Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Stockton/archive1

Battle of Stockton
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to promote the article to GA status. My main concern, other than the length as this is a minor historical event, is one of the sources, The Battle of Stockton: How a Small Town Saw Off Fascists in 1933 published by the Historical Association. While this source is certainly reliable, I don't know what sort of barcode accompanies the book and thus don't know how to reference it (it is an 8 digit code, 1009-1933)

Thanks, ISD (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments


 * I'm not able to find any record of that book online to answer your question about the identifier. From where did you obtain it?


 * This doc has pointers to potential contemporary sources


 * Per this RfC, make sure your Commemoration entries have sources indicating significance, not just existence. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In reference to your comments:
 * I got the book from a local bookshop, which is mentioned at the bottom of this page that is referenced in the article. I've tried looking for it online myself, but I can't find it being sold online anywhere, just locally.
 * That journal is referenced in the book so that will be useful, so thanks for that.
 * It sounds like the "Commemoration" section needs editing down, so I'll get to work on that.
 * Thanks. ISD (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1
Shall certainly have a look at this but it'll be the weekend before I can. KJP1 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - Strange that the book's not listed in the usual places. She's a recognised author. I shall ask the fount of all knowledge to pillage the British Library. KJP1 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Looking forward to your contribution. ISD (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "The Battle of Stockton-on-Tees, often referred to as the Battle of Stockton" - is it ever referred to as The Battle of Stockton-on-Tees? Not in the sign, the book, the campaign or this article's heading.
 * "drove out the BUF supporters who had been shipped in from other areas" - given the numbers, so must the Antifa have been. Redundant?
 * Background
 * Cite 1 - this takes me to a history of English grammar. Is that right? And does it really cover all of the preceding content?
 * "One reason given as to why Stockton was chosen for the rally was to base the growth of the movement on that of the Nazi Party, which rose from a grassroots movement in small towns that suffered economic hardship" - a reason given by whom? And it's a bit cumbersome. Perhaps, "The BUF sought to emulate the Nazi Party, which had gained early support in economically-depressed small towns"? Or some such.
 * "Stockton was a small town, and at the time opposition was weak as there was only one Labour Party MP in Teesside at the time" - you've got two "at the time"s. And "opposition to what was weak?
 * "Although no-one seems to know for certain how the plan was leaked" - all rather vague.
 * "historian Richard Griffiths" - can we not quote from him directly, rather than second-hand?
 * "was actually a plant working for the Jewish Board of Deuputies and possibly also working for MI5" - don't think the second "working" is necessary. And this, National Socialist League has a source stating Collier certainly worked for the BoD. Usuable?
 * "With neither the Labour or Conservative Parties offering solutions to the problem" - what problem?
 * "with members of the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Independent Labour Party and the National Unemployed Workers' Movement thus decided to set up a "reception committee" ready for the arrival" - the "with" and the "thus" don't seem to work here.
 * Events
 * "the police later ordered the BUF to leave the High Street, so they went to Silver Street to protect themselves, but this ended up trapping them" - not sure what the "later" and the "this" are doing. And didn't they end up trapping themselves? Perhaps, "The police presence at the start of the rally was light, with just seven constables on duty across the whole town centre. Nevertheless, they ordered the BUF members to leave the High Street, who retreated to Silver Street where they became trapped."
 * "Both sides then armed themselves with..." given that they were unlikely to have picked most of these up on the streets, they presumably were armed with them before they arrived.
 * Citing - I appreciate styles differ, but having six cites at the end of a para. leaves me wondering which content each supports.
 * "Reaction to the event different between the police and press reporting of the battle with:" - don't think this quite makes sense. Something like, "Police and press reports of the battle differed..."
 * The final para. is a very/too long quote. Can it be paraphrased?
 * Commemoration
 * There's at least one available blue link in the list of dignitaries, Alex Cunningham. And it seems uncited.
 * Infobox
 * You've used the "military conflict" template. The Battle of Cable Street uses "civil conflict" which I'd suggest is more appropriate.
 * Sources
 * 8&9 and 10&11 - aren't these the same two sources, in which case could they be combined?
 * Further reading
 * Rosie Serdiville - as discussed, I'll ask Tim Riley to have a look for this.
 * Tim's checked and the BL shows nothing. He's also checked the HA site which doesn't show it. Very odd. Is there no identifier on the booklet? I'm assuming it's a pamphlet rather than a book. KJP1 (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good Article criteria
 * Looking at the GAC, I'd suggest there's some work to be done on the prose. Re. coverage, it's quite reliant on Serdiville and a few newspaper reports. Is there no academic coverage? The BUF and the 1930s are pretty well-researched. But I appreciate that some topics just aren't that well covered. I think the citations also need a bit of work.
 * The reliance on Serdiville will be more of a problem if we can't place it - see above. KJP1 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Overall, it's an interesting article on an interesting topic. Congratulations for getting it this far and all good luck with burnishing it up for GAR. KJP1 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's always a little disappointing when a review elicits no response. KJP1 (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)