Talk:Black Act 1723/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks interesting. Review to follow shortly. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it referred to as the Black Act at the time, or only in retrospect? This isn't clear from the article.
I'm going to say "after" because, well, short titles weren't really in vogue back then. That's total OR, though, and I can't find a source saying one way or another. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Similarly, it was an offence to hunt, kill, wound or steal deer," More context needed. Something tells me that this did not ban the hunting of deer.
Clarified! Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"hunting of fish or hares, the destruction of fish-ponds, the destruction of trees and the hunting of cattle – the latter also punishable by death." Again. Also, can you really hunt fish or cattle?
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"although one later escaped, and a series of raids captured a total of 32 Blacks who were tried after the Act's passage in Reading." Are these all people who were involved in the original raids?
It's not clear. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ELLIPSIS, I believe you would need to modify "at least as much to do with the hysteria induced by Walpole...as with any need for new powers to fight deer-stealing"
Can you explain why? Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and that the Blacks were simply a mixed group of foresters: labourers, yeomen and some gentry defending their customary rights"" You close, but do not open, some quote marks
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the Act wasn't used after the initial couple of rounds of arrests? Or is this not true?
None of the sources make it clear, alas. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the publication of the Report, Sir James Mackintosh introduced a law reform bill that repealed the Act, but although it passed through the House of Commons successfully it was strongly opposed in the Lords, leading to the removal of the clauses relating to the Black Act.[18] In 1823 he submitted a memo to the House of Commons, again suggesting the repeal of the Act, and a few months later Robert Peel, the Home Secretary, introduced a bill that repealed the entirety of the Black Act except for the provisions that criminalised setting fire to houses and shooting a person. This passed, and came into effect on 8 July 1823.[19]" These sentences are a little bit difficult to follow; also, do we know the names of these acts/bills?
Not in the sources; I'll try splitting the sentences. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a particular reason you don't cite Thompson?
I don't have access to Johnson :). Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything worth adding from here?
Sort of; it's mostly very detailed information about the Waltham Blacks. Adding it would (I think) probably weigh the article very oddly in terms of focus - totally makes writing a dedicated article on the Blacks more possible, though. Thanks for pointing it out! Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the infobox could be expanded- repeal date? Current status?
The problem is I don't know those things. The legislation isn't yet in the SLD, and the repeal was only mostly, so it's not technically repealed. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short, but well referenced and written. A strong article. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's striking that the word "Waltham" doesn't appear in this article once, but it's in the title of at least three sources.
Huh, hadn't noticed that before; same as the Hampshire group, but I'll note the name. Ironholds (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a category and some further reading. J Milburn (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :).

Ok, I think that this is ready for GA status. It's very well written and referenced, and while I do feel that there's perhaps a little more to be said about it, the article answers all the key questions. I'm promoting now; nice work! J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed it in Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social sciences and society#Cases and domestic law. Please feel free to change this if you think there's somewhere better. J Milburn (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nuanced review! Ironholds (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobitism

This article seriously misrepresents historians' view of the Waltham Blacks' links with Jacobitism and I have edited it accordingly.--Britannicus (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]