Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/The boy Jones/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

The boy Jones

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Another of those rather odd characters from history with one of those interesting-footnote-to-history type stories. This is one about a teenager who kept breaking into Buckingham Palace until he annoyed the authorities so much they stuck him in the Royal Navy for a spell and ended up booting him off to Australia to keep him as far away from Queen Victoria as possible. Any comments are most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty

If I had a pound for every time somebody named Edward who threatened Queen Victoria's safety in 1840 was deported to Oz, lived there for 33 years (very roughly following Lucy's version) and then was written about by SchroCat in autumn 2023, I'd have two pounds. Some things on prose:

  • a impecunious tailor - an?
  • The Weekly Chronicle reported that as a child, Jones "manifested a very restless spirit, ... always inquisitive, active and thirsting for information". According to his father, Jones was lazy, pessimistic, melancholic and reserved - got some whiplash reading this; a however or a ; conversely, according [...] would help contrast these two very different opinions, I think.
    I've dropped in a rare (for me) "however" here - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At 5:00 am - 5 am?
    MOS:TIME allows for either form, and as we've got 1:30 pm lower down, I've gone for consistency. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • on 14 December 1838, Jones was found - comma needed? You also have On 30 November 1840 commaless further down.
  • Buckingham Palace - maybe introduce it here: something like Buckingham Palace—the main residence of the monarch—by William Cox or something to that effect.
  • and a likeness of Queen Victoria - does the source give any more detail on this?
    Unfortunately not, although I'll hunt round to see if there is something in one of the newspapers. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr Prendergast - is his first name known?
  • the queen - grappling with MOS:JOB again, believe this should be the Queen. Three instances that I can see, in the paragraphs sandwiching the Victoria quote.
  • he was found by a police patrol, eating food stolen from the kitchens - does it say where he was found? Was it just outside the palace or elsewhere in Westminster?
  • Wikilink Liverpool?
  • 2 shillings 6 pence - what would you say to "2s 6d"?
    I think having the full names of shillings and pence is probably better than s and d - a lot of readers will not necessarily grasp what s and d mean. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10:00 and 11:00 am - ditto
  • The statement that he was transported - am I right in saying that the statement that he was transported is correct but simply that the date he was transported is not? If so, could do The statement that he was transported in 1840 [...].
    Reworked it slightly differently: how does that work? - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. Cracking good read, and ended up feeling a bit sorry for him in the end; then again, if a sooty Victorian urchin repeatedly broke into my house I might have a different view. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte

Passing comment to start. May review in full later.

I've got some time to spare, so I'll have a read through the whole article. I'm going to nitpick the prose so that nothing is missed. Anarchyte (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • and sentenced to Tothill Fields Bridewell prison for three month's hard labour → and sentenced to three month's hard labour at Tothill Fields Bridewell prison. Easier to read if the sentences goes "sentenced to [punishment] at [location]" instead of "sentenced to [location] for [punishment]" in my opinion.
    Yes, good point. Done. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was released in March 1841 and broke back into the palace two weeks later. He was caught stealing food from the palace larders and arrested. — are these connected? Presumably, so it might be simpler to merge the sentences a la: He was released in March 1841 and broke back into the palace two weeks later, where he was caught stealing food from the larders. I would then modify the next sentence to say "He was again arrested and sentenced to three months hard labour at Tothill Fields" (bolded to note the change).
    Yep. Reworked. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the lead ("The government tried...") is slightly jumpy to begin. The connection between the Thames Police and his Brazil exploits are unclear, unless the paragraph is trying to say that the Police were successful in that he ultimately signed up for the navy. If this is the case, a potential rephrase could be: To relocate Jones outside of Britain, the Thames Police tried to surreptitiously coerce him into employment as a sailor. After a stint in Brazil, Jones joined the Royal Navy.
    OK, I'll work on this a bit more. ("a stint in Brazil" is a bit misleading: he was on a merchant ship there and back, so I need to clarify that bit too). - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, all sorted now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also suggest something be added to the start of the "Jones was arrested in 1849" sentence: Upon return to Britain/After leaving the Royal Navy/etc ("After leaving the Royal Navy, Jones was arrested in 1849 for burgling houses in south London and sentenced to transportation to Australia for ten years"). Introduced a "for" because it might be easier reading for people that think its exclusion is grammatically incorrect; not bothered if it's not added.
    Done all of that. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentary on his desertions while in the Navy are worth a mention in the lead.
  • South London in the modern day, but Kent contemporaneously (according to the biography section). Might be simpler to rephrase and link to Lewisham.
    Done these two now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts on linking "west of Australia" to Western Australia and "east of Australia" to Victoria (state)? It is pre-federation, but while these weren't officially "states" in 1893-1896, they were recognised colonially and named as they appear today. I can understand arguments for inclusion and exclusion because of this, so I'm not fussed by it.
    That's how I originally drafted it (with the state names), but then went with the description to show that the two references were at opposite ends of what is a sizeable landmass. People know Australia is big and can guess Western Australia is in its west, but they may not know at first read that Victoria is in the east. - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • connection to Victoria — Queen or Princess (or indeed era)?
    Or state! (Now clarified) - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

That is all. I made two edits myself, though they are quite minor. You can review them here: [1]. Anarchyte (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - thanks very much Anarchyte. I've done the straightforward ones, but there's still a couple to do which need a bit of thought to get right. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Everything looks good so far except one that I've replied to above. Anarchyte (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work. If you take it to FAC, let me know and I'll lodge my support. Anarchyte (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anarchyte - I'm much obliged for your thoughts and comments here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_boy_Jones/archive1&oldid=1188453545"