Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battles of Lexington and Concord/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battles of Lexington and Concord

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The article has uncited statements. It is also quite long, at over 10,000 words: I think some information can be spun out or removed because it is too much detail. The article has many block quotes, which are not needed for the reader to understand the context and contributes to its long length. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important subject. I'll at least take a look. Hog Farm talk 04:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this article appears quite notable, rated as high importance for US history, in that context I don't think I find its length objectionable or unmanageable.
Some quotes could be removed and summarised;
"We ... find that a part of your Majesty' s subjects, in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, have proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme Legislature..."
"Whenever the army under command of General Gage, or any part thereof to the number of five hundred..."
--
Whereas I would oppose the removal of the quotes from participants in the battle that seems more relevant to the article at hand, without some other reason to suggest they represent a POV that should not be included, I think they are fine.
--
I am unable to find any statements in the article that are not cited at least at the paragraph level some uncited paragraphs exist but these appear entirely unobjectionable at least to me and the GA criteria are
> 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); LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some touching-up that could be done here. I'm busy with work but I'll try to make a library run either this weekend or next weekend. Some of the tags confuse me - I don't know what needs further explanation about "Nearly a hundred barrels of flour and salted food were thrown into the millpond". I have doubts about the free license status of the Franklin Mint medal and have nominated it for deletion on Commons. Hog Farm talk 16:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would adding citation needed templates be helpful in identifying the uncited text? At a minimum, every paragraph (except the lead) should have a citation at the end of it, verifying the information that proceeds it. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. As it has turned out, real life, for the most part, including preparation for a meeting, has delayed my work on the article. With any luck, I'll have time to start working on this in earnest, (in addition to one earlier minor edit), over the next few days. I'll be looking for any text that needs citation as well as doing some rewriting and summarizing of other wise helpful long quotes. Donner60 (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LeChatiliers Pupper, Hog Farm, and Z1720: I have cleared the citation needed tags. I think the quotes from participants are useful in this article. I usually use few if any blockquotes in writing or editing articles, sticking with summaries or shorter quotes. A possible option would be to summarize the quotes in the article but put them into a footnote. I think the blockquotes can be reduced and melded into the text in some cases, if required, but not all.
The footnotes that are not just citations but text might be separated into a separate section as they are in some other articles. Battle of Gettysburg for example. It would reduce the size of the main text but would no doubt increase the total number of bytes - as did the new citations - but it would reduce the number of words in the main text. Perhaps a few points might be made more smoothly. I am not sure that is a big benefit because I think the subject of this article is enhanced by participant views. Historians as well as the participants don't agree on some key facts.
I don't find the length objectionable as it is. It is well written and gives interesting details. Breaking this article up does not seem as useful as it might be in other circumstances. The whole affair took place over the course of one day. It was a running battle over a large distance. In that way, it was unlike a campaign or most other modern battles. The continuity is integral to the story. Also, the lack of agreement on some facts should be noted for completeness and inclusion of valid differing views.
I will give some more attention to this over the next week or so. Further comments by interested editors would be helpful in deciding what and how much still should be done and what seems the best approach based on the different types of edits and structure that I have mentioned. Donner60 (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to summarize blockquotes which eliminates some bytes and words. I will continue to work on this. Much as I think the quotes are helpful, I am now leaning against adding a footnote section that would state them in full. That also could suggest that some text notes now in the footnotes should be moved to the separate section. That would likely take even more time. I suppose that would increase the word count, but they would not be in the text of the article which perhaps would not conflict with the objective of the work on the article. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Donner60: My opinion is that quotes should be used as little as possible, whether in the article prose or footnotes. While interesting to the editors who write the articles, readers are more likely to want an overview of the topic and will skip quotes as being too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to summarize the quotes and not repeat them in footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Donner60 - Thank you for doing the work here that my library just doesn't have the sources for. Please let me know if you'd like me to give it a read-through at any point; I appreciate the work you're doing here. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three more blockquotes to summarize; probably will leave a fourth, President Ford's brief quote from bicentennial speech; then we can proceed to read throughs and any other editing (if any). Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All blockquotes now summarized. Part way through copy editing with some reduction in words, bytes (though addition citations added to bytes if not to words). I will ask @Hog Farm: to review this soon to see if more editing can be done. Donner60 (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping - it'll be a couple days before I can get to this probably but this is on my onwiki to-do list. Hog Farm Talk 19:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LeChatiliers Pupper, Hog Farm, and Z1720: I have revised and cut some words from the article. I think the flow may be somewhat better now. The net change in bytes may be small (about 3,100) because the previously added citations increased the byte count. While I may look through this again in the next few days, time permitting, it should be ready for Hog Farm to work on it when he can. With a fresh look, Hog Farm may be able to reduce the size without cutting the content since his would be a fresh look and his writing and copy editing is always excellent.
I tested splitting the Legacy and Commemoration sections into a separate draft article at User:Donner60/Battles of Lexington and Concord (Legacy) but restored the split text to the existing article for now. The draft is incomplete because it would need a lead and perhaps some additional text. This is the only way that I think I could be comfortable with a substantial reduction in the narrative of this important article (to about 9,900 words) without removing details which I do not favor for reasons that I have noted before. I would rather not make the split but would consider doing so, with favorable comment, rather than cutting the article too much or downgrading the assessment. This may well be the only narrative that many readers will read for a reasonably detailed account of this action. Please let me know your opinion on this possible split. Of course, you may wish to wait to see what further editing in the near future might do to improve the article while keeping the last sections. Further editing may reduce the size of the article enough to gain consensus for keeping GA. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I was one of the least critical at the start, the changes that have been made appear to me to be enough to keep GA. Im not that experienced so I may be wrong but that's my reading of the article and the GA criteria.
On length I think the article is fine, no single section appears overly long or irrelevant. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
my final comment @Donner60 would be that so much has changed it might be worth reposting a request for comments / perspective on milhistory discussion to see what the consensus is now getting some fresh eyes would be good LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good idea if all four who have commented here do not agree that the article is now fixed - or if someone thinks it needs my proposed possible split off to be completely fixed and some or all others don't think that should be done, at least without further opportunity for others to comment. Those who have commented are Z1720, Hog Farm, you and me.
If we all agree that the article can stay as GA after the editing and revisions are finished, I think that would be as much agreement or consensus as GAR's usually get. In fact some GAR's, at least those which don't need as much editing and revision (such as just lacking citations for later additions or changes) may only get one or two commenters or "fixers" after the original proposal.
I am not opposed to reposting even if all four of us agree but someone thinks the reposting should be done for some reason despite and agreement it is back to a GA. Note Hog Farms' later comments and my reply below about some more editing needed before getting everyone's conclusions. Donner60 (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - some thoughts here:

  • The Suffolk Resolves are only mentioned in the lead; does this more warrant a mention in the body or ommission from the lead?
  • Are all of the citations just to "French" referring to General Gage's Informers?
  • "telling him that although the Congress was still divided on the need for armed resistance, and delegates were being sent to the other New England colonies to see if they would cooperate in raising a New England army of 18,000 soldiers" - I don't think this is grammatical
  • "Some witnesses (on each side) claimed that someone on the other side fired first; however, many more witnesses claimed to not know which side fired first.[citation needed]" - the CN tag should be addressed although this seems to be pretty basic
  • "Aged Menotomy resident Samuel Whittemore killed three regulars before he was attacked by a British contingent and left for dead. (He recovered from his wounds and later died in 1793 at age 98.)" - is 98 correct? Our article on Whittemore has 96

Hog Farm Talk 02:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at all of these and fix them in some way. I gave a quick look at four of the five; I suspect that there are more sources for the fifth, General Gage's informers. At least two of the other points were editing errors or omissions as I cut or changed the text. Suffolk Resolves was not cited later in the text in a version before I started on the revisions; I did not catch that. I am sure a citation can be found- a general sentence in the text refers to the Suffolk Resolves without further mentioning that declaration. The ungrammatical sentence was a clumsy attempt to combine two sentences and cut a few words. The "some witnesses claimed..." was originally a few sentences earlier in a paragraph cited to Fischer. I moved the sentence for chronological order without paying attention to adding a new or repeat citation because it was now at the end of a paragraph (and thus was just tagged). The Samuel Whittemore article cites two sources for age 96 and accepts those as definitive. It also refers to a Massachusetts Senate bill honoring Whittemore, the headstone of his grave (shown) and a source cited for other reasons (Moran) which gives his age as 98. The image of his obituary gives his age as 99! I suppose we should adopt the same age as the article and cite those two sources. Thanks for catching these. I will get to work on them. Donner60 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Adding to the above comment. On a little closer look, I see that I did not fully understand your question about French. I now see there are two books by French cited in the bibliography but only "French" is cited in the footnotes, without identifying which French book is being cited. Since these are old books, they may be available in the internet archive and I will look at them if I can find them. Otherwise, I assume I will need to find other sources, with any luck in the books that I have on the subject . Donner60 (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LeChatiliers Pupper, Hog Farm, and Z1720: There were three French books. All of them are old enough to be available in the Internet Archive. I have corrected all the French footnotes to show the French book being cited each time. I had to add the distinctions by year of publication without using the system of placing a citation with French books and page numbers in shortened form because I am not familiar with how to do this in this system with multiple books by the same author. My efforts to make the distinctions with a few variations of the template all failed to work. Also, a few page numbers in support of the text were a few pages different in the online texts so I made those changes. A previous editor had tried to differentiate two of the French books but his fix failed to make the distinction, leaving all of the citations as just to French. So it apparently isn't easy under this type of citation. I handled the other corrections or edits suggested by Hog Farm a few days ago. I think the article is now in shape to preserve the GA rating.
If anyone thinks I need to do any more work on it (other than making any further removal of content which I think is likely beyond my ability to do), please let me know. As I and LeChatiliers Pupper noted early, we do not think that this article which is about a daylong battle and something as a while can be split (except as I suggested for the legacy, commemoration parts, which I would prefer not to do and which has not gained any positive feedback).
Otherwise, I ask that the reassessment be closed as completed with the rating retained. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
would you like me to check the french language sources? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Donner60: At over 11,000 words I would consider this article to be too detailed. After a quick skim there are many sentences that could reduce redundancy or is information that is too specific for the average reader to be interested in. There's also lots of quotation that could be written in summary style instead to reduce the word count and have the information conveyed more succinctly. Would any subject-matter experts be interested in conducting a copyedit? I would do it myself but sometimes I remove information that experts consider important. Z1720 (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LeChatiliers Pupper, Hog Farm, Z1720, BusterD, Djmaschek, GELongstreet, Magicpiano, Relativity, and Rogerd: I am still willing to split out the legacy and commemoration sections but it appears you have some more extensive copy editing in mind than simply reducing the word count. I am willing to go through it again, after giving it something of a rest so I have a fresher perspective and to complete some other work. I might want to take as much time as two or three weeks depending on other work that I think I should complete soon and coordinator work, especially toward the end of the month. In the meantime, I am pinging some active experienced users who are interested in this area who might be willing to help out with the copy editing - and perhaps could do it more proficiently than I can as well. If not, I'll get back to you or you can ping me if you think this is stalled too long. Donner60 (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is probably biased by my heavy FAC involvement where there is a much bigger emphasis on weighting of material and on conciseness. My instinct would be to trim some of the eyewitness accounts. That's the sort of stuff that you'd rely on heavily to write a book on the battles, but less so to produce a shorter encyclopedia-level summary of the battle. For instance, we've got the Ripley account of the shots at the North Bridge where Davis and Hosmer were killed, and there's then a longer desciption of the same set of events in the next paragraph from Thaxter, and the two disagree on Davis' rank. My instinct (again colored by FA expectations) would be to let Fischer & Tourtellot and those historians dig into the weeds based on the conflicting participant accounts and then summarize what the 20th and 21st century historians have to say about the conflicting accounts instead of quoting the participants extensively. One area where this is also a bit of a concern for me is in the later accounts - for instance, Thaxter's account was from the 1820s and we discuss in the legacy section how the participants' recollections understandably started to change on key details as time passed from April '75. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good points and helpful advice. Donner60 (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I disagree with the TMI, I think ultimately exceptions can be made for articles of specific complexity or importance.
I would argue this article is important to American history and American military history. (reflected by the talk page assessment of importance)
It is also not a simple battle, its a march to and back from somewhere with engagements on both routes.
More words are needed to convey complicated or confusing events than simple ones.
My third point would be you have some length contributed by areas such as "Order of battle" - these are just useful references to have to interpret future text and not really a wall of text people will read.
--
If you want trimming I would suggest putting a message on the talk page with specific paragraphs or parts you think should be summarised or removed for redundancy. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will summarize and then move most of the text on the first shot section to Shot heard round the world and put a main article tag in that subsection. The American Revolutionary War section of the shor article is brief, has citation needed tags and may have some inaccuracies. The order of battle could possibly be eliminated or perhaps put in sentence form rather than list form. I thank [[User:Relativity who may be able to make some improvements before I can further review the article. As I noted, I am not sure whether I can make the desired large reduction in words and keep all the facts that I think are essential. Donner60 (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some prose comments (and let me know if you need clarification for any of these; I tried my best to explain my thoughts but these comments may come across as confusing):
  • "between the Kingdom of Great Britain and Patriot militias"--I would change "Kingdom of Great Britain" to something with a link to British Army during the American Revolutionary War, although this isn't necessary
  • "In the summer of 1774, Colonial leaders in Suffolk County, Massachusetts"-- link Suffolk County, Massachusetts
  • "Gage considered himself to be a friend of liberty..." -- this seems like an odd place to start this portion of text, as it goes directly from powder alarms --> this. Is there a better place for this information?
  • "The spy told Gates that the Congress was still divided on the need for armed resistance. The spy also told Gates that the Congress sent delegates to the other New England colonies to see if they would cooperate in raising a New England army of 18,000 soldiers" -- is there some way to avoid saying "spy" twice in this sentence? Coupled with the word spy being used in the previous sentence, it feels repetitive.
  • "A February 1775 address to King George III, by both houses of Parliament, declared that a state of rebellion existed in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, that some of the Massachusetts subjects had encouraged unlawful combinations and engagements in other colonies but that Parliament would pay attention to any real grievance" -- this is confusing; what qualifies as a "real grievance"? Additionally, this may read better as two sentences; i.e. "A February 1775 address to King George III, by both houses of Parliament, declared that a state of rebellion existed in the Province of Massachusetts Bay. They also announced that some of the Massachusetts subjects had encouraged unlawful combinations and engagements in other colonies, but that Parliament would pay attention to any real grievance"
  • "but Dartmouth gave Gage considerable discretion in his commands" -- why is this relevant? I understand this comes back later in the section as "Gage used his discretion and did not issue written orders", but it's still unclear why Gage needed discretion, since his instructions in the article say nothing about writing orders.
  • I agree with Hog Farm above about trimming primary quotes; they constantly pop up in prose and could be summarized or omitted.
  • "Therefore, a military force should be assembled and an army of observation formed to act solely on the defensive."--is this sentence saying an army of observation was formed or that Congress thought it should be?
  • "Paul Revere then began the "midnight ride""-- this needs linking to Paul Revere's midnight ride
  • "using lanterns to communicate "one if by land, two if by sea""--anyone unfamiliar with his midnight will be confused by this. Some explanation is needed.
  • The photo of Margaret Gage may fit better in the previous section under the paragraph that starts with "The colonists were also aware that April 19 would be the date of the expedition", since that's when she's first introduced (although I am in mobile, so I may be seeing things differently)
  • "The [[ride of Revere], Dawes, and Prescott"-- linking is confusing here. Prescott is already linked in the previous paragraph, being a WP:DUPLINK, and Revere's ride should have been mentioned previously, per my above comment. Additionally, is it possible to consolidate this section about the rides (under Militia assemble) and the previous mention of Revere's ride (under American preparations), preferably keeping it on chronological order, to keep relevant information together?
  • "This system was an improved version of an old notification network for use in times of emergency. The colonists had periodically used it during the early years"--do we really need an explanation here on the history of this system here? Thoughts?
  • "because over 500 regulars" we had information previously on the fact that regulars were coming from Boston, but the amount coming was never mentioned. Could we have the "over 500" fact where the info first appears?
  • "

More coming later. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 12:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I will not be able to add comments since I will have to be off-Wiki for over a week. I'll get back to this once my situation clears up. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 10:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for your attention to this article. I will get back to this article within the next several days to work on the comments from you and Hog Farm and see if there is anything else I can trim. The invitation is still open for anyone else who wishes to comment or edit. Donner60 (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished Flavian dynasty GAR. It will be late this week before I can devote much time to this one but I will be back soon, absent an unforeseen time sink, of course. Donner60 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more comments. Sorry if this isn't the right way to go about a GAR; I'm more familiar with doing GANs.
  • "the man replied, "Well, the regulars will miss their aim."

"What aim?" asked Percy. "Why, the cannon at Concord" was the reply"--I might not be understanding correctly, but I'm not really sure what they're talking about... what does "aim" mean in this context?

  • "they had lost the element of surprise."-- might be worth it to add that maintaining the element of surprise is crucial strategically.
  • "Of the militiamen who lined up, nine had the surname Harrington, seven Munroe (including the company's orderly sergeant, William Munroe), four Parker, three Tidd, three Locke, and three Reed; fully one-quarter of them were related to Captain Parker in some way."-- too much detail imo, I'd remove this part.
  • "The Regulars would march to Concord, find nothing, and return to Boston, tired but empty-handed" is this what Parker expected to happen or what actually happened?
  • "Historian David Fischer wrote that while a few militiamen though the regulars were only firing powder but not ball, that when they realized the truth, few if any of the militia managed to load and return fire."--wording is confusing here. What is "the truth"? And the placement of "though the regulars" is strange in the sentence.
  • In the paragraph with the first sentence being "In a later deposition, militiamen Nathaniel Mulliken...", there are four consecutive sentences in this paragraph that start with "They", which reads as repetitive. Is there a substitute?
  • "Eight Lexington men were killed, and ten were wounded"--to clarify, does this include the British casualty?
  • "Caution prevailed."--I would expand on this and reword to "Out of caution, they stayed to defend the town."
  • "
More coming later; I'm about halfway done with reading through the article. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 12:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord/1&oldid=1299613367"