Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Epsom riot/archive1

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 by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 7 May 2023 [1].

Epsom riot[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Epsom riot was an interesting point in history when the frustrations of many soldiers who just wanted to return home after the First World War exploded into violence and left a policeman dead. There were several riots in the UK from Canadians, Australians and Americans who wanted to return, and several in France with Brits wanting to get home and the logistics of moving that many men were not as smooth as they should have been. This went through a rewrite in early 2021 and has recently been granted MilHist’s A-class. All comments welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on prose; I gave this a review at A-class and was very impressed. It certainly meets the FA criteria. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Harrias - your comments there were very helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

  • The article is well-referenced throughout, and all references are to reliable sources.
  • Citations are all formatted consistently and in an appropriate style.
  • Checks for additional, unused sources on Google, Amazon and several of the journal listings revealed an array of webpages, but no significant omissions.
  • Spotchecks carried out for source/text integrity, and for copyvio, close para-phrasing:
    • "The slow progress of repatriation was a cause of anger among the waiting servicemen. The winter of 1918–19 was one of the hardest for several years and there was an influenza pandemic. Delays in transporting the troops were exacerbated by the need to cancel at least one ship because it was deemed unsatisfactory." – Cited to ref #6 "Morton 1993, p. 267." All checks out fine.
    • "A group of twenty soldiers assembled outside Epsom police station; they were dispersed peaceably by the police. Word of the Canadians' arrest spread fast among the soldiers and at around 10:30 pm a group of seventy Canadians gathered at the station." – Cited to ref #25 "Gardner 2007, p. 449." All checks out fine.
    • "Some of the Canadians saw Green lying on the floor and realised he was in trouble; six of the soldiers picked him up and carried him across the road to the house opposite. One of the men gave him first aid for about thirty minutes before they left. The homeowner noted that it was 12:30 am." – Cited to ref #40 "Gardner 2007, p. 453." Doesn't specifically state that the house is "opposite", only "nearby". Other than that, all fine.
      • I’ve moved that to the end as the Knight citation carries the ‘opposite’ info. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it concluded on 30 July with the verdict that Green was a victim of manslaughter. The inquest determined that Connors, McAllan, McMaster, Masse, Wilkie and Yerex should face trial, as should Todd the bugler." – Cited to ref #46 ""Epsom Riot Inquest". The Times. 1 July 1919." Doesn't specifically name the men, rather saying "that the six soldiers committed for trial by the Magistrate at Bow-street Police Court last Saturday, and Robert Todd, were guilty of manslaughter."
      • We should be okay, as the information is already cited. If you want I can always duplicate the earlier reference here too? - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume it is one of the book cites which covers it? I can't find it in any other cited news sources? Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added a book reference, just to reinforce it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do for this morning. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Harrias - that’s much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd hoped to get back to this today, but it'll be a few days now, as I'm going away. I just want to make it clear for any potential reviewers that I have absolutely no major concerns regarding the sourcing; this is an excellently sourced and referenced article. I might just ask for a few copyedits to maintain text–source integrity. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Harrias. Enjoy your time away and I look forward to any further comments when you can. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with this now. I've less formally glanced through a few of the other news sources I can access, and have no concerns with any of those. Nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Harrias - your comment at the A class and here are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Steelkamp[edit]

  • "convalescent hospital" and "public house" can be linked.
  • "including Bramshott, on Bramshott Common, Hampshire; Witley, near Guildford, and Woodcote at Epsom, both in Surrey—the two towns are approximately 15 miles (24 km) apart; Ripon, North Yorkshire; Buxton and Seaford, both in East Sussex; and Kinmel, near Rhyl, North Wales." This sentence is quite confusing to me. You could reword as "Bramshott in Hampshire, Witley and Woodcote in Surrey, Ripon in North Yorkshire, Buxton and Seaford in East Sussex, and Kinmel in North Wales."
    • I’ve gone for a half-way fix, removing the distance, but retaining the town names, which clears it up a little. Have a look and let me know if it still feels a bit garbled and I’ll trim further if you think so. - SchroCat (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The situation led to riots at Kinmel in March 1919 and at Witley Camp on 15–16 June." Why specific dates for the latter but only the month for the former?
  • I'm not sure whether explanatory footnotes should be placed before or after reference footnotes, but they should at least be consistent. Note [b] is before note [9] but note [c] is after note [7].

Steelkamp (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Steelkamp. Three of the four are all done per your comment, one dome halfway. Let me know what you think and I can alter further if needed. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Station-Sergeant" hyphenated in the image caption but not elsewhere?
  • "or a sergeant was with the couple and a fight broke out between the two Canadians". Just to clarify, is sergeant referring to a police sergeant or one of the Canadians? Was the fight between the private and his wife or the private and the sergeant?
  • I assume a specific time for the initial fight is not known? I ask because there is a specific time for when the 70 Canadians gathered at the police station.
  • bugler could be linked. (I initially thought it was a misspelling of burglar)
  • Is there a reason why Ripon Army Camp and North Yorkshire are linked twice?
  • "Colonel Frederick Guest of the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps". CAMC could be added after this in brackets as the abbreviation appears later in the article.
  • Does Todd the bugler not have a known first name?
  • Epsom and Ewell could be linked.

That's all from me. Steelkamp (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steelkamp, these are all now done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steelkamp (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Steelkamp - your efforts here are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties, I reviewed/copyedited/supported at MilHist A-Class but will hold off here until a few more comments and possible changes are in... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've reviewed changes since I last copyedited towards the end of the A-Class review and am pretty happy still. Just a few things:

  • In the lead, between 300 and 800 is mentioned twice in successive paragraphs, perhaps eliminate between 300 and 800 of in the second instance, or say hundreds the first time and the range the second time (suggestion only).
  • Station sergeant Thomas Green (three occurrences) -- as station sergeant appears to be a rank I'd expect it to take title case in each of these instances.
  • Ross and Parson could only identify a limited number of participants --> Ross and Parson could identify few participants (suggestion only).

That's really it as far as the prose goes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, thanks for your comments at A class and here: all duly attended to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Schro, obviously leaning support, will just let the image and source reviews play out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • the four paragraphs of the lead are all pretty short, I would be tempted to combine them into fewer
  • Wikilink public house? Might help non-UK readers
  • "In 1919 Station sergeant Thomas Green" - in the lead his rank had a hyphen....?
  • "The soldiers at the front of the house" => "The soldiers at the front of the building".....?
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Chris, The bottom three all dealt with. Let me have a think about the lead and I’ll get back to you on it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ping me when you would like me to revisit, as I can't guarantee to remember :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Sergeant-thomas-green.jpg: when and where was this first published? Also the UK tag in use requires the image description specify what was done to try to identify the author. Ditto File:Sergeant-thomas-green.jpg, which also has a dead source link
  • File:Main_entrance_of_Woodcote_Park.jpg
  • File:Sergeant_Green's_funeral,_Epsom_1919.jpg: as above, need to specify what was done to try to identify author. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've sorted three of them, with one to come:
  • What's the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria, When I did the research in the first place, I found a 1919 reference, but can now only find c. 2009, which is a real pain in the neck. Do you have any suggestions? According to this, it went out of copyright in 1989. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's attributed here to a museum which may have more information? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's not a valid copyright claim from them (they claim copyright on all photographs they hold, despite the provenance. I'll take the image out for now - it can always go back in once I've had a response from them that we can work with. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, three of these sorted, with one problem - any suggestions much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - have your image concerns been satisfactorily addressed? Hog Farm Talk 18:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I gave the article an informal peer review offline a little while ago, and on rereading the text now I have only three further comments, none of them important enough to prevent my supporting the elevation to FA:

  • I don't know if is deliberate, but numbers are sometimes in digits and sometimes in words:
  • Double figures: "A group of twenty soldiers"; "capable of fielding fewer than 20 officers"
  • Triple figures: "between 300 and 800 Canadian soldiers"; "400 men could be sent down from Ripon"; "Between three and eight hundred soldiers made their way to the police station"; "between seven and eight hundred Metropolitan Police officers".
  • Thousands: "between two and four thousand patients"; "between 2,079 and 2,200 occupants".
  • Not deliberate - just the usual clumsiness, now changed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fewer than 20 officers and constables" – probably showing my ignorance, but I thought a police constable is as much a police officer as a sergeant or higher is.
  • The drawing of the funeral procession is a bit tiny for my elderly eyes.
    • Elderly indeed - it's not a drawing but a photograph! Now enlarged. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to me neutral, balanced, well sourced, properly illustrated (with that one caveat about possible resizing), highly readable, and in all respects meeting the FA criteria. Happy to support, Tim riley talk 08:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim, much obliged to you! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • SchroCat, may I have a quick extra nibble of the cherry? The captions of the two pictures in the Aftermath section could do with rationalising: the first reads "Sergeant Green's funeral, June 1919" (and yes I can see it's a photograph now, thank you) and the second reads "Sgt Thomas Green's grave in Epsom Cemetery". Might be as well to lose the first two words in the latter. Tim riley talk 14:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course - all duly attended to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2023 (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/Epsom_riot/archive1&oldid=1153630116"