Talk:Benedict Arnold (governor)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Magic♪piano 14:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing, stay tuned. Magic♪piano 14:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! No hurry; I'll be out of pocket till the end of the month, but will be ready to do some work in August. Thanks very much for fixing the image on the Royal Charter of 1663. I just couldn't figure out how to make it work correctly.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Nicely done; only a few relatively minor points.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
~~See below.~~

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

There are a few minor issues of continuity and prose:

make explicit that the Narragansetts and/or Mohegans are the "local Indians", and link the language(s) he learned

I've added references to the Narragansett and Mohegan languages, which are the two known groups that he interpreted for. He may have known other languages, but I've seen no references, and the two above languages are closely related, and mutually understood, from what I've read.

"its settlers were largely educated" --> "most of its settlers were educated" or "reasonably well-educated" (I don't know what it means to "largely educate" someone, which is probably not what you meant.)

rewritten

elaborate on the "sundry obstructions" mentioned in the 1660 letter, or removed the mention (this is presumably due to land or governance claims from either MA or CT?)

I've mentioned that both the Mass. Bay and Connecticut colonies had claims to the Narragansett country. A lot of detail could be added here, but it would likely detract from the focus of the article.

who all is claiming jurisdiction over Narragansett country in 1664? Did the king's commissioners decide anything? In whose favor? (It is suggested by the following paragraph that if matters appeared to be resolved, they were actually not, but the connection between the commissioners' activities and the recurring CT encroachment needs to be made.)

I found a reference in Arnold (1859) that the big issue in 1664 was claims by CT (and civil unrest) in Westerly (later RI) and claims made by CT in Wickford (later RI) which actually sits on the Narragansett Bay. The Wickford residents apparently wanted to be put under CT jurisdiction, and were, until Rhode Island eventually won the jurisdictional dispute. In fact, Rhode Island ended up getting the nod in every territorial dispute with the Conn. Colony, Mass. Bay Colony and Plymouth (later Mass.) Colony. This was truly amazing, considering the number of enemies that RI had, particularly Lord Bellomont and Joseph Dudley, who both sought to have RI's charter revoked.

Not to mention the impossibly long fight over RI borders... Magic♪piano 14:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a requirement, just a recommendation:

bibliographic entries that don't have ISBNs (i.e. older works) ought to have OCLC numbers (available through worldcat.org -- "find in a library" on Google Books often works)

I had been reluctant to do this because it meant opening another account with user name and password. However, I recently had a wonderful experience getting some books via inter-library loan using oclc. So, I've now opened an "account" and have found oclc numbers for all of the older texts without isbn's.

You don't need an account to use worldcat (I don't have one), unless you're using it to remember things for you. Magic♪piano 14:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this addresses the above issues, but if further elaboration is needed, let me know, and thanks for taking the time to review the article!Sarnold17 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it on hold, assuming you get to it in early August. Magic♪piano 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see above commentsSarnold17 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I'll pass it now. Well done! Magic♪piano 14:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]