Talk:Indiana Territory/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the Formation section you say "but tensions remained high on the frontier and became neared the point after the 1809". I think there's something missing, as "became neared" doesn't make sense to me.

• Fixed Charles Edward 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1. • In the District of Louisiana section, you say "Residents of the new district objected to many of the provisions of the new United States government." Could you give examples of the provisions they objected to? I realize that this is supposed to be a summary section, but it would be nice if you could flesh this section our a bit more. Reading it left me a little hazy on why exactly the Indiana Territory governors were given power and why the residents were unhappy about this.

• Residents were unhappy because they thought they were big enough to be their own territory, and because their government was so far away from them. They were given to Indiana Territory because that was considered the most expedient way to put them under a civil government, and because the citizens of the area were mostly french and spanish (catholic), and not totaly trusted with their own administration. Added that into the summary. Charles Edward 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1. • If you are going to use convert templates, please do so all of the time, rather than switching back and forth like you do now in the Formation section.

• done Charles Edward 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • If you're going to use the split reference style for books, you need to do it for all books. Currently you use split references for some of the books, but others have the complete information in-text.

• Done Charles Edward 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1. • Ref 40 (Indiana Territory Festival) needs a publisher.

1. addedCharles Edward 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1. • The second paragraph of the Formation section needs a ref

• Got one for the governor part.. need one for counties. That will take a few minutes. Charles Edward 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• alright, got one for the counties too. Charles Edward 21:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article, but there are a few minor issues with prose, MOS and references, so I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to address my concerns. If you have any questions, please drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your reivew! I will work quickly to address your concerns. Charles Edward 20:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have commented each item above. Please let me know if there is any more I can do, or explain. Thanks! Charles Edward 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comments above, and I really apologize for this, but I probably won't have a chance to reply to them and probably pass the article until tomorrow afternoon evening. From a quick look, everything is looking good. Dana boomer (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. My only further comment for improvement of the article would be a bit more of an expansion of the Louisiana section. To be honest, the summary you gave me above made a lot more sense to me and explained more than what you actually added to the article. If you could basically reference and copyedit the summary you posted to me above and place this in the article, I think it would help readers a lot. However, this is just my opinion, and the article is very nice, and very ready for GA. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)