Talk:Fédon's rebellion/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Guettarda (talk · contribs) 16:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Having recently worked through Candlin's chapters on this, and read through the article, I'd be happy to do this review. I believe my four small edits (mostly typo-fixes) are minor enough to permit a GA review. Guettarda (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

(A start, more to come)

General

• I think Buidhe's suggestion of a split is well worth considering.

Lead

• The language as a whole could be tightened. For example
  • Paragraph 2, lead: As a result of Fédon's rebellion, French influence in Grenada was eradicated once and for all - this seems like an overstatement; for example, even today Catholics remain about 1/3 of the population.
  • Para 3, lead: particularly in comparison to that of Haiti, for example - I don't feel like "particularly" and "for example" work together

Background

• para 1: Late 18th-century Grenada was a 120 square miles (310 km2) island in the western Caribbean - the size and location of Grenada hasn't changed in the last 200 years
• restricting the King's new subjects - which king, and why is it capitalised? (Phrasing doesn't seem Wikipedia-appropriate).
• It was a heavy cotton-producing island, and as such was integral to Britain's Industrial Revolution and Economic boom - heavy is oddly vague, and "economic boom" shouldn't be capitalised. The link to "business cycle" also seems less than ideal - surely there must be a link somewhere to a specific boom related to the industrial revolution?
• para 2: the other half, comments Candlin, were "found cowering in their plantations or discovered aimlessly wandering the island's roads, unsure of what to do" - this shouldn't be credited to Candlin; the first part of this sentence has a very important caveat Indeed, littered throughout the three main sources and countless letters written are repeated references to slaves found cowering.... This attitude to enslaved Africans - that they were like children, incapable of ordering their own lives without the overseer's whip - was a fundamental (and false) rationale for slavery. That sentence could end at joined the rebels and lose no useful information.
• para 3: 185 British citizens - while Candlin says "and just 185 British", he doesn't say anything about citizenship. Adding the word "citizen", I believe, is anachronistic; "subject" would be the appropriate term, but that would not make the racial and ethnic distinction that Candlin is trying to make here.

Causes of the revolution

• The opening sentence here is overly long and convoluted.
• para 3: It appears that the native... - this sentence absorbs too much of the colonialist attitude and transmits it in Wikipedia's voice.
• para 3: the quote from Candlin is too long, and much of it could be paraphrased without loss of meaning.
• para 4: the quotes from Dubois and Candlin in this paragraph are too long and too vague. Dubois' quote actually isn't all that helpful since it alludes to, but doesn't explain, what was actually going on in the "nearby French colonies". After all, a lot was going on; presumably this is a reference to Hugues actions, but without a clear time-stamp it's impossible to know.

(more to come). Guettarda (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

→ yeah, totally -- it definitely needs some tightening, so go ahead and make these. I was just worried about giant blocks of text disappearing.... Tiredmeliorist (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)