Talk:John Hancock/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: upstateNYer 03:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. I should have the review complete in less than a week's time (probably a few days at most). Review will start tomorrow; I'll skim through it tonight. upstateNYer 03:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, look forward to it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead
   Looks good. I made a few minor changes, but otherwise satisfies me
   Early life
   "He and Lydia lived in Hancock Manor on Beacon Hill, an imposing estate with several servants and slaves." I think you mean to say "he lived in Hancock Manor with several servants and slaves. Currently it sounds like the "imposing estate" comes with the servants and slaves. Would suggest rewording somehow.
   Townshend Acts crisis
   "Hancock was involved in two lawsuits stemming from the Liberty incident:..." I would suggest rewording of this. Both times that I read it, my mind immediately went to 'he sued someone', as opposed to the actual meaning, which was 'someone sued him'. It leads to confusion when you get to the part where it says a lawsuit was against himself.
   Return to Massachusetts
   The reference to "political gout": this term wasn't created because of him, was it?
   

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I threw a couple {{fact}}s in the article. While they aren't really necessary to get a GA, you'll need them if you want to go to FAC.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   All opinions are those of the respective source authors. Nice job with the points/counter points views of the various historians.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   I enjoy a well-illustrated article, and this met my standards.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article is extremely well done. The writing quality is superb and the flow kept me interested throughout the whole thing. Having known little about Hancock previously, it was interesting to know how extravagantly he lived, but also how he made it seem like he played both sides for so long. Seeing into the disappointments and his want to be a soldier brought a lot of humanity to the article. I see that you have alts for all the images, so I presume you're bringing this to FAC, which is what I was just about to suggest.

I do have one final comment in addition to the ones above. Hancock's signature on the Declaration is most likely not his every day signature. I'll compare it to Walt Disney, who's real signature is not the one you see at the beginning of all of his movies. While the Declaration signature should of course be included here, I feel as if his 'real' signature should be located in the infobox. The Declaration signature is very stylized, and I would argue is probably almost drawn; i.e. it is not something that a practical businessman would put on an everyday receipt. Have you seen any evidence of a different version around in your research? upstateNYer 17:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; I'll fix the prose and source issues tonight. I'll also keep an eye out for any signature I can find for Hancock that's not that stylish one. Hopefully after these are fixed, it'll be ready for FAC. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Review now completed, with a couple footnotes: It looks like the "political gout" statement is one that was occasionally used centuries ago, but it's not commonly used, and Hancock was not the originator of it; that being said, the fact that he did have gout and seemed to use it at opportune times was probably why it was used. I'm keeping it as is for now, but if you want it reworded I can certainly do that. I wish I could find more on the idea though, it'd make for an interesting article. I cited everything except for the Articles of Confed. ratification, because I think that it's ratification in 1781 is common enough knowledge to not require a source; simple middle school history. Third, I re-read a couple things, as well as the snopes article on the Declaration, and while that may not be his everyday signature, his extravagance does make it seem like his signature would have been something similar to it; he would certainly be the type of guy to do something like that. I think that answers everything, if you have further issues let me know. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Passed. upstateNYer 22:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: the signature on the Declaration is Hancock's "real" signature. It's not too different from his earliest known signature, from a private letter before 1760. Other things that he signed as president of Congress, and later letters, seem to have the identical signature that is on the Declaration. —Kevin Myers 03:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the evidence I was looking for. Thanks for digging those up. upstateNYer 05:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Hancock makes me want to practice my penmanship. —Kevin Myers 05:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, no kidding, but who has time to sit down and do that every time they sign something? upstateNYer 05:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)