Talk:Francis Nash/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I will review this one. Have made some initial comments, will review prose in the next few days.

Other comments: As noted above, comments on prose to follow. Zawed (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a requirement for GA but just a suggestion; the comment associated with note 10 may work better as a footnote.
 * No PD portraits that you could use to illustrate the article?

Responses: I look forward to seeing your prose comments! Thank you so much for taking on this review!  Cdtew  (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed duplinks (except for dups in infoboxes and the lead)
 * Corrected James Moore dablink – rookie mistake!
 * Added prose comments. Zawed (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all of your 1(a) concerns at this point (see ), with the following exception:
 * "'in the colonial Assembly': should that be the North Carolina Assembly?" -- in theory it could be called that, and has been called that before, but legally it was title the North Carolina General Assembly, which is confusing because North Carolina's current legislature is the North Carolina General Assembly. For formalities' sake, I've corrected the lead, but I generally prefer to use the informal "colonial Assembly" otherwise to distinguish.
 * Many thanks for your comments! Please let me know if you think there's any other way I can improve this article.   Cdtew  (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes and responses look good, updated checklist and passing as GA.