Talk:Philadelphia nativist riots/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is currently on hold.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   1) Lead - very good summary.
   

2)"On November 10, 1842, Philadelphia's Roman Catholic bishop Francis Kenrick" Why is bishop in lowercase?

3)"Anti-Catholic and nativist groups held further meetings and rallies twisting Bishop Kenrick's requests to the Board of Controllers into an attack against the Bible, which further inflamed anti-Catholic feelings." ----> Awkward sentence. "Further" & "anti-Catholic" used twice. Maybe something like:"Anti-Catholic and nativist groups further inflamed hostile feelings towards Catholics by twisting Bishop Kenrick's requests to the Board of Controllers into an attack against the Bible."

4)"After about an hour the mob, left the church and a another group of men took up the mantle of guarding St. Philip Neri's." ----> a) Who were these men? Not members of the mob? What did they do? (Committee of twenty: Allow no-one in, & all to leave) b) remove commma after mob c) I would not use the word "mantle" in this sentence. Since it occured in a church might cause confusion if it was meant as a noun or verb.

5)"only to be stoned in the process" --> I recommend changing to "only to have stones thrown at them." Since it was nonlethal stone throwing, don't want to leave the reader thinking this was a biblical Stoning.

6)Some mention that the soldiers did capture the rioter's cannon on July 7 seems appropriate. Currently this is a bit of a cliff-hanger.

• I believe I fixed the above items. About the men in point 4, the sources do not indicate whether they are nativists or who they are affiliated with at all. I tried to make it as clear as the known facts allowed. Medvedenko (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance:

   In-line references: 8 & 9 are out of order regarding the St Augustince library; 11 & 12 are out of order regarding the grand jury; and 11 & 15 are out of order for July 8

• Fixed Medvedenko (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   "The riots had gained national attention and condemnation." Is this references in #16 ( I do not have this ref) Is it possible to provide a secondary source. Where was the condemnation coming from? Kept thinking I would find something at HSP.

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Good job with NPoV. As discussed on the talk page, this was difficult.

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   1)Image:FrancisKenrick.jpg - no source of author provided. How can we determine the portrait was made +100 years ago (besides common sense, of course)
   

2)The caption for Porter uses "David R. Porter" while article text uses "David Rittenhouse Porter" - should be consistent

3)The Porter & Patterson images don't contribute much (nor detract) to the article. Okay to stay, but gives me a mild concern of mere decoration.

• Fixed all issues here.Medvedenko (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

That is all for now. This article is very close to GA, just a few items to clear up. Note - this is my first GA review. Mitico (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to remove my comment regarding "mantle." It is still appearing. Please disregard. Mitico (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have resolved all your issues. In regards to your question about the ref for "The riots had gained national attention and condemnation." You can actually see that book on Google Books here. I'd appreciate to see if you feel that statement is appropriately supported by the source or if it should be better clarified. Thanks for the review, this was a much better review than what I gave as my first GA review. Medvedenko (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This cite is right on. Any further comment or clarification is unnecessary and might go off-topic. I think as stated is accurate. (I didn't realize Google books was such a resource!)

With the changes implemented by Medvedenko, I believe this article passes GA. This is a well written and referenced article. The only comment not addressed was 1A)#5 regarding stoned vs. stones thrown at them. Since this is a minor nuance (& maybe just my preference) I am now promoting to GA. Mitico (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)