Talk:Ursuline Convent riots
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ursuline Convent riots article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Ursuline Convent riots was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
What we have looks nicely formatted, but the section on the riot itself is just a heading. I added hist-stub. RJFJR 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm coming back to that, thanks. Been busy at work. -- MatthewDBA 12:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
RJFJR 01:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Other than everyone saying how awful it was? It seems to have been rather well known, and there was a big deal about the fact that Ploughed Hill (the old name for where the convent was located) being across from Bunker Hill, with the appropriate references to what liberty really meant. -- MatthewDBA 12:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the reference, incorporating Bisson's work and Schultz' later edition of the book. Other than that, I agree with the above observations. There are now connections to Maria Monk, and supplementary bibliographic documents there. User: Calibanu 13:41, 12 May 2006
GA Sweeps Review: Pass
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. The article would benefit from any image if one is available. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the last "Historical Interest in the Events" section. It reads as if someone is making an editorial POV statement in the text. If there's something to say about the scholarship on the subject, it should be stated explicitly so that anyone reading the article can understand it.
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ursuline Convent Riots/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I realize that GA standards have changed somewhat since this article was passed in 2006. However, its problems including significant issues related to content, which should have been an issue in the GA nomination.
Issues of form
Failing 1b, 2a, 2b:
- Incompletely cited
- Inconsistent formatting of citations and sources
- There are sources listed as such that are not used in citations; these should either be "Further reading" or "External links" as appropriate (or cited)
- Lead contains facts not present in body (e.g. convent site is now in Somerville, and see below on anti-Catholic sentiment)
- Lead should probably be at least two paragraphs
- Quotations, even long ones are (now) not normally to be italicized
Issues of content
Failing 2c, 3, 4:
- No reason is given for Reed's connection (or lack of) to the riots. How did her name come to be associated with the mystery woman? Why is she at all important to these events?
- No background is given demonstrating the claim in the lead that there had been a "rebirth of extreme anti-Catholic sentiment" prior to the riots. (This requires showing that there was once "extreme" anti-Catholic sentiment, that it died down, and then came back.)
- There is no further context on anti-Catholicism in New England: what other examples of it were there in the years before and after the riots?
- Why are the actions of Boston authorities given primacy over those of Charlestown? (article should more clearly mention they were then separate communities)
- What sort of "troops" did the Boston mayor have authority over? (Are these local or state militia, or police? If militia nominally under state authority, who gave state permission for their use?)
- Why and how (legally) did the Boston mayor place enforcement personnel in Charlestown, a place not in his jurisdiction?
- "He was pardoned by the governor": who was the governor?
- The "historical interest" section is somewhat irrelevant, and smacks of OR; that there is historical interest is trivially true if reasonably modern sources are used, and does not need to be called out. It also introduces the name "Maria Monk" for the first time. If there is historiographic controversy or debate over these events, that might be worth covering.