A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"Author Adam Hochschild knew several..." - He's already been introduced, so his last name is all that's needed here.
Done
The lead calls the lukewarm review "one of the few", and the Critical response section calls it "rare". I may have missed it, but do any of the sources support this adjective? If not, I'd omit them and let the "generally well-received" phrase do the work.
Done
Background and development
I'm not sure the sentence on the title's derivation is worth a full subsection, but will leave it up to you.
Content
no concern
Critical response
"moving[12][20][13] narrative" - the refs should be in numerical order. There are five instances of this in the section.
Done
"the Republic's cause.[14][23][24][25][26]" - I think a long train of citations can impair reading, especially in the middle of a sentence. When possible, I like to combine them (see ref 56 and 57 on
Lazarus (comics), for example). Since they're all used just once in the article, refs 23-26 seem like good candidates for this. It's up to you, though. I was
told once that this practice is "lazy".
I agree that combining the refs looks cleaner so I've gone ahead and done that.
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"Author Adam Hochschild knew several..." - He's already been introduced, so his last name is all that's needed here.
Done
The lead calls the lukewarm review "one of the few", and the Critical response section calls it "rare". I may have missed it, but do any of the sources support this adjective? If not, I'd omit them and let the "generally well-received" phrase do the work.
Done
Background and development
I'm not sure the sentence on the title's derivation is worth a full subsection, but will leave it up to you.
Content
no concern
Critical response
"moving[12][20][13] narrative" - the refs should be in numerical order. There are five instances of this in the section.
Done
"the Republic's cause.[14][23][24][25][26]" - I think a long train of citations can impair reading, especially in the middle of a sentence. When possible, I like to combine them (see ref 56 and 57 on
Lazarus (comics), for example). Since they're all used just once in the article, refs 23-26 seem like good candidates for this. It's up to you, though. I was
told once that this practice is "lazy".
I agree that combining the refs looks cleaner so I've gone ahead and done that.