# Talk:1862 Brooklyn riot

This review is transcluded from Talk:1862 Brooklyn riot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: JJonahJackalope (talk · contribs) 15:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 11:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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: 

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: 

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): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

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

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

First remarks

References 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 17 cite primary sources, thus I estimate that more than half of the text is verified by primary sources. I think this is not fully in line with Sour relevant policy: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
Concerning the references listed above, many of them were employed as inline citations in the article due to the additional information provided that was not recounted in the secondary sources. Many of the secondary sources I found discussed the riot and gave some details, but some of the contemporary sources, such as the coverage from The New York Times, gave more details, which I felt would improve the quality of the article. I believe that the sentence following the one you cited is relevant here: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." I believe that my inclusion of secondary sources proves notability of the topic and that my use of primary sources does not include any "novel interpretations". I would also point to Policy #3 for the Primary Sources section discussing the use of primary sources to make statements of facts. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
OK, I will review the article taking into account your above notes.
I have not read the article or the lead, but my impression is that the lead should be shortened by at least 25%.
I will admit that I tend to struggle with lead length on articles, and having read over this one again, I feel that it can definitely be shortened. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it can. So please shorten it. Borsoka (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
It's still  too long.  There's no fixed rule on how long the lead should be, but MOS:LEADLENGTH says that The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words and this is significantly longer than that.  I suggest going through the lead sentence by sentence and asking yourself, "Is this one of the most important things I need to tell the reader about this event?"  If the answer is "no", drop the sentence.  If the answer "yes", then ask yourself, "Is there any way I can say this in fewer words?"  For example:   You can go into greater detail in the main body.  With changes like this, I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up with a lead about half the length of what you've got now. RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I have shortened the lead significantly, removing several sentences. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
The lead still contains 479 words, although the whole article's size is only 2101 words. I think the lead could not be larger than 10-15% of the whole size. Borsoka (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I have further shortened the lead, removing much of the finer detail regarding the later analysis of the riot and simplifying some of the details regarding the background of the riot. Let me know if you feel that further reductions are in order. Regards, JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks a lot better, thanks.  I made some minor tweaks to better handle the reverse chronology of how the events are introduced. RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Could you add some images or a map? Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I was unable to find a contemporary image of the event in any of the sources I found, nor was I able to find images of the factory involved in the riot. Also, I searched Wikimedia Commons when creating the article and was unable to find any available images that I felt would be relevant to the article. It was more or less the same with maps, as I did not believe any of the map images available on Wikimedia Commons (such as File:1867 Stiles Map of Brooklyn, New York - Geographicus - BrooklynTwn-stiles-1867.jpg or File:Brooklyn - NARA - 26335545.jpg) would improve the article. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
@JJonahJackalope: when do you think you can address the above issues? Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi, terribly sorry, I seem to have completely let this review slip my mind, but I should have some free time to tackle all of the listed issues by tomorrow evening. Again, apologies for the delay. JJonahJackalope (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
@Borsoka:, I just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have added responses to the points you raised above. Thank you for initiating this review process, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns about the article, please feel free to reach out. Regards, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)


### Drive-by comments from RoySmith
This really needs a map.  I'm familiar with the neighborhood and I'm unable to figure out exactly where this all happened.  Modern maps do not show a Sedgwick Street.  From an old map at https://forgotten-ny.com/2011/03/columbia-waterfront-brooklyn/, it looks like the streets in the area no longer exist and are now part of a freight yard.  But this should be researched and explained in the article.  A map showing the locations of the streets and businesses mentioned in the article, on a background of a modern street map, would be particularly useful. RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith:, I remember stumbling upon that same article while writing this page. I do agree with both you and the GA reviewer in that a map would be beneficial to readers of this page, but as I said earlier, I was unable to find anything suitable on Wikimedia Commons and in preliminary searches on some files on Internet Archive, though I could always try again to see if I find anything. As far as your other suggestion is concerned, I'm afraid my file image editing skills are quite poor and I am afraid I may be unable to make what you are suggesting above. However, I am certainly open to including a file such as that from anyone with the skills required to create it. Regards, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Comments

...the black workers earning a weekly wage of about $14 (equivalent to $441 in 2024) and the white workers earning $10... Is $10 an exact number? Is the repetition of "earning" necessary?
The source cited there states, "White laborers, mostly Irish, made $10 a week." Regarding your second point, I have edited the sentence in an attempt to avoid the repetition of he word "earning". -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
...who had previously been enslaved I would delete it.
I have deleted this part of the sentence. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Almost all of the African American workers, consisting primarily of women and children,[6] commuted to the factory from outside of the neighborhood, from places such as New York City or other Brooklyn neighborhoods, like Weeksville. I would split the sentence.
I have split this sentence into two sentences. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
On Saturday, August 2, 1862... Could you specify the time of the day?
The most information given in the source cited for this sentence is that it occurred in the afternoon, so I have edited the sentence to include this information. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
...an emancipation rally in Brooklyn at the time I would delete "at the time".
I have deleted this part of the sentence. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
In the end, several officers suffered minor injuries, while one black worker suffered more severe injuries. Could the repetition of the noun "injuries" be avoided?
I rephrased this sentence to avoid the repetition of the word "injuries". -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Keenan, who owned a liquor store in Brooklyn... He was not a factory worker. Why did he assume the leadership of the mob?
Unfortunately, the source used for that information does not discuss why Keenan was the leader of the mob. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Is relevant that Kuo Wei Shen is of Chinese descent? Borsoka (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I have removed this section of the sentence. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
@Borsoka:, I just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address the points you raised in your review. Thank you again for initiating this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please let me know. Regards, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Borsoka @JJonahJackalope just wondering where we are with this.  It looks like there's not much left to do, but the review process has gotten stalled. RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm waiting to hear back from the reviewer on any possible additional work, but from what I gather, it seems as though most, if not all, of the points so far have been addressed. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
(Lead) ...largely consisting of Irish Americans... Is the part "consisting of" necessary?
Removed "consisting of". -JJonahJackalope (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
(Lead) Local newspapers at the time described the riot as one of the worst in the city's history, and... I would delete this part of the sentence (more than 160 years later this PoV is not too relevant).
Removed this section of the sentence. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
(Lead) I would mention at the beginning of the lead that Irish workers regarded African Americans as competitors, so tensions were not unusual. Borsoka (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Added additional context to the lead. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
@Borsoka:, let me know if there are any further comments or concerns you have regarding this article. Regards, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Source review

Field (Winter 2021) should be moved from "Further reading" to "Sources" section. Alternatively, delete reference 14.
Reference 14 was deleted. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
References 3a-c, 16, 18, 19 checked. Borsoka (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Gladly passing this article. Thank you for your work! Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)