Talk:Kiliaen van Rensselaer (merchant)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead needs to be longer. For an article of this length, three to four paragraphs is appropriate. The lead should summarize the article without including new information.
 * Did my best; admittedly leads are not my strong suit.  upstate NYer  01:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First marriage section. "She died as an infant, considering she was not a twin of Johan, and died less than a year and a half after his birth." I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Was she a twin of Johan, or are scholars not sure?
 * Yea, essentially all evidence points to death or injury during childbirth, but I can't say that because nobody else does so explicitly, so I guess I was trying to imply it. She wasn't a twin, and that had nothing to with anything, except for the fact that it was supposed to prove she was born so close to the day she died. I'll reword that.  upstate NYer  00:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Death and legacy section. Why is it necessary to have the Dutch translation of "buried in the church"?
 * I guess it's not. Struck.  upstate NYer  00:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I am not sure if it is appropriate to have references pointing to other Wikimedia projects (i.e. Wikisource), but I haven't been able to locate the proper guideline/policy that I seem to remember reading. I have dropped a question on the talk page of FAC's sourcing guru (it can be seen here).
 * What makes ref #9 (Gilbert, Walter) reliable?
 * Valid point; my reason for using it was that it was linked to from the page at the New York State Museum, which is also where I found out about the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts. This is essentially an endorsement from an expert. Additionally, Gilbert cites reliable sources himself. Honestly I wish I had a copy of "The Van Rensselaers in Holland and in America" but it's not PD and it's not in print any longer. But the fact that he cites legitimate sources (which I would be using if I could) makes me trust the content.  upstate NYer  00:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Refs 51-55 should be decapitalized, even if they are capitalized in the original source.
 * ✅  upstate NYer  00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article. However, there are a few issues with prose, MOS and sourcing, including one major question about the use of Wikisource. I will post here as soon as I have an answer on that front. In the meantime, the other issues should be easy to address. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth has responded, said that she doesn't know (although she would question its use at FAC, which obviously, is not GAN), and suggested that I ask at the GAN talk page, which I have. I will continue to keep this page updated with developments. Dana boomer (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus at the GAN talk page seems to be that Wikisource is OK as long as the documents are used in a manner acceptable for primary sources. The ones used in this article seem to be, and so I am striking my comment on that subject. Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I am now passing this article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! And if you're not too busy (not that I'm nagging :) ), and you have the interest, I also have Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York) up at GAN. It's one of my best articles, IMO. Either way, thanks again for reviewing. Best,  upstate NYer  02:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)