Talk:Ancaster incident

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 23:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• George Rolph
• Ancaster Incident

)

George Rolph

• ... that while George Rolph (pictured) sued six of his assailants in the Ancaster incident for ₤1000 each, the trial only awarded him ₤20 from two of the assailants?

• Source: Petty, Ross (2022). "The 1826 Ancaster Tar and Feathers Outrage: Three Defendants' Perspectives"

• • ALT1: ... that in the Ancaster incident, a mob composed of the Family Compact attacked George Rolph (pictured) for allegedly having an affair? Source: Multiple
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Pike Conger
  • Comment: Second qpq: Template:Did you know nominations/Gilbert Eastman. Ancaster Incident was an article creation.

Improved to Good Article status by Z1720 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. Nominator has 50 past nominations.

Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC). Both articles:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Nominator: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 03:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Review by Noleander

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments from Noleander

• Overall, looks great! I foresee no difficulty getting GA on this.

• Should have a "short description" near top... helps with Search functions, and some other stuff (e.g. See Also). Example:

{{short description|A few words helping to distinguish from other articles with similar names}}

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• I cannot tell how famous this incident is in Canada. Is it a big deal? People learn about it in school? Or is it a fairly local/obscure incident? No big deal, but if you could add a few words in Lead or Legacy to give readers a sense of how important/obscure this is, that would be helpful.

• It's obscure, but sources haven't really discussed its importance in that way. When it is discussed, its in comparisons to other attacks against Reform politicians, which is already in the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Article has multiple blue links for same item: Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada ... ideally one max.

• Done. Z1720 (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Nice to see "alt" text for the photos, I know visually impaired users of WP love that!! Could you make the alt text better for them? The rule of thumb is that alt text should not repeat the caption, instead it should paint a picture with words. Example:

alt=A formal painting of an aristocratic balding man, about 60 years old, wearing a red coat, sitting in an elegant wooden chair

• MOS:ALT says, "Alternative text should be short, such as "A basketball player" or "Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush"." It specifically says that information about fashion should only be used if it is a concern in the article, and the article does not speak about the fashion of the subjects. Z1720 (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Noleander (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Phrase tar and feather has two blue links

Noleander (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass

Pssing this: I cannot find anything else amiss with the article:

• • Images are not copyrighted & have captions
  • No prose or grammar issues
  • Everything is cited
  • References look good
  • Format is clean & consistent

Noleander (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

should there be an infobox? Tornado Elliott (Yelp for help?) 14:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Tornado Elliott: There doesn't have to be an infobox, and I'm not sure which infobox template we would use and how that would add to a quicker understanding of the article to the reader. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Who is "he"?

Current text.

"The judge allowed MacNab to cross-examine George Rolph and the grand jury. He claimed that"

Who is "he"? The judge, McNab or Rolph?

~2026-32340-15 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Young members? Which young members?

Current text:

"The attack was part of a series of actions by young Tory members"

Up to this point in the article, readers have no knowledge of the age of anybody. All we've heard is that Simons has just died, which makes the suggestion of youth, if anything, surprising.

~2026-32340-15 (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

A query

The article John Colborne, 1st Baron Seaton has no mention of "Colbourne". In contrast, the visible text of this article contains no mention of "Colborne". Are these spellings interchangeable, or should the article use one form consistently? Best, MSincccc (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: Can you offer some insight into this and the two sections above it? Thanks. ~2026-32340-15 (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)