Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Assassination of Spencer Perceval/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2015.

Assassination of Spencer Perceval

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Spencer Perceval, the only British prime minister to suffer death by assassination, yet this singular event is scarcely known about. It happened in 1812, during the Napoleonic wars and at a time of great economic distress and industrial turmoil—yet these great events had nothing to do with his death. It happened because John Bellingham, a Liverpool-based trader, was piqued that the government wouldn't compensate him for losses and imprisonment in Russia a few years previously, after a deal had gone wrong, and decided on a personal act of revenge. The suffering populace thought Bellingham a hero, and rejoiced; the establishment had their revenge by trying, convicting and executing him within a week. And then everybody forgot about Perceval and wrote him out of history. Here's the story. Huge thanks are due to a patient team of peer reviewers, whose primping and polishing is such an essential part of the process. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Singora
Hello Brian. I hope you're okay in sunny England. I read your article earlier today and made a couple of minor tweaks. Your comments about the peer review ("such an essential part of the process") amuse me. But let's not get into that.

Your article is excellent. You say that Wellington was "pinned down in Portugal". In 1810, yes; in 1812, no. But this is neither here nor there.

I'm sure little Timothy and Mr Schrocat will be along soon to give you your gold star. Good luck!

Singora (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your good wishes, and for spotting and correcting the isbn error in the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – I distinctly perked up when I read in the preamble, above, "the only British prime minister to suffer death by assassination, yet" – but alas… That grave disappointment apart, I have nothing but praise for the article itself. Such quibbles as I had, which were few and small, were dealt with at the peer review, and the article meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment. –  Tim riley  talk    16:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did think of inserting "so far" or "alas" at appropriate points in the preamble, but I can't risk an incitement charge, Thanks for your sturdy help with the review and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Support—I had my say at the peer review. Meets the criteria in my view and I have no qualms about supporting. I think this is one of my favourites from among the articles you have done—I particularly like the supposed revenge part at the end. Well done indeed, Brian. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  18:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the "revenge" bit is probably the least convincing part of the story from a historian's perspective, but it rounds the article off nicely, I think. Thank you for your earlier review comments and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on prose etc. Very informative, interesting and well-written, I think this article meets the criteria nicely. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support had my say at the peer review. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To both of the above, I am grateful for your encouragement and support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support − I found the article to be a comprehensive and well-written account of Perceval's assassination. In my view, the article meets the FAC criteria easily.  Z105space   (talk)  16:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest in the article, and I'm glad to have your support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Brianboulton, I've just finished my comprehensive and thorough review of your article and I assess that it most definitely meets Featured article criteria as it is indeed well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral and stable; and I find that its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. While Alternative text for images is purely optional, I always suggest incorporating alt text for users with a screen reader due to a visual impairment. Following a review of media, I find that all the images are properly licensed as either Public Domain (PD and PD-US) or CC BY-SA 4.0 and are therefore eligible for inclusion in this article. Otherwise, I concur with the comments, assessments, and previous reviews by, , , , and . Fantastic job on this one! -- West Virginian   (talk)  18:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your various kind words, and for checking out the images. On the question of alt text, I stopped adding it some time ago, when I  found there was a division of view  among the visually impaired about the usefulness of such text.  I would be open to persuasion if there is convincing evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile I appreciate your support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Brianboulton, as I stated above, it's merely a suggestion. You're quite welcome and congratulations on a job well done. -- West Virginian   (talk)  18:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Long GBooks links can be truncated
 * I don't know how this is done. Is there any practical advantage in making the change? Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For Bibliography entries, you can either truncate after the id=...& (where ... is the book id) or after printsec=frontcover. The advantage of this is that not only do you reduce clutter, you also ensure that the reader ends up somewhere helpful. For example, if I click on the Gray title right now, I end up in the book's bibliography with the words of the title highlighted - that's not useful to me. I either want to see the About this book page (which I get with the first option), or the front cover (the second). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, most useful to know for the future. I have shortened the urls to provide more useful links. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ODNB should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the check. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Note to co-ords: An image review is incorporated into West Virginian's comments, above. Brianboulton (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
All of these are easily remedied, and I am otherwise happy to support. Nicely composed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a duplicated link to William Pitt the Younger, first piped as "Pitt" in "Biographical details", then as "William Pitt" in "Troubled times". Perhaps a more serious problem is that Pitt is referred to entirely by last name for two sections before being explicitly named as William.
 * Lord Liverpool is first linked in "Troubled times"; the link in "Aftermath" is a duplication.
 * Books with editors rather than authors should use the editor fields in cite book instead of of the author field. That also ensures that the ed. indicators are properly and consistently formatted (note that Pelham and Seaward don't match as it stands). This also makes the data-extraction people happier.
 * All your ISBNs are properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s... except Seaward. You should hit it with the converter.
 * Thank you for raising these issues. I have dealt with them all, and am most grateful for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.