Talk:Thomas Danforth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'll review this soon! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

review

Interesting if complicated reading for me - I'm unfamiliar with most of the article's content. I don't really know much about Puritans.

• Lede could be expanded some to be more descriptive - like what was Danforth's religious beliefs?

• "colonial Massachusetts. He served for many years as one of the colony's" - "colonial Massachusetts" to me doesn't mean a specific colony, but "the colony's" is used in the next sentence Clarified Magic♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "when in real life" - when historical evidence indicates? or some other wording? Rephrased Magic♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "violating bans from the colony" - they were banned from the colony and violated the ban - or are you using "bans" in the sense of breaking religious rules? Clarified Magic♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "a conservative declaration that the colonial government was essentially sovereign except where its laws conflicted with English law." - I'm not familiar with English law regarding religion but didn't they have some? did the monarchy control the English church?

• "Danforth's politics and religion were relatively conservative" - could be more specific about what relatively conservative means in this case?

• "were sent to England to argue the colony's case" - which was what?

• " Colonial agents then purchased the territory" - again, this seems vague to me as weren't there other colonies? - the Colony's agents?

• "King Philip's War" - perhaps a little more explanation of what this war was, as the reader might assume that some king of England, Spain or whatever was involved somehow.

• would a little context for linked names be ok? - it would give more of a sense of what was happening - e.g. magistrate Simon Bradstreet, Puritan missionary John Eliot, etc. Readers like me need all the help we can get to understand the situation

• "refused to make changes to its administration that were demanded by King Charles" - like what changes were demanded?

• link "Dominion of New England" in the article body (some people like me don't read infoboxes) Fixed Magic♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1686 the Dominion of New England was established" - who established it? Clarified Magic♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "excluded Danforth from their councils, given his opposition to crown authority" - clarify why - was the Dominion a crown colony? - readers shouldn't have to click on every link to get the picture.
  • I've added some words here, but I thought it was clear that (1) the dominion governors were appointed by the crown, and (2) Danforth already had a track record of opposing crown control of the colony. Magic♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Salem End Road in Framingham is now in the area where they settled" - the importance of this isn't clear until later in the article - it just seems like an unnecessary detail the way it's presented here.
  • I couldn't find a better place to put it; I supposed it could go under a legacy umbrella, but it seemed more appropriate to mention it here than elsewhere. Magic♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

An interesting insight into the times. I don't see any other issues.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

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:

   pass!

• Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)