Talk:Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement/GA1

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • Just two things. First, there should be an n-dash between the dates (you were right that a m-dash was wrong). Second, as to Tureen, I replaced your parenthetical with a more specific one. Savidan 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Reply
  • A few more nitpicks: (R-CT), (D-CT), (R-ME) - should these be spelled out for the non American?
  • non-Indian gambling - should this be "non-Native American" gambling?

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar: 
    Clear because it's concise for such a complex topic
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    I added slightly to the lede
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:  
    AGF off line sources
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:  
    B. Remains focused:  
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. 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:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
  • I made a few more edits which you are free to change.[2]
  • I am passing the article with confidence that you will address the above small nitpicks appropriately, as they are not enough to hold up the article. I have noted them on your talk page.
  • Congratulations, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your review. I prefer not to spell out states/party affiliations. The text of the article makes clear we are talking about Congresspeople. I think non-US readers will have to follow the link if they want a lesson on US politics. As for Indian vs. Native American, both are acceptable and I use them interchangeably. Savidan 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply