Talk:The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price's Missouri Expedition of 1864

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price's Missouri Expedition of 1864/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 09:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Will take this on, even if the review might be a bit naive in two ways: It is my first GA review as a reviewer, and I don't know much about the American Civil War. I hope I can nevertheless be helpful by looking at it from a different perspective. I'll start with some first observations and will go through the GA criteria checklist soon. —Kusma (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• The article is an orphan, but there's no need for it to be one (cited from several other articles, why not link?)
  • I've linked to it a list of books about the American Civil War and in a couple articles where statements in the book are directly referenced
• A lot of the context is only in the links, not in this article. This is true both for the campaign and for other things (what's the background of the author and what is this Citadel?)
  • Added a brief description of the campaign, a short bio of the author, and a gloss of what The Citadel is
    • Perfect.
• Any specific reason to say "Price's Raid" when both this book and the article call it Price's Missouri Expedition?
  • I've switched all instances to Price's Missouri Expedition. It was mainly used because that's what I've referred to this campaign by my whole life, but given that the book holds that it wasn't really a raid, "Expedition" seems to be the best wording for this article.
    • You could perhaps just mention that it used to be called "Price's Raid", but is now being re-evaluated as not a mere raid.
      • I'm not sure that getting into naming of the campaign is entirely due weight for an article about a book
• The word "liberate" carries a potentially strong POV. It does seem to be Price's POV, but it shouldn't be the article's POV. (At least one of the reviews uses "liberate" in quotes to clarify this).
  • Which specific instance are you objecting to? All three uses of the word liberate are in indicated direct quotes from sources, generally the phrase "did not want to be liberated" which multiple reviewers use to refer to Missouri
    • I think the appearance in the introduction doesn't work well, as we haven't introduced the context of who sees this as a "liberation". Neely's review contrasts the aim of liberating from Union control with Sinisi's conclusion of the state not wanting to be liberated, and that somehow works better for me than what you do here.
      • Makes sense. I've rephrased the instance in the lead
• The "Content" section I would expect to start with an overview of the content of the book (which probably means a short re-telling of the military history). In a fiction book or a historical novel, we'd have a plot section; just because everything here is factual is not a good reason to completely omit the story.
  • I've added a brief description of the campaign itself, would you like this to be expanded further
    • Thanks, much better! I think this is enough for context.
• Do you know what the painting used on the book cover is?
  • Added (from the credits on the back cover of the book. Bizarrely, the guy who painted this seems to be best known for a series of paintings featuring US presidents playing poker
    • That's weird :) So the cover is based on work by a living artist, and there's no hope of pretending it could be PD (thought it was worth checking). Artist could probably be mentioned in infobox, but doesn't have to be. The file description page could also use this information.
      • Added Thomas to the infobox. I'll also go ahead and add this to the file description page.
• It is part of a series of books about the war title "The American Crisis" well, "titled", and is this a series of books by the author or a series of books by the publisher?
  • By the publisher. Clarified in text.
    • That sentence seems a bit out of place where it is (the "it" reads as if referring to the campaign, not the book). But see below for general questions about rephrasing this.
      • On second thought, I've moved this sentence to be the second sentence of the first paragraph of the content section

@Kusma: - Are these changes satisfactory, or is further work needed? Hog Farm _Talk 02:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think we're almost there. I have some more small things, but most of those are optional. —Kusma (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• The flow of the second paragraph in "Content" can probably be improved. Something like "... has been understudied, and Sinisi's book provides a thorough treatment" (if the sources say that) would connect better to the more detailed description of how the book adds to the existing literature.
  • Neely describes it as comprehensive, so I've added something similar to this.
• Lead: The first two sentences have "Price's Missouri Expedition" three times, and a similar meaning. Can you rephrase this a bit? Slightly more context about the expedition itself (ideally another sentence summarizing it, but even "a failed 1864 campaign" instead of "an 1864 campaign" would be an improvement)
  • I've merged the first two sentences together because they were a bit repetitive, and I've added a short background to the lead.

@Kusma: - I've replied to this second round of comments. Hog Farm _Talk 02:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm, I'm satisfied now. Well-sourced and well-written article, relatively short, giving a good overview of a non-fiction book and just enough of the background and context. I'll figure out how to fill the paperwork to make this pass now. —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Progress table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Fine. Flow and some other slight issues have been improved during review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Well sourced to five independent scholarly book reviews
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is attributed to the book reviews.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fine now.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral and encyclopedic in tone.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Non-free book cover is adequately rationaled.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Just the cover, which is perfectly relevant. (At the current length, shouldn't have a lot more images).
	7. Overall assessment.	Well-sourced article about a non-fiction book. Fairly short, but covers all the essentials in a readable and accessible way. A good article.