# Talk:Macaroni Riots

This review is transcluded from Talk:Macaroni Riots/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: JJonahJackalope (talk · contribs) 15:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 03:33, 11 March 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: 

Image review

File:Ventrone storefront, August 31, 1914.png: specify the source at Commons (author, title, year of publication, publisher, isbn, page).
I have edited the files metadata on Wikimedia Commons to include the requested information. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
File:FederalHillProvItalianGrocer.jpg: is this relevant?
After some review, I have decided to remove the image from the article. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
File:Police in Federal Hill.png: specify the source at Commons (author, title, year of publication, publisher, isbn, page).
I have edited the files metadata on Wikimedia Commons to include the requested information. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
File:John Pastore (RI).png: source is needed at Commons. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I did not upload this image to Wikimedia Commons, but it appears that a URL link is provided on the image's Source description on Wikimedia Commons. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but it is not useful to verify the image. Borsoka (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, after some digging into the source, I'm not sure if I am able to sufficiently source this image. As a result, I have removed it from the article. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Source review

Academic sources, including monographs about the article's subject, are cited. 03:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Borsoka (talk)
References 3, 5, 10 checked. Borsoka (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments

Predominantly working class Irish immigrants by the 1840s, Italian Americans began to settle in Federal Hill in the 1870s... Rephrase.
Rephrased this section. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Following the rally,...Following the rally,.. Rephrase to avoid repetition.
Rephrased to avoid repetition. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
...and as a result, he requested police protection... Delete "as a result".
Deleted "as a result". -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
"Long live the revolt!", this sounds quite strange for me. Perhaps, "Hail, the revolt"?
I think that the current translation is more of a direct translation of the Italian original. As discussed in the page Vive, viva, and vivat, "viva" is typically rendered in English as "long live", with "hail" seeming to be a less common alternative. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
...per contemporary report... Rephrase.
I wasn't able to find an instance of "per contemporary report" appearing in the article as it currently stands. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, "per contemporary records". Avoid using "per".
Rephrased this section to avoid the use of the word "per". -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
...the intersection of Atwells and Arthur Avenue... Why not "Avenues"?
Added an "s" to the end of "Avenue". -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
...the responsible police officer... I do not understand.
Rephrased this section to properly identify the police officer. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Note 6: why do you prefer Sullivan's figures instead of mentioning both his and DiSimone's figures in the main text?
I'm not sure exactly why this occurred. If I were to guess, I would say that I incorporated the Sullivan text into this article earlier and then, upon realizing the discrepancy with another text, added a footnote. However, I have rephrased that section and footnote to give more equal weighting to both sources. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
However, his lawyer stated that he planned to appeal the decision. Did he appeal?
It's unclear from the available source materials whether or not an appeal happened. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
...states that both the economic difficulties and the overall anti-Italian sentiment in Providence as underlying reasons Rephrase.
Rephrased this section. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
...Italian Americans began to settle in Federal Hill in the 1870s until they composed half of its population by 1895. ... The Italian population in Providence also continued to grow, reaching 50,000, or 20 percent of the overall population, by 1930. I know the two statements do not contradict each other, but this is not obvious. I think the second sentence should be rephrased.
Slightly rephrased this section. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Really interesting article. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@JJonahJackalope: when do you think you can address the above issues? Borsoka (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Borsoka: terribly sorry, not sure how I missed this, but I should have these edits made tomorrow, if that works for you. JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
No problem. Borsoka (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@Borsoka:, I have made some edits to the article to address some of the points you raised in your review and should have the Commons information edited shortly. Thank you for initiating this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
OK

@Borsoka:, apologies, I did not realize that you had responded to my edits from several days ago. However, upon reading your notes, I have again made some edits to the article, as well as to several files on Wikimedia Commons that are used in the article. Please reach out if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns regarding this article. Thanks, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
@Borsoka:, I have made an edit to the article to address the points still standing in this review. Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions or concerns. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Excellent article. Happy to pass it. Borsoka (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)