Talk:Demerara rebellion of 1823/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 16:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll read through and review over the next day or so - looks interesting! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * NB: I've just paused while your copy-editing is done; let me know when you're happy for me to continue! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've more or less finished for now. People have written books on the subject, so I could continue, but I think it's a good enough summary for Wikipedia for now unless you have particular suggestions during your review. Please note that since I created the article, Sheridan has been put into a less accessible format, but is still available on JStor. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 15:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * "Quamina was declared a national hero, with streets and monuments dedicated to him in the capital of Georgetown, Guyana." - At this point, the lead hasn't explained who Quamina was.
 * "The British handed the colony over to the Dutch in 1802 " - as this is at the start of a section, you'll need to say which "the colony" is.
 * "It is noted that in 1808" - could just be "In 1808..."
 * "The rebellion started from 'Success', owned by John Gladstone, and 'Le Resouvenir', " - unclear what these are - estates? plantations? The MOS would have these as "Success" and "Le Resouvenir" (double speech marks) I think.
 * "As a slave who did not work under a driver," - is it possible to link "driver"?
 * " As a slave who did not work under a driver, Jack Gladstone – slaves adopted surnames of their masters by convention – enjoyed considerable freedom to roam about" - minor (sub GA point) but if this went "Jack Gladstone was a slave on the former estate who did not work under a driver, and enjoyed considerable freedom to roam about; as was the convention of the time, he had adopted the surname of his master" or something like that, it would make it easier to understand who Jack is as the sentence unfolds.
 * "and was made extremely listless by rumours" - personally, I found the "extremely listless" phrase a bit odd here.
 * "Hermanus H. Post, the owner of 'Le Ressouvenir' plantation" - repeats a point just made in the paragraph above
 * "Post's death in 1809, was lamented by his slaves" - excess comma after 1809
 * "Soon after Wray arrived in 1908," - error on the date
 * "However, the clergy believed it essential for them to be able to read the Holy Book for themselves." - minor (sub GA) but there are differing views on using "However..." at the start of a sentence in this way. I'd advise going for "The clergy, however, believed it..." which would cater to those opposed to it.
 * "Da Costa noted that " - "The historian Da Costa noted..." would introduce who he is to the reader
 * "and feared being sold and/or split up (Telemachus);" - the bracketing is quite harsh to the reader here. I'd advise, for the first one, going "(as in the case of the slave Telemachus)", signalling to the reader how the para is going to proceed.
 * "Following news from Britain that measures aimed at improving the treatment of slaves in the colonies had been passed Jack had heard a rumour that their masters had received instructions to set them free but were refusing to do so" - probably needs a comma or two somewhere in this sentence - it is quite long.
 * " In fact, these were Orders in Council (to colonial administrations) drawn up by George Canning under pressure from abolitionists to ameliorate the conditions of slaves," - unclear what the "these" is referring to. If the new law, it should be singular ("this").
 * "initially tried to stop the slave revolt.[10] and urged instead for peaceful strike; he made the fellow slaves promise not to use violence" - comma after revolt, rather than a full stop.
 * "Close conspirators who were church 'teachers' included Seaton (Success)," - again, harsh bracketing. I'd advise for the first one "Seaton (based on the 'Success' plantation)". These need speechmarks like the others, btw.
 * "the rebellion leaders had hoped for mass action of all slaves" - "by all slaves"?
 * "the actual unrest involved about 12,000 slaves spread to some 55 estates located on the east coast, between Georgetown and Mahaica" - the grammar goes awry here after "slaves"; I think it needs "slaves, which spread..."
 * "The 21st Fusileers " - spelling of Fusilier
 * " "a number considerably above 1500" " - unclear who this quote is from.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * I'd argue that the lead is very short - it doesn't entirely summarise the article. Happy to discuss further. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * The "Further reading" section is probably misnamed. WP:FURTHER covers this; have a look at WP:FNNR for some of the alternative names that could be used.
 * The references lack a consistent style - some are short form (e.g. da Costa (1994), pg. xviii) and some are long form (e.g. Révauger, Cécile (October 2008). The Abolition of Slavery – The British Debate 1787–1840. Presse Universitaire de France. pp. 105–106. ISBN 978-2-13-057110-0.). The web page references are also formatted differently. It's not a formal GA requirement, but I'd really urge shifting them into a common style.
 * Hochschild, Adam's volume lacks a publisher.
 * "quoted in Jakobsson (1972:323)" - I'd recommend being consistent and making this part of the citation references; but again, not a formal GA requirement.
 * I'd be very keen to see the Sheriden citations use specific page references (e.g. p.262); at the moment, a reader will have to work through the entire article looking for specific facts.
 * Similarly for Hochschild - it's a 400+ page book.
 * The Sheriden web link could be more precise - http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/13822373-90002536 will get you to the specific article (but not a formal requirement).
 * "Cambridge [Eng.] University Press" is a very unusual formatting; there aren't any other CUPs out there, but I'd normally expect to see "UK" or similar put after the end of it if there was any confusion (and then to be consistent in adding locations to other publishers in the article). Again, not a formal requirement.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * It wasn't clear to me why the administrator of the Guyana Times was a reliable historical source
 * Same for guyana.org
 * Worth noting that AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company; are you happy that Graham Trust has sufficient standing to be an reliable source on his own?

(c) it contains no original research.


 * None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Seems to reflect the sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm attending to the issues raised. Most have been dealt with, I think. Kindly strike the ones above that you feel have been done – I'm not going to intersperse comments to mess things up. Some points left relate to the sources whose reliability has been questioned. In fact, at this level of detail, I see the information coming from the different sources as being largely consistent or with only small differences. I'm not so concerned with the self-published nature of Trust, as the book is not centred on the rebellion and there seems not to be any conflict of interest as to its reporting (but more work needs to be done to find the underlying sources used in its writing to eliminate use of this source entirely). Where facts were once cited to those "unreliable ones", I have attempted to double up with cites to reliable or scholarly sources where possible. I'm having to actually read and re-read the sources to be able to appose cites appropriately. The work is not complete, but there are still a small number of such facts left to double up sources on. However, I'm winding down for ten days' break. I will attend to the outstanding matters in May. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Enjoy the break! I'll keep the review on hold until your return in May. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done a fair amount of work on the article since my Easter break, and it should be ready for you to resume your review in about 24 hours. regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're content, I'll complete the review tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that, thanks. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 02:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, almost there. Only last bit to be resolved in "On 20 November 1815, the colony was formally ceded to Britain by the Netherlands...", which still has a "citation needed" tag against it that needs resolving. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅This was one that I found at another WP article when looking for key dates. But it seems that it might have been wrong. Now amended and cited. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers! I've passed as a GA - nicely done! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)