Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Friday (1910)/archive1: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)
172,064 edits
Line 199: Line 199:


::::As for the image, it has been in the article since 2015. You removed it during the rewrite, and when I saw that, I restored it. So it seems to me that you need consensus to remove it, not the other way round. It doesn't make sense that the high-quality image is in [[Ernestine Mills]] and [[Ada Wright]] (one of whom had nothing to do with this), but in the article about the event itself we have an inkblot. Regarding your claim that the woman's name is "of minor academic interest", I strongly disagree that the identity of the woman being attacked doesn't matter. The point is that it's an UNDUE violation to pretend that the sources disagree. One source (anonymously written and citing no source) says it was "possibly" Mills. All other sources say it was Wright. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 16:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
::::As for the image, it has been in the article since 2015. You removed it during the rewrite, and when I saw that, I restored it. So it seems to me that you need consensus to remove it, not the other way round. It doesn't make sense that the high-quality image is in [[Ernestine Mills]] and [[Ada Wright]] (one of whom had nothing to do with this), but in the article about the event itself we have an inkblot. Regarding your claim that the woman's name is "of minor academic interest", I strongly disagree that the identity of the woman being attacked doesn't matter. The point is that it's an UNDUE violation to pretend that the sources disagree. One source (anonymously written and citing no source) says it was "possibly" Mills. All other sources say it was Wright. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 16:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

:::::I really have no idea how you think me adding a PR and FAC template onto the talk page isn't going to alert page watchers, but never mind.
:::::Thank you for potted history: it means sweet fanny Adams (particularly to me, as I know what steps I took and when), but the main point is that it is here for those who wish to review this '''in good faith''' are free to do so.
:::::I have had to ask you before to work play nice, and work ''with'' me, not against me. If you could do that, life would be much more constructive for everyone. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 17:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


====Comments by Carabinieri====
====Comments by Carabinieri====

Revision as of 17:02, 7 June 2018

Black Friday (1910)

Black Friday (1910) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Black Friday of 1910, rather than the modern shopping frenzy. It was a suffragette demonstration in which 300 women marched to the Houses of Parliament where they were met with violence, some of it sexual, by the Metropolitan police and bystanders. This article has been overhauled recently and any further constructive comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comment: Please check the caption on the Votes for Women cartoon image. "Offing"? More detailed assessment to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops- many thanks Brian! - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

This is a very interesting and high quality article on an important topic. I have the following comments:

Many thanks Nick-D: all sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, but please see the suggestion above. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nick. I've added something to address your point, which covers most parts, but without excessive detail. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SN54129

  • Nice article, as always expected. The immediate thing that jumps out is the duplicate image, in the lead and the reaction section—any particular strategy with this? You've got plenty of good images already (and possibly, where they came from?); I think the one that's bordered by the newspaper headline would look good up here?
  • Couple of other things; " The conciliation committee were"—I immediately think, obviously, collective noun = "was" (as opposed to "members of the committee were..."). Does this depend on it being the committee itself or its members though. Also, I can see some (extraneous?) commas which seem to break up the flow of the sentence unnecessarily ("The rising levels of violence by the police, was not raised or complained about", "Asquith called a general election, and said that parliament") Ironically I also note a couple of places where I thought a comma would fit better :) but perhaps its style rather than necessity. Bloody interesting piece though.Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • BrEng commonly treats collective nouns as plural (and grammatically neither is considered 'better' than the other), so I think its OK here. I'll have another look over the commas. It's been through a bit of a heavy trim just pre-FAC, so there possibly are some errors that I'll look into once again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Always a moment of supreme enjoyment...having my lingua franca explained to me :p  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 20:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I knew as soon as I posted it that it looked a bit stuffy! - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

I'm reading carefully, this being my first detailed look at the revised and improved text. Here are a few comments on the lead and first few sections:

Lead:
  • Metropolitan police → Metropolitan Police
  • "well-supported" - delete hyphen
  • "Asquith refused to grant further parliamentary time for it to be discussed." Suggest: "Asquith refused to grant it further parliamentary time."
  • "Asquith called a general election" – for clarity, I'd insert "another" before "general".
  • "The demonstrations led to a change in tactics by the WSPU, because many of their members were unwilling to expose themselves to similar violence again; the organisation moved further towards direct action, such as stone throwing and window breaking, which gave the women a chance to escape before encountering the police." I'm not sure that "change in tactics" is the right wording. It was more a resumption and extension of the militant tactics pursued before the truce – as evidenced in your own later text in paras 3 and 4 of the "Women's Social and Political Union" section. I'm also unsure about "which gave the women a chance to escape..." etc, which motivation isn't mentioned in your text and ought to be referenced somewhere.
  • The main text mentions a change of tactics on the part of the police, which is not mentioned in the lead.
Women's Social and Political Union
  • The blockquote seems a little on the long side (170 words), going beyond the function of emphasising the text. You might consider a trim.
  • You describe Herbert Gladstone as "the Liberal Home Secretary". You don't add a party label to Asquith when you describe him earlier in the section as the Prime Minister - probably just "the Home Secretary" would suffice.
Political situation
  • Give date of the January 1910 general election, as you do in the lead
  • A hung parliament eliminates, rather than reduces, a government's majority (as Mrs May learned to her discomfort last year).
  • "Asquith took power" – retained power, I think, as he was already in office
  • "they accepted it was an important step and called a truce in militant actions in support". A bit clumsily worded, I think. Suggest "as an important step", followed by a comma, and replace "actions in support" with "activity".
  • For the benefit of those unversed in British parliamentary procedures, it might be useful to add the words "and it would therefore fail" after "but no further parliamentary time would be allocated to it".
  • "Grey" not mentioned previously in the text, only in a footnote, so should be properly introduced.

More to come soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

18 November
  • "On 18 November 1910 Asquith called a general election..." Although the reasons for this don't impinge on your topic, a few words of explanation would be helpful, e.g. "On 18 November 1910, in an attempt to resolve the parliamentary impasse arising from the House of Lords veto on Commons legislation, Asquith called a general election. He said that..." etc. – or you may devise a briefer insertion.
  • "the first groups of men..." – who were these "men"? Were they just bystanders? Calling them "the first groups" makes it sound as though they were organised. Perhaps delete the words "the first"?
  • Six hours is a mighty long time. What were the demonstrators actually doing all this time, apart from being beaten up? Was it a passive demonstration, or did they make attempts to enter the parliament buildings? I think a little fleshing out of detail would help to form a better picture of what was going on.
    • There is very detail about what happened, aside from the reports from the women about their individual treatment. I've clarified that they were trying to get into parliament fr that time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert on wheelchair mechanics, so I'm a little bemused by the policeman who "stole the valves from the wheels". What can this mean? Do wheels have stealable valves?
Reaction
  • On 19 November 1910, newspapers reported on the events." I would add: "of the previous day".
  • "an attempt was made by the police to suppress publication" – "the police" is rather too general here. Perhaps "the police authorities"? Also in the following sentence, "he" and "they" require clearer definition.
  • "When members of the Conciliation committee..." earlier "conciliation committee"
  • "they demanded a public inquiry, which was rejected." Who rejected it?
Assessment
  • "Emmeline blamed the maltreatment Clarke received at the two November demonstrations" – I'd insert "her death on" after "blamed"

Primarily these are small points I would have suggested at the peer review, had I got there. The only significant issue, I believe, is the "six hours" matter that I raise above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, those that are not should not
I thought these were OK? Can you point out the ones that are not? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Daily_Mirror,_19_November_1910,_front_page_(cleaned).png: UK tag requires that you outline in the image description steps taken to try to ascertain authorship.
Photographer identified (inc date of death); tag changed - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with File:A_policeman_tries_to_seize_a_banner_from_a_suffragette_on_Black_Friday.jpg.
Explanation added - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with File:Elizabeth_Garrett_Anderson;_Emmeline_Pankhurst.jpg, which also needs a US PD tag and the source link of which appears to go to a different image
Explanation and tag added; link re-directed to correct image - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Suffragette_Banner_-_Museum_of_London.jpg: who is the author on which the life+70 tag is based?
Tag changed. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with File:Suffragettes,_Daily_Graphic,_14_February_1907.jpg
Tag changed; explanation added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Votes_for_Women_-_1909_front_page.png
Tag changed; explanation added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pankhurst_at_the_Black_Friday_demonstration.jpg.
Tag changed; explanation added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically same also with File:Flier_for_a_suffragette_demonstration.jpg, but that one I would argue is too simple for copyright protection
It probably is - the type is unexceptional and layout simplistic, but I've swapped the tags anyway, just for safety's sake. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation added - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Nikkimaria: all the tags etc sorted (hopefully!), but if you answer the question on your first point I'd be much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

A very worthy topic.

  • "a truce in militant actions" is a rather curious turn of phrase. There's "truce in militant activity" further down, too.
  • I feel the final paragraph of "18 November" could have more details about what actually happened on the day; is that basically all of what is known? Did the police not tell a story about what had happened? You mention lots of journalists being present; did this not tell of more details? I see now that more is discussed in the sections following!
  • "the image may be that of either Ernestine Mills[59] or Ada Wright.[60][61]" Presumably you mean that the person displayed was either Mills or Wright, not that one of the two of them took the picture?
  • "The committee's secretary, the journalist Henry Brailsford, and" Was Brailsford the secretary? If so, dashes might help!
  • "she had witness against others" Witnessed?
  • In one place, you refer to "stone throwing and window breaking" and in another to "stone throwing and window-breaking". I'd have thought it should be "stone-throwing and window-breaking".
  • "The historian Elizabeth Crawford considers the events of Black Friday "was to fix the image of the relations" This is grammatically a little odd.
  • "Sir Edward Troup" but " Sir Edward Grey" (twice)
  • The lead feels very long for what is actually a relatively short article.

Hope that's useful. This reads very well. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV

Hi SchroCat, I see you've removed the higher quality image from the lead again. I think it should be restored to either File:Black Friday, London, 18 November 1910, suffragette attacked.jpg or File:Black Friday, attacked suffragette on the ground.jpg (the lead image since 2015). Swapping it for the Mirror front page means the quality of the image is reduced considerably, and the article isn't about the news coverage. SarahSV (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article isn't about the news coverage, it was an important part of driving public opinion (both toward and away from the demonstrators), so I think we do need the front page in there somewhere. At the resolution the images are shown in the article, the difference between them is negligible, and I think the impact is greater showing it as, very literally, front page news. (It was also you who suggested it ;-) ) Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to the Mirror front page being the lead in principle; it's the quality that's the problem. Is there any way to download a higher quality version of the Mirror image? SarahSV (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've put in a higher quality version, but it contains a stamp on the front that appears in all the historic copies of The Mirror from their archive. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The image reminds me of File:Ian Tomlinson remonstrates with police.jpg: Ian Tomlinson and several police officers just after one of them (not in picture) pushed him over. We use that in the lead of Death of Ian Tomlinson, but not as it appeared on the front page of The Guardian.
Despite this being a women's protest, the image shows only two women: one on the ground and one (possibly) in the background. It shows around 17 men, at least six of whom are police officers. That tells a story: for example, that the men dragged her away from the other women. We lose that detail by using the Mirror image. SarahSV (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what we're losing Sarah: it's the same image, just with the additional impact of having The Mirror masthead above it. It's the same story being told in the two identical images. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We lose the detail, as I said above. The Mirror images are just a mass of black. SarahSV (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be reading way too much into it "for example, that the men dragged her away from the other women"? There is nothing to back that up at all. What the Mirror version does is to reflect the reliable sources of it being a highly publicised front page matter. We have a whole section dedicated to the reaction, much of which is about the media. If you remember, there was a previous image of an old woman being tussled with by a policeman, which could also be happily put back in. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, she has written about it. What did she say happened? SarahSV (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The little old lady? I don't think she's ever been identified. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The woman in the lead image. SarahSV (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'll go back to the suggestion of a large policeman wrestling with a little old lady. You seem to have missed that suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking about the woman in the lead image; the woman in the image in this section. She wrote or talked about the experience. You can take what happened directly from her. SarahSV (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you seem to be talking past me on this. I've suggested an alternative image to get past this, as there is minimal difference between the two images, except for the additional impact of the newspaper headline. As to what someone has said, the reliable sources do not even agree on the identity of the woman in the photo. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I'm discussing: The Mirror (as I recall) identified the woman on the ground as Ada Wright. She identified herself as Ada Wright and wrote or discussed what happened to her. Every RS I have read about this (as I recall) names her as Ada Wright. Her name and statement should be in the article. Given how that image became a symbol of Black Friday, it should be the lead image, as it was from 2015 until you changed it recently. Of the various versions of that image, we should use the highest quality so that we can see the detail.
As for the National Archive saying it was Ernestine Mills, are they alone in that, or do any of the primary sources or reliable secondary sources say the same? SarahSV (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Mirror do not identify her as Wright. I am not happy about dismissing the National Archives version, as they are fairly good at what they do (although I have not seen HO144/1106/200455, the document from the Home Office where the identification as Mills is made). I don't agree that the "detailed" version is better (as far as I can see, amorphous shapes are all facing perpendicular to the woman and may have nothing to do with her specific situation), and it loses the impact of showing it as front page news. I do not wish to continue this discussion: you are talking past me much of the time, and I am prepared for other reviewers to chip in to make comments as they see fit. Hopefully a consensus will develop out of the other attendees at this FAC, particularly as it was your suggestion to use this particular image in the first place! - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the National Archive say anything about the Home Office? They say only "Possibly Mrs Ernestine Mills prone and Dr Herbert Mills in top hat". [1] Given that they don't even mention Ada Wright, that could be a simple mistake. SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[2] It could be a mistake, but as this very reliable source refers to Mills in more than one location, it seems an odd mistake to make. Either way, I'm happy for others to chip in to get some consensus from third parties. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've tracked down the source (the citation, not the book itself) for Ada Wright's statement. She was interviewed by Antonia Raeburn for her book The Militant Suffragettes, London: New English Library, 1973, pp. 170–171. SarahSV (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I haven't seen this, so I should make clear that I'm assuming she interviewed Wright directly. I believe that she did interview suffragettes for the book, and that Wright's statement that she was the woman on the ground is in the book. I'm inferring from that that Raeburn spoke to Wright. SarahSV (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see that the Raeburn book with Ada Wright's statement is quoted by Caroline Morrell, a source you've cited a lot, so you would already have known about it. (I wish you had said; it would have saved me time.) SarahSV (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have not had time to check. Most of my limited Wiki time this evening has been spent emailing you documents or discussing the lead image here, even though you seem not to be taking on board some of the things I'm saying. Try and work with me, rather than against me please. I'm off to bed, having been going round in circles here and not actually achieving anything. - SchroCat (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It matters very, very little when making the decision about the lead image, and whether or not Wright thought that image was of her or not. Again, I am happy to let others chip in with their thoughts on the selection. - SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It matters for two reasons not related to which image is in the lead: (1) we should name the woman in this famous image, assuming it has been established; and (2) her statement describing what happened to her belongs in the article.
Re: the lead image. For background, the higher quality image was added to the article in January 2015. You added a rewrite in one edit on 18 April 2018, which removed the image and added the Mirror one to the "Reaction" section. I restored the higher quality image on 20 April and placed it in the lead. You removed it again on 31 May and moved up the Mirror image instead. SarahSV (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im always wary of people attaching their names to a famous image or event some time after it occurred. Either way, the reliable sources show two names and we should reflect that. I would not be happy to see something like the National Archives ignored on an interview of someone claiming that it's them.
I am very aware of the history of the use of the image in this article, but I'm at a loss as to why it matters. A consensus of reviewers here will suffice. -SchroCat (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your point about being "wary of people attaching their names to a famous image or event some time after it occurred", Sylvia Pankhurst names the woman as Ada Wright in The Suffragette Movement (1931), which you use as a source, and says she saw her. Describing Black Friday, she writes (p. 343):

I saw Ada Wright knocked down a dozen times in succession. A tall man with a silk hat fought to protect her as she lay on the ground, but a group of policemen thrust him away, seized her again, hurled her into the crowd and felled her again as she turned. Later I saw her lying against the wall of the House of Lords, with a group of anxious women kneeling around her.

SarahSV (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these six times is the photograph of, do we know? On the assumption that's what it's of, of course. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, sorry, I don't understand the question. Pankhurst says that she witnessed the attack on Wright. The implication is that she saw the tall man in the silk hat try to help. That's the man in the photograph. SarahSV (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the text reads: "the image may be of either Ernestine Mills or Ada Wright." The weight of evidence in the sources clearly points to Wright rather than Mills, so at the very least I'd be inclined to reverse the name order, and perhaps prioritise Wright's claim a little more emphatically, e.g. "the image is likely that of Ada Wright,<references> or possibly Ernestine Mills.<ref>" Perhaps add a short footnote explaining that Wright identified herself in a 1973 interview? Brianboulton (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly do the first half of your suggestion, but the second half (as it stands) is a problem: Wright died in 1939, and the details of when the interview was, or who it was to, remains a mystery. We can fudge something to say that she claimed it, but without too much additional information. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might not remain a mystery if we had the chance to do the research, but this article was rushed from a sandbox rewrite (with no notification to page watchers that it was taking place) straight to peer review, and presumably it would have been straight to FAC had I not raised objections on talk. There are other problems with the article, but anyone wanting to review it seriously needs time to send off for the sources, and some will take weeks to arrive. I don't understand why this had to be rushed to FAC over an objection.
I added a selection of the sources identifying the woman as Wright to Ernestine Mills, but you've removed them to a footnote and edit-warred to keep them there. Here is the section as I wrote it (I would normally not even mention the photograph in that article until I knew more; I wrote that section only as a compromise). Please see the discussion at Talk:Ernestine Mills. Georgiana Solomon identified her as Wright in a letter to Churchill in December 1910. Sylvia Pankhurst identified her as Wright. That is significant because the National Archives description page is claiming that the man in the silk hat might be Mills's husband, Dr. Herbert Mills. But Herbert Mills was the Pankhurst family doctor. Sylvia would surely have recognized him had he been the man in the photograph, or he would at least have mentioned it to her.
I've emailed the National Archives to ask why someone has added to their catalogue description of the image that it is "possibly" Mills (because that page appears to be the only source that says this), so we have to wait for their reply. Again, all this should be sorted out on the talk page, not during an FAC.
I object to the removal of the high-quality image from the lead. We see detail in it that you can't see as clearly or at all with the image as it appeared in the Mirror, including detail that sources discuss (e.g. the smiling boy); also that the policeman appears to have removed just one glove, which may suggest that he had hit her with it, and that the crowd around her is almost entirely men, which is significant. Someone appears to have dragged her away from the other women. You don't see that in the Mirror image. SarahSV (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. No notes are needed to page watchers (not that anyone can identify them) as they are notified by the opening of the PR/FAC by the addition of the templates to the talk page.
2. This article – in approximately this form – since mid-April. How long do you suggest we wait for you before doing anything?
3. (Re: edit warring on the Mills article: You Boldly added sources, I moved them, you reverted: you are equally culpable of edit warring on that article as I am. As I pointed out on the talk page, discussions abut the potential identification in an image belong in a footnote, not in the main text.
4. The specific identity of the person in the image is of minor academic interest compared to the remainder of the article, and there is no reason why this process should be held up for you to undertake Original Research.
5. Regardless of that, I have included (in footnote M) several of the sources that identify Wright. I have not included the synthesis of Pankhurst "surely" recognising Dr Mills.
6. I have already said that I am happy to keep the decision of the image to other reviewers, rather than the opinion of one person over another. Personally I think you are reading an awful lot into the static image (Someone appears to have dragged her away? Really?) and none of what you suggest is backed up by the sources. I also think the fact it was front page news in one of Britain's widest circulating daily newspapers gives it much more impact than minor details when seen at 300px wide on the page. Either way, let other reviewers chip in with their thoughts and suggestions, and let's not forget, despite your objection, it was you who originally suggested it. – SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You added a sandbox rewrite in one edit on 18 April 2018 (with the edit summary "a ttweak or two..."), and later asked that the sandbox be deleted. That means page watchers knew nothing about it until it was done.
You took it to peer review the next day, then presumably intended to take it straight to FAC. I objected on Talk:Black Friday (1910), for several reasons, including because you had copied a paragraph word-for-word from text Brian wrote at another article (diff). You responded that you would not edit the article again.
On 28 May you said you had changed your mind and would be nominating it for FAC shortly. You asked me to make any further comments immediately. I told you I didn't have time and wouldn't be able to support it (discussion). Had I known about the rewrite when you started it, as is the case with most editing on Wikipedia, I'd have had time to order the sources. But instead everything is done in a rush, so the only people able to review it are people without access to sources. That's a big problem.
As for the image, it has been in the article since 2015. You removed it during the rewrite, and when I saw that, I restored it. So it seems to me that you need consensus to remove it, not the other way round. It doesn't make sense that the high-quality image is in Ernestine Mills and Ada Wright (one of whom had nothing to do with this), but in the article about the event itself we have an inkblot. Regarding your claim that the woman's name is "of minor academic interest", I strongly disagree that the identity of the woman being attacked doesn't matter. The point is that it's an UNDUE violation to pretend that the sources disagree. One source (anonymously written and citing no source) says it was "possibly" Mills. All other sources say it was Wright. SarahSV (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no idea how you think me adding a PR and FAC template onto the talk page isn't going to alert page watchers, but never mind.
Thank you for potted history: it means sweet fanny Adams (particularly to me, as I know what steps I took and when), but the main point is that it is here for those who wish to review this in good faith are free to do so.
I have had to ask you before to work play nice, and work with me, not against me. If you could do that, life would be much more constructive for everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carabinieri

Great article. I've made a few changes, but feel free to revert if you don't agree.

  • "The police also changed their tactics, and in future demonstrations they tried not to arrest too soon or too late." Shouldn't this be "at" or "during future demonstrations"?
  • I feel like the long Sylvia Pankhurst quote in the background section might be a bit excessive. I think it can be trimmed and parts of it paraphrased without losing any information. I can make a suggestion, if you agree.
  • "Public opinion turned against the tactics and, according to Morrell, the government capitalised on the shifting public feeling to introduce stronger measures" What kinds of measures? This sounds fairly vague.
  • I don't quite understand how a budget is a way to circumvent the House of Lords if the Lords are in a position to reject it.
  • I've done some rephrasing here, for the sake of clarity. Please check that I haven't mucked things up. More explanation is contained in the footnotes which could, I suppose, be incorporated into the text. But it's a bit off-topic and I think it better that the footnotes remain as footnotes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming that the lead group and the first group in the Nov 18 section are one and the same. Is that right?
  • It's not 100% clear from the sources, and it's possible that the elderly women in the first group were overtaken by a younger group - or they may have stayed in order. Either way, the sources don't make it too clear! - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Previous demonstrations at the Houses of Parliament had been policed by the local A Division, who understood the nature of the demonstrations and had managed to overcome the WSPU tactics without undue levels of violence" Undue seems like a rather subjective POV word. In any case, doesn't that contradict the background section?
  • I've added the name of the historian who states this. It doesn't contradict the background section, as A division policed Parliament, whereas the suffragettes were in action across the UK. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Groups approaching Parliament Square were met at the Westminster Abbey entrance to the square by groups of men, who manhandled the women" I'm assuming this is not referring to the police. Maybe this could be made clearer.
  • "4 men and 115 women were arrested on 18 November" Were those men part of the demonstration or onlookers who took part in the violence against the women?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Black_Friday_(1910)/archive1&oldid=844857836"