I have no reason to believe that this article is anything but neutrally written, but since this is a sensitive subject, I feel I need to ask: can we be sure that Foster et al. represent recent scholarly consensus on this topic? I did a quick search, and there seemed to be at least one other recent work dealing with this
[1] but I don't have access to it. It doesn't have to be included, so long as we can be certain that due weight has been given.
They really are the only significant academic treatments of the subject, the PhD thesis mentions Liston's story, Doctor in essentially the same way, and refers to the two books used here and doesn't really add anything.
The "Authenticity and interpretations" section makes several mentions of aboriginal oral histories of the event. It seems to me it would be appropriate to give these a brief mention in the "later accounts" section as well.
Added a sentence.
Okay, I think that's more or less it from me: it was quicker than my usual review, possibly because it's extremely well-written throughout. Just deal with the points above and I'll pass this: no rush.
Vanamonde (
talk) 13:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I have no reason to believe that this article is anything but neutrally written, but since this is a sensitive subject, I feel I need to ask: can we be sure that Foster et al. represent recent scholarly consensus on this topic? I did a quick search, and there seemed to be at least one other recent work dealing with this
[1] but I don't have access to it. It doesn't have to be included, so long as we can be certain that due weight has been given.
They really are the only significant academic treatments of the subject, the PhD thesis mentions Liston's story, Doctor in essentially the same way, and refers to the two books used here and doesn't really add anything.
The "Authenticity and interpretations" section makes several mentions of aboriginal oral histories of the event. It seems to me it would be appropriate to give these a brief mention in the "later accounts" section as well.
Added a sentence.
Okay, I think that's more or less it from me: it was quicker than my usual review, possibly because it's extremely well-written throughout. Just deal with the points above and I'll pass this: no rush.
Vanamonde (
talk) 13:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply