Talk:Powder Alarm/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Prose
"In 1772, many of the thirteen British colonies, in response to the Gaspee Affair and other unpopular British actions, elected to form Committees of Correspondence. These allowed communities to formally communicate with each other, raise awareness of incidents occurring elsewhere, and coordinate actions;[1] as such, they became instrumental in enforcing the colonial response to enforcement of the Tea Act, the Intolerable Acts, and other unpopular legislation."
 * The first sentence of the "Background" section:
 * I tried working with it a bit, and this is the result. I just don't know what word to use instead of "enforcing" (it's too similar to what you have later with "enforcement"...)
 * Reworded.
 * ✅ — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  18:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Seeking to prevent the outbreak of war and to keep the peace between the American Patriot (Whig) majority and the Loyalist (Tory) minority, he believed that the best way to accomplish this was by secretly removing military stores from storehouses and arsenals in New England.[3][4]"
 * Second para, second sentence of "Background" section:
 * Why is "secretly" italized?
 * Comment Gage felt that secrecy was needed in executing these sorts of acts. The fact that later efforts failed is at least partly as a result of Patriot actions to improve intelligence gathering; Gage lost the advantage of secrecy, which is a significant difference between this event and Lexington/Concord.  I'm trying to emphasize this point.  Maybe better/different words?
 * Add another sentence? "In fact, Gage believed that secrecy was the most important..." or something like that?
 * Fixed Added a sentence.
 * ✅ — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"On August 31, Gage sent Middlesex County sheriff David Phips to Brattle with orders to remove the provincial powder, so Brattle gave the key to the powderhouse to him. He also gave orders to ready a force of troops for action the next day, something that did not go unnoticed by the local population.[6] At some point on the 31st, General Gage, whether by his intent, accident, or theft by a messenger, lost possession of William Brattle's letter; the widely held story was that it was dropped. News of its content would spread rapidly, and it was widely held to be a warning to Gage to remove the provincial powder.[7]"
 * First para of the "Expedition" section
 * This does not make sense. Some redundancy, transition(s) are needed...
 * Reworded
 * Don't forget to put something about Colonel Phips there... (without italics =])
 * Fixed Removed Phip's military rank, it's not really relevant.
 * ✅ — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"From there, they marched about a mile to the Powder House, a gunpowder magazine that still stands at the present-day Powder House Square, Somerville, where the largest supply of gunpowder in Massachusetts was kept."
 * Second para, second sentence of the "Expedition" section
 * Read this out loud. It just sounds weird to me. :)
 * Reworded I agree, it was awkward. I took out the modern ref, but I may need to add it back in somewhere else.
 * ✅ — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Colonel David Phips, the county sheriff and a Loyalist sympathizer, gave the King's Troops the keys to the building, and after sunrise they removed all the gunpowder."
 * Second para, third sentence of the "Expedition section
 * Didn't you already talk about Phips above? Then why is "Colonel", "county sheriff" and "Loyalist sympathizer" needed here? Put them above when you mention him the first time, especially the mention of "Colonel" (as that is not mentioned the first time!)
 * Also, does "King's" really need to be wikilinked?
 * Fixed The Phips thing was just something I missed in copyediting.
 * ✅ as long as you fix the problem about "Colonel" that is two up. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  18:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"The regulars were marching; Provincial powder had been seized; war was at hand; people had been killed; Boston was being bombarded by His Majesty's warships."
 * Second sentence of the "Response to the Raid" section
 * So many semi-colons....is this a direct quote, or can this be re-written?
 * Comment Not a direct quote. I was trying to give a flavor of the types of rumors that were circulated without being overly verbose.  I'm certainly open to suggestion on how to do this without necessarily writing separate sentences for each type of rumor.
 * Eh, w/e. It's not a big deal for GA, but you may want to take a look at it for A or FA. ALSO - remember to decapitalize "provincial". :P — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The next sentence.."The alarm spread as far as Connecticut.".. is this really needed? Connecticut isn't all that far....(or can it be combined with the first sentence? I dunno.)
 * Comment Connecticut is relatively far when traveling by horse.
 * * Hits self* IDIOT! I lived in Connecticut too! Ok, never mind my stupidity. :) — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Eventually the air was cleared, and militia units (some of which were still heading toward Boston) returned home.[12]"
 * Last sentence, "Response to the Raid" section
 * "Eventually the air was cleared"?
 * Reworded Wasn't the best metaphor, was it?
 * ✅ No.... :P I like what you changed that to, though. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Gage, surprised by the reaction, delayed, and eventually cancelled, a second planned expedition to the storehouse in Worcester.[13]"
 * First sentence, "British reaction" section
 * What reaction? Quick, violent, massive...?
 * Clarified
 * ✅ — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Gage's request was somewhat ridiculous, as there were only 12,000 troops in Britain at the time."
 * Third sentence, "British reaction" section


 * While it may have been "ridiculous", that is definitely not NPOV. :)
 * Comment Darn, my slip is showing. I temporized on that; I think Fischer actually uses the word, and I figured to soften it with "somewhat".  But more to the point: presumably Gage, in charge of all North American British forces, was aware of things like British military force counts, readiness, and financing to be aware of the fact that he was asking for something a tad excessive.  (I could add words to that effect, but this is my opinion, and I don't think Fischer, while he likely shares the opinion, doesn't echo it that way, so it would require sourcing.)
 * If Fischer uses the word, quote him. Something like "Fischer described Gage's request as being "somewhat ridiculous" because there were only 12,000 troops in Britain at that time." — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed Fischer uses absurd and hysterical, I'm guessing he's actually lifting the words from primary sources. In any case, I've clarified who thought that (paraphrasing Fischer).

"He later began planning and executing seizures again.[15]"
 * Last sentence, "British reaction" section
 * What seizures did he execute? Any Wikipedia articles on them?
 * Comment Read on, MacDuff :). That's why I put in the Portsmouth and Salem business.
 * Never mind. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"He rode from Boston to Portsmouth on the 13th to notify the local Patriots, and on the 14th the fort was raided, and its supplies removed by the Patriots."
 * Third sentence, first para of "Portsmouth Alarm" section
 * Read it out loud, pal. ;)
 * Fixed This is why we have reviewers...
 * :D ✅ — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"There are notable comparisons and differences between these events and those leading to the battles of Lexington and Concord. The British had a similar goal in each case: the secret seizure of military supplies."
 * First sentence, second para (not counting the blockquote), "Analysis" section.


 * Why is "secret" italized?
 * Comment Same reason as above.
 * Discussing above. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"There are notable comparisons and differences between these events and those leading to the battles of Lexington and Concord. The British had a similar goal in each case: the secret seizure of military supplies. The march on the powder house was done in secret, and executed successfully by the British; the march on Concord was done with timely intelligence of its execution being transmitted to the militias. The action in Portsmouth was based on faulty intelligence, and ended with Patriot success, as they surprised the garrison there; the intelligence on the night of April 18, 1775 was, to all intents, sufficiently accurate to warrant Patriot action. The timeliness of intelligence enabled the Patriots to assemble their militias; its accuracy may have contributed to the standoff that led to the "shot heard 'round the world".[24]"
 * Entire second para that I was referring to above...


 * Read this out loud. Everything from the third sentence on is like "wha...?" to me. Brtish => Patriots with no transition is the problem? I dunno...
 * Comment I've changed the wording some, but I'm not sure what your issue is.
 * (look below)

"There are notable comparisons and differences between these events and those leading to the battles of Lexington and Concord. The British had a similar goal in each case: the secret seizure of military supplies. The march on the powder house was done in secret, and executed successfully by the British; the march on Concord was done in spite of the fact that the British knew the secrecy of the mission had been compromised. The action in Portsmouth was based on faulty intelligence, and ended with Patriot success, as they surprised the garrison there; the intelligence on the night of April 18, 1775 was sufficiently accurate to warrant Patriot action. The timeliness of intelligence enabled the Patriots to assemble their militias; its accuracy may have contributed to the standoff that led to the "shot heard 'round the world".[25]"
 * Same as above, pasting in changes


 * The second -> third sentence goes from the British to the Patriots w/o a transition. Honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say from the *fourth* sentence on! :/ — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The purpose of that paragraph (obviously not succeeding : is to describe the differences and similarities between the events described in this article, and the the events in the battles of Lexington and Concord. The Powder Alarm is an example of the Patriots not having foreknowledge.  Portsmouth is an example of incorrect foreknowledge.  Concord is an example of correct foreknowledge.  I (think I have to) hedge on the foreknowledge on Concord, since Warren and Revere suspected the expedition was going after Sam Adams and John Hancock, rather than military supplies.
 * I'll try to have a go at rewriting it once the brain cells have some time to work it over again.  Magic ♪piano 00:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about time yet - you've got until Wednesday or Thursday (it just dawned on me that I will have limited internet access after Thursday) =/ If this isn't done by then, I'll be sure to pass on the review to someone. I'm not going to fail it over this one thing! — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've decided to punt on that section. I removed the above paragraph, and pulled the other bits back into the reaction sections.  I think what I was trying to say was a bit strained to begin with.  Magic ♪piano 16:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright then. I'm passing it now, and thanks for a very interesting read! It's nice to get out of maritime history every once in a while... :) — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  17:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Fate of William Brattle"
Is this really needed? Why don't you just start a stub on Brattle here and put that in there?
 * Moved Brattle is in many ways a relatively minor figure, except for his role in this action. He might merit a stubby page of his own, especially if he had a notable role on the French and Indian War (not my area of current research).  I've moved the paragraph to what looks to be like a more suitable location.
 * ✅ — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting the nomination on hold; as long as you are working on it, it won't be closed. Cheers! — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  07:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)