until ~~9 December~~ 12 December to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the review Amitchell125. I'm travelling this weekend so will try to address the comments from Tuesday, all the best - Dumelow (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added on another few days to allow you enough time. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review Amitchell125, I think I've addressed all your comments above, but let me know if I've missed anything or you disagree with any changes I've made. I'll try to go through (probably tomorrow) to look at adding additional commas. Apologies for the time I've taken to look at this - Dumelow (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing[edit]

The article has now passed at GA, many thanks for producing an interesting an informative read. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]