Wikipedia:Peer review/1689 Boston revolt/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1689 Boston revolt[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'd like to see this article advance from Good Article class to at least A-Class. For the last two days, I have been working on some (mostly minor) edits to it. I think it would be best to get feedback from other editors regarding the article and its quality. I created it; it was greatly expanded by another user.

Thanks, DCI2026 15:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments from Nikkimaria
  • Per WP:ENGVAR, be consistent in whether you use American or British spelling - for example, you've got both "organized" and "organised"
  • The lead seems to be focused on the background of the event, and given the length of the article is a bit on the long and dense side
  • WP:OVERLINK - don't link very common terms, and don't link the same term multiple times, particularly in close proximity
  • You might include a couple more sentences about Leisler's Rebellion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the intro. I use American English - which do you think would be appropriate? I have not yet checked on overlinking, as I am in a bit of a hurry here. I will be free to revise later today. DCI2026 20:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hchc2009:

  • As ever, very keen to see more early-modern articles! :)
  • The picture used in the infobox is a 19th century depiction, and is from a (relatively) biased source. I think its a good one to use, but the caption might capture that it is a 19th century, Boston authored depiction of the event (have a close look at the governor's face and you'll see what I mean!).
  • The use of the word "mob" is often controversial; it might be worth double-checking what the latest scholarship uses (fashions shift a bit between "mob" and "crowd").
  • "unpopular laws that turned some New England merchant trading practices into smuggling" - felt a clumsy phrase, might be worth revisiting.
  • "The royal troops stationed in Boston, most of whose officers were either Anglican or Catholic, were also disliked. " - if we're saying that few of them were non-Conformist, I'd say it explicitly, otherwise you'll throw some of the readers.
  • "nearly bloodless revolution " - you correctly don't use the phrase "bloodless", but recent work has emphasised the amount of bloodshed involved in the revolution, particularly in Ireland.
  • "The religious leaders of Massachusetts" - would be worth saying what the religious beliefs were in the region (Catholic, Anglican , non-Conform etc.)
  • "pastors" - worth linking?
  • " (Mather was arrested, tried, and exonerated on one charge, but Randolph made a second arrest warrant with new charges)," - a fairly big bit to bracket.
  • "Sometime before noon an orange flag was raised on Beacon Hill, signaling another 1,500 militiamen to enter the city." - worth explaining why orange was important?
  • "they must & would have the Government in their own hands" - you can safely expand "&" to "and" here.

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]