Restoration (Scotland) was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 27, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have made a tidy up edit revision as of 11:46, 22 April 2015, and want to note some things for others so that they can trace the changes.
I have replaced dashs between numbers with ndahes. I have also given years in full. This is because it facilitates searches for years if they are in full. fore example if one wishes to search for the end of the Commonwealth or the start of the Restoration one would search on "1660" not on "60". When there is a range of page numbers I have made them consistent with full page rages eg 116–117 rather than 116–7, this is a style issue, and both were in the article. However as this is not paper were do not have to justify saving space by removing digits from page number ranges.
The other changes are to short and long citations. I believer these changes are correct and can be understood by reviewing the edits that created the anomalies this edit changed:
-- PBS ( talk) 12:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk · contribs) 18:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, 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.
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
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).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
I think that this edit by user:Sabrebd was a retrograde step so I have reverted it.
The major reason for this is because of the tone of the replacement text.
user:Sabrebd stated in the edit comment that went with this "Replaced problematic 'pardon' section with one based on reliable secondary sources". Yet the sources used are
{{sfn|Harris|2015|pp=111, 214}}
{{sfn|Scottish Parliament|1662b|loc=Exceptions}}{{sfn|Harris|2005|p=111}}{{sfn|Brown|2012}}
+ seven more for the second paragraph.So both are based on reliable secondary sources, however the original text sported 10 reliable sources while the new one has one, so I fail to see how it can be argued that the former was not supported by reliable sources as the edit comment implies.
The new text starts with "Unlike in England, where there was a generalised Indemnity and Oblivion Act" this is clearly false as "On 9 September 1662 the Scottish parliament passed the Act of indemnity and oblivion. It was a general pardon ..."
The new text continues "When an Act of Indemnity was eventually passed ..." this again is condemnatory as it implies that it ought to have been passed sooner. "and threatened with execution" is not as neutral (parliaments do not threaten people they pass laws) so the he older wording phrased more neutrally: "The exceptions act specified that if an excluded person did not pay the fines by the date specified he (they were all men) would lose the benefit of the general pardon".
My point is that the new text presents the outcome as vindictive. Whether it was or not is a matter of opinion. Opinions need in-line attribution from an expert source, but Wikipedia does not have an editorial opinion, instead it let the facts speak for themselves: the facts are that there was an general pardon, that 700 were excluded and a handful were executed.
old wording
|
---|
On 9 September 1662 the Scottish parliament passed the Act of indemnity and oblivion. It was a general pardon for most types of crime that may have been committed by Scots, between 1 January 1637 and before 1 September 1660, during what the Act calls "the late troubles" (the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum). [1] The act was structured in a similar way to the English Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660, it legislated for a general pardon with exceptions, but (like Cromwell's Act of Grace) it contained many more exceptions than the English act. The act did not reverse the provisions of any previous act passed by the same Scottish Parliament or the provisions of the Committee of Estates passed since August 1660. It explicitly mentions the forfeitures of " Archibald Campbell, late marquis of Argyll, Archibald Johnston, sometime called Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, John Swinton, sometime called of Swinton, James Guthrie, William Govan, John Home and William Dundas, James Campbell, sometime called of Ardkinglas and James Campbell, sometime called of Orinsay". [1] [2] An additional act called the Act containing some exceptions from the act of indemnity was passed that included heavy fines for about 700 former adherents to the Covenant. The exceptions act specified that if an excluded person did not pay the fines by the date specified he (they were all men) would lose the benefit of the general pardon, but on timely payment he would "enjoy the benefit of his majesty's pardon and indemnity to all intents and purposes". [3] [4] A few members of the previous regime were tried and found guilty of treason. Some were executed: Archibald Campbell (8th Earl of Argyll), beheaded 27 May 1661, James Guthrie and Captain William Govan hanged 1 June 1661, and Archibald Johnston ( Lord Warriston) hanged 22 July 1663. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] John Swinton (1621?–1679) was condemned to forfeiture and imprisonment in Edinburgh Castle, where he remained for some years before being released. [9] In 1661 John Home of Kelloe had his estates sequestrated for being with the English army against the King's army at the battle of Worcester in 1651. [2] [10] After the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the estates were restored to his son George. [11] References
|
replacement wording
|
---|
Unlike in England, where there was a generalised Indemnity and Oblivion Act, that excluded only 33 persons, including the 13 regicides, there was no general indemnity in Scotland. [1] This was used vindictively and politically by Middleton and Glencairn. A number of Covenanter and Protester figures were pursued to death, including Archibald Campbell, 1st Marquess of Argyll, who was executed in 1661 for his alleged compliance with the Cromwellian regime. James Guthrie was executed for his publication of Causes of the King's Wrath. Samuel Rutherford died in prison awaiting trial for his publication of Lex Rex. Archibald Johnston, Lord Warriston, who had drafted the Solemn League and Covenant, was executed in July 1663. Captain William Govan was hanged in June 1661. [2] When an Act of Indemnity was eventually passed by the Scottish parliament in 1662, some 700 persons were excluded, and threatened with execution if they did not pay fines that ranged from £200 to £1,800 Scots. [1] References
|
@ user:Sabrebd how is the original text "problematic"? -- PBS ( talk) 12:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Restoration (Scotland) was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 27, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have made a tidy up edit revision as of 11:46, 22 April 2015, and want to note some things for others so that they can trace the changes.
I have replaced dashs between numbers with ndahes. I have also given years in full. This is because it facilitates searches for years if they are in full. fore example if one wishes to search for the end of the Commonwealth or the start of the Restoration one would search on "1660" not on "60". When there is a range of page numbers I have made them consistent with full page rages eg 116–117 rather than 116–7, this is a style issue, and both were in the article. However as this is not paper were do not have to justify saving space by removing digits from page number ranges.
The other changes are to short and long citations. I believer these changes are correct and can be understood by reviewing the edits that created the anomalies this edit changed:
-- PBS ( talk) 12:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk · contribs) 18:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, 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.
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
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).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
I think that this edit by user:Sabrebd was a retrograde step so I have reverted it.
The major reason for this is because of the tone of the replacement text.
user:Sabrebd stated in the edit comment that went with this "Replaced problematic 'pardon' section with one based on reliable secondary sources". Yet the sources used are
{{sfn|Harris|2015|pp=111, 214}}
{{sfn|Scottish Parliament|1662b|loc=Exceptions}}{{sfn|Harris|2005|p=111}}{{sfn|Brown|2012}}
+ seven more for the second paragraph.So both are based on reliable secondary sources, however the original text sported 10 reliable sources while the new one has one, so I fail to see how it can be argued that the former was not supported by reliable sources as the edit comment implies.
The new text starts with "Unlike in England, where there was a generalised Indemnity and Oblivion Act" this is clearly false as "On 9 September 1662 the Scottish parliament passed the Act of indemnity and oblivion. It was a general pardon ..."
The new text continues "When an Act of Indemnity was eventually passed ..." this again is condemnatory as it implies that it ought to have been passed sooner. "and threatened with execution" is not as neutral (parliaments do not threaten people they pass laws) so the he older wording phrased more neutrally: "The exceptions act specified that if an excluded person did not pay the fines by the date specified he (they were all men) would lose the benefit of the general pardon".
My point is that the new text presents the outcome as vindictive. Whether it was or not is a matter of opinion. Opinions need in-line attribution from an expert source, but Wikipedia does not have an editorial opinion, instead it let the facts speak for themselves: the facts are that there was an general pardon, that 700 were excluded and a handful were executed.
old wording
|
---|
On 9 September 1662 the Scottish parliament passed the Act of indemnity and oblivion. It was a general pardon for most types of crime that may have been committed by Scots, between 1 January 1637 and before 1 September 1660, during what the Act calls "the late troubles" (the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum). [1] The act was structured in a similar way to the English Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660, it legislated for a general pardon with exceptions, but (like Cromwell's Act of Grace) it contained many more exceptions than the English act. The act did not reverse the provisions of any previous act passed by the same Scottish Parliament or the provisions of the Committee of Estates passed since August 1660. It explicitly mentions the forfeitures of " Archibald Campbell, late marquis of Argyll, Archibald Johnston, sometime called Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, John Swinton, sometime called of Swinton, James Guthrie, William Govan, John Home and William Dundas, James Campbell, sometime called of Ardkinglas and James Campbell, sometime called of Orinsay". [1] [2] An additional act called the Act containing some exceptions from the act of indemnity was passed that included heavy fines for about 700 former adherents to the Covenant. The exceptions act specified that if an excluded person did not pay the fines by the date specified he (they were all men) would lose the benefit of the general pardon, but on timely payment he would "enjoy the benefit of his majesty's pardon and indemnity to all intents and purposes". [3] [4] A few members of the previous regime were tried and found guilty of treason. Some were executed: Archibald Campbell (8th Earl of Argyll), beheaded 27 May 1661, James Guthrie and Captain William Govan hanged 1 June 1661, and Archibald Johnston ( Lord Warriston) hanged 22 July 1663. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] John Swinton (1621?–1679) was condemned to forfeiture and imprisonment in Edinburgh Castle, where he remained for some years before being released. [9] In 1661 John Home of Kelloe had his estates sequestrated for being with the English army against the King's army at the battle of Worcester in 1651. [2] [10] After the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the estates were restored to his son George. [11] References
|
replacement wording
|
---|
Unlike in England, where there was a generalised Indemnity and Oblivion Act, that excluded only 33 persons, including the 13 regicides, there was no general indemnity in Scotland. [1] This was used vindictively and politically by Middleton and Glencairn. A number of Covenanter and Protester figures were pursued to death, including Archibald Campbell, 1st Marquess of Argyll, who was executed in 1661 for his alleged compliance with the Cromwellian regime. James Guthrie was executed for his publication of Causes of the King's Wrath. Samuel Rutherford died in prison awaiting trial for his publication of Lex Rex. Archibald Johnston, Lord Warriston, who had drafted the Solemn League and Covenant, was executed in July 1663. Captain William Govan was hanged in June 1661. [2] When an Act of Indemnity was eventually passed by the Scottish parliament in 1662, some 700 persons were excluded, and threatened with execution if they did not pay fines that ranged from £200 to £1,800 Scots. [1] References
|
@ user:Sabrebd how is the original text "problematic"? -- PBS ( talk) 12:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)