Talk:Middle Colonies/GA1

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

Comment
This article was not shown as being under review on Good article nominations, so I marked it up as under review and started reviewing it. I then found that this GA/1 template had been created by The Obento Musubi on 20 April 2009, but it was not "signed and dated". He is apparently active but does not appear to have reviewed this article; and the GA/1 review template was not linked to Talk:Middle Colonies.

It now appears that the nominator of the article's WP:GAN invited that editor to carry out the review (see User talk:The Obento Musubi). Anyhow, I'm reviewing it at this point.

Pyrotec (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Initial review
Upon an initial reading, this article appears to be at or about the required standard for GA-status.

Specific comments:


 * WP:lead -
 * This seems quite reasonable. I would suggest that it has some minor reworking / expansion of the first paragraph so that it is apparent that the colonies ceased to exist after the American War of Independence, becoming the modern day states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York and Delaware.


 * History -
 * The date that Henry Hudson found these lands should be included.


 * Verification -
 * The majority of the in-line citations come from the first five references which are all books, some of which are available in electronic form. Reference 5 is the only one in this group that gives page numbers.
 * Page numbers need to be provided for these in-line citations; however it is perfectly permissible to group pages together, like ref 6, e.g. pp. 106-108.
 * It may be advantageous to split these first six references into Notes and Bibliography, as per Partington, Greater Manchester although there are many other articles which use the same format.Pyrotec (talk)


 * I have addressed the issue. The lead has been slightly modified, and the year for the Hudson expedition added. Also, I have changed the reference style, using the Han Dynasty article as a model, so that page numbers are provided for all sources which have them. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The Han Dynasty is equally acceptable as a model.Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting the article On Hold so that these points can be addressed. Normally one week is given, but this is open to negociation.Pyrotec (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

main review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Thanks for your efforts in implementing my suggested changes and congratulations.Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Scapler! Great job!  Abrazame (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)