Talk:Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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


 * I will review this shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made the following edits to this article. Any objections? MathewTownsend (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, the article is concise but accurate and clear. I have evaluated the article. I have AGF the citations. Very interesting article, covering a subject I knew little about. Thank you.  MathewTownsend (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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
 * 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)

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

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)
 * 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
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I made a few more edits which you are free to change.
 * 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)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I made a few more edits which you are free to change.
 * 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)
 * I made a few more edits which you are free to change.
 * 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)
 * Congratulations, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)