Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Epsom riot

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Epsom riot[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk)

Epsom riot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

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 a run at FAC is envisaged, unless reviewers advise otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Nice to see you here, Schro! Copyedited so let me know any issues, especially BritEng-related. Looks very good prose/structure/detail-wise, I'm just going to take a break now before checking sources and images (unless someone beats me to them) before supporting or opposing (most likely the former)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ian, None of your copyedits were a problem at all - although you may want to take another spin over it, given the changes made by another editor in the interim! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Gav. I read over the lead again and made one tweak. I've also checked edits since I last went through it and I think it still reads well. The only thing (which I noticed the first time I read it and feel more strongly about now) is that the statement one policeman later described the camp as being "run on very lackadaisical lines" seems unnecessary -- the quote isn't very pithy in itself and the gist of it has been explained/paraphrased in the preceding clause. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers Ian. Now trimmed out. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cool, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Ian, that’s very good of you. Cheers SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mertbiol[edit]

Hi @SchroCat: This is a very interesting article and, being fairly local to Epsom, I do have some knowledge of the riot and the events surrounding it. I have given the text a thorough copyedit. There were quite a few very long sentences (and also some very short sentences) which I have reworded. There are a few instances where I felt that the text was unclear and I have left {{clarify}} tags to indicate where this is the case. A few more points:

  • The article uses the name "Woodcote camp", but the sources that I have access to call it "Woodcote Park camp".
  • The Google search for "Woodcote camp" brings up 261 hits; a search for "Woodcote Park camp" brings up 5010 hits. I think it's obvious which is the more common.Mertbiol (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google isn't reliable. Google Books, which I used, is more indicative; Google Scholar has only one additional reference. As neither of the names are the formal name for the place, either will suffice. - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the time for a reliable source to cover this, but came up short. I will look again. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the EEHE website would be a reliable source, but if you are sceptical of local history websites, then there's this CBC article. Mertbiol (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A local history website is definitely not reliable, but I have found an alternative. - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a little tangential, but I'll add a line in shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has now been added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit too much of a copyedit for my liking - and it includes changing punctuation style and comma usage that doesn't need to be changed (and was better in the original). I will put back some of the original work, but try and be sympathetic to your edits too. I'll deal with the above comments shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SchroCat: Please have a look at these parts of your text:
  • These two sentences are together in the same paragraph. The first is 56 words long and the second is 47 words long. You might find them easy to understand, because you are familiar. However, someone reading them for the first time is liable to get lost:

Many British veterans returning to Epsom and its environs were annoyed by relationships between local women and the camp's residents, and members of the East Surrey Regiment "begrudged what they perceived to be the disproportionate praise heaped on the Canadian Corps for its capture of Vimy Ridge in 1917", according to the military historian Nikolas Gardner. In early and mid-1919 tensions between the inhabitants of the town and the camp's inmates, including what Gardner describes as "a growing Canadian disregard for the authority of the local police", often manifested itself in violence towards the police if they arrested one of the Canadian soldiers.

  • You cannot use "either" for one choice out of three options:

The cause of the fight is unclear, but there are three possible versions: either a Canadian private and his wife were assaulted by local men; or a sergeant was with the couple and a fight broke out between the two Canadians; or the private, his wife and a sergeant were assaulted by local men.

Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re the second sentence, Fowler allows usage of more than two options. In any case, it’s not right to just delete one of the three explanations. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: The third explanation is very similar to the third - I was trying to simplify to make it more readable. In any event, regardless of what Fowler says, the convention used by the overwhelming majority of British English speakers is for either to be used with only two options. Mertbiol (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll take Fowler’s word. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘the third is similar to the third’, but there are three different explanations provided. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One full stop should sort the first para. Your changes altered the meaning at the beginning of the paragraph, which was problematic. SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ps. There’s no need to ping, thanks: I have this watchlisted. SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

  • The copyright for Sergeant-thomas-green.jpg states "This image may not have the proper copyright or licensing information, or there is a conflict of license." Please confirm the licensing of the image and transfer it to Wikimedia commons.
  • Licence confirmed and altered: image transferred to Commons. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main entrance of Woodcote Park.jpg has appropriate PD tags.
  • The Rifleman pub, Epsom - Geograph 2983709.jpg has appropriate CC tags.
  • Epsom-station-1919.jpg seems to lack an appropriate US PD tag. It is also listed as a candidate to transfer to Wikimedia commons.
  • Licence confirmed and altered: image transferred to Commons. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sergeant Green' funeral, Epsom 1919.jpg has an appropriate US PD tag. If the Nottingham Journal is a US publication, this is sufficient.
  • Thomas Green Epsom Cemetery.jpg has an appropriate CC tag.

Please ping me if you would like me to review again. simongraham (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SchroCat: Excellent work. The tags all look good. It seems that the article is not picking up the Wikimedia versions, but I do not believe that is a requirement for A-class so happy to pass. simongraham (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for that - it's much appreciated. As I used the 'transfer' feature to get the images over to Commons, there should be a bot that does the clean up on the duplicate images, so that should be along shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

  • What makes Enver, 2011 an RS?
  • If you have to abbreviate South Yorkshire, could you standardise the full stop or not after S.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. I’ve done the second point; I need to do some digging and checking on the first, but will be back shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I think that as a Police Federation source - with access to their records - he is probably OK for this, I've removed him, more under a surfeit of caution than anything else. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was an open question. The link was dead and the archived version told me nothing. But as is, fine. I'm not even going to ask why S has a dot after it and Yorks doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s fine - he’s probably not the strongest source, and the info is adequately supported by the other references, so it’s no problem. I’ve swapped out S Yorks for South Yorkshire, so that should deal with any issues on shortened versions or full stops. Thanks for the review - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

I'll try to review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 20:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In the early months of 1919 the numbers at the camp fluctuated between two and four thousand men (including patients and staff); by mid-June there were between 2,079 and 2,200 occupants" - so is part of this number soldiers awaiting repatriation or is still a hospital camp at this time?
    • I've tweaked this a little - still a hospital, according to Gardner - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Between November 1918 and June 1919 Canadian troops rioted in British camps thirteen times" - does this figure include or exclude the Epsom riot? If it includes it, then recommend indicating that, as the current reading would suggest thirteen riots before Epsom
  • "through the stations unbarred windows." - should this be "station's"?
  • Do the sources indicate what Parson was doing while all the rioting was going on, since he was there and not in the building?
    • Unfortunately no. I suspect not much, given that any order he gave was unlikely to have been followed with discipline so far gone. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is note [e] particularly relevant to this article? I probably wouldn't have included it, but it's not going to be a sticking point for me
    • No - just an interesting connection, but you're right and I've removed it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colonel Frederick Guest, the officer commanding Woodcote Hospital" - is Guest a British or Canadian officer?
    • I've added his regiment, which should clarify - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is McAllan or McAllen the correct spelling? Both are used
  • Is Verex or Yerex the correct name? Both are used
  • " and closed the same day with an open verdict" - I think there needs to be some sort of link or gloss for what an open verdict is, as "open verdict" appears to be primarily a thing in the UK (as an American, I had to look it up, and found very little American usage of the term)
  • "The seven men identified at the inquest appeared at the Surrey Assizes on 22 July" - didn't the inquest only identify six (McAllen/McAllan, McMaster, Masse, Wilkie, Yerex/Verex, and Todd)?
    • No - it was seven: I missed one of the names off the inquest list. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - many thanks Hog Farm. Hopefully all should be addressed in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - the open verdict link had ended up in the section head, so I moved it down to the spot in the article. Hog Farm Talk 13:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - thanks for that. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA[edit]

  • "attacked the police station in Epsom, Surrey, England" I think don't it is necassary to add the province or county where events like this.
    • I think we do. There will be people who don't know where Epsom is, and they'll need some information on it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the evening of Tuesday 17 June 1919" --> "On the evening of Tuesday 17–18 June 1919"
    • The date is to signify when the fight in the pub happened, which was the 17th. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a sergeant were assaulted by local men.[22][17][23]" Re-order the refs.
  • "station, half a mile (0.80 km) away" Round the km?
  • The data in the section "Aftermath 18 June – December 1919" isn't needed.
    • Sorry, which data are you referring to? - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article sounds like it was written as a police report.
  • "In May the same year" --> "In May of that same year"
    • "In May the same year" is grammatically sound in British English - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between the inhabitants of town and camp" --> "between the inhabitants of town and the camp"
    • "the inhabitants of town and camp" is grammatically sound - the alternative would have to be "the inhabitants of the town and the camp"
  • "tensions rose between the townsfolk and the Canadian troops"
  • "In 1895 he signed to join the police before" --> "In 1895 he signed up to join the police before"
  • "As they walked him the police station" --> "As they walked him to the police station"
  • "A group of twenty soldiers assembled outside Epsom police station" --> "A group of twenty soldiers assembled outside the Epsom police station"
    • It's correct as it is (the definite article would only be used if it was "outside the police station"). - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canadian military headquarters placed the town off limits to all personnel" --> "Canadian military headquarters placed the town off-limits to all personnel"

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - that's very good of you. I've done the appropriate ones and left a question where I'm unsure. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias – support[edit]

  • Why no link for Seaford, East Sussex?
  • Be consistent whether to use "Woodcote Camp" or "Woodcote camp", at the moment in four uses the article is split two/two.
  • "..for nearly 25 years, serving first in London, then for eight years.." Per the MOS, "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently."
  • Why does Station-Sergeant link to Sergeant#United Kingdom rather than Station sergeant?
  • I guess this distance is based off the sources, but based on the locations in the map provided, they are only actually about 300 metres apart, which is very different. Can you check this out?
    • Hmmm. Google Maps puts it at just under 500m, which is only a third of a mile, so the source is out a bit. I've removed the distance entirely - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..wielded by a teenager, James Connors, and.." Why isn't his rank given, when every other soldier is identified as such on the first mention?
  • "C.A.M.C." per MOS:ACRO, "Note that Wikipedia generally avoids using full point in upper-case acronyms." – Is this any specific reason for using them in this case? The linked article uses "CAMC".
  • "..was returned to the RAC in.." The abbreviation "RAC" needs to be established in the Background section if it is going to be used here.
  • Note d says "Some sources, including Morton.." I'd recommend clarifying who Morton is.
  • The first sentence of the lead says "about 400 Canadian soldiers rioted and attacked", while later in the lead, and then in the body it says between 300 and 800.
  • "In the ensuing fighting, Allan McMaster, a former blacksmith.." This phrasing gives the impression he was a civilian rather than a soldier; I'd recommend adding his rank.

Overall a really nice article, with only some minor issues raised, some of which are probably more a matter of personal preference. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Harrias - much appreciated. All points acted on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I really enjoyed this read, and am happy to support. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Epsom_riot&oldid=1149433457"