Talk:Gunpowder Incident/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "This action sparked an uprising of militia" - 'militia uprising'? Done

   wikilink Second Convention and the Magdalen and its ocmmander, even if it's just a redlink set? Done

   "On the night of April 20, royal marines loaded fifteen half barrels of powder into the governor's wagon and transported it to the eastern end of the Quarterpath Road to be loaded aboard the Magdalen in the James River." - You don't specifically mention that the marines went to the magazine and got the gunpowder; I assume this is because nothing happened of note? Made explicit As far as I know, nothing special happened at the magazine beyond the loading.

   "Dunmore had as a precaution armed his servants with muskets, and it was only the calming words of Patriot leaders that prevented the assembling crowd from storming Dunmore's mansion" - I'm not sure how these two are connected, it doesn't really flow. If the end had said something about the calming words preventing bloodshed, then it would make sense. But at the moment it needs rewriting slightly. And what was the arming a precaution against exactly? The storming of the mansion, or just generally? Comment Sources describe Dunmore as "expecting trouble".

   "Dunmore, who had only recently gained some popularity from victory in Dunmore's War against Shawnee Indians in the Ohio Country (then a part of Virginia), feared for his personal safety" - So I assume that this means that Dunmore had been previously unopoular before this? Or was he just tolerated by the Virginian's and didn't want to lose the popularity from Dunmore's War? Can this be clarified please? Removed I'm not sure Dunmore's role in that war is particularly relevant, and it interferes with the flow of the story.

   "motivated both by the news from Williamsburg and by the arrival of news of the battles at Lexington and Concord." - But in the lede, you say the removal of gunpowder took place 'well before' news of Lexington and Concord arrived. You'll need to clarify either this sentence or the one in the lede - how long did the news take to reach? Some more dates would be helpful - you go from April 20 to early May with mo dates in between, making the chronology difficult to follow accurately. Clarified the sequence of events, I hope.

   Who is Peyton Randolph, and why is he important? Of course the wl can be accessed, but some idea in this article would be good. Washington is introduced as a military officer, for example, who would have some standing in the community. Clarified

   'The next day, May 4, Henry received £330 in royal funds transferred from the accounts managed by Braxton's father-in-law, Richard Corbin, who was the Deputy Collector of the Royal Revenue in Virginia, as payment for the powder.' - This confuses me, and is introduced kind of out of the blue. Why is Patrick Henry being given this payment? Was the gunpowder magazine Henry's (unlikely) or was it some kind of bribe? Did Henrty and Dunmore have a personal relationship? And why did Dunmore later claim it had been extorted - does this mean it was indeed a bribe? Needs clarification. Clarified

   "The incident burnished Henry's reputation while worsening Dunmore's popularity" - Why was Henry's reputation damaged - because he had been seen to be bribed, or been associated with Dunmore negativekly? I think the clarification of the previous point will help this. Comment "Burnished" == "polished" Henry already had a reputation; this event added to it.

   Who replaced Dunmore when he eventually fled? Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The portrait of Patrick Henry is causing a huge amount of white space on my computer running Firefox. I'd suggest removing it. Moved

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An interesting article, but it needs some clarification and rewriting to clear up the timeline and why Henry was given the funds for the gunpowder. Skinny87 (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully I've clarified the timeline and the reasons who did what when. Let me know if it needs more work. Magic♪piano 15:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hah, sorry, I thought 'burnished' meant damaged, so my bad there. It looks much better now. My only question would be why Henry refused Crown payment for the gunpowder, and accepted the private donation. I would have thought the Crown money would have been much better as it was essentially humiliating the Crown forces. But if the sources don't say, I don't think it would be a major problem. Skinny87 (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What Henry refused was not cash, but the period equivalent of a check (hence linking bill of exchange). Russell (and probably other less-detailed sources than Selby) does not even make the distinction (he claims Henry took the Crown paper); Selby describes the detail I've given, but doesn't elaborate on Henry's refusal. My assumption: Henry didn't want to accept a paper that the colony wouldn't be able to convert to cash later; the (presumably Loyalist) plantation owner they could at least seize his property to convert the document. Magic♪piano 16:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that certainly makes sense. Thanks for your patience, and I'll pass this now. Skinny87 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)