Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ancaster incident/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2025 [1].

Ancaster incident

[edit]
Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a reformer in Upper Canada named George Rolph who was attacked by the Tory elite in the 19th century. Supposedly, it was because he was having an affair, but it was probably because Rolph threatened Tory influence in the province. I hope you enjoy! Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:A_black_and_white_print_of_George_Rolph(12351344585)_(cropped).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
  • @Nikkimaria: There is no evidence that this photograph was published. However, the post by the Dundas Archives when it was on Flickr said it had a stamp of a private photography company. Therefore, it is likely that this was taken for a personal capacity and not a business one, and thus never published. Since the subject of the photograph died in 1875, it must have been created before then. I have replaced the US copyright tag with the unpublished tag as the most appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kane_George_Gurnett.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:ANMacNab.jpg, File:Field_Marshal_Sir_John_Colborne_(1778–1863),_1st_Baron_Seaton,_GCB,_GCH.jpg
  • File:DENT(1885)_1.008_JOHN_ROLPH.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • Link only lists the author of the work where the portrait appeared, but I think that person wrote the book and didn't create the image used in the article. I think the "unknown" tag makes the most sense here. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John_Walpole_Willis_edit2.jpg: tagging is throwing an error message

@Nikkimaria: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A woman named Mrs. Evans left England with her child and travelled to Canada with George Rolph" - is this trying to say that George Rolph had gone to England at some point, left that country in company with Mrs. Evans + child, and then returned to Canada? This is how it reads to me, but a George Rolph trip out of Canada doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the narrative
  • The quote from the source is "Mrs. Evans and her young child had come to Canada with Rolph from England apparently fleeing from her abusive husband." I have not found any other information about this. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A week before the incident, Evans's husband visited Dundas and tried convincing her to return to England with him." - this is the first reference to "Dundas" in the article - is this the locale where Rolph was residing at the time?
  • "They threatened Evans with selling his wife" - I don't think this is quite right. The cited source says that the mob threatened Evans for "selling" his wife, which would appear that this is a charge of immoral conduct against Evans by the mob, not a particular threat made against Evans, as the current phrasing reads
  • "and stated that he was "quite satisfied" with his treatment" - this doesn't quite fit with the source, which attributes "quite satisfied" to a witness to the incident, not directly to Evans
  • Petty has "He sought £1,000 damages for trespass on the premises and assault on his person." which is not clear to me as an unequivocal statement that this was 1,000 pounds against each defendent (as is stated in the article) or 1,000 pounds total. Do other sources clarify this?
  • I think it would be useful to mention in the lead the date that at least the original trial began.
  • I added it to the body and cited it. There were several trials pertaining to this incident, so I don't think any particular ones are worth giving the exact date for in the lead. Z1720 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He claimed that the jury did not receive evidence implementing most of the defendants " - are you sure "implementing" is the right word?
  • "Robinson asked members of the Law Society of Upper Canada for instances where they thought he did not fulfil his obligations as solicitor general. William Warren Baldwin responded with a harsh critique of Robinson, citing the lack of prosecution in the Ancaster Outrage as one example, blaming Boulton's representation of the defendants for the lack of prosecution in this case." - who is Robinson? These are the only two instances where that name is mentioned.
  • "Robertson's reputation in the Ancaster area was damaged during the trials, affecting his business as a merchant. " - the source places this as speculative, while our article makes the claim much stronger
  • "Similar incidents included the Types Riot five days later, and the Niagara Incident when the government tore down William Forsyth's property to gain access to fortifications" - the cited page does not support the date of the Types Riot that I can see
  • The lead states that the attack occurred in Ancaster, but the only reference to Ancaster as a geographic location in the rest of the article is in discussing Robertson's reputation and business
  • Ross refers to Mrs. Evans as a live-in servant which is a different arrangement from the article, which shows this as an almost charitable arrangement. Do other sources clarify on this point - would it be the case that Evans was retained as a servant to provide an excuse for the arrangement?
  • Sources are vague and differ in their description about what Mrs. Evans did when she lived with George, and since she was already back in England during the trials we do not have her testimony. My impression is that George was giving her refuge to get away from her abusive husband, and said she could be a live-in servant in order to state that he wasn't being charitable and to save her pride. I'm open to making the phrasing more vague. Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a specific reason why John Rolph isn't mentioned in the lead at all?
  • I obviously mention George because he is the victim. I decided not to mention any of the lawyers (John Rolph, Warren Baldwin, Boulton) nor any of the perpetrators because the list of names (and explaining who they are in the lead) could cause the lead to get very long. Instead, I wanted the lead to focus on what happened and its legacy, and when I re-read it just now I didn't see a spot where I would want to mention John Rolph. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd to me that if we're not going to mention John or several of the others by name that Willis warrants mention (and that the other judge it was before basically OK'd the proceedings isn't brought up) Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the same thing when I re-read it a couple days ago. I added Boulton and John Rolph to the lead. Willis is specifically mentioned because I wanted to state who admonished the government, instead of a vague "a judge in the trial". Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 00:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hog Farm: I think I addressed everything. Sorry for the delay. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z1720: - I might just be mis-reading things, but I'm a bit confused by some of these geographic references. We're told in the lead and elsewhere in the article that the incident occurred in Ancaster, and that Rolph was taken from his home in Ancaster. But Evans was staying with Rolph at his home in Dundas. Was he maintaining a home in Dundas and one in Ancaster, with the attack occurring in the latter and the co-habitation concerns occurring at Dundas? Is is possible that Ancaster/Dundas lacked clearly defined limits at the time and these are just the same place variously reported as being in either town? I also wonder if the two references to "Ancaster, Ontario" are anachrostic - wouldn't it have been Upper Canada not Ontario in 1826? Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm: Borders of various towns, counties and other geographic areas in Upper Canada were in flux at this time. As the article mentions, Gore county was newly created after Rolph moved there. Today, Dundas and Ancaster are two different towns in the same area, but it seems like at the time their borders were not as clearly defined. Various sources use Ancaster and Dundas interchangeably to refer to where Rolph was living. To rectify this, I have removed the reference of Rolph living in Dundas. Since scholarly material refers to the incident as the "Ancaster incident" I think it is better to assume that the incident took place in Ancaster. I replaced "Ontario" with "Upper Canada" in the prose in all instances as that is the correct name at that time. Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]

I did the GA review on this, so I'm happy to also do an FA review.

  • Rolph hired John Rolph as his lawyer ... Probably should say "his brother John Rolph...". I know that the "brother" fact is mentioned earlier in the article; and also in the pic caption nearby; but it doesn't hurt to repeat it here, in my opinion. Example: later in the article it says: plaintiff, retained his brother John as his lawyer... which I think is useful. Readers in WP often jump around from section to section.
  • The trial began in August 1827, and was reported nationally and internationally ... I'm having a hard time grasping how significant this incident was. The "internationally" really piques my curiosity: Is there any way you could (in cite or footnote) include external links to international newspaper articles on this? I know the volunteers at WP:RX are black belts at digging up old newspaper articles. It would really add a lot to this article.
  • I don't want to cite old newspapers because the reliability of the information is not good. I also do not want to add the newspaper articles myself, because it is verging on the border of WP:OR. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor grammar: Prosecution's arguments and Defence's arguments; my ear wants to hear: Prosecution arguments and Defence arguments. But I'm in U.S.; maybe in Canada they say it differently.
  • Minor grammar: The Gore county magistrates and accused insisted ... is The Gore county magistrates and the accused insisted ... less ambiguous? The "accused" does not belong to the county.
  • Clarify: Rolph was a reformer ... I'm not certain if that is reformer with lowercase R or uppercase R. It is not capitalized, so I suppose it is not describing the political party, true? If it is (lowercase) saying that he is opposed to corruption & somewhat progressive, then that should be spelled out.
  • Need more details, if available: A woman named Mrs. Evans left England with her child and travelled to Canada with George Rolph. What is the year? Is this voyage related to fact that brother John was in England (mentioned in prior paragraph)? And, most importantly, how did they meet? Was Rolph helping her escape from her husband? I know the relationship is not at the heart of this article, but once you include this relationship in the article, readers will want to know the underlying motivations.
  • Sources do not specify when she came from England. No other information about how they met is described in the sources: Mrs. Evans did not testify at the trial and there doesn't seem to be additional information about this. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define parties earlier & clearly: Members of the Tory elite, motivated by.... Reformers cited the incident as evidence of the Tories engaging in political violence to maintain their power, contributing to the Reform victory ... Readers not from Canada will not be familiar with the two parties; knowing the two parties is key to the article. Using the party names before defining the parties may confuse non-Canadian readers. Suggest naming & defining the two parties early in the lead, before starting to use them. Or define in-line, for example: The Tory party, which promoted conservative policies, were motivated by ..... Rolph was a member of the Reform party, which endorsed liberal policies .... or something like that.
  • Political parties in Upper Canada did not exist as they do now. There was never a Tory Party in Canada: while members of this group sometimes colloquially referred to themselves as Tories, the name was given to the group by historians. Information about this is provided in the background section. While there was a Reform Party in Upper Canada, they were more like a loose group of ideologically similar people and really only existed during elections. The "Reformers" that is the first word of the second paragraph of the lead is referring to those who follow the reform political ideology, not the political party. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor grammar: Some sources state that the incident happened June 2/3 while others have stated that it happened .... Seems better to use same grammatical voice in both clauses, e.g. Some sources state that the incident happened June 2/3, while others state that it happened ....
  • Need more clarity on trials & appeals: There are 2 trials (civil and criminal) correct? And each had an appeal? I suggest (1) that every time the word "trial" is used in the article, it must be preceded by "criminal" or "civil"; and (2) that every time the word "appeal" is used in the article, it must be preceded by "criminal" or "civil". Those qualifiers are already done in several places, but not all. It only adds a few words to the article, but would add a LOT of clarity. The word "appeal" by itself is almost meaningless without a qualifier.
  • Yes, there were two trials. No, the criminal trial did not have an appeal. For the "Criminal trial" title I added "Grand jury investigation" to better describe what the section is about. I haveb gone through the article and added "civil" and "criminal" clarification where I think it is needed and the trial type is specified in the citation(s). Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section names: Could be more precise & more uniform. Here are some of the current section names:
    • Civil trial
    • Civil trial aftermath
    • Appeal
    • Criminal trial
    • Aftermath
    • Legacy
The section names are a bit ambiguous, verging on confusing. Is the "Appeal" section for civil or criminal trial? Why does Civil trial have a dedicated "Civil trial aftermath" section, but criminal does not? Why does the article have both "Aftermath" & "Legacy" sections ... normally those are combined as a single section (for articles on a historical event). Maybe rename "Appeal" -> "Civil appeal"; "Aftermath" -> "Criminal trial aftermath" ??? but I'm not sure that is correct.
  • The criminal trial had no appeal. There's a "Civil trial aftermath" because I was unsure what to call the time between the civil trial and the criminal trial, and the information in that section only concern the civil trial. I added "Civil trial appeal" to the Appeal section. The "Aftermath" section describes events influenced by everything, so it would not be appropriate to rename to "Criminal trial aftermath". I split the "Aftermath" and "Legacy" because of the length.
@Z1720 Article is looking pretty good. I only have one remaining issue: I think the use of terms "Reform" and "Reformers" need more support in the Lead, so the average reader can understand the Lead. Specifically, in the lead: Reformers cited the incident as evidence of the Tories engaging in political violence to maintain their power, contributing to the Reform victory in the 1828 elections... Many readers will gather no information from that sentence, because the key nouns Reform and Reformers are not defined until the Background section. Suggest either (a) add a few words to the lead defining the terms, or (b) links to relevant WP article(s). Imagine giving a reader ONLY the lead section to read: Does the lead have enough information (or WP links) so a non-Canadian reader can understand the Lead section on its own (where reader is permitted to follow any WP links in the lead)? Noleander (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Wikilinked Reformers and added that they were the political opponents of the Tories in the lead. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Article looks great. Changing to "Support" for prose quality. I have not analyzed images or sources/cites. Noleander (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Reviewing; comments below. I have an active automotive FAC open if you'd like to review. Don't feel obliged to though. 750h+ 11:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lead
background
incident
after the incident
  • determined that Hamilton was guilty of a crime, and encouraged Rolph to initiate a civil lawsuit. no comma needed here.
civil trial
  • The judge for the trial was James B. Macaulay. George, as the plaintiff, ==> "The judge was James B. Macaulay. George, as the plaintiff,"
  • The trial began in August 1827, and was reported nationally and internationally comma isn't needed here
  • This implicated Simons as a member of the mob. A witness later stated that he saw Simons outside of the village at 2 am, but was unsure if Simons was in disguise. Macaulay refused to allow evidence that stated that the attackers were trying to separate Rolph from Mrs. Evans or that they were punishing Rolph for committing adultery, stating that neither was a legal justification for the incident. "stated" or "stating" is used in three consecutive sentences.
civil trial aftermath
civil trial appeal
  • Rolph noted that at the civil trial Boulton suggested that ==> "Rolph noted that at the civil trial, Boulton suggested that"
  • that a new trial would be a burden on Robertson, as he ==> "that a new trial would burden Robertson, as he"
grand jury investigation and criminal trial
  • the grand jury was a publicity stunt ==> "the grand jury were a publicity stunt"
  • by the Rolphs to characterise the attack as an i believe "characterize" is Canadian spelling.
aftermath
  • politician in Upper Canada, criticised the Upper Canadian 'criticised' ==> 'criticized' (Canadian spelling)
  • used in the attack, and proposed that each of them comma isn't needed here.
legacy
  • No problems here.

Great article @Z1720:. As mentioned above i do have an active FAC, though please don't feel obliged to check it out. 750h+ 11:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Averageuntitleduser

[edit]

This is my first source review. The article cites only recent secondary sources with reliable journals and publishers. Bailey is okay: it is cited once, and according to reviews, it was written with a rigorous editorial process similar to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. One minor formatting comment: be consistent with whether ISBNs have dashes or not. I also wonder if this 1991 Ontario History article would have any useful material. I cannot access it immediately, though. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Averageuntitleduser: I did not know about this source! Unfortunately, it is very hard to get copies of older Ontario History sources and I will have to go to the central library in person to get a copy. However, many sources already used in the article cite this, so much of the information is already in the article and cited from a more recent source. When I get a chance to go to a central library, I will get a physical copy and take a look to see if it can be added in. I fixed the ISBN dashes. Z1720 (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Averageuntitleduser: I obtained a copy of the suggested source above, and added relevant information to the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think the additions flow smoothly. Support! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Comments to follow soon(ish) - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Friendly reminder about this. Looking forward to your comments. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nudge and apologies for the delay: I'll try and get to this today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "if George left his position": We can use Rolph here as we haven't been introduced to John yet
Incident
  • "a group of men met": Were these Tories? I think it would be worth clarifying this, rather than leaving the reader to assume
  • "A witness to the event claimed that Evans was not harmed in this altercation": is there doubt over this? The language you've used suggests violence may have been used, but you don't mention any, so it's difficult to judge
  • Yes, there is doubt over this: no one is exactly sure what happened in this meeting and the Tories that did publically talk about it would not admit to violence. I think the current wording best matches what the sources say. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case I think we need to mention the possibility that there was violence. The line "claimed that Evans was not harmed" is jarring without the context of possible harm or violence. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took another look at the source supporting the statement: the source is ambiguous as what I put in the article, so I just removed the sentence. I don't think the other sources give enough information to clarify what happened at this meeting. Z1720 (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evans was not in Rolph's bed": Probably best to add "Mrs", as the "Evans at the start of the para is the husband
Civil trial
  • Can we have a modern equivalent for the £1000?
Prosecution's arguments
  • Why is "gentlemen" in scare quotes?
Civil trial appeal
  • Is "attornies" correct. I am used to seeing "attorneys", but that's BrEng, rather than CanEng
Grand jury investigation
  • "unknown how this information was presented": is it unknown how the information was presented, or how it was obtained?
  • "and Rolph believed they were asked so that Rolph": why not just "he" for the second one?
Legacy
  • Is "targetted" correct in CanEng? "targeted" would be more normal, I think?
Notes
  • "June 2/3" and "June 3/4" should be "June 2–3" and "June 3–4" per MOS:RANGES
Sources
  • Ref 34 should be p. 122, not pp. 122
  • Refs 7, 17, 21 and 22 all have hyphens in the page ranges, rather than en dashes

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ancaster_incident/archive1&oldid=1282923983"