Talk:Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815/GA1

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

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this, hopefully over the next couple of days. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll keep an eye out. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 21:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw the review (below); thanks! I'll ping you after I integrate suggestions/reply to comments. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 22:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the review! I've gone through your comments and replied to each, to either flag my perspective, or indicate that I integrated your suggestion, or explain how I've tried to resolve an issue. I'll keep an eye on the page for any further suggestions, questions, or feedback here or in the Spot check. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 04:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi; it's been about a week since your last comment on this review, so I'm just looking to follow up. I thought I had gotten around to all your comments, but is there something from you that I missed? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 20:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Not too much that's mission-critical here -- most of what follows is advisory. Please do push back or query if I've been unclear, unfair or simply got it wrong: I've read the book but don't pretend to be an expert in its field.


 * : in a short lead, is this really vital information? We've given ourselves limited real estate, and I'm not sure the material of the binding is the best use of that.
 * I think it is vital. Books are both texts and objects, so taking four words to describe the book's physical characteristics strikes me as worthwhile. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Most books are first published as hardbacks: is it at least somewhat unusual to be clothbound? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In the twenty-first century, I've seen more and more books come out in paperback or digitial only. But even if it's not unusual for a book to be in hardcover, nor is it unusual to be American or Japanese, but it's still useful identifying information for Lucretia Mott and Sei Shōnagon; likewise, noting that this book came out in hardcover identifies what kind of book it was (as opposed to paperback or digital only). Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : this seems to come a bit early: most articles get through talking about what's in the book before starting to talk about what people think of it.
 * A very good point; I've moved that to be with other descriptions of the book by reviewers in the lead. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're going to link United States, we should link American Revolution.
 * Good point; now linked. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest briefly explaining who the Federalists and Jeffersonians were in the lead, as there's a question of sympathies involved.
 * I added explanatory notes elaborating on who they were. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is good: per MOS:LEAD, I'd suggest duplicating those notes when the terms are first mentioned in the body (you could use the "name" parameter so that the footnote appears twice in the text but only once in the notes). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good thinking; I've done so. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : in 2009?
 * The 2010 prize, actually; the book was published in 2009 and considered for the 2010 prize. I've added that to both the lead and the body. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * From the lead, I get the impression that Empire of Liberty won a lot of awards, but was pretty generally panned in reviews. That isn't the impression given in the article: WP:DUEWEIGHT would say that we need to be as specific about its strengths as we are about its weaknesses.
 * I added a sentence to the lead about David Walstreicher praising the analysis of the founders' thought and that Publishers Weekly gave it a starred review. Does that bring some more balance? My impression from reading these many reviews is that reviewers often praised the book in general terms but were more ambiguous (or outright critical) while discussing more specific details. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the tone is better here: it might be worth rephrasing "starred review" as likely to be unclear to most readers (after all, many publications use a 1-5 star review system). Perhaps "highly positive review", "recommended the book", or something better? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I added a wikilink to starred review; is that alright instead? "Starred review" is a technical term that means a specific kind of recognition/honor review periodicals can give. It's possible for a review to be highly positive or for a periodical to recommend the book without the review being starred. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Related: : this wouldn't be a problem unless there was something wrong with those narratives -- why do historians now reject them?
 * I elaborated on this in the body and added the following to the lead: [...]criticized for resembling those of consensus history in the 1950s—homogenizing Americans and overstating democracy and equality as becoming widely accepted ideals—and for[...]. How is that? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In the infobox: the series is The Oxford History...
 * I'm not sure it is. The reviews generally list it as "Oxford History of the United States" in the citation, only using the article "the" in sentences as a grammatical matter. If this were an infobox for, say, Iron Man 3, I would render the series as "Marvel Cinematic Universe" and not "The Marvel Cinematic Universe". Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's written on the cover of the book as The, which surely takes precedence? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere in similar scenarios on Wikipedia I've read/been told that the Manual of Style is supposed to take precedence over entities/works/groups style themselves, but I'm open to being directed otherwise. I added the definite article to the infobox. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The MoS has MOS:THETITLE: A leading A, An, or The is preserved in the title of a work, including when preceded by a possessive or other construction that would eliminate the article in something other than a title, e.g.: Stephen King's The Stand; however, the is sometimes not part of the title itself, e.g.: the Odyssey, the Los Angeles Times but The New York Times.. I think we've ended up in the right place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : I don't know anything about Woodward, but is this a fair characterisation? We've pretty much outright accused him of being upset at universities becoming less male and less white: that's a big charge to level unless we're sure it's accurate.
 * I have slightly adjusted this; McElya's words are: a field full of newly diverse people, new questions, and new subject matters. Admitting the transformative quality of these changes, Woodward nonetheless casts himself as mostly put off by them (422). This could be about the people, but it could be about the subjects; McElya's point, by my understanding, is that it's both. I reworded this in the body text to be and with how American universities changed in response to decolonization, Black Power, and women's rights movements., so as to be less specific about persons and capture the range of what McElya means about Van Woodward. All that said, I am quite sure that reliable sources indicate Woodward had some discomfort about multiculturalism and gender diversity in the university: in addition to McElya making this claim in the Journal of American Studies, a premier periodical for the field, Michael O'Brien, also writing in the same forum on the Oxford History of the United States (concurred with McElya's assessment (and this even though O'Brien is much more admiring of Woodward). O'Brien wrote, In 1963, for example, he [Woodward] ambivalently opposed the election of any woman as a fellow of his Yale college and Further, he became a public opponent of multiculturalism in the 1990s and very exercised about "political correctness" ("A Response to Trevor Burnard: The Standpoint of an Editor", Journal of American Studies 45, no. 3 [2011]: 426–430, here 429). An article from another journal also agrees on the basic premise: Woodward had a testy public exchange with John Hope Franklin, who criticized Woodward for implying in a surprisingly favorable review in the New York Review of Books of Dinesh D’Souza’s first book, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, that Duke University had been using racial criteria when it hired Franklin.Woodward became an open critic of political correctness (Sheldon Hackney, "C. Vann Woodward, Dissenter", Historically Speaking 10, no. 1 [January 2009]: 31–34, here 33). Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead seems very generous with wikilinks while the body seems quite parsimonious (not linked: Oxford University Press, Black Power, decolonization, liberal democracy, Founding Fathers, morality play et al). Not a problem as such, but I'm not sure what your strategy is here: it would be worth considering what it is and making sure that you've followed it.
 * I think I was worried about WP:SEAOFBLUE but overcorrected. I've tried to spread more links throughout the body text. I have not linked morality play, however, as that's an article about a genre of theater in medieval Europe that happens to have the same name as the more general term. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the generic term is simply the theatrical term used metaphorically (compare comedy of errors), but happy here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : to understand this, we really need to know what Woodward argued in Radicalism: at the moment, we only really know the material he covered.
 * Good point. I've adjusted the earlier sentence citing Kirkus Reviews to instead summarize Wood's argument, as follows: He also wrote the 1993 The Radicalism of the American Revolution, a Pulitzer Prize-winning book which argued that the American Revolution transformed society, shifting American sensibilities from deferential hierarchy to egalitarian liberal democracy. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : when were these? I'm still a bit hazy about what either of those words means: before, they were ideological groups, now they're chronological units?
 * I added an explanatory note that reads as follows:The Federalist era being approximately the first decade of the post-Constitution United States (1788–1800), when Federalists led national politics; and the Federalist era being the early decades of the nineteenth century when Jeffersonians dominated national politics, inaugurated by the ascent of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency in 1801. Citations are included in the body text. Does that clarify the terms? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : this is a value judgement, given that Woodward wrote eight chapters of what he clearly thought was narrative history: it therefore needs to be couched in a less objective term than "explains" (MOS:SAID) and ideally explained. What makes Field say that?
 * To clarify, Gordon Wood is the author of Empire of Liberty; C. Vann Woodward was the editor who set the tone and direction of the series until his death in 1999. In any case, you make a good point about couching. As for explaining, unfortunately Peter Field doesn't really elaborate. The full quote in context is There is considerable irony in Wood's remarkable achievement—which Empire of Liberty clearly is—being slotted between Middlekauff and Howe. Wood does not really offer narrative history despite the seemingly 'narrative' concept of the Oxford History of the United States.. The criticism appears to be by way of contrast with Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause and Howe's What Hath God Wrought. Field also says on page 109 that For Wood the historical process works itself out far removed from the day-to-day of politics, so Adams' Midnight Appointments can appear one hundred and fifty pages after Jefferson assumes the presidency.; the implication seems to be that Wood's willingness to narrate non-chronologically diminishes the extend to which it's a narrative history. However, Field's slightly veiled writing style left me uncomfortable with trying to fully extract that meaning (doing so seemed too near to interpreting rather than summarizing), so I just quoted his statement as corroboration of the assessment that Wood's latter chapters are topical instead of chronological. I rewrote the sentence as follows: According to Field, although Woodward conceived the Oxford History of the United States series as narrative history, Wood's Empire of Liberty "does not really offer narrative history". How is that? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest adding something like "since..." afterwards: perhaps take For Wood the historical process works itself out far removed from the day-to-day of politics, so Adams' Midnight Appointments can appear one hundred and fifty pages after Jefferson assumes the presidency and distil it to "as Wood often treats events in a non-chronological order", "as Wood structures the narrative by political trends rather than chronology", or something similar? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 08:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good thinking. How is because of portions in which he treats events non-chronologically? I held off from "often" since Field doesn't quite say it's "often" (he says the historical process works out for Wood this way without qualification, which seems not quite true since the first eight chapters, covering the Federalist presidencies, apparently are chronological, whereas it's the Jeffersonian presidencies that get topical chapters). Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * : slightly purple prose for an encyclopaedia, I think. In particular, I'm uneasy about the disembodied, human-free tone of the American Revolution unleashed egalitarian energies (don't historical things happen because people make them happen?)
 * The quotations from Wilentz's review this sentence is based on are It was Jefferson and the Jeffersonians who both reflected and defined the basic elements of American democratic capitalism that the radical egalitarian forces of the American Revolution had fostered and that (Wood implies) would come to comindate the nation's politics, cultural aspirations, and social life over at least the rest of the nineteenth century and But too often, when describing the fierce social and political battles of the time, Wood falls back on the idea of democratic capitalism as some sort of irresistible force "unleashed" by the Revolution. (Wilentz, 177). That's to say, your concern is, in Wilentz's review, part of the point, that Wood's book sometimes comes across as disembodied and human-free. (Another reviewer, Peter Field, summarizes Wood similarly: Humans think and act and fight with one another [...] but ultimately are buffeted by the tides of history, or what Wood calls the 'historical process'. (p.38) Unleashed by the Revolution, the forces of pluralism, individualism, leveling and democracy run roughshod over the best laid plans of even the great individuals of the American Founding.) Since the article is about the book, I've tried to write the body text so it summarizes what the book says was history, as described by reliable sources about the book. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : I would suggest clarifying exactly what that term means in this context, given that it has a whole range of meanings in US politics.
 * I added an explanatory note describing republicanism as follows: In its classical sense applied to early American hsitory, republicanism generally means an ideology upholding public good as the primary goal of political society and advocating for citizens to be virtuous and public-minded, politically independent of others, and active participants in civic society. How is that? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Typo in hsitory, and I'd italicise or quote republicanism per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. You might also consider being absolutely explicit that the Republican party did not yet exist. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 08:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that typo. I've fixed that, and I italicized republicanism in that instance. I also added this sentence about the Republican Party: (The contemporary American political party known as the Republicans did not exist at this time; it was founded in the 1850s.) Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : perhaps slightly outside scope when summarising the book, but how does Woodward (or indeed his reviewers) reckon with the fact that the United States never pretended to be a democracy in this period? Where do they leave women, Native Americans and enslaved people, for instance?
 * That is, in many respects, the heart of Nancy Isenberg's criticism (which I have elaborated on, at your suggestion, in the body text). According to Isenberg, Gordon Wood flattens American history by regarding the Revolution and early republic as being predominantly triumphant successes for equality and democracy, which Isenberg characterizes as symptomatic of the 1950s consensus history which ignored the exclusion and discontent of women, American Indians, and the enslaved. My impression of Empire of Liberty is that Gordon Wood doesn't think the U. S. was pretending to be a democcacy but that it genuinely was. He would probably defend his position by claiming that a slaveholder, settler republic is still more egalitarian and radical than a slaveholder, settler monarchy (I suppose Isenberg might retort by pointing out Britain soon becomes an antislavery monarchy and had been, compared to the United States, a still-not-ideal-but-even-so-less-eliminationist neighbor to Indigenous nations—but that's getting out of scope of the page, as you said.) Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : is this absolutely accurate -- Woodward says that the Federalists wanted a literal King of America?
 * The difference hinges on using the word monarchical rather than monarchic. Gordon Wood echoes the Jeffersonians' criticism of the Federalists' anti-populist philosophy and centrally-executive politics as being like monarchy. (Jeffersonians themselves often went conspiratorial and accused Federalists of secretly wanting a literal king, but I Wood doesn't go so far as thinking that.) Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm: the Oxford definition for monarchical is "relating to a monarch or monarchy": I don't think we can use that, at least without an explanation, to describe a society that is explicitly not actually a monarchy. Perhaps something like "the social deference and hierarchies that had characterised monarchical society"?
 * <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 08:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Relating" to a monarchy rather than "is" a monarchy seems to be the difference that Wood and reviewers relied on, but quite fair that it can be unclear on a first reading. I've integrated your solid suggested phrasing as follows: Federalists appear in the history as political conservatives who are trying to restore the social deference and hierarchies that had characterized monarchic society and get blindsided by the era's democratic milieu.. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Suggest a rephrase of "get blindsided" per MOS:IDIOM (it's also a concrete metaphor applied to a very abstract noun, which isn't particularly elegant). <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. How is were out of step with the era's democratic milieu? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * : in general, abstract nouns make things difficult to read: this is a particularly tricky sentence which I think could be fairly easily rephrased in more everyday, accessible terms. Remember that the GA criteria require the article to be understandable to a suitably broad audience.
 * I've attempted a rephrase as follows: Overall, the book offers a celebratory portrayal of early Americans overthrowing legacies of traditionalist hierarchy, and Jefferson is cast as the embodiment of this perspective.. The portion of Noll's book review this is based on is The title quotation comes from Jefferson, who saw the ideals of the American founding as delivering a decisive blow against monarchical tyranny and as setting up a modern nation where the absence of hierarchical coercion would bring in something like a secular millennium. Wood clearly finds this vision compelling. Somehow, he manages to take Jefferson's profession straight up: "Jefferson personified this revolutionary transformation" that led Democratic Republicans to "dream … of a world different from any that had ever existed, a world of democratic republics, which is itself abstract—as Wood's book can be at times. I'd like to be as clear as I can; does this improve the sentence? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Better: consider the active voice: and casts Jefferson... <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 08:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion! That clause is now in active voice. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : it looks like the suture between the quote and the text has gone wrong: the quote seems to be talking about the historical period, not the book.
 * I've changed this to Hartnett notes that according to Empire of Liberty, Jefferson's "libertarian vision"[...]; does that address the issue? I wasn't 100% sure if I grasped the issue as you see it, so feel free to press the matter. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 08:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : suggest using the inflation template here and for the paperback price, per WP:ENDURE.
 * Good thinking; I've added that template. Turns out that's worth about $48 dollars as of a couple years ago (2022). (By way of trivia, Oxford University Press sells new copies of Empire of Liberty for $42.99) Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : when?
 * According to the listing on Amazon, December 21, 2009. But oddly enough I haven't been able to find an attestation of that in an independent secondary source. VoiceOverXtra only confirms that it received the 2011 Audie award for history. (I suppose because the Audies were too soon after the audiobook edition released, or maybe the Audies are biennial?) I figured citing the Amazon page would be worse than not including the date of the audiobook publication. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Single-sentence paragraphs are generally discouraged; the "Publication" section has three of them.
 * Fair catch. I've moved the sentence about the chronological span of the series to the first paragraph, since it was still as true upon the hardcover's release, and I combined the sentences about the paperback and audiobook into a single paragraph (since they're both about non-hardcover editions). How is that? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Did nobody have anything bad to say about the book's style?
 * It seems to have been the least controversial aspect of the book. Most reviewers either praised its style or said nothing about it. But I found and added a quotation from Nancy Isenberg that seems like a veiled criticism of the style: According to Isenberg, Wood's narrative voice resembles "the overwrought writers of the early republic whom he quotes". (the context of the quotation in Isenberg's review is as follows: Wood's narrative is a morality play; his voice blends seemlessly with the overwrought writers of the early republic whom he quotes, exuberant rhetoricians who say their "rising empire" as a new Elysium, a magical place where compassion, virtue, and belief in equality were omnipresent.). Does that make for a better Style subsection? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * We're inconsistent about whether scholarly reviews are discussed in the present or the past tense.
 * Fair catch. I've adjusted it so that reviewers own actions are described in the past tense ("called", "stated", etc.) Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : what exactly is the republican family?
 * I added an explanatory note that reads as follows: By "republican family", Wood refers to post-revolutionary family culture which emphasized parity in the household among children and both parents, as opposed to the husband-centered patriarchally authoritarian family structure common in colonial America. Does that work? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup! Although, is it really true: were post-Revolutionary families really all so egalitarian between the parents? The footnote implies that they were, but I'm not sure we mean to. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point! I think you're right that it'd make sense for Wikipedia to demur some from implying this. Although Drew McCoy liked Wood's interpretation, I did some more reading and think I identified scholarship that reads the post-revolutionary family more ambiguously. I added the following to the explanatory note: Megan Owens states that "marriage in practice did not always match up to the ideal 'republican family' model",[citation] and whether the republican family is genuinely antipatriarchal is debated; historian Nancy Cott argues that "[a]lthough Revolutionary-era republican political thinking was antipatriarchal in the sense that it followed John Locke’s political theory rather than Sir Robert Filmer's, the republican polity at that time affirmed the rights of the independent citizen" as "an indisputably male actor" who acted and voted on behalf of a dependent family.[citation] Does that addition to the explanatory note clarify some? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 16:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * : we don't really talk about what's wrong with this narrative (as opposed to what's missing from it).
 * I elaborated the sentence as follows, citing Isenberg's explanation of what's at issue with the narrative: According to Isenberg, Empire of Liberty recapitulates a historical narrative that was consensus in the 1950s, telling an outdated narrative which homogenizes the American people and overcredits the revolution with establishing democracy and equality as uncontroversial values, a conception of the American "past that few academic historians accept anymore". How is that? Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Much better: I'm not sure about the join with the final quote: given that it's really a statement of bare facts, I'd be tempted to remove the quotes per MOS:QUOTEPOV, perhaps changing "the American past" to "American history" to stay on the right side of WP:CLOP. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 08:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point about the quotation. I've revised to a conception of U. S. history that few contemporary academic historians accept. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * : part of quite a tricky sentence: clearer if reversed: become Federalist conservatives in Empire of Liberty.
 * Great suggestion; I've reversed the phrasing. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure about "the American North" as a phrase (does it include Canada?) -- suggest perhaps "the northern states" or similar.
 * In the context of United States history, "the North" is generally used to refer to just the northern United States, as an apposite to "the American South" or "the South"—but it's also easy enough to change to "the northern United States", so I've done so where I've used "American North" in the earlier version. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : I would cut from though: it's obvious from the titles and not particularly unusual.
 * Solid suggestion; I've cut "though" from the sentence. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : what does this mean in context: relative to contemporary European societies?
 * James McPherson frames globally as worldwide. From his Battle Cry of Freedom: From a broader perspective it may have been the North that was exceptional and unique during the antebellum generation. Despite the abolition of legal slavery or serfdom throughout much of the western hemisphere and western Europe, much of the world—like the South—had an unfree or quasi-free labor force. Most societies in the world remained predominantly rural, agricultural, and labor-intensive; most, including even several European countries, had illiteracy rates as high or higher than the South's 45 percent; most like the South remained bound by traditional values and networks of family, kinship, hierarchy, and patriarchy. (860). Reviewer John L. Brooke phrases it this way: Another Oxford series author, James M. McPherson, has made a very cogent and contrary argument about this old theme of southern exceptionalism: maybe on a global stage it was the South that was the norm and the North that was so strange and exceptional. (553). Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Tone" section goes straight into a deep bit of analysis, but I'm still a little uncertain as to what we (or reviewers) thought the tone of the book actually was.
 * I see what you mean. I tried hard to avoid WP:SYNTH, but how I've done so may be inhibiting clarity. My goal was to have the first paragraph in the tone section be summarizing reviewers who said the book came across as ironic, while the second paragraph in the tone section summarizes reviewers who said the book came across as triumphalist. I'm open to some revision to clarify that, but I'm not sure what would be the right change. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:CITE is fine with brief, uncited statements that summarise the cited material that follows (topic sentences, if you like), so something like "Some reviewers considered the book's tone ironic. Cited Source A called it 'very ironic'[1]..." and then "other reviewers characterised the book as triumphalist. Cited Source B said it portrayed America's history as 'a triumph'[2]..." <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out; that helps a lot. I added these summarizing statements to each paragraph: Some reviewers considered the book's tone ironic. (succinct, couldn't say it better myself) and Other reviewers read the book as having a triumphalist tone.. I also revised the first paragraph a little to bring McCoy's observation of irony further forward in the paragraph, with the explanation for why McCoy thinks the book reads ironically following it. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 16:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * : not sure this is quite grammatical: its overall tone is laudatory reads better to me.
 * Great suggestion; thanks. I've revised the text along the lines of your idea.
 * : is the double not intentional?
 * It was not intentional; good catch. I've cut the redundant "not". Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : cut representative: Noll would hardly be citing it as an unrepresentative example.
 * The word's been cut. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * : Suggest giving this sentence another look for clarity, and ideally splitting it roughly in half.
 * I've tried trimming the length of the sentence; how is this? As an example of this, Noll considered Wood's characterization of Jefferson as the United States' "supreme spokesman" for liberty at odds with the book's own report of Jefferson's ambitions for continental conquest, indulgent and debt-ridden lifestyle, and hypocritical participation in slavery. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy here. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Empire of Liberty.png: standard FUR, checks out.
 * File:Gordon Wood historian 2006.jpg - Wikimedian photographer, properly licensed.
 * File:Liberty. In the form of the goddess of youth, giving support to the bald eagle - painted & engrav'd by E. Savage. LCCN2003689261.jpg: PD, checks out.

Spot checks
To follow once content points are resolved.


 * Note 11: both counts check out.
 * Note 32: all three counts check out.
 * Note 41: both check out.
 * Note 47: checks out (though NB typo: and the book extends the argument's of Wood's earlier books, like The Radicalism of the American Revolution
 * Note 29: not sure about this one. We have Democratization and overthrow of past hierarchies pervaded every part of American life, where the source has Wood defines democracy in broad cultural and ideological terms as the ascendancy of a radically new egalitarian conception of political society, not as a radical restructuring of the social order—and certainly not of the racial order.. According to Onuf, Wood's democratisation of American society is pointedly not about every part of society -- in particular, pointedly not about racial hierarchies.
 * A good point; how about Democratization pervaded much of American life? For that, I'm looking at But Wood, like Tocqueville, is less interested in the limits of democracy than in why it works within those limits., and Wood argues persuasively that the Revolution was critical for the emergence of a democratic culture., and Republican oppositionists, inspired by the French Revolution, conjured up an American "old regime"-in-the-making, rallying "all good republicans and liberal reformers" to destroy this cancerous, alien growth (216). Anathematizing "aristocracy," Thomas Jefferson and his followers enabled Americans to overcome "the traditional culture's aversion to the term 'democracy'" (718). That conceptual transformation made all the difference, valorizing a republican revolution and its democratizing consequences and giving shape to the way of life that Tocqueville found so extraordinary. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 22:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * How far is Onuf talking about a "democratic culture" that isn't simply a democratic political culture? I must admit I'm not sure the review is totally coherent on the question, but my inclination would be to err towards the latter unless there's a fairly clear quote that shows he's talking about more than just politics. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean about Onuf not exactly being clear on this. What if the page is revised so Onuf is cited for the information about the book presenting a growing middle class, and for the specific clause about democratization a different, clearer source is cited—John Brooke? In his review, Brooke writes of Wood applying his democratization thesis to non-political parts of life like religion (551), states that The central interpretive dynamic of Empire of Liberty is the theme of the energies of a modernizing democratic people transcending political limits to realize their potential (552), and elaborates that politics is actually secondary to Wood’s central sociological argument—the multifarious emergence of a liberal society (552). The last clause from Brooke seems especially clear that Empire of Liberty ' s interpretation is about more than politics. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 01:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, though if we're citing that, I think "a liberal society" needs to get into the article text. But the basic solution is excellent. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good thinking; I've revised that clause (which is now cited to Brooke, 551–552) to read According to Wood, democratization pervaded much of American life in the course of the nation becoming a liberal society.


 * Hope a ping is alright, to let you know that I think I've caught up on the latest round of feedback. Thanks again for the keen observations and suggestions. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 16:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's everything, then: passing now. Well done and thank you for adding an excellent article to the encyclopaedia. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 17:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)