Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's close to, if not at, the A-Class standard. A strange, almost funny, little sequence of events with consequences of unexpected reach... Magic ♪piano 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: The note about Kingsford's book, mentioned above, is a major red flag. First, a minor point. You say: "Kingsford provides one of the most interesting accounts, apparently using sources that other historians, including recent ones, have not used." "Interesting" is an editorial judgment and should be avoided; better to simply say that he provides the most detailed account.
But the major problem is that Kingsford was an amateur historian whose work was criticized by professional historians of his day, who, according to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, "repeatedly took him to task for failing to meet their standards of comprehensive research". Kingsford wrote just as history was emerging as a profession, with new standards of evidence. Gone were the days when gentleman historians would fill their histories with colorful anecdotes of doubtful provenance. Was Kingsford's account "the most interesting" because he used sources that modern, professional historians would regard as unreliable? I don't know, but it's an issue you should be aware of. — Kevin Myers 05:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply