Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 26

Copyedits by Tenryuu
(TVH), I'm going to separate points by section so that they're easier to sift through. If you have anything in particular to bring up feel free to do so. Each point can be considered its own conversation, so please leave indented (preferably unbulleted) replies underneath them. I'll strike my comments out when a resolution has been reached for them. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've placed the deliberations over the Lede into one collapse-box for immediate access. Concluded deliberations should be transferred into an Archive only after the line-edit is completed, imho. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: I've got some questions about the "War breaks out" section. Anyone else is also welcome to add input. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: (and others) for the "Strategy and commanders" section. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ping

 * There seems to be some major article restructuring going on that has removed some of the text I've copyedited. It appears there's still some contention over article content, so I will be suspending my copyedit until issues among primary editors have been resolved. This is not a jab at anyone, but rather there being very little point to copyediting when text hasn't been agreed upon and may be potentially removed wholesale. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Reply can be found at the bottom of the talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your good work to date.
 * - I would implore you to have a copy edit look at three remaining sections, , and , as all have remained stable to date.
 * - I know your "ground rules" were to apply to the entire article, so I understand that your normal work flow has been interrupted. But the 'bones of contention' seem to be confined to only two sections, and.
 * - Can you overlook them, and just skip over the two sections at issue ? In any case, thanks for your help and good wishes. Sincerely - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Happy to stop - I obviously misunderstood the template. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Uncollapsing discussion. and there are quite a few discussions open about changing content. As such, copyediting would not be helpful at this time and I will suspend it for the time being. Other discussions and RfCs take precedence, so do not rush them to get a copyedit in. There is no deadline. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Panel discussion

 * [...] was initiated by the thirteen American colonies in congress against Great Britain over their objection to the Parliament's taxation policies [...] Emphasis added. TVH has mentioned on my talk page that they support capitalising the word and linking it to Continental Congress. Before I do, I want to confirm that "congress" here does not have the more general definition of either "a coming together of two or more people; a meeting" (archaic) or "a formal gathering or assembly; a conference held to discuss or decide on a specific question" (definitions 1 and 2 from Wiktionary), and that it refers to the official name of the legislative body. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - "Congress". The legislative body of colonial independence from "all political connection with Great Britain" was indeed the Continental Congress . The lower-elected chambers in the colonial Royal assemblies only declared their legislative independence from Parliament in local matters to establish themselves as states within the British Empire "as though they were in England" per their Stuart charters. —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - They were meant to rule directly in the name of the Crown as did the British East India Company --- with a flag of thirteen alternating horizontal red and white stripes, and a canton of the Great Union Flag (🇺🇸 as flown over the restored colonial Capitol in Williamsburg VA) --- leaving legislation for the Empire to Parliament, but only admitting those measures that applied to England, Scotland, Ireland, and the Americas equally. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers said: (Copied by — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC))
 * ✅. Using Gwillhickers' wording. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * With the capture of French Canada in the French and Indian War and confirmation of British victory through the Treaty of Paris in 1763 [...] Already edited. Reading further down I see that another Treaty of Paris was signed a few decades later, so the years in the sentences should give enough context for the targeted links. Does it look fine as it is, or would stretching the link to include "in 1763" look better (i.e., Treaty of Paris in 1763 → Treaty of Paris in 1763)? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - I would just use parens: Treaty of Paris (1763). Fortuitously, this is actually the article title, so you can bracket it up, just like that. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - "Treaty of Paris (1763)", or "the 1763 1763 Treaty". - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers said: (Copied by — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC))
 * ✅. Using link text with disambiguator. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The French subsequently made two treaties with Congress, the first for trade, and the second to "defensively" protect that trade in the 1778 Treaty of Alliance. I went ahead and changed the first comma into a colon.
 * First treaty: Another WP:EASTEREGG. I think changing it to [...] the Treaty of Amity and Commerce that established direct trade should fix things. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Second treaty: Are the quotes around "defensively" for directly quoting or scare quotes? "Defensively protect" sounds redundant, but the explanatory footnote (efn) appears to explain this? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - I'll defer to your judgment. Yes, drop the "defensively", it can be mistaken as scare quotes, the the treaty provisions are amply explained in the Note. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Referring to both by name. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In the war for independence from Britain, the American cause was further helped the next year when Britain gained another enemy: Spain. This could possibly be rearranged (with some efn integration into the prose) to The following year, America's war for independence from Britain was assisted when Spain honored its Pacte de Famille with France. Bourbon could be mentioned in there somewhere. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - better. - TVH 11 Nobember-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Moved reference to the end. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * [...] forced the British to retreat to Yorktown where it was besieged by a joint Franco-American force. I would use a term other than "Franco-American", as that generally refers to Americans of French descent. It's subtly different, but French–American (with an en dash) would work better. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - better. - TVH 11 Nobember-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers said: (copied by — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC))
 * ✅. Gwillhickers' proposed wording removes the ambiguity. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A strategically decisive French naval victory brought the October 1781 surrender of the second British field army in the Revolutionary War. WP:EASTEREGG. Sentence should be rephrased to explicitly mention the Battle of the Chesapeake. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - better. - TVH 11 Nobember-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers said: (copied by — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC))
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  01:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Tory government fell and Lord North was replaced by Whig Lord Rockingham. I'm assuming Charles Watson-Wentworth is more commonly known as Lord Rockingham? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - Yes, thank you. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers said: (copied by — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC))
 * ✅. Left as is due to WP:COMMONNAME. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * When their Olive Branch Petition to the King and Parliament was rebuffed, the Patriots invaded British Quebec but were repelled. Already edited. TVH suggested using "repulsed" in a larger, regional context, so that has been changed back. "Their" could either be replaced with "its" to describe Congress or more directly with "Congress'". — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - Style dictates "Patriots" because "Congress" appears so close in the very next sentence. TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Split the sentence in two and linked "Patriots" to Patriot (American Revolution). — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * However the new British commander-in-chief General Sir William Howe launched a counter-offensive and captured New York City. ✅. Already edited.
 * - TVH suggested that commas be added for separating assignment and rank, so I added them in. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Washington retaliated with harassing attacks at Trenton and Princeton. TVH answered this on my talk page. This appears to have its own article at Harassing fire. Would it be accurate to link to that and change "attacks" to "fire"? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - Ordinarily yes, but the day had been rehearsed, as guerrilla attacks often are. The militia had practiced 'leap-frogging' squads from pre-planned positions all along the entire route of march back to Boston. The militia harassing fires were sustained periodically throughout the entire retreat. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I'll change text and link to "harassing fire". — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Fighting broke out on 19 April 1775. The British garrison at Boston was ordered to destroy colonial Assembly powder stores and was harassed by Massachusetts militia at Lexington and Concord. Already edited and TVH made an evaluation on my talk page. I'm wondering if this could be improved a bit more:
 * The sentences could be joined by a colon as the second explains the first. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - I'll defer to you. I'm not sure about proper usage of colons apart from setting off a list of items, or steps in a procedure. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also thinking of changing [...] Assembly powder stores and was harassed [...] to [...] Assembly powder stores, but was harassed [...] (emphasis added), assuming that the garrison never accomplished its task. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - aaaaah, the British garrison did succeed in destroying the weapons they were ordered to destroy (but failed to capture Sam Adams, et alia). - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is interesting. Aside from failing to capture Sam Adams and others, this sentence can be rewritten. Was the garrison harassed before or after it destroyed the Americans' weapons? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In a formal military sense, the "militia harassment" began at the "battle" of Lexington. It was tactically a "skirmish line" of musketry thrown together just beyond a narrow bridge into the town. They let fly a volley or two to halt and delay the advancing British column so the Sons of Liberty leaders could escape. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Rephrased the sentence to say that the British technically managed to complete their assignment. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Howe's 1777–1778 Philadelphia campaign captured the city, but the British were defeated at Saratoga in October 1777.
 * - TVH opined about this on my talk page. While not at MOS:SEAOFBLUE levels, unlinking "Saratoga" is an option. My original concern is that I expected to be taken to Saratoga County, New York instead of Battles of Saratoga when I clicked on the link. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - If we can keep the link to the Battles of Saratoga at "Saratoga, that is my preference. Thanks. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * : In that case, how about this: Howe's 1777–1778 Philadelphia campaign captured the city, but the British were defeated at the Battles of Saratoga in October 1777. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - good. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * At Valley Forge during the winter of 1777–1778, Washington built a professional army with the important assistance of soldier-of-fortune General von Steuben. TVH suggested making changes on my talk page.
 * "Important": Doesn't seem like this will need to be discussed if the sentence is going to be overhauled, but I don't think "important" is necessary here, as that tends to lead to the question "why was it important?" It could be used further down in the article when it is shown why his assistance was important to building Washington's professional army. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. "Important" is gone. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Von Steuben: I've gone ahead and used von Steuben's full name as its first mention. I also used "emigrant" instead of émigré as it's English (unless there's a special meaning behind émigré?) I don't think there's anything wrong with using "assistance" to describe von Steuben's contribution; "implement" might be a better fit if his contribution is specified. As this is the lede, I'm not sure switching to "implement" is necessary. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - Full name is good. I need a word, not "assistance", that signifies that von Steuben was "the man". He knows what to do and how to do it. Washington buys his act, then von Steuben does the deed over the course of that winter and thereafter, and he writes the infantry training manual adopted for use in the US Army over the next thirty years. "Think, think, think, said Pooh bear." - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * : How about omitting Washington completely from the sentence and expand on Steuben? Consider At Valley Forge during the winter of 1777–1778, Prussian emigrant General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben trained the Continental Army with a system of progressive training. I took that last bit from the article on him. If the manual is more important we can swap that in or try and include that as well. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * good. thank you. The 'train' is more important than the 'manual'. It was said that the good general personally took it upon himself to scream oaths in four languages at any mis-step of a drilling soldier in the process of mastering his drill manual. (see also any Marine 'boot' camp movie scene - the Marine Corps birthday is Nov 10, 1775 at Tun Tavern. In the age of sail, 'tender feet' could not scale the rigging to the tops without wearing boots, or the rough tar-soaked roping would bloody the soles of their feet; hence "boots" are "beginners". - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Using the proposed sentence as is. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Link for "professional army": "Professional army" is currently linked to Continental Army. I suggest changing the text to "Continental Army" and removing the anchor to the section for anyone who wants to learn more about the Continental Army in general (i.e., [...] Washington built the Continental Army with the assistance of Prussian emigrant General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben).
 * - agree. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The war between Britain and the Bourbon alliance continued for another two years. First explicit mention of "Bourbon", so it should probably be linked to House of Bourbon? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - better. But use "Bourbon" linked to "Pacte de Famille" to get the two principal contemporaries of George III receiving American diplomats from the Continental Congress. - TVH 11 Nobember-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * : What about House of Bourbon? Pacte de Famille appears to only mention America in an efn; the House of Bourbon anchor mentions Charles assisting the rebels (Americans) and fighting against Britain in the prose. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - good for me. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Linking to that. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Preliminary Peace was signed in November [...] Any article about "Preliminary Peace" on Wikipedia? I can't seem to find one off the top of suggested matches. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - I don't think so, yet. It is critically important from this side of the Pond, but for the Euros, not so much.
 * - The bigger, bloodier, longer, more expensive and more complex diplomatically complex conflict variously called the "Bourbon War" and "War of 1778" by contemporary Euro participants, and set within the Second Hundred Years' War of British historiography, is of forefront interest to most world historians, and rightfully so.
 * - As I understand it, before university specialization, most Euros spend half a day on the America Revolution as a prelude to three weeks spent on the French Revolution; and that makes sense from their perspective. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - TIMELINE CAUTION. The Library of Congress, “A Century of Lawmaking”, Treaty of Paris refers to “the preliminary articles of peace” signed on November 30, 1782. --- without capitalization. My reference for the capitalization in the term “Preliminary Peace” was in a British diplomatic history, so we can await future capitalization when I find it later for an ARW Talk discussion. The "conclusive" Anglo-American Treaty of Paris is signed in September 1783. —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers said: (copied by — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC))
 * Searchtool.svg Investigation. I did a quick Google search and found this webpage. It appears that the preliminary articles belong to the second 1783 Treaty of Paris, but only the preliminary articles were signed in November 1782, while the entire document was signed September 1783. Does that seem to be correct? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Tenryuu — Yes, according to Morris, 1965, p. 207, the preliminary articles, drafted by John Jay, were signed by Richard Oswald for Great Britain, and by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and Henry Laurens for the U.S., on November 30, 1782. (See also: Renehan, 2007, p. 87) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - (1) Both parties acted on the 'preliminary articles'. Congress proclaimed an end to hostilities unanimously, and published it in newspapers and broadsides. It called up no more replacement regiments for those whose enlistment expired. To fund expenses and pay off debts, US Navy ships were sold or given away. Regiments in the field were furloughed home without pay (their officers at half-pay versus paying them their back pay as a lump sum). George III the week after, on December 4, 1782, declared for American independence in his Speech from the Throne opening of Parliament at a public joint session of Lords and Commons.
 * - (2) The "preliminary" articles of peace are adopted wholesale into the "conclusive" Anglo-American treaty as agreed upon without conferring with the Bourbons by either party. All the unanimously-adopted Congressional war aims were met: independence, British evacuation, territory to the Mississippi River and its free navigation, fishing and curing rights at Newfoundland. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then the current lede statement is good as currently reads. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I'm calling them as the "preliminary articles of peace" as that's how American sources appear to refer to them as. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * When the Parliament imposed the Intolerable Acts—punitive laws for defying Great Britain—upon Massachusetts, twelve colonies attended the First Continental Congress to boycott British goods. Already edited. TVH made two points on my talk page about this sentence:
 * Definition for Intolerable Acts can be seen by hovering over the linked text: The general page preview feature definitely makes having both unnecessary. I generally prefer using the proper name of an event/act/entity on a page to highlight its importance instead of just describing it, and Wikipedia prefers links to be as transparent as possible and printer-friendly. How about just linking "Intolerable Acts"? The page preview shows its lede mentioning that they are "punitive laws". — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like you may have taken care of this in the interim, but mobile devices don't show hover text; and this is discouraged by MOS:NOTOOLTIPS. Ditto for "First treaty" below; etc. Mathglot (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - For increasing mobile access, in this case and similar, add a brief definition in a Note. ''"Intolerable Acts . - TVH 11 November-a  —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Replaced it with an efn. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - confirm yes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggestion to amend latter half of sentence: ✅. More specific wording suggested by TVH. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - Thanks. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * [...] that would weaken the French position in the Americas. How would unpiping the first link look? I'm thinking [...] that would weaken the French colonial empire's position in the Americas. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - Unpiping good. Link to "Americas" should be to "Americas" at European colonization of the Americas for historical context, so as to avoid the scholarly "Anachronism" and political "presentism" that plagues the field of History. - TVH 11 November-a —TVH 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . I've unpiped French colonial empire and consider changing the link for Americas another time. It appears that "Americas" is used in this article to differentiate the geographical landmass from "America" the nation. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - I'm not sure, need a check with and .  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we use the termAmerica to refer to the (soon to be) country, and Americas to refer to the continents. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If there's any uncertainty at all about what the source means by 'Americas', then I would be as conservative as MOS:LINKQUOTE is for quotations, and simply not link it, and let the reader make their own determination about meaning, rather that tilt towards some Wikipedia editor's take (or 3 WP editors take) on it. Just my 2¢. And can we stick with one level of extra indent for replies, per WP:THREAD? Thx. Mathglot (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I'm going to leave the link to the Americas as is, as contextually I think it would make sense. If anyone wants to change it to (unlinked) "continent" that works too. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * On September 3, 1783, another Treaty of Paris was signed between Great Britain and the United States. Already edited, but "another" should differentiate this Treaty of Paris from the earlier one. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - better. - TVH 11 Nobember-a = TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - on second thought, adding "another" here in the Introduction referring back to the 1763 Treaty of Paris, that ended the Seven Years' War among imperial great powers, is sort of off-topic, a side-bar of diplomatic history that does not bear directly on the military history of the American Revolutionary War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Good catch: America wasn't involved in that signing, so "another" would be inappropriate. Switched to "a" (I don't see a need for the disambiguator here as the year is literally a few words before it). — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Editor comments

 * Tenryuu — Thanks for your time and effort in sorting through this rather long and involved article.  Thus far most of your suggestions here look okay.  I'll comment on a few items.
 * I would capitalize congress as it refers to the Continental Congress in the phrase in question. i.e. was initiated by the thirteen American colonies in congress... I would also add the phrase, delegates from, so the statement would read thusly: was initiated by delegates from the thirteen American colonies in Congress, making it clear that this was indeed an assembly of representatives.
 * Yes, we should differentiate between the two Treaties of Paris, i.e. Treaty of Paris (1763) and Treaty of Paris (1783), with more than just a piped-link to either, but with the year date indicated in the actual text for ease of readability.
 * Yes, the term in the lede, "The Preliminary Peace was signed in November...", more than suggests that this was some sort of official title. It should instead read 'A preliminary peace was signed in November...   Also, the signing refers to the signing of the Treaty of Paris, which was actually signed in September, not November as the lede currently states.
 * Yes the Lord Rockingham, referred to in the lede is Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham, preceded by the proper noun, Whig. The common term, Lord Rockingham  is already linked.
 * I agree that the Battle of the Chesapeake should not be hidden in a piped link and should be spelled out in the narrative. In the not so distant past I've removed several name-famous battles in this manner, so as to allow a page search for any reader searching for a given event's coverage in this article.
 * I agree that using the term, Franco-American force, is not the best way to describe this allied effort. The statement in question should read "...it was besieged by an allied French and American force.
 * More comments later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments so far ; I'll address them at a later time. For the sake of keeping what is going to be an extremely long discussion organised, easy to navigate, and as short as possible, please reply directly after each point (with a signature as always) so the three of us don't need to scroll back and forth to check and reply when discussing a particular point. I know it's unorthodox and departs from WP:TPO, but I anticipated this "non-general" use by ending my comments with their own time stamps. Think of my giant comment as multiple tinier comments that can be individually responded to. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've frequently responded in this manner before, but recently a certain editor took me to task, citing guidelines, etc, for having "clobbered" his post in this manner. Yes, with your permission I'll be happy to respond in such a fashion. Also, might I suggest, that if an edit only involves variations in grammar, simple title and date fixes, etc, they need not always be mentioned on the Talk page here. An edit summary should suffice. Perhaps from this point on, for the sake of simplicity, we might want to reserve our talk to potentially controversial edits, major additions/deletions and the like.  All other edits can be adjusted if need be. Once again, many thanks for your efforts.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What you were taken to task for, was a clear TPO violation which garbled the Talk page. Responding in the manner Tenryuu suggests, is perfectly fine: note that has signed every bullet, thus when you respond to individual points there is no possibility for confusion, as your comments will have your sig, and the originals and other responses, will have theirs, and threading remains clear. See WP:TALKREPLY.  Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Blur... Your name wasn't even mentioned, but now, everyone around here knows. Once again, TPO is a guideline, not a rigid policy. Guidelines allows for exceptions as was already explained for you. Sorry. Please try to get over it, instead of lurking in the shadows more obsessed with long past personal and peevish issues, rather than article improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I acknowledge that there is bad blood between you two, but please keep the arguing to your talk pages.
 * Yes you have my permission. May I copy your bulleted responses to the appropriate points?
 * [...] if an edit only involves variations in grammar, simple title and date fixes, etc [...] Sure; I'll use my better judgment. I'll check this periodically to see if anyone has questions of their own. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  06:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ooops . No offense in any direction intended. Before I read down to here in the 'Editing Talk' screen, I just finished a couple early morning hours lacing comments inside the bullets above to respond to as best I understood (her)(him)><(him)(her). The copyeditor is an invited guest here, and it's their rodeo, if I get a vote, because the visit did not originate with them. - Also, I mini-signed each response with "TVH 11 November-a" to avoid filling the page with a wall of signatures, and at the last one, showed TVH 11 November-a = TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

, for the top section of 100% resolved elements of the Lede copyedit, may I put them in a collapsed box? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm fine with that. I haven't done it in my previous copyedit+ lookovers as they were one-to-one correspondences, but that would help organise things. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries on my end. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , late to the party, but this looks fine. Thanks for asking. Hope you're all okay with the collapse bar color change; I find when there are several of them on a page, having different shades helps ensure you are in the right place. Mathglot (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And, I like this color better. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Pending
empty

Resolved

 * The serial comma. Some lists (e.g., "A, B and C") don't use it and some do. I personally prefer having it as it gives a brief pause in the text when reading, but I'll leave the decision to the others so long as its use (or lack thereof) is consistent. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * agree to the serial comma throughout. - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I'll keep an eye out to see if any lists like those need the comma. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * and the British formally abandoned the Stuart King colonial charters [...] I'm going to add an apostrophe to "charters", but how many charters were there? Just one? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just Virginia and Massachusetts had proprietary charters flipped to Royal charters by the Stuarts, others were initially Stuart Royal charters. By 1775, was it Pennsylvania and Delaware surviving as the last proprietorships? - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Limiting colonial westward expansion was to be paid for by the Americans themselves by the 1764 Sugar Act and the 1765 Stamp Act. This sentence is a little confusing for me with the word "limiting" at the beginning. In my head it makes more sense for Great Britain to stop financing the colonies if the latter decided to expand westwards; as it reads right now it sounds like Great Britain would still support the colonies if they continued to expand westward. I'm not sure what costs would be incurred if expansion was limited. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggested rewrite for the opening two-sentences: " Enforcement of the Proclamation limiting colonial westward expansion was to be financed by the Americans themselves through revenues collected from the 1764 Sugar Act and the 1765 Stamp Act. The economic effect of these measures became crippling for New England." - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Tweaked the last sentence a bit so that it could merge with the previous one. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Partly designed to undercut illegal imports, it was also recognized as another attempt to assert their right to tax the colonies, so it did nothing to quiet opposition. Is "it" referring to the Tea Act? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Tea Act "was also recognized interpreted as another attempt to assert Parliament's right to directly tax the colonies..." - —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Incorporated proposed rewording into my own. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * These increasing tensions led to a mutual scramble for ordnance between royal governors and the elected assemblies. WP:EASTEREGG concerns. Taking a quick glance at the article, it seems like the Powder Alarm is the widespread reaction by many colonies to gunpowder confiscation? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps edit to "These increasing tensions led to a mutual scramble for ordnance between royal governors and elected assemblies." - —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Explicitly mentioned the Powder Alarm and used the preexisting text as a definition. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The tentative Whig majority there [...] Tango style ping icon.svg Reminder for self: Delink this if this is linked earlier. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Linked earlier by Lord Rockingham. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The initial hostilities in Boston caused a pause in British activity [...] I don't think "initial hostilities" needs to be linked to Boston campaign, as it seems to still be referring to the Battles at Lexington and Concord. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * agreed. I liked finding the Boston campaign because it seemed more strategic wrapping in the Siege of Boston and the creation of the Continental Army. Perhaps there's a place for it in the next section. - —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Unlinked. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * At the 1763 Peace of Paris ending it [...] The link redirects to Treaty of Paris (1763). I'm thinking of renaming it so that the redirect is unnecessary. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * agreed. I like "At the treaty ending it, France [...]" —TVH 23:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - Not sure how this may apply: At two other sites, an experienced editor has removed two internal article links objecting to a "2-step link". With that in mind, once "Seven Years' War" is linked, the treaty ending it is discussed there, so is any further link to Treaty of Paris (1763) warranted in this section? - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything over at MOS:LINK that mentions "two-step linking". The way I see it, readers may be interested in the war that preceded the American Revolutionary War, so that could be linked. The Treaty of Paris should be linked because its ratification contributed to the American Revolution with domain changes. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
 * - Got it. - —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also thinking of rewording this a little bit: something along the lines of The war ended with the signing [or "ratification", if it's applicable here] of the 1763 Treaty of Paris; as a result, France [...] — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternate : "That war ended with the 1763 Treaty of Paris. It caused France to abandon North America, Spain expanded [...]" --- 'that' because it is not 'this' war, nor was it 'this' Peace of Paris (1783). —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Got around using a pronoun by moving the Treaty of Paris to the previous sentence. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The coming American Revolutionary War was set amidst this already unsettled world. This sentence is too dramatic for an encyclopedia and the section heading already implies that this section talks about the factors that led to the war. I suggest removing it. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggested rewrite : "When the Europeans changed their maps, they caused major disruptions throughout North America. These included military alliances, trade networks, and economic stability, all before the onset of the American Revolutionary War." —TVH 23:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - "Europeans' maps" meaning those of the British, French and Spanish empires in North America, all redrawn in 1763. "Military alliances" and "trade networks" include those made Euro-to-Euro, Euro-to-Indian, and Indian-to-Indian, all disrupted in 1763 at "The Scratch of a Pen" (Calloway 2007). - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've gone and made the change. I didn't add "American Revolutionary War", as it is still self-evident from the heading that we are talking about events before the war which are implied to have led to it. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * With Britain's enlarged North American empire, the earlier Navigation Acts were expanded from mercantile regulation [...] I went ahead and linked to Navigation Acts. I see they "expanded from mercantile regulation", but is there any detail as to what other aspects were included in the Acts from the source? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * New Royal Governor-appointed posts were created to be paid for by colonial assemblies. These are the DOI "hordes" sent to administer the new taxes. Additional Royal Navy squadrons were stationed on patrol in New England waters. - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it be correct to say that the Royal Navy was bolstered to enforce tax collection? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Bolster" defenses on land, for sure. Perhaps better, "and the Royal Navy assigned warships to tax smugglers as they approached Boston Harbor." - —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Tweaked the proposed rewrite before implementing it. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * [...] which required British garrisons to be established in the formerly French forts ceded by the Indians. Already edited. There is some alliteration that could be worded better. There seem to be two groups who owned the forts previously: the French and the Indians. Were the Indians using the forts with permission from the French? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rats. sorry for the misdirection.
 * The French obtained treaties from Indians ceding territory for the purpose of forts to "His Most Christian Majesty", mostly along tribal borderlands. They were ceded for the French to conduct trade with multiple tribes nearby, even though some adjacent tribes were mutually hostile. War parties would by-pass the French treaty-forts on raids to count coup, capture wives, and acquire slaves on a small scale, some of whom became adopted and intermarried into their host tribe.
 * - These French-Indian treaties later become diplomatically fraught across Euro-Indian cultures, because the authority of Sachem peace-chiefs is different-from and other-than the authority of Werowance war-chiefs. Related multi-cultural miscommunication: Gift-giving in diplomacy had two opposite and inverse meanings. To Euros, the exchange obligated the receiver as a subordinate vassal who accepted the gift, --- but the self-same practice --- to Indians, the exchange obligated the giver as a subordinate to the protector who accepted the gift.
 * - Also renegade young warriors sometimes accepted arms from the French or British to engage in warfare and take scalps from Euro settlements without sanction from either the Sachems or Werowances of their tribe. Renegades without tribal authority were known to leave war-regalia of their traditional tribal enemies at the site of Euro settlement raids to initiate Euro punitive expeditions against their tribal enemies, and at the same time to escape censure at their home fires. All the while they could collect Euro bounties for scalps, and keep muskets, ball and powder for their followers in quantities that their elders did not yet possess. In response to reinforce traditional chiefs, the Euros provided werowance military allies with both supplies of munitions and a permanent village-resident armorer to maintain the muskets; he often took a village wife.
 * - Documentation comes from journals of multi-racial linguists who negotiated or helped negotiate between colonial authorities and tribal elders with traditional authority, trying to find a path to mutual cultural justice for both the perpetrators and the victims. --- for young firebrand Euro county militia captains making war on Indians without their elders' sanction, see Nathaniel Bacon (oops, wrong tribe).
 * - The French transferred treaty-forts to the British by the 1763 Treaty of Paris.
 * - The British transferred treaty-forts to the Americans by the 1783 Treaty of Paris - —TVH 15:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, so the Indians gave the land to the French who built forts that were later handed to the British by the 1763 Treaty of Paris? I'm just wondering if it is necessary to mention the Indians here, as what appears to be more important are the forts. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggested : ''"[...] peace for interior trade needed policing against illicit colonial settlement, and that required British garrisons to occupy the earlier French trading forts.
 * Note : By the 1700s, the French had negotiated land cessions from Indian tribes for trading-post forts in boundary lands removed from their principle villages and adjacent tribal areas. These were ceded to the British in the Treaty of Paris (1763), and included outposts just west of the 1763 Royal Proclamation Line. At the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War, the same forts were ceded by the British to the United States in the Treaty of Paris (1783). - —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Used TVH's suggested rewrite. Will visit the efn another time. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The next year, Whig Lord Rockingham was appointed to his first Prime Ministership (1765–1766), and repealed the Stamp Act when he paired it with the Declaratory Act. Two things:
 * Linking "Whig": "Whig" looks like something that interested readers could read more about. To get around MOS:SEAOFBLUE, I'm thinking of reorganising the first part of the sentence around, something like The next year, Lord Rockingham from the Whigs was appointed [...] I also wonder if it would be better for the link to Rockingham's article was unanchored, as interested readers may be interested in his life outside of his being prime minister. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternate phrasing: "Lord Rockingham who was leader of the Whigs in the House of Lords was appointed ..." —TVH 23:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Made his title as Whig leader a parenthetical thought. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - I think it may be that readers focused on the American history would want to zero in first on the information in the anchored section, and then once landed on the Lord Rockingham page, the general reader will scroll around the article to pick up additional British context and history. —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Leaving it as is. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Pairing and repealing: How does an act get repealed when it is paired with another one? Perhaps "replaced" makes more sense? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's more complicated that a one-step "replaced". To get the required majority in both Lords and Commons to repeal the Stamp Act, Lord Rockingham paired two bills to combine most Whig votes and some Tory votes, as the Whig caucuses alone could pass repeal of the Stamp Act in both Houses. The pro-Whig bill (a) repealing the Stamp Act, was paired with the pro-Tory bill (b) declaring Parliament had supreme jurisdiction for all things empire. The two passed, giving Lord Rockingham a win in the short run.
 * - While the narrowly drawn language in the Declaratory bill basically mirrored what the First Continental Congress had already conceded in their Olive Branch Petition, the Tories assumed, and the Patriots feared, that Parliament might yet pass "empire taxes" that did not apply everywhere equally throughout the empire. There might be America-only taxes in the future that would exempt England in the levy, and so those bills would be easier to pass without American consent. - —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so if I understand this correctly, Rockingham intentionally merged the two together to ensure his party's decision would be the majority? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct. Or, kindler, gentler, and in the passive diplomatic voice: so the policy could gain a majority. - —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I think the addition makes sense. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * He pursued tougher policies, including a threat to charge colonists with treason, although there was no support for this in Parliament. Emphasis added. Is "this" referring to his "tougher policies" or more specifically his threat of charging colonists with treason? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * More specifically to Lord North's threat of charging colonists with treason. - —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * : How about this rewrite: Although Parliament supported North's proposed tougher policies, it did not entertain his threat to charge the colonists with treason? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Better. —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Radical Whig Patriots gained widespread [...] Another MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue. Would Radical Whig members of the Patriots [...] still make sense? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * aaaaah, perhaps "The radical-whig Patriots" [Brit: 'radical-whiggish Patriots] -? The Patriots were not divided into factions as were the British Whig moderates and radicals. They all were followers of Montesquieu and Locke, politically connected in their newspapers to the radical Whig John Wilkes sympathizers in Commons, even after Wilkes, "the hero of English liberty", was expelled. —TVH 23:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * suggest, "The Patriots gained widespread support both in America and also among Parliament's Whig Opposition." —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * : I think "Radical Whig" can be kept: what about Patriots who were also Radical Whigs gained widespread support [...]? Your suggestion would work if the Patriots as a whole gained widespread support. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Further amendment : "Although they were intended to specifically punish Massachusetts, they the acts were widely viewed as a threat to English liberty for in all the colonies, and the rising crisis gained local support for the Patriots. They were seen as Radical Whigs in London, and advocates increased among the Whig Opposition in Parliament and in the London press." - —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Made a brief meta-amendment. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Even after fighting began, Congress launched an Olive Branch Petition in another attempt to avert war. What was their first attempt of averting war again? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, there are earlier petitions, such as the successful petition to repeal the Stamp Act.
 * - As a matter of British North American colonial history, many previous conflicts in several colonies across decades had come to a successful resolution from the colonial perspective, simply on the motion of a Royal colonial assembly (Royal Governor, Royal Council and elected Burgesses) petitioning the King. That was the history before the time of George III, including that of George II. - —TVH 17:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If what you mentioned isn't going to be added into the article, I think switching another to an should be enough. I also already changed avert to prevent. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good, . What I mentioned is background better suited to the American Revolution, perhaps. - —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 * [...] General Washington checked British operations out of New York at the 1778 Battle of Monmouth. To confirm, Washington was outside of New York City and the British were inside? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct. —TVH 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Tweaked wording for clarification. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Initially the British were successful, and Americans lost an army in their greatest defeat at Charleston in 1780. Emphasis added. This should definitely be cited as "greatest" is incredibly subjective. Also, does "greatest" apply to the entire war or just Charleston? Alternatively, using a non-superlative adjective could also work. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * YES, thank you . "Greatest" is the characterization made at the source, Mays 2019, p.3. It is not so much "subjective" as "bean-counting". That is as accounted for by troops surrendered, or muskets captured, or heavy guns secured, or any other combination of the three. This was it, for the American cause, for the entire duration of the war.
 * - But I see your point . For the general reader, the term is NOT informative in an encyclopedic narrative, it is merely distracting . "Unsurpassed" likewise seems con-man wp:puffery. "Devastating" is overwrought and also factually incorrect, as another, larger Patriot army was to be raised in the Carolina, within the next few months, though without the numbers of veteran Continentals. But with battle-hardened militia and a core of regulars amounting to a Continental infantry regiment and cavalry legion, that proved sufficient for Patriot victory in the South. Let's use [...] and the American defeat at Charleston lost them an entire army, causing a severe set back for Patriots in the region.. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Taking TVH's proposed wording with some tweaks. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In November 1776, a Massachusetts-sponsored uprising in Nova Scotia was disbursed. Emphasis added. Just double-checking that the uprising was dispersed and not disbursed. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL, YES, thank you. The old aviation supply officer trips up again. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Switched to the right word. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A troop of British regulars set out [...] Could "regulars" be further disambiguated to Regular Army (UK), which itself is a redirect to the British Army, or is it intended to just be a link to define what a "regular army" is? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's replace that one with the chronological link to British Army during the American Revolutionary War. Thanks. Good catch! - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Relinked. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Burgoyne dug in [...] What does "dug in" mean here? "Continued to pursue"? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not pursue in this case. Burgoyne suffers severe losses, his Indian allies leave him, and he is now faced with a large enemy force. The infantry in the defense gains an advantage behind some kind of protection. The infantry at this time dug trenches into the ground, mounding the earth as a protective wall in front, adding felled trees, branches outward if there were time.
 * - Alternate: Burgoyne set up defensive earthen-works. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Used "dug trenches" and provided a reason. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * French foreign minister Charles Gravier, the Comte de Vergennes, was strongly anti-British and had long sought a pretext for going to war with Britain since their conquest of Canada in 1763. The prose states that Britain conquered Canada in 1763, but the wikilink says they did it in 1760. Which is correct? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The conflict called the French and Indian War in North America was over in 1760, but the end of all great power conflict worldwide for the Seven Years' War is formally ended at the signed Treaty of Paris (1763). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I'll leave it as is. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Britain could not find a powerful ally among the Great Powers to engage France on the European continent [...] This is the first time that "Great Powers" is mentioned in the article. If there isn't an appropriate wikilink for it, I suggest defining who the Great Powers are. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We can do that in a Note. The European "Great Powers" of the late 1700s were generally divided east and west. The Eastern Great Powers were Russia, Prussia, and Austria. The Western Great Powers were France and Spain, each separately and together in their Pacte de Famille, Britain, and sometimes the declining Dutch Republic. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Created an efn. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The war then stalemated. It's a pretty isolated sentence by itself. Is it being explained by the following sentence? When did it get out of being a stalemate? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Alternate: [...], which disappointed the Americans. [paragraph] For the rest of the year, combat was mostly large skirmishes such as those at [...]. And paragraph at During the winter of 1779-1780. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Line breaks made and sentence removed. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Later in the year, a second campaign was undertaken to seize the Illinois Country from the British. Virginia militia, Canadien settlers [...] Is the use of "Canadien" intentional to describe French Canadians? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, happily supplied by a Canadian editor. He replaced my hapless 'Francophone' term with the much better 'Canadien'. The French settlements that came under British rule were unhappy with the change of regime, especially the prohibition against public worship of the Roman Catholic faith. Clark was able to give them assurances that they could freely practice their religion, and with the support of the Catholic priests, the settlers accepted Virginia government as Illinois County, Virginia, and elected their two delegates to the General Assembly in Williamsburg.
 * - Second thoughts, reconsideration? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. As a Canadian editor, the thought is much appreciated. I'm going to wikilink "Canadien" so that uninformed readers don't think it's a typo. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Cornwallis ended the Spring 1778 policy to parol Patriot militia who would return home not to fight Royal authority again. Parol is an actual English word, but it doesn't appear to be used as a verb. Is it supposed to be "parole"? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good eye. That may actually be a typo. "parole" it is. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Changed word. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * At the Spanish declaration of war with France in 1779 [...] Did Spain declare war against France or their allyship with them? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching that. In 1779, when Spain joined France in declaring war on Britain, Governor Gálvez [...] - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Using proposed wording instead with a little reorganisation. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The British dug in at Yorktown and awaited the Royal Navy. Another mention of "dug in". Does it mean the same thing as before? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with very much more engineering, more solid defense against shot and shell, elaborate interlocking defensive fires, multiple posts laid out with complementing fields of fire.
 * British engineers built up an elaborate defensive position, and awaited [...] - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Generalised to "British", but otherwise using proposed wording. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Starting in 1779, the British initiated a southern strategy to begin at Savannah, gather Loyalist support, and reoccupy Patriot-controlled territory north to Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay doesn't link to itself? I suggest rewording if it's the colonies up there that are important. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As much as possible, I've tried to link places to an historical context, either to the 'History' section relating the port in the ARW, or in this case, a better context in the article at Chesapeake Colonies. 'Chesapeake Colonies' gives a good overview sketch of the area of strategic importance to the British and American military theater maneuver, including the furthest interior raid up the James River to try to capture Jefferson. The Virginia and Maryland settlement in 1779 was only out of the Tidewater west across the Piedmont, and into the Great Valley. Pennsylvania had Indian peace treaties farther west, New York did not. At Colony of Virginia the map is political-schematic, with only the half of the map east of the orange line applicable here. Virginia in the American Revolution has no map. The article Colonial South and the Chesapeake is unassessed, and without a map. Colonial history of the United States does not show a close up topographical map focused on the region. I will keep trying to find 'the perfect fit'.
 * - In 1779, Philadelphia was by far the largest port on the eastern seaboard, followed by New York. By 1779, Norfolk, a town built for access to the old pine forest growth for Royal Navy assess to had been burned. Nothing to see in that region but mostly abandoned tobacco plantations immediately around the port, with the more prosperous mixed-commercial farming and mining upland in the Piedmont.
 * - A link to 'Chesapeake Bay' itself is unsatisfactory presentism. It would take the reader to a contemporary article, showing the Hampton Roads Ports importing and exporting more tonnage, not only greater than Baltimore since 1980, but now since 2000 greater than the New York Ports Authority, maintaining the lead for the US eastern seaboard now for two decades. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How does Chesapeake Bay look? Near the end of the second paragraph in the "European exploration and settlement" section, it says — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say better than contemporary, but the modern eye will be off-put by the maps oriented to the East at the top of the page instead of the customary North. And, by 1779, ARW participants did not imagine mountains as pictured in the 1500s unknown Dismal Swamp or lofty peaks inhabiting the sandy Delmarva Peninsula. Is it okay to "stet", stay with "Chesapeake Bay"? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I can't think of an alternative, so I'll leave it as is. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * British officials in Quebec began negotiating with Indian tribes to support them [...] "Indian tribes" links to an anchored section of Iroquois, but if it were only the Iroquois that helped the British, "Iroquois" should replace "Indian tribes". — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I remember, there are also tributary tribes to the Iroquois involved. Sorry for the vagueness. But the Iroquois nations then in the Confederacy were certainly the principles, so Iroquois should be sufficient. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Changed it to "Iroquois" and did some rewording to clear up some ambiguity. I'm not sure if the current source provided mentions the tributary tribes, but if it does, I don't see why [...] negotiating with the Iroquois and their tributary tribes [...] couldn't be used. Leaving this here for TVH's eyes; feel free to toss it up in the collapsed resolved box when acknowledged. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Beginning in August 1775, American privateers began raiding villages in Nova Scotia, first at Saint John, then Charlottetown and Yarmouth. In 1776, they raided Canso and assaulted Fort Cumberland. Already edited. I'm thinking "they" could be replaced by the specific privateers? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * After a quick Wikipedia-only search, I find these coastal operations by Massachusetts men (MA county of Maine) into territory where their families had settled after the British eviction of the French Acadians, was on merchants converted to privateers by militia recruited and sailing out of Machias. There are two substantial sections to read through at Machias, Maine that might provide more specifics.
 * - The two key local privateer commanders were Patriot militia Capt. Benjamin Foster, and Capt. Ichabond Jones of Boston militia, cited to James Fenimore Cooper's History of the Navy of the United States of America, which I can read at the Haithi Trust.org link provided for a page number source, those are lacking at the Michias Wikipedia article. I'll try to circle back to nail down the pages tomorrow. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Otherwise I can just see who matches with which assault on the preexisting articles. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've looked into the articles and mentioned the instigators in the prose. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, the British entered winter quarters in the New York City area anticipating renewed campaigning the following spring. Should "winter quarters" be wikilinked? I looked up Winter quarters (military) and got redirected to Cantonment. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, that has been our practice. In this case, there is no single link in Wikipeida. Many British troops were quartered in the city where the provost marshall would commandeer rooms in private homes, and the families there would be responsible for maintaining comfortable heating and meals for the soldiers assigned to each household. Others were spread out in a defensive ring, bivouacked similarly among private residences and in temporary barracks as at Trenton NJ. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cantonment seems to be a good candidate (as far as its lede looks), but I'll ask on the help desk to see if my idea for linking to Wiktionary would look nice. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That sort of tickles my funny bone. At first blush, that would be fun. But, on second thought, because this article is meant to be in the American dialect, I wonder if I could ask for your forbearance in this matter, as the link to Cantonment reports, The United States military commonly uses the term "cantonment" to describe the permanent facilities at U.S. Army training bases as opposed to the field training areas. I know and use the term purely from a familiarity with the period history, not from modern American usage. Can that be a no, "stet" let-it-stand at "the British entered winter quarters"? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I think the link would be okay, as it technically isn't the American military that set up winter quarters, but the British. In any case, I changed "entered" to "established"; it should flow more naturally that way. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In December 1776, General John Burgoyne returned to London to set strategy with Lord George Germain [...] Would "setting strategy" be the same as "discussing strategy"? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In part, but "setting" includes gathering the intelligence, assessing it, discussing alternative plans, deciding on a course of action, and then effectively directing the subordinate units to comply in a way to allow the local commander to achieve the objective.
 * - In this case the whole is badly fumbled in several directions, which I am happy to say, is brilliantly solved by the end of the Napoleonic Wars as a matter of military history, as a case study used by any number of national armed forces in how to untangle your mess. There are (a) various and repeated miscommunications up and down Army and Navy chains of command; (b) there is British Army-Navy misunderstanding, jealousy, and inter-service rivalry; (c) Germain distrusts Howe, Howe hates Burgoyne and vice versa professionally, politically, and socially, et alia. But the most famous of all is the war of published articles and pamphlets between Clinton and Cornwallis. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it used in military parlance? What about [...] to London to plan strategies with [...] instead? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. "to London to plan strategies [...]" - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * [...] desertion was common, and mutinies occurred in the Pennsylvania Line regiment and 300 of the New Jersey Line over the conditions in early 1780. It feels like a word is missing in "300 of the New Jersey Line over the conditions [...]" 300 of what? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. There were 300 soldiers. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How about removing "300 of the", unless there's a significance to the number I'm unaware of? The clause talks about the groups in which mutinies occurred, so it would read better as [...] mutinies occurred in the Pennsylvania Line and New Jersey Line regiments [...] — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. "mutinies occurred in the Pennsylvania Line and New Jersey Line regiments". On re-thinking it, the mention of the 300 is sort of partisanly defensive, so as to point it was only 1/3 to 1/2 of the ranks in the New Jersey regiment, I suppose. Those interested in the details can follow the link. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Reworded. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The British initiative under Colonel Henry Bird from Detroit was ended at the rumored approach of Colonel Clark. Bird is designated as Colonel in this sentence, but in Bird's invasion of Kentucky he is called a captain. Which one is correct? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the sources are not aligned. It is my understanding that the commander of a regiment, or even a smaller expedition is titled "Colonel", in much the same way the commander of a ship is its "Captain", even if his rank-in-grade commission is as a Lieutenant Commander, etc.
 * - Let's call him "Colonel" for our purposes here, for now, until an editor shows the requirement to end the widespread convention I see using "command" titles or "field promotion" ranks among the various wars and time periods across Wikipedia military history articles. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . While I changed Bird to only be mentioned as Colonel, I noticed that Clark also has the same issue (compare [...] Virginia county courthouse at Cahokia by Major Clark and [...] ended at the rumored approach of Colonel Clark). Should I give that the same treatment (→ Colonel)? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's use "Colonel" again. At George Rogers Clark, we have Governor Henry commissioned him as a lieutenant colonel in the Virginia militia and authorized him to raise troops for the expedition. A Lieutenant Colonel is commonly addressed as "Colonel"; the Colonel, senior to the Lieutenant Colonel - is distinguished in usage with the term "full bird colonel", because their rank insignia is an eagle US-O6 insignia.svg (the same as the Navy rank of Captain). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. If there's a distinction between the two I'll use "Lieutenant Colonel". — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 * In London, the government at Westminster [...] Is this Parliament? I'm also considering merging this paragraph with the previous one to better contrast the two sides' pre-war situations. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will defer to your judgement here for paragraphing ... perhaps the next paragraph at "The map on the right [...]"? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Joining paragraphs. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - "The government at Westminster" is meant to refer to the British government of Empire, which certainly included the sitting Cabinet, but refers to both Tory and Whig administrations of the past, governing through an increasingly professionalized bureaucracy, glaring exceptions notwithstanding. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I added the descriptor "British" and removed the mention of Westminster, as the latter doesn't seem relevant to the government's actions and might accidentally imply the presence of governments elsewhere in London. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The revolt for and against colonial independence between British subjects in thirteen colonies of North America can be seen as three kinds of ongoing and interrelated warfare. Minor thing, but there were always only thirteen colonies right? If so, it's just a matter of adding a "the" before "thirteen". A wikilink could also be introduced here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Somewhere in another article there should be an extended discussion of Nova Scotia-New Brunswick as the "Fourteenth Colony", as for several decades, that territory was a part of British Massachusetts; at the British removal of the Acadians, that territory was repopulated by New Englanders, and there were two Canadian regiments raised directly by Congress, not a state, one of older French settlements east of the St. Lawrence River, one of newer Anglo settlements from coastal regions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Wikilinked and title-cased. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * By 1775, British American colonies supplied of raw materials for its ships and one-third its sailors and they purchased British-manufactured goods that maintained its industrial growth. I don't understand the first half of this sentence. Since we're talking about the colonies I am assuming that each instance of "its" should really be "their" (though it could be talking about Great Britain), but I think the "of" is obfuscating the verb of the first clause because of its location. Without changing pronouns, I think the sentence was meant to be read as: By 1775, British American colonies supplied raw materials for its ships and one-third of its sailors [...] — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. But maybe because its been a while since the word "British" appeared for the use of "it" here, "[...] colonies supplied raw materials for British ships and one-third of its sailors and they purchased British-manufactured [...]" - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. It makes more sense now. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * About 250,000 men served as regulars or as militia for the Revolutionary cause over eight war years [...] Does "war years" mean "years in wartime"? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Re-written. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * [...] which dangerously exposed the individual forces to defeat in detail [...] Slightly edited. What does "in detail" mean here? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When all the defending commanders forces are "mutually supporting", to beat one part, the attacker has to beat them all. If, by maneuver or by forcing a break in the defense at a weak point, the attacker can isolate a smaller part of the defender, they can locally improve the odds of victory "in detail". --- Generally, an attack is not initiated without a 2-1 or 3-1 overall advantage. If the defender can be broken up, the local odds can be 5-1 or 7-1, and so bit by bit, even the best trained defending regiments can be "defeated in detail". - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. It turns out there's an article on Defeat in detail, so I've linked to that. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * [...] but he was recalled to Great Britain when Burgoyne surrendered and a British army was lost to the Continental Army at Saratoga. Already edited. Just double-checking Howe was recalled to Great Britain after Burgoyne's surrender. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Made a few changes, but otherwise committing to the edit. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Clinton delayed sending reinforcements because he believed the bulk of Washington's army was still outside New York City, then at the attempt, Admiral Romney's relief fleet to Yorktown failed. I'm guessing that "Romney" is supposed to be "Rodney" and that the "attempt" refers to the "relief fleet to Yorktown"? Did the relief fleet happen after reinforcements were sent? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Re-arranged, should look better. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In October the only German-language newspaper publishing in the colonies [...] Just double-checking that this newspaper was the only German newspaper in the colonies and was not published outside of them. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Re-arranged. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Hessians first arrived in August on Staten Island as reinforcements and participated in the Battle of Long Island. What year was this? If I'm going by the Battle of Long Island article I'm guessing it's 1776. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Added year. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The map on the right shows the principal military operations on both sides over the course of the Revolution, with the British in red and the Americans in blue. The timeline along the bottom notes the course of battle victories, with most British in the first half, and most American in the second half of the war. I strongly recommend that this be moved into the accompanying image's caption. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ( Okay ). The thought is sort of longish to fit into a three-to-four lined caption. But I can try. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . I edited the caption. How does it look? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree to the move, I went all-in and edited the caption to four (4) lines, deleting the text in the narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * First, there was an economic war between a European state and its territory settled for its own economic strength and European balance of power. The grammar parses strangely in this sentence. "European state" clearly refers to "Great Britain" and "its territory" to "America". [T]here was an economic war between a European state and its territory makes sense by itself, but it's unclear as to what the rest of the sentence applies to. I currently read the sentence as there was an economic war that was settled for two things: the European balance of power and something's own economic strength (unclear as to what "it" is referring to). — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "European state" was Britain. To revisit the rest of the sentence: "its [Britain's] territory which was settled for Britain's own economic strength, and for a British imperial expansion to balance that of France and Spain [in North America]. -  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . Used some of the language above. Would it be appropriate to use "influence" instead of "power"? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but only because the term-of-art in diplomacy and historiography is "balance of power" as a conceptual "thing" among the "great powers" about 1550-1950, and into discussions of 21st century NATO in Europe vis a vis Russia, and China-India balance in the Indian Ocean-Malacca Straits, China-other balance in the South China Sea...etc. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Switched "influence" to "power". — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * [...] and an economic struggle for international free trade to break the European mutually beneficial system of mercantilism. Changes might not need to be made, but I'm guessing the European nations mutually benefited from trading with each other without interacting with their colonies. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rats. Mercantilism within each European empire was mutually beneficial for each empire apart from the others. American merchant fleets messed that up (and the Swedes and the Dutch too). When Americans traded among French, Spanish and Dutch Caribbean islands, they broke into both (a) national barriers, even during wartime with Britain, and (b) the mercantilist "metro-colonial" links from each mother country to its colonies. --- Americans undercut mercantile systems from both ends, they also traded to foreign metro ports in direct competition with their respective colonies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, how about: [...] and an economic struggle for international free trade that threatened the European nations' systems of mercantalism? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Better; how about, "an economic struggle for international free trade that threatened European systems of national mercantilism." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Using provided wording from TVH. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Third, there was an international war that intervened in and influenced the revolution, though America was not a primary combatant. Already edited. Just double-checking the "international war" mentioned (French and Indian War?) was something that the colonies did not directly participate in or at all. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternate : "Third, there was an international war that intervened in and influenced the revolution, " Straight up, the source says that the third kind of war in the American revolution was an international war that intervened in and influenced the revolution, referring to the long-war called by British historians, the Second Hundred Years' War. That's the "international war" referred to. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * BACKGROUND. - The "French and Indian War" was between French regulars, French colonials, French-allied Indians on the one side, and British regulars, British colonials and British-allied Indians on the other. Historiographically that is treated as the "American theater" of the European great powers Seven Years' War.
 * - There is also an "international war" within the "Second Hundred Years' war" that overlaps the timeline of the ARW, referred to in naval histories as the Bourbon naval war, Bourbon War, War of 1778, both from American scholars as early as Mahan 1890, and British scholars as late as Strett? 1998.
 * - Editors with a land-military background to not use the same historiography, the land-lubbers lump all wars against Britain in the late 1700s into an expanded timeline period of the American Revolutionary War, but not for American independence, and not for the spread of republican government as in the historians treatment of the Napoleonic Wars.
 * - The differences among ARW historiography, European naval historiography, and European military history is a contentious point of discussion on this Talk page. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How about we use your wording and change there was an international war that intervened [...] to the Second Hundred Years' War intervened [...]? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because "Second Hundred Years' War" is a term of historiography, rather than a specific event of a single set of declarations-of-war, better may be: another Anglo-French conflict in the Second Hundred Years' War intervened [...] - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Removed last clause in sentence and used a modified version of TVH's proposed wording. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * [...] so he was unable to assist General John Burgoyne and no surprise was achieved. What was the "surprise" supposed to be? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By moving away from Washington's front just outside New York, Howe hoped to jump around him with the Royal Navy by sea, landing behind Washington and south of Philadelphia. The move was meant to catch Washington camped out on the other side of Philadelphia and looking north into New York City. He almost pulled it off, but the scholarly consensus of arm-chair generals have determined since that Howe "failed to pursue the attack" with sufficient vigor. But that might be like criticizing Longstreet at Gettysburg for "failing to pursue the attack", maybe ... I'm reluctant to do it, but "the preponderance of ARW sources" still do in Howe's case here ... - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So basically, he couldn't help Burgoyne or ambush Washington? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No he could not, in effect he maneuvered himself into irrelevance vis a vis Burgoyne (Howe left Burgoyne "hanging", Howe did not "have Burgoyne's back"). On Howe's approach to Philadelphia, Washington successfully repositioned regiments to meet him, Howe won two battles in succession one south of Philadelphia, one north of it, but Howe did not follow up either victory, so historians "dis[respect]" him for lack of "pursuit"; it looks so easy on paper. Just look at the map in the library! And, Napoleon in the next century drowned so many panicked retreating Austrians in some battle or another with a cavalry pursuit. But the withdrawing Continentals were not panicked and their regiments had rifleman company sharpshooters and small bore artillery with grapeshot integrated into each one, so I want to know, What was the British ammunition supply at the end of each engagement? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Replaced "surprise" with the failure to ambush Washington. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * He was largely inactive in the North throughout 1779 and did not launch many major campaigns [...] Already edited. Does "North" refer to the Northern United States? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the "North" as in Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War --- but NOT the Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga . - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't realise that Saratoga was such a turning point. However, according to the Saratoga campaign article, it happened in 1777, so wouldn't it make sense to refer to the Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga if he was "largely inactive in the North throughout 1779"? Perhaps there's a date range of Clinton's activities that I'm not seeing? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I mixed them up. Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga is correct. The significance of Saratoga is that the military staff in the Courts of Europe - notably at Prussia and Frederick the Great personally - assessed the Continental Army's performance with one-year enlistments as promising a real fight going forward. Ahhhhh, and also the factual reality underpinning the situation "on the ground", the development of the Continental Army becoming more competent in the field while engaged with British regulars, Loyalist militia, and their Indian allies.
 * - The Brits lost an entire army, so Lord North's Tories had to try for another peace settlement with Congress to appease the Whig Opposition in Parliament, hopefully (Hail Mary pass) to settle the "American war" before France entered the conflict as a Congressional military ally, and so both recognizing and enabling the United States of America as an independent nation.
 * - Vergennes in the French Court jumped on Saratoga as the lever to overcome French Court resistance and his chief rival to running administration of French government. He got expanded aid to Congress, and King Louis XVI signed on for a military partnership in Treaty of Alliance, which Vergennes would shortly leverage into an allied Bourbon war on Britain, his mid-term objective. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I wikilinked to Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga; should still look good. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 * From early on [...] Early on from when? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From the outset when the British began probing into the southern theater back-country 1777-8. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Changed to use TVH's wording above. Also switched "dilemma" to "problem". — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * (amounting to 14 percent of those engaged) This parenthetical thought is a detail that would be better in Battle of Cowpens . — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — I also moved the sentence in question and combined it with first coverage of Cowpens. Also mentioned Banastre Tarleton by name. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Better. Thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * While Clinton organized a regiment of Black Pioneers [...] Did he organise the entire unit called the Black Pioneers or just a fraction of it? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The source mentioned the entire regiment, without detail of how component companies were raised or integrated marshaled formed. -  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Replaced "a regiment of" with "the" to describe the entire unit. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Virginia may have lost 30,000 in total. Losses from deaths, escapes, or both? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Bibko, p. 59, only mentions escapes, which is now how the statement reads. That estimate comes from Thomas Jefferson, which I also mentioned in the statement in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Iroquois Confederacy was shattered as a result of the conflict [...] Already edited. If it's the ARW, it'd be nice to mention it by name here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Changed "conflict" to 'American Revolutionary War'. Btw, the edit summary for this edit should read wouldn't hurt, not "would hurt". -- Gwillhickers'' (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Better. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Wealthy Loyalists wielded great influence in London and successfully convinced the British government that most of the colonists were sympathetic toward the Crown [...] recently changed this back. I don't see the need to mention that wealthy Loyalists "wielded great influence"; it's decorative and removing it so that the sentence reads Wealthy Loyalists convinced the British government that most of the colonists were sympathetic to the Crown [...] would not result in any loss of the point being conveyed. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Imo, the phrase "great influence" further illuminates the Loyalist relationship with the British gov and is consistent with the idea that convincing them of great Loyalist support was an easy effort, not something that had to be hammered away at. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the phrase, "great influence" may be lifted directly from the source. On the other hand, if a group has 'great influence', they are 'convincing', so I prefer greater economy with fewer superlatives, "Loyalists convinced the British" in the active voice (old-timey, less literary Strunk and White 2018 [1959]). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that it's not surprising that British subjects that are loyal to the kingdom and have money to spend can influence the government. If it were unexpected that might be a reason for inclusion, but right now it's like saying "I love you," he said lovingly instead of "I love you", he said coldly. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Removed that tidbit again. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * British military planners relied on popular Loyalist uprisings that never materialized in the amount they had expected. Gwillhickers recently reverted this. If the uprisings did happen, I strongly suggest British military planners relied on Loyalist uprisings that occurred less than expected. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I only added some context here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Tenryuu just accepted your point and tried to enfold it into the previous edit on the table.
 * - To Tenryuu's query, it was as Gwillhickers indicated, the Loyalist response was less 'uprising' than "isolated recruitment", and that was (a) 'insufficient' to alter Patriot control of the countryside, and (b) 'inadequate' to British military requirements for additional auxiliary regiments. The German 'mercenaries' suffered in the hot humid climate, so their service in the southern theater service was mostly restricted to port city garrison duty (The British Foreign Office classifies Washington DC summers as 'tropical' duty, as it does equatorial Africa; the coastal Carolinas are worse than DC). -  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure how far it would stray from the source, but would it make sense to say British military planners relied on recruiting Loyalists, which was ultimately insufficient? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I like, "British military planners relied on recruiting Loyalists in the Carolinas, but their numbers proved insufficient to overmatch the Patriots either in the countryside, or their State militia regiments in the field." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. The last sentence looks related, so I've merged the two together and kept it to be more general. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Virginia General Assembly later cited her bravery: she "performed extraordinary military services, and received a severe wound at the battle of Germantown", fighting dressed as a man and "with the courage of a soldier". Is there a larger, intact quote that addresses all four points? The "fighting dressed as a man" seems to come out of nowhere. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If memory serves, that is the direct quote from the Resolution of the General Assembly. I regret I only took time to research that far, but I did want to expand the previous generalized plaudit with some detail to justify mentioning her by name. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It just looks strange to have the quotation being broken up by "fighting dressed as a man" (which appears to not be part of the quote). If it's not part of the quote, it can go either before or after to let the two quote fragments join together. If there's text between "battle of Germantown" and "with the courage [...]" we can add an ellipsis to show that text is omitted. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Better. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Reorganised sentence. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Many Indians were involved in the fight between Britain and Spain on the Gulf Coast and up the Mississippi River, mostly on the British side. Just making sure they were allied with the British and not involved in fighting (for either side) on "the British side of the Mississippi River". — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ach. It changes up so much, the Gulf territories are a moving target.
 * Florida was colonized first by the Spanish. Then, at the 1763 Treaty of Paris, France ceded Louisiana to the Spanish, Spain ceded to the British, (a) West Florida (think Gulf Coast-some inland of modern Alabama, Mississippi, and adjacent Florida Panhandle), and (b) East Florida (think modern state of Florida less the Panhandle, the Florida Peninsula alone).
 * So, answer to query : the Southeast Indian tribes allied with the Spanish (in modern Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee) fought in British West Florida to attack the British garrisons at Mobile and Pensacola. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Reworded. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * One outstanding Loyalist militia unit provided some of the best troops in British service. How is this encyclopedically relevant? Sounds puffy. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Historical context. I find it interesting that some Loyalists were ready for the task and measured up to professional British soldiers – an idea achieved with one sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The core of Tarlton's American Legion was made up of Loyalist recruits out of New Jersey. The legion formation were a mix of cavalry riding an infantryman behind him, who dismounted to deploy coordinated foot and horse formations in the assault. These were very good combat troops by all accounts (Babits 1998), and the only Loyalist unit given the honor prestige of a commission in the regular British Army. The British Legion lost over 85% at the Battle of Cowpens to a Continental bayonet charge. It was a strategic blow for the British, the remnants were absorbed into the British garrison within Charleston limits. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . Did some rewording and added TVH's bit about receiving a commission to explain why they were notable; I left a comment to add the relevant citation from where the commission was received (I'm assuming it's Babits 1998). — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That was jBuchanan 1997, p. 327 - as cited. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * . — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * [...] or performed military service while dressed as women [...] The gist as far as I could tell is that women were not allowed to be on the front lines, but disguised themselves to do so? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, during battle dressed as women they would be expected to augment regimental stations processing wounded, assist surgeons at hospital, and prepare bivouac for the return of combatants when fighting was ended. I think "it came out of nowhere" because "cross-dressing" in any form was considered remarkable among the men elected to the legislature of the time. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I know why it feels strange now; the expectation that women perform tasks while dressed as women is being emphasised. "Fought" was clearly done while crossdressing, and I'm guessing spying and direct combat support potentially involved crossdressing as well. If that's the case, why not emphasise the crossdressing instead? I'm not sure what their expected tasks are classified, so feel free to replace "auxiliary tasks" with the correct term: Women also assumed military roles: aside from auxiliary tasks like treating the wounded or setting up camp [bivouac?], some crossdressed to directly support combat, fight, or act as spies on both sides of the Revolutionary War. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! I know I used the term first, because I was sort of streaming the thoughts, but seeing it in place as a copyedit is a little bit surprising to the 70+ year-old -- maybe too 'Metro-look' Cosmopolitan Magazine-ish for the 'summary encyclopedic style'. How about, replace 'crossdressed' with "dressed as men"? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * . I've changed to my wording ("crossdressing" → "dressed as men"). I also tentatively removed this reference as the current Wikipedia article on Molly Pitcher suggests that she may be a composite figure born from "the actions of a number of real women". — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)