Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775)/GA1

GA Review

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

• Hi, I am reviewing this extremely interesting article for GA. Unfortunately, this is a subject I know little about, so some of my questions/comments may be off base.
  • This is probably a good thing, since I've been in an around this material for way too long.

Comments

• Is the lead a good summary of the article? I think the lead is confusing, as from what I understand from the article, the Americans invaded, the Americans occupied Quebec for a period but did not win over hearts and minds, plus the Quebec Act was a nail in their coffin, and then they were defeated and run out. That this was part of their strategy to include Canada in the American Revolution. That after this, the Americans then decided to concentrate on their 13 colonies until the war of 1812 when they tried again.
  • Mostly right, although the Quebec Act is from 1774, and it is its political consequences mostly worked against the Americans. (Also see below.)
• Is the Invasion of Canada really the invasion of Quebec?
  • Most sources I read use "Canada", but the target of the campaign was control of the British province. I've clarified the objective in the lead.
• "by colonial separatist forces" - is there something you can link this to, as it is in the first sentence. Changed to Continental Army.
• "Quebec" - should it not be wikilinked in lead? Done
• "reinforce those at Quebec" is this Quebec City or Quebec Provence? Clarified
• Indians - which Indians?
  • Sometimes which tribes are involved somewhere is not readily sourceable, or the geographic spread is large enough that narrowing (even to something like Iroquois, which would cover upstate New York) doesn't make sense. I can look at the uses of "Indian" to see if any can be appropriately narrowed.
• "On this page" - Do you mean "In this article" or something else?
  • I wasn't sure what the best language was to clarify this. Changed to "this article".
• Oneida needs disambiguation Done
• It is confusing which Indians you choose to wikilink. Mohawk is linked twice. Fixed Mohawk double-link. Named tribes all ought to be wikilinked somewhere.
• Why are the Iroquois called Six Nations?
  • Because it was a confederation of six tribes at the time. ("Six Nations" is mentioned in the lead of Iroquois.)
• I had no idea that the Indians were so involved in this. Perhaps something should be mentioned in the lead.
  • This is one of the oddities of writing about military campaigns as opposed to battles; you have to include "non-events". The Indian military involvement in this campaign was actually fairly small (only really involved at the Cedars), but all of the negotiation was important, and set the stage for the frontier war in New York (and further west) and the breakup of the Iroquois confederation (which happened in 1777 after Oriskany).
• "it has even been claimed as the birth of modern Canadian identity." Is this POV "even been claimed" makes it sound dubious. Is it a realistic proposal?
  • That assertion was actual uncited in this article for quite a while, until I decided to track it down. I think I found at least three reasonable sources making that sort of claim. What I do not know is how controversial the statement is.
• Would it be correct to say in the lead, that this was the last invasion of Quebec until 1812.
  • It's probably accurate. As mentioned in the Aftermath, Quebec was a regular subject of interest, but no organized military efforts occurred later in this war.

I may have some more comments. Also, feel free to revert any of the changes I made, as I made them to help me understand what was going on. I learned a lot from reading this article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to give you some ammunition to use against me :-), here are some things to consider. I put off GA'ing this article for a time over two issues. The first was the Indian (non)involvement, which I decided was actually worth including. The second is the politics of Quebec at the time, which is a somewhat touchy subject that needs to be handled with nuance. This I decided to punt, waiting for an article like Quebec in the American Revolution to gel where the subject can be treated with a finesse that will satisfy the sensitive Quebecois. That said, some of Quebec's internal politics needs to be exposed here where it affects the strategy and action. If these things are not clear (and it sounds like I need to clarify the role and impact of the Quebec Act), please point those things out.

I learned a lot researching this article. :-) Magic♪piano 23:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. You have clarified nicely. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fineal GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Quite well written b (MoS): Follows the relevant MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well written b (citations to reliable sources): Well sourced c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers the broad issues b (focused): Remains focused on the topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Very well done. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)