Talk:The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Hydrangeans (talk · contribs) 05:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 16:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this up. Yell at me in a few days if I don't get started! also I got a couple niche US history GANs up right now so if you're looking for more reviews to do~ Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'll let you know that I may be busy across this particular weekend, but I'll try to be as responsive as I can be. and hopefully return the favor too Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Just reaching out since it's been a few days since you took this up. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep! Planning on doing this today. Thank you for reaching out, and apologies for the delay; other article stuff dragged on more than I was expecting. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Things happen. Thanks for the responsiveness and again for the interest in this article. I'll keep an eye out. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Just wanted to let you know that I've integrated your feedback into the article and left explanations/asked a question at the couple of points where I didn't or wasn't able to. Sorry about it taking a couple days for me to sit down and get around to replying to your review, and thanks very much for the solid feedback. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies it took me so long to get back to this! Source review checks out, I don't see anything that needs immediate correction. Looks like we're good to go as far as the Good Article criteria is concerned! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Criterion #1: Well-written

Lede

Lede seems pretty good.

• "Loyalists, women, social history, American Indians, and Black people" One of these is not like the other. I would rephrase this to be something along the lines of "absence of social historical analysis, or coverage of (list of groups)"

• Thanks for that catch! I've pushed that fix to the article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Background

• "During the twentieth century, Woodward grew concerned..." I imagine, considering he lived entirely within the twentieth century! I get what you're trying to say here though. Maybe rephrase to "Woodward grew concerned that twentieth-century historical scholarship..."

• A very good point, ahaha! I like your rephrasing, I've made that edit. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Otherwise, all's good! I love your emphasis on historiography here.

Publication

• The initial sentence is really long and hard to follow.

• Good point. I've split it into two sentences with some revision. How is it? 22:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Since you already say Oxford History of the United States several times, I don't think you need to say its full title again in paragraph #3. Maybe just "It was the first volume of the series to be published."

• I've made that change. For some reason it rings strangely to my ears, but if you think it's fine, I'll leave it that way. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Some of the penultimate paragraph seems to fall into content rather than publication. Also, from what I can tell, prices are generally not mentioned in articles like this unless exceptional in some way.

• I guess I'd lumped all that as being part of the physical description of the book, but I can see how elements like the index and illustrations are more like content. I've moved those to the Content section. As for the price, I realize I neglected to include in the body text some information about how the pricing was part of the book's accessible design. There's now an Accessibility subsection and a sentence about affordability, and including this price information helps contextualize that. With that in mind, is it alright to leave the sentence in this section? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• • Yes! Putting into context makes it make its inclusion more interesting. I like that there's sourcing on that! -G

Reception

Ooh, expansive! It seems like you've been referencing Copyediting reception sections; however, the paragraphs under Coverage are very long, and I think it might be best to break them up a little. There's also potentially an over-reliance on quotes which could probably be paraphrased a bit more thoroughly.

• Thanks for the idea to further break up the Coverage paragraphs; I've gone ahead and done that. Some sentences got moved around to better fit with one paragraph than another, and I also revised some long quotations to summarizations. How is it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Revised edition

Good, solid prose here, though reference the price point from above.

• Does the context about affordability make the inclusion of this price sentence reasonable as well? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

General thoughts

There's nothing to dock you for here per se, but I feel several of the efns are unnecessary when the terms are already linked (mainly a, b, d, and e); readers would simply click on the link and read the lede of that article if they're unfamiliar with those terms.

• I see what you mean. My reason for including these was that in a past GA review, a reviewer averred that contextual information should be included in the article. When I posited that a reader could find that info by clicking the wikilink, they said that I shouldn't count on other articles being stable, since their content is subject to change. It seems to be a matter of varied opinions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, fair enough. I have seen articles get criticized at FAC for this before, but either way its ultimately not an issue at a GA level.

Criterion #2: Verifiable

Will do source review tomorrow. I see no unsourced content and a very well formatted bibliography and citation section to start with though!

• Oops, this was a little later than tomorrow. I'm going off the cites in this version. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Van Heyningen:
  • 3a and b: Checks out.
  • 5: Checks out; I hope you don't mind that I wikilinked these.
  • 20: Checks out, but this seems like more cites than you need for this.
  • 37: Indeed.
• Burnard:
  • 4: Checks out.
  • 7a and b: Checks out.
  • 23: Checks out.
  • 44: Checks out.
  • 66: Checks out.
  • 74: Checks out.
  • 77: Checks out.
• Pilcher:
  • 18: Yep.
  • 41: Yep.
  • 71 a and b: Checks out on both counts.
• Robinson:
  • 21: Checks out.
  • 33: Checks out.
  • 42: Checks out.
  • 47: Yep.
  • 53 a and b: On both counts, yep.
  • 69: Checks out.
  • 75; Checks out.
• Bloch, 85 - This confused me at first, but I realized it's actually two citations in one. All's good here, it checks out the date of the book being a Pulitzer finalist.

Criterion #3: Breadth

Very solid throughout, though I think the revised edition ought to be expanded a little in what it changes (if that is possible from the sourcing). Might also want to put reception into a subsection, even if it would be a little small.

• I've combed the available sources again, but the reviews don't flag much more about what is different in the revised edition beyond that there is more sociohistorical content about the groups that were underrepresented in the first edition. Schwarz does also say that Middlekauff frequently cites A Polite and Commercial People: England, 1727–1785, but that seemed more like a way for Schwarz to recommend another book to his readers than a truly encyclopedic data point about The Glorious Cause. I did take up your suggestion to put the revised edition's reception in a subsection, and I added a sentence based on an article in The Island Packet. Even with this much, the revised edition of The Glorious Cause is probably the best-covered of all Oxford University Press republications/new editions, except maybe for The Illustrated Battle Cry of Freedom (I haven't been able to find a secondary source that will verify the two-volume paperbacks of Freedom from Fear exist even though they plainly do—but that's neither here nor there). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits)

Criterion #4: Neutral

This looks good, seems to incorporate a wide range of views on the book.

Criterion #5: Stable

Seems so!

Criterion #6: Illustrated

All licensed correctly, and great alt-text; though you're missing it on the Oxford University Press. I'd also put links into the captions if I'm interpreting WP:CAP correctly.

Thanks for that catch! I've added captions to all the images and alt text to the photograph of Oxford University Press' building. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Will do the source review tomorrow! I must rest. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.