Talk:John Mathews (American pioneer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 17:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Besides the cite needed, Origins is a good overview of these discussions
- thanks, will work on that citation Newtack101 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- citation is done Newtack101 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead seems sufficient, though I'm not sure the level of detail in the last paragraph is needed - the descendants names could be listed without all of their roles
- easy enough, done Newtack101 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is '(Augusta county)' a standard disambiguation? Wouldn't (American pioneer) - what he's known for - or (died 1757) - a biographical detail - be more standard?
- I think both of your suggestions are better than (Augusta County). Do you have a preference of one over the other?
Selection of good sources
Refs seem to use anchors instead of harvrefs or something that would look the same but has better functionality
- this will probably be the most time consuming, so i'll skip it for nowNewtack101 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the Early life section there don't need to be commas around 'almost exclusively'.
- thanksNewtack101 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it appropriate to call this 'Early life' when it almost certainly is not his early life, since his sons were already born. I recommend renaming as 'Settlement'
- done, thanks Newtack101 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the definition of yeoman farmer doesn't need to be added, it's not particularly uncommon and it's wikilinked - it could be more specifically wikilinked to the US section
- just to be clear, are you recommending that the paragraph in question end at, "At this time, Mathews was a yeoman farmer."? That would be fine with me, though I also don't see why a little bit of context couldn't remain. Newtack101 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just think that having or a farmer who worked his own land, typically for subsistence, but occasionally for profit is both redundant - that is the definition, written out - but also a bit confusing if people aren't quite sure what a yeoman farmer is, because it's phrased like Mathews was a yeoman farmer or this type of farmer, as if they were separate things. The wikilink should suffice for people who aren't sure of it :) Kingsif (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - gotcha, that makes sense. done Newtack101 (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no relevance of the image to the article at all?
- there was a source that specified that his plot of land was near or next to the Natural Bridge pictured in the image. I must have removed that reference at some point, probably in favor of a better one. I will look into finding a more appropriate image. Newtack101 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- uploaded a more relevant image Newtack101 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
don't need to wikilink gentleman
- done. I suppose if we're going to drop the definition of yeoman, we could drop this one too?Newtack101 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
chronology of this section implies he got his own land after he bought some from Borden, but the dates disagree - can it be reordered?
- done Newtack101 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the militia service section, shouldn't the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy were be 'was'?
- yes, you're right Newtack101 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this part needs to put Mathews' contributions to the front, otherwise it's a very brief overview of the local start of the French Indian War with his contributions tacked at the end. A lot of it seems generally irrelevant to Mathews' biography.
- did some significant trimming, let me know what you think Newtack101 (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's a lot of overlap (time-wise) in the middle three sections, could they be merged into one?
- I actually had them all merged into one at one point, but it felt like too much of a jumble. That said, I can give it another try. Newtack101 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Waddell quote relevant to Mathews and, if so, could this be made clear? Otherwise, the length of the quote and the possibility it doesn't apply to the subject means it should be removed. The discussion on the Presbyterian question, since its short and likely bears relevance, is good.
- done Newtack101 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the family is unreferenced; could it also not mention more of his descendants. It should if they are to be included in the lead.
- done Newtack101 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The family section is the place to put the link for the Mathews political family.
- done Newtack101 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

On hold A few things. A picture of something relevant would be beneficial, if possible. Kingsif (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks Kingsif. I have begun to address the issues above and will get to them fully in the next few days.
- Kingsif, this one should be done as well. I think the only point on which we differ is the life section. After giving it some thought I still feel the content is easier to digest when grouped by theme, even when there is significant overlap in dates as you've mentioned. Are you willing to bend on that one? Newtack101 (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it doesn't affect understanding, and there is nothing against it in the MOS. I won't make you rewrite it over my preference :) You're right - looks good Kingsif (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]