Talk:Johann Conrad Weiser Sr.

(Redirected from Talk:Johann Conrad Weiser, Sr.)
Latest comment: 10 years ago by AMK152 in topic Peer review status

Peer review status

edit

I am going to put the suggestions from the peer review here to help determine which suggestions will help improve the article.

Suggestion Status
The lead is far too short to give a good summary of the article. I would go (briefly) into such points as who the Palatines were, why they fled Germany, where Hunter was governor of (presumably New York) what the dispute was about and how it led to his downfall. Added
Is it known when he married?
He fought during the Nine Years' War and served as a Corporal in the military." This seems the wrong way round. Perhaps something like "He served as a corporal in the army of the Holy Roman Empire, and fought in the Nine Years' War of 1688 to 1697 between a coalition of European powers and France." Added
"Soon after the birth of Conrad Jr" I would give the year. Is it known whether he was the eldest son?
"The Germans were to produce tar from the trees, but they were unsuitable." I do not understand this. The wrong sort of trees?
"to governor Robert Hunter." Governor of New York? Done.
"But, despite the fact that Hunter had let the Germans go free, he threatened the Germans not to move to Schoharie, or he would see it as rebellion" I do not understand this. Go free from what? "he threatened the Germans not to move to Schoharie" is ungrammatical and seems out of place they had already been there for some time at this point.
"The government of New York was displeased with the Germans, despite having left New York." Why despite?
"to make deeds for the Palatines" What deeds?
"The German deputies" What deputies?
Who is Vrooman.
Walrath grew tired - tired of waiting? Done.
"By this time, Hunter had resigned as governor" This appears to say that Hunter had decided to move but in the lead it says that the representatives contributed to his downfall. This needs explaining.
This is an interesting article but I found some of the language unclear and hard to follow.
The family association publication would not generally considered a reliable Wikipedia source as it is self-published. I would use alternative sources where possible.

I will add in the status as I look at the suggestions. — AMK152 (tc) 22:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply