Wikipedia:Peer review/1689 Boston revolt/archive1

1689 Boston revolt
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'd like to see this article advance from Good Article class to at least A-Class. For the last two days, I have been working on some (mostly minor) edits to it. I think it would be best to get feedback from other editors regarding the article and its quality. I created it; it was greatly expanded by another user.

Thanks,  DCI 2026 15:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Brief comments from Nikkimaria
 * Per WP:ENGVAR, be consistent in whether you use American or British spelling - for example, you've got both "organized" and "organised"
 * The lead seems to be focused on the background of the event, and given the length of the article is a bit on the long and dense side
 * WP:OVERLINK - don't link very common terms, and don't link the same term multiple times, particularly in close proximity
 * You might include a couple more sentences about Leisler's Rebellion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed the intro. I use American English - which do you think would be appropriate?  I have not yet checked on overlinking, as I am in a bit of a hurry here.  I will be free to revise later today.   DCI 2026 20:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009: Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As ever, very keen to see more early-modern articles! :)
 * The picture used in the infobox is a 19th century depiction, and is from a (relatively) biased source. I think its a good one to use, but the caption might capture that it is a 19th century, Boston authored depiction of the event (have a close look at the governor's face and you'll see what I mean!).
 * The use of the word "mob" is often controversial; it might be worth double-checking what the latest scholarship uses (fashions shift a bit between "mob" and "crowd").
 * "unpopular laws that turned some New England merchant trading practices into smuggling" - felt a clumsy phrase, might be worth revisiting.
 * "The royal troops stationed in Boston, most of whose officers were either Anglican or Catholic, were also disliked. " - if we're saying that few of them were non-Conformist, I'd say it explicitly, otherwise you'll throw some of the readers.
 * "nearly bloodless revolution " - you correctly don't use the phrase "bloodless", but recent work has emphasised the amount of bloodshed involved in the revolution, particularly in Ireland.
 * "The religious leaders of Massachusetts" - would be worth saying what the religious beliefs were in the region (Catholic, Anglican, non-Conform etc.)
 * "pastors" - worth linking?
 * " (Mather was arrested, tried, and exonerated on one charge, but Randolph made a second arrest warrant with new charges)," - a fairly big bit to bracket.
 * "Sometime before noon an orange flag was raised on Beacon Hill, signaling another 1,500 militiamen to enter the city." - worth explaining why orange was important?
 * "they must & would have the Government in their own hands" - you can safely expand "&" to "and" here.