Talk:The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789/Archive 1

Archive 1

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 10:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 has been the first, second, and third volume of the Oxford History of the United States? Source: in the projected eleven-volume Oxford History of the United States (of which this volume is the second in chronology and the first to appear in print), in Don Higginbotham, review of The Glorious Cause, in William and Mary Quarterly 40, no. 3 (July 1983): 455–458, here 455, DOI:10.2307/1917207. And [Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763—1789 is visibly listed as chronologically first of all current published volumes on page 407] It also highlights how little attention in this series is going to be paid to the colonial period. Peter Mancall, the author of Volume I, and Fred Anderson and Andrew Cayton, authors of Volume II, have to deal with whole centuries, in Trevor Burnard, "America the Good, America the Brave, America the Free: Reviewing the Oxford History of the United States", Journal of American Studies 45, no. 3 (August 2011): 407–420, here 407 and 413, DOI:10.1017/S0021875811000508.
  • ALT1: ... that in 1982, historian Gordon S. Wood harshly criticized the book The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789, and in 2020 he recommended it to readers? Source: Although Gordon Wood had recently agreed to write the 1789–1815 volume abandoned at long last by Elkins and McKittrick, he appeared to question the overall soundness of the narrative approach in a long and sharply critical essay review of Middlekauff ’s book in the New York Review of Books, in James C. Cobb, C. Vann Woodward: America's Historian (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2022). And recommended by Gordon S. Wood [...] You’ve named four books that illuminate the Fourth of July [...] The Glorious Cause is your next choice. How does this work, by Berkeley historian Robert Middlekauff, in "The Best Fourth of July Books, recommend by Gordon S. Wood" (interview), Five Books, July 2, 2020, title, subtitle, paragraphs 8–10.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/One Chun
  • Comment: ALT0's viability depends on considering the arithmetic by which one concludes that if there are a volume I and II before The Glorious Cause, then The Glorious Cause must be volume III, to be an example of "[r]outine calculations [that] do not count as original research". I didn't find a source (aside from like, Amazon and Audible product listings) that definitively said "The Glorious Cause is the third volume in the series"; what Burnard does clearly say is that there are two volumes planned in the series that cover history set before The Glorious Cause. As an additional note, I would avoid piping the article name to shorten it to just the title The Glorious Cause because there is a different book about the American Revolution with that title.

Created by Hydrangeans (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC).

• I shall review this. Note: this review may take more than one day, due to the article's length and complexity. If the review appears to be unfinished, please be patient. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thank you for this veritable mountain of an article and research. Congratulations in the circumstances, for achieving the readability that the original history book sought for. Oh, and isn't it fun to watch the giants of the historical field spitting feathers at each other. Power to you. Regarding your angst about ALT0's viability - well, it's not the most exciting of the two hooks anyway, is it? ALT1 is a much better hook, about the moody old beggar emanating contradictory pronouncements from his library chair. So this one is good to go, with preference for ALT1. Storye book (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt turnaround on the review. While I don't think I'd describe Wood in the same terms, I'm grateful you consider the seeming contradiction between the two assessments interesting. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Storye book (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)