Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Types Riot/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2021 [1].

---

Types Riot

Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My first FA was just promoted. To celebrate, I figured I'd nominate another one! This article is about a riot that occurred in York, Upper Canada, (now Toronto) that destroyed William Lyon Mackenzie's printing press. The event started the downfall of the Family Compact, the ruling clique of Upper Canada, and its civil trial was described by a modern historian as "the most important debate in Upper Canadian legal history". Thanks to all who reviewed and offered advice on the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Wingedserif

Lead

• Can the sentence beginning with "During the riot" be broken up into 2 or 3 sentences? I'm worried about the complexity of the nested clauses.
  • Done
• "negative personal stories" feels awkward to me. Could it be changed to a shorter term or a more specific one like "libel"?
  • Libel refers to the story being untrue or made-up. However, we know some of the articles in the Swift editorials described true events. I agree that this is awkward but I don't know how to fix it. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    • What about something like "criticism", so "described negative personal stories about them and their families" —> "criticised them and their families"? —WS
      • Done, with some minor copyediting. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Should "Conservative" near end of lead be changed to "Tory" (& maybe wikilined), per the implied preferred usage near beginning of Background section?
  • Done.

Background

• "He published articles under the pseudonym "Patrick Swift" that questioned the Family Compact's ability to run the colony." —> "Under the pseudonym "Patrick Swift", he published articles that questioned the Family Compact's ability to run the colony." For less ambiguous order of clauses.
  • Done
• Delete comma after "with syphilis", so "wrote" isn't separated from the subject of the sentence (ie, "He")
  • I deleted an "and" so that it reads more like a list. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah, but "wrote negative comments" doesn't have the same subject as "being sexually active, infected with syphilis". I also think I didn't realize my suggested solution would also create some ambiguity. What about this?: "He accused female ancestors of the Family Compact of being sexually active and infected with syphilis, and he criticised their personal appearance." —WS
      • Done
• "Many rioters testified they were" —> "Many rioters testified that they were"
• The Colonial Advocate's printing press was located at the northwest corner of Palace Street and Frederick Street. – Is there a source for this?
  • Raible 8-9, cited later in the paragraph, verifies this. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Riot

• Attorney General's – The 's should be outside the wikilink
  • Done, fixed it in another place, too. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• walking in single file, – Delete comma after "file" to not separate the two dependent clauses
  • Done
• Is everything in the 3rd paragraph after "Upset by the situation" citeable to ref 17?
  • Yes, and I verified it today again, just to be sure. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Insert comma after "arrived at the printing office"
  • Done
• "He reported Elizabeth" —> "He reported that Elizabeth"
  • Done

Civil trial

• Are all the details about the jury selection process WP:DUE? They don't seem necessary to me and could be abbreviated.
  • I think so too. I removed the jury selection process. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Are all the sentences of the first paragraph of the "Arguments and jury deliberations" section citeable to ref 38?
  • Yes
• newspapers at the time did not think the instructions were noteworthy. – Could we get a quote from a contemporary article or a secondary citation to support this?
  • The source says, "Before the jurors retired, they were charged by Chief Justice William Campbell...but the press thought it 'unnecessary to report'" The quote is sourced to a letter from 1830.
• "during the deliberations, and Jacob Boyer" —> ""during the deliberations. Jacob Boyer". To avoid run-on sentence.
  • Done
• Should the "Civil trial aftermath" section just be an "Aftermath" subsection? Feels odd to break it off from the rest of this section.
  • Agreed, done

General comments

(Full source check not done)

• There are a couple places where more variation in sentence structure would help readability. For example, the first paragraph of "Arguments" with "Bidwell argued", "Bidwell stated". Similarly, the verb "showed" is used many times near the end of the "Legacy" section.
  • Done
• Since so much of the article is cited to the 1992 Raible book, I tried to find out more about its publisher Curiosity House but couldn't find much. Is the book a trade nonfiction or was it peer reviewed?
  • This book might be a trade nonfiction book. However, I still think it's a high-quality source. Chris Raible has published numerous articles on William Lyon Mackenzie in academic, peer-reviewed journals, including in Ontario History [2], Canadian Bulletin of Medical History published by University of Toronto Press [3], and the Canadian Historical Review, also published by U of T Press [4]. This book was reviewed in academic journals, including The Bibliographical Society of Canada, published by McGill University and Urban History Review published by U of T Press [5]. It was cited in peer-reviewed journals like "“Lawless Law”: Conservative Political Violence in Upper Canada, 1818–41" (cited in this wiki-article), "‘In Search of the Phantom Misnamed Honour’: Duelling in Upper Canada" published by the Canadian Historical Review [6], and "The Role of the Agent in Partisan Communication Networks of Upper Canadian Newspapers" in the Journal of Canadian Studies [7]. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi, thanks for doing all the digging on this. Looking at the two academic reviews, they do praise Raibel but it's a bit qualified: Urban History Review says the book has a narrow focus on the historical events and doesn't provide much social context [8], a concern that's mirrored in the BSC review [9]. I just checked and the current article's Background and Legacy sections don't use the Raibel source much, which I think is a good idea. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
      • As I was writing this article, I was aware that it was referencing Raible a lot, so whenever another source verified similar information I used the other source as the reference. Raible's book is the most detailed description of this event which is why he is referenced a lot. I will replace Raible with other sources as they are discovered or published, both during and after this FAC has concluded. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

All said, this is an interesting, well-written article; thank you so much for your work to get it this far. —Wingedserif (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I addressed everything. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Wingedserif, how is this looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I still have two unanswered concerns about wording/grammar (one for the lead and one for "background"; count me as a weak support until then), but otherwise everything else has been resolved. —Wingedserif (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Wingedserif, I must have missed those because of my busy schedule at the moment. When I response to those concerns I will ping you. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry it has taken me so long to address your follow-up comments Wingedserif. Let me know if there are other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
        • No worries, Z1720, thanks for doing all those! I did notice one thing while reviewing them, however—the article seems to combine spellings from different dialects of English (eg, there is "sympathise", "emphasised" but also "organized", "criticized"). Would you mind switching all those spellings to be consistent, and then marking the Talk page with the variant of English you wrote the article in (eg, Template:Canadian English / Template:British English)? —Wingedserif (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
          • @Wingedserif: Sorry it took so long to respond to this. The RL thing taking up all my time has ended, so I will be able to respond more quickly now. I searched and fixed up Canadian spelling variants I could find and place Template:Canadian English on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
            • No worries about the delay—with those changes, I'm happy to say that I support this article for FAC. —Wingedserif (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

HF

Will look at this, although it'll probably be later in the week because I'll be traveling for work some. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry it's taking so long to get to this. Been having to travel a lot for work this week. Hog Farm _Talk 02:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• The background section could include a little as to who Mackenzie was - his full name isn't even given in this first section of the body
  • I didn't give his first name because it was in the lede, but I have now added his full name to the background section. Do you think it's important to outline that Mackenzie was a reformer, and thus his political alignment was opposite of the Tories? Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I think a short (can this be condensed into a shorter paragraph) introduction to this would provide some needed background as to why Mackenzie and the Family Compact were opposed 23:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I added some lines in the first paragraph about Reformers, to introduce that they were political opponents. Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
        • This works for me.
• "The modest amount awarded to Mackenzie surprised Mary Jarvis." and "Robert Stanton of the Upper Canada Gazette decried the large settlement Mackenzie received, believing the damage to his printing press was exaggerated" - recommend considering attributing the views of the size of the settlement to the individual people more directly, as currently it's in Wikipedia's voice saying that it was both modest and large, when it looks like the implication is that Mary Jarvis thought it was small and Stanton thought it was large.
  • For Mary Jarvis, I specified that the amount was in her opinion, for Stanton I removed large because the rest of the sentence implies that he thought the amount was too large. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• " William Botsford Jarvis, the sheriff of York, was ordered to arrest the men immediately and hold them for bail" - worth noting that he was Samuel Jarvis's cousin?
  • I don't think so. William's relation to Samuel did not influence the arrest. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• I notice the article cites Raible pretty heavily - the Google books preview of Schrauwers refers to Romney as "now-classic".
  • Romney gave the first modern-day account of this event. Unfortunately, the academic article is behind a paywall and my local library would not get a copy of the article for me because of COVID. Restrictions are being relaxed recently, so I hope that going to the library in person will get me a copy, but there's no guarentees. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • That's unfortunate. It looks like I can probably access volumes III and IV of the series from a local library, but not the volume that the Romney article is in. Hog Farm _Talk 23:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • We are in luck: a reduction in COVID restrictions (and an increase in my free time in August) will let me physically access the article later this week. Hopefully the addition of Romney's article will lesson the reliance on Raible. Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Mackenzie stayed away from York immediately after the riot because friends advised him his life might be in danger" - According to Schrauwers, Macauly said Mackenzie left to avoid arrest for debt - do other sources give this weight, or can it be dismissed as smear tactics by Macauly?
  • Historians and scholars are unsure and disagree about why Mackenzie left York in the days before the riot and where Mackenzie went. Mackenzie claimed he was trying to get more business for his paper, the Family Compact said it was because Mackenzie was trying to avoid some debts he owed, and other scholars think he might have just been on vacation. It's too much speculation to include, imo. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Schrauwers discusses some economic factors related to the Bank of Upper Canada and Henry John Boulton being associated with the Types Riot. Is this due weight to add?
  • I'll take a look later today. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Schrawers's economic argument for the Types Riots relies upon a long discussion of the Patrick Swift editorials and how the financial/legal transactions of a Family Compact member were included in the editorials. I think this is too far removed from the event, and in the interest of WP:SUMMARY it does not need to be included. I did, however, add in the Background section that Mackenzie also critisized the Family Compact's use of the legal system to enrich themselves. Z1720 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• "and he remained popular for several decades" - body says years, not decades, which has a somewhat different implication
  • Changed to years in the lede to align with what sources say. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I found this very interesting to read. Hog Farm _Talk 04:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I am also very busy in real life, so I will get to these comments next week. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Hog Farm that it's taken me so long to get to this. Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've honestly taken longer to get to stuff in the past. A couple replies above. Hog Farm _Talk 23:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Added comments. The thing taking up all my time in RL is done, so I can devote more time to this FAC. Expect quicker responses! Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ping me once Romney can be worked in, and I'll be ready to support once that gets worked out. Hog Farm _Talk 04:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Romney has been worked in. I thought it would have more information on the actual riots, but it turned out to be mostly analysis of the causes and effects. In any case, it has been added in. If I missed anything above, please let me know Z1720 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; weaker support on 1c (reliance on Raible is on the heavy side but okay); did not check others. Hog Farm _Talk 20:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Well over three weeks in and only one weak support. Unless there is further movement towards a consensus to support over the next few days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• I'll try to be the third reviewer before long. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Link names in image captions?
  • I checked MOS:CAPTION and I am unsure if they should be linked or not, especially because they are wikilinked in the article text. I decided to do so because it gives more information to the reader, instead of having to look for the link in the article text. If I am wrong, please post below with the link to the policy/guideline where this is stated. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I don't see any recommendations against links in captions, and I always add them and recommend others to do so. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Link Anglican church in article.
  • Done
• Link William Lyon Mackenzie at first mention outside intro.
  • Done
• "Many rioters testified that they were retaliating against the Swift columns.[8] Raymond Baby, one of the rioters, claimed some were present to attack Bartemas Ferguson, one of Mackenzie's employees, because they believed Ferguson was Patrick Swift.[9]" Since the article body should be able to stand alone without the intro, this comes out of the left field in "background" where it is now, since the riot hasn't been presented yet, and the text appears to be out of chronological order. Could this info perhaps be moved to later in the article or something?
  • I removed it, as there is no place to put it and I think it's off-topic now. Z1720 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it was pretty relevant, but I'd expect later, for example under "Immediate aftermath" or somewhere under "Civil trial"? FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I went back to the source to figure out the best place to put it. "Testify" was probably the wrong word, as Raibe didn't state when the rioters explained that they were going to attack Ferguson. Instead, I moved it to the beginning of the third paragraph of the "Riot" section. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• "corner of Palace Street and Frederick Street." Any articles to link?
  • Palace Street is wikilinked. I don't think Frederick is a major street. Z1720 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• A lot of people are named without introduction/context. Could their occupations perhaps be given? Otherwise it is difficult to figure out what and why their roles were as they were.
  • I added some of their roles or their relation to other members of the Family Compact. Not much is said about the lesser figures of the riot. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• "The men may have been dressed as indigenous people" This claim needs to be attributed in text, then. Who stated it and where?
  • This claim is more like an urban legend, where several sources in the past 200 years either claim that they were dressed in indigenous clothing, or speculate about its accuracy. The Davis-Fisch reference at the end of the sentence verifies this. Z1720 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Could this be stated then, for context? FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I added the following sentence: "Heather Davis-Fisch, a professor at the University of the Fraser Valley, stated that this information was included in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography without verification from the authors, possibly because it was a "cultural memory" of the event." Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Samuel Jarvis, the first defendant named in Types Riot civil lawsuit" named in the Types Riot civil lawsuit?
  • Fixed
• "Campbell gave instructions to the jury before they began their deliberations. Mary Jarvis, Samuel Jarvis's wife, thought the instructions favoured the defendants, but newspapers at the time did not think the instructions were noteworthy." But what were the instructions?
  • Rephrased to, "Campbell gave instructions to the jury that summarized the evidence of the trial."
• "the meagre amount of five shillings" Meagre sounds like WP:editorializing.
  • Yeah, I kind of agree with you. This has gone through so many iterations, but I don't think there's a way to keep it so I removed it.
• "includes the violence of Reform meetings in the 1830s" Anything to link?
  • Don't think so. I looked in Upper Canada Rebellion but didn't find any specific events. Z1720 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• "He also used the event to show electors he was part of a group of citizens who struggled to reform the political system of Upper Canada" Was he ever elected?
  • Added successful in "The event was highlighted during his successful campaign to become..."
• As noted by another reviewer, you should stick to one spelling, preferably Canadian English, and make it consistent.
  • Done. It's going to use Canadian English. Let me know if you find incorrect spelling.
• "Mackenzie's editorials in the Colonial Advocate newspaper, which questioned the Family Compact's ability to govern Upper Canada and criticized them and their families, which offended the rioters." The repeated "which" is a bit jarring, is the first "which" even needed?
  • I removed the second "which" instead. Z1720 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk I think I addressed everything above. Sorry that I delayed responding to the last few points: I had to re-borrow Raible's book from the library to verify the last few bits of information. Please let me know if I missed anything. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - the article looks good to me now, helped with some further context. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Were the publications prompting the riot editorials or articles?
  • In sources, the words have been used interchangeably. Should I stick with one word, or leave as is? Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Do you have a sense of which word is a more apt description? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't think so: the line between reporting on news and giving an editorial opinion was blurred at this time, especially by reporters like Mackenzie. Sources don't agree on terminology, so I think it's OK to use them interchangeably. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• "Bystanders ... assumed the Upper Canadian government had sanctioned the event" - text says newspapers assumed this
  • I removed "They assumed the Upper Canadian government had sanctioned the event." From the lede because the source only confirms that one bystander assumed the Upper Canadian government sanctioned the event during the riot, which is not enough to put in the lede. Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• What is the value of duplicating non-free links between |url= and identifiers?
  • Honestly, I copy the urls from Google/the database I found the article in, paste it into Wikipedia:ProveIt, fill in extra parameters to try to keep the citations consistent, and hope for the best. Sometimes a bot comes around and adds stuff, like doi access. Can you describe in more detail what is duplicated? Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Look for example at Armstrong. The title is linked to https://search.proquest.com/docview/1300016915 , and then there is a ProQuest ID that links to that same page. Why have both? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I went back in the article's history, and I see that the ProQuest IDs and JSTOR IDs were added by bots. I removed the url parameter for these citations. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Accessdates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • Removed
• What makes Condam Publishing a high-quality reliable source?
  • While I think a case can be made for its reliability, I decided to remove it instead because the source is a biography about someone not mentioned this article.
• Why is Kingsford cited as news rather than a book?
  • I don't know. Changed to cite book template
• Be consistent in how locations are formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I put Toronto, Ont. for locations because Kingston needs a descriptor so readers know which Kingston we are talking about, and this made it consistent. Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I addressed your concerns above. I also added in another source, Romney 1987. Can you also check its formatting? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: responses above. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Kaiser matias

Starting to read through it now. I'll post comments once I'm done. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think the number of rioters should be noted in the lead. Later on it mentions estimates of 9-15 people (though is clear it's not know for sure), so even something like "up to 15 people were involved" would be sufficient. Something to give context to the size of the event.
  • Added 9-15 people to the lede, as I added information about the riot to the lede. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Should the £ symbol be linked? I believe it's standard to do so, especially in a case like this, considering Canada doesn't use the pound as currency anymore.
  • MOS:CURRENCY says to link lesser-known currencies, but I don't think British sterling is lesser-known. I am not sure in this situation. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense, but I feel because it is in (Upper) Canada, I feel that it should be clarified, but I'm not going to hold up the article over something like that.

I agree with your point above: many readers might not know that Upper Canada is part of the British Empire at this time, and thus the £ symbol is for the British currency, not an Upper Canadian currency. I wikilinked £ to pound sterling. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• It may be useful to give a timeline for when the Family Compact started to appoint themselves to power. You do note they were from Loyalist families, but that isn't clear to many people not familiar with the subject. Even a rough date (ex. "Since the 1780s they had appointed themselves...", though I don't know the date myself) would be good I think.
  • Added "Shortly after the War of 1812" as verified in the source.
• Link Reformer in the "Background" section (first use of it in the body of the article).
  • Done
• There's a brief mention of Mackenzie's paper being popular because the public wasn't too fond of the administration. Could that be expanded on? I mean is there any idea of the general feeling towards the Family Compact (did the public support their moves, oppose them, or was opinion split?) It would seem useful to add to the first paragraph of the "Background" section, and would help to give more context to the political climate of the era.
  • This is hard to determine, as there were no public opinion polls at the time. Members of the Family Compact ran as Tory candidates in constituency elections; like any political party, there are times when they won elections and times when they lost. Also, there were political coalitions that supported Tories and a different coalition that supported Reformers, and these coalitions changed between elections. The political climate at this time is more characterised by the contests between Tories and Reformers while Tories, with the support of the leuitenant general, able to use their political power to pertetuate their appointment to prominent government positions. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there any way to incorporate this into the article, without adding undue weight and overshadowing everything? I think even a couple sentences just to give context would really help.

I looked back at the source and I changed the language to, "The newspaper was a popular publication amongst people who were displeased with the administration of Upper Canada." I think this more accurately reflects with the source says and it avoids going into too much detail about public opinion of the Family Compact and the Reform movement, which the source does not do. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• "On June 8, 1826, Mackenzie published an account of an 1817 duel between Samuel Jarvis and John Ridout..." Should note who both Jarvis and Ridout are. From what I understand Jarvis was a government official, but Ridout was a youth who served no role, but had family connections?
  • Added that Jarvis was a Tory government official, while Ridout was the son of a Reformer. I could go into a lot more detail into this duel, but I think that's for another article (which I plan to write one day as it is considered the last duel in Upper Canada by some historians.)

Good by me. And definitely interested in an article on that.

• "The Colonial Advocate's printing press was located at the northwest corner of Palace Street and Frederick Street." In what city?
  • Whoops, added.
• "Members of the Family Compact approached John Lyons..." When?
  • Sources don't say. Z1720 (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Any idea what time the riot finished?
  • I checked the sources again, and they don't say. Z1720 (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• "After further discussion, the jury awarded Mackenzie £625 (equivalent to £52,899 in 2019) in damages." Considering this is in Canada, would it not be more appropriate to give a modern equivalent in Canadian dollars here?
  • I think this would be quite complicated, as we would be calculating inflation, then calculating an exchange rate. I think, in an effort to keep things simple, it is better to keep things in pounds. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. Perhaps some note to show its value: I've seen something like a reference to a contemporary salary or something, again just to give context (as I honestly have no idea if that was a good settlement or not).

When sources give their opinion on the settlement (which is not often) they give a "meh" impression, often citing that it is about the middle of what Mackenzie and the defendants wanted. Sources don't compare the settlement to modern equivalencies. Hopefully, the inflation figure will help readers understand the amount of money this is. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Other than that should be good. Interesting article on a period of Canadian history that is definitely not well-known (I only vaguely recall the era from my own education), but does a good job of showing the issues of the Family Compact. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Added a couple follow-ups there. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy with everything now. Well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• This is described as a riot - but the lede sentence doesn't really get that across - it just says things were destroyed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The event is called Types Riot, but I don't think it is a riot like we could consider it. Regardless, I added information in the lede explaining what actually happened during the riot.
• get passersby - typo. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I doublechecked this, and the plural of passerby is passersby, so I don't think this is a typo.
• I think the lede could do with explaining who these people are. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Added the Mackenzie created the Colonial Advocate, added that Jarvis was a government official.
• Where in York did this happen? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • York was not a very big town at the time, and it was not subdivided into wards yet. Later in the article, it gives the specific street corner that the event took place at, but this is too much detail for the lede. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• awarded Mackenzie £625 - from the Compact? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Added that the defendants of the civil suit were ordered to pay for the damages.
• Link for martyr Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think martyr is a technical term, so in the interest of WP:OVERCITE I don't think it should be cited.
    • I think the term is indeed obscure enough to link. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• I think the lede is the weakest part of this article. It could do with having a bit more info for those unfamiliar with the subject Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I added some information about the actual riot to the lede. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• referred to as Tories, while modern-day historians sometimes refer to the group as Conservatives - from a British POV, these are the same thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Some previous reviewers (mostly American, I think) were confused about interchanging Tory and Conservative throughout the article. The sources state that this group was not referred to as Conservatives during the 1830s, but the name was adopted later and is used by historians today. I included this to explain the use of both terms throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Link and explain Reformers on first use. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I already explain that they are the political opponents of the Tories. Is additional information needed? Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Tories tried to maintain - you mean the Family Compact? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • They can be used interchangbly, but I see your point so I changed it to Family Compact. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• accused female ancestors of the Family Compact of being sexually active - can you accuse someone of having sex? I'm assuming this means with each other? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed to "having many sexual partners and infected with syphilis," as it more closely aligns with the source. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• The background is good, but the riot section opens as if you know about the riot. An explanatory sentence about when the riot happened would be suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Actually, this is done, the first paragraph could do with being movedlater in the section.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This section is formatted chronologically, with the planning paragraph placed before the riot paragraph. Which information do you think should be moved up to the first paragraph? Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ferguson hired James Edward Small as Mackenzie's attorney before Mackenzie confirmed he was going to file suit - again, this is the first time we've discussed any court action, so a sentence saying that there was to be a trial needs to come before this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I removed info that Ferguson hired Small, as it is a small detail and it is more important that Mackenzie decided to sue the rioters. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Henry Heward was named as a rioter but not as a defendant - why? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Raible speculates that it was because he was related to the attorney general, but this isn't confirmed and other sources don't speak of this. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• The trial took place in York's new courthouse - does it have a name? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Sources just say it was a new courthouse, and I couldn't find a wikilink. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• The lack of criminal proceedings against any perpetrators caused suspicions that the government had supported or instigated the riot. - this seems a bit of an odd sentence, considering it is right before a section on criminal charges. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I reworked the criminal trial section, adding information on why Robinson changed his mind and charged the individuals in the Types Riot. I also removed the sentence about the public opinion, as this was something that was suspected by the newspapers, not necessarily the public, and I agree it was a but awkward before the Criminal trial section. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I have responded to everything above. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "The Types Riot was the destruction of William Lyon Mackenzie's printing press and movable type by members of the Family Compact". I think you need to explain Family Compact at the start. Maybe "...Family Compact, a small conservative group who dominated the politics of Upper Canada".
  • I put an explanation of who the Family Compact is as the second sentence. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "the Family Compact's ability to govern Upper Canada". You use the word "ability" here and below, but I am not sure it is the right word. You give the impression that the critics were complaining of the Family Compact's venality, not accusing them of incompetence.
  • I think Mackenzie was complaining about both. Added info about Mackenzie's critique of the Compact's profiteering in the lede. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• "criticized the Family Compact's ability to govern Upper Canada". This still seems to me an odd way of putting it. How about "accused the Family Compact of incompetence"?

• Done

• "A jury awarded Mackenzie £625". Was this a high figure and a victory for Mackenzie?
  • Since you are the second person to ask this, I have added information that this was a harsh amount, as verified by the source. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "during his first campaign for election to the Parliament of Upper Canada." Did he win?
  • Yes, added. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "they appointed themselves to the executive council". How? What was the system of appointment?
  • Added
• "He accused female ancestors of the Family Compact of having many sexual partners and infected with syphilis," This is ungrammatical. "and having been infected with syphilis"?
  • Added
• "Raymond Baby stated Charles Heward". "Raymond Baby stated that Charles Heward"?
  • Done
• "without verification from the authors". "without verification by the authors"?
  • Done
• "His malarial fever returned as he experienced stress". As you have not previously mentioned the fever it would be better to say "He had previously suffered from malarial fever and it returned due to the stress he suffered."
  • Done
• "They also revealed that the four printing companies in Upper Canada submitted a joint bid to print materials for the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada to avoid competition and receive more money for the government's printing contract." How is this relevant?
  • Upon reflection, I don't think this is relevant, so it is removed. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• "Mackenzie did not seek criminal charges because he thought Robinson, who would have led the prosecution in a criminal case, would pursue the charges rigorously." I do not understand this. Areyou saying that Mackenzie would have sought criminal charges if he had thought they would not be pursued vigorously? Why?
  • Whoops, it should say that Robinson would not pursue the charges rigourously. Added.
• "Mackenzie also used the settlement to fund his first campaign for a seat in the Upper Canada Legislature for the County of York in July 1828". As above - did he win?
  • He did. Added
• This is a very good article but I think you need to explain more clearly the system of government - you say that the Family Compact appointed themselves but also that there were elections. Were they holding power by corrupt elections or what? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The legislature was elected, while the executive council was appointed by the leuitenant-governor without the input of the legislature (a common point of conflict at this time). Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• It would be helpful to explain these points in the article and I do not see that you do. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Explaining the details of the Upper Canadian government structure is a little out of scope for this article. However, I added that the executive council is unelected in the Background section to clarify this. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: responses above. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• You say that executive was appointed by the lieutenant governor and adding that the legislature was elected (which you imply below) does not seem beyond the scope of the article. However, this is a minor point and I am happy to support.Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.