Talk:1839 Marion riot

1839 Marion riot has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 21, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject United States History To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs Other : Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess: {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

This review is transcluded from Talk:1839 Marion riot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ovinus (talk · contribs) 23:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will grab this one. Ovinus (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• "Kanawha" – Part of Virginia at the time? I'd specify, and link to the most appropriate article Ovinus (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Linked to [[Kanawha County, West Virginia|Kanawha County, Virginia]]

• "Throughout the day witnesses were questioned and lawyers on both sides spoke" Perhaps be a bit more specific on how long the hearing went on for? Ovinus (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not really clear from my reading of the sources, beyond that it began August 26 and was ended by the end of that day, unfortunately.

• "assorted projectiles" Eggs? Vegetables? Ovinus (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarified, hopefully

• "threatened him with force" Mitchell or Judge Anderson? Ovinus (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably both, but namely Mitchell. Clarified

• "Another jury found them guilty of rioting" What punishments were dealt out, if any? Ovinus (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The last we hear from the newspaper coverage I've been able to find is that they were indicted-- clarified to that. It's not clear what came of the trial. If I were to guess, I'd say not much.

• "criticized the actions of Bowen and Anderson" As in, a preponderance of newspapers were critical? What about anti-slavery newspapers? Ovinus (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Preston writes that "[E]ven in Ohio, most of them [newspapers] were more or less abusive of Judges Bowen and Anderson," which is my reading of the primary sources as well. I have read coverage in anti-slavery papers that went the other way, but since it was in the minority and secondary sources didn't really mention it that much, I didn't either. But I can add a few quotes from primary sources if you want? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No need

• "In early 1840 anti- and pro-abolitionist rallies were held in Marion" Ovinus (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you were looking for as action here, but my comment would be that the sources more implicitly link the riot with the rallies-- there wasn't a direct link established, but they pretty clearly emerged from the unrest, so I thought just mentioning it without unduly speculating was as much as I could do. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops! I must have forgotten to type my question, but you correctly guessed my intent, heh. Sounds good Ovinus (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Ovinus (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some interesting clippings: an opinion on the trial etc. and another reproduction of "From the Marion Ohio Visitor" in a different newspaper, which might be nice to link to for curious readers. There may be more on newspapers.com but sadly The Marion Visitor isn't on there. Also out of curiosity, how did you get access to the old newspapers cited already? Ovinus (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Through my university's subscription to NewsBank-- I couldn't figure out if there was a way to link clippings from there and didn't think it was worth linking ( WP:SOURCELINKS). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and now I see the articles you helpfully linked. Will check them out as I get the chance (shortly) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus, I think I've incorporated both of those sources sufficiently. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Passing; nice work. Ovinus (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a few spotchecks ([7], [11], [12], [20]) and they look good. Unfortunately I don't have access to a lot of the sources to do a more complete check. Ovinus (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Ovinus, I think I've responded to all of your points. Happy to answer any follow ups. I'm afraid that some of your questions just don't have great answers based upon sourcing that exists :( . Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]