Talk:Moses Gill/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 17:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll do a thorough review shortly, but I do have one question. What's the term length of the governor? It seems to be 2 years, but then there's mention of 1798 and 1799 elections which confuses me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Terms were one year at that time. (Two year terms did not arrive in Massachusetts until the 1910s.)  Magic ♪piano 18:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but there's no reference to Gill winning annual elections. I don't think that you need to discuss each individual election, but a short summary saying as much would suffice.
 * The article on the Massachusetts Provincial Congress implies that it only existed until 1776, but this article says that it ran the state until 1780. I presume that your source is correct, although it seems to be a little odd to rely on a History of Leicester Academy for this fact. Were there elections that Gill won during 1774-1780 or did the war extend members in their positions until 1780? --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding (which is admittedly not highly detailed) is that the provincial congress met (if not in continuous session, at least with some regularity) until the state constitution went into effect in October 1780; it had a war effort to run, after all. It could have been run either as the Continental Congress was (as a semi-continuous body, whose membership, selected geographically, varied over time), or with elections of some regularity; I don't know which.  (What's written in Massachusetts Provincial Congress is IMHO worth all the citations that it contains; whoever wrote that doesn't know the constitutional history of the state.)
 * The reason the History of Leicester Academy is used is because it is one of only a few places that actually has a somewhat decent biographical sketch of Gill (its author Emory Washburn seems to be a competent historian and politician of the mid 19th century). I'd have liked to say more about Gill, but he wasn't a very big fish in Massachusetts politics and is documented mostly in fragments.  Magic ♪piano 19:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion seems reasonable; it's not your job to fix the Provincial Congress article. And Washburn is an acceptable source for what really is a minor point in this article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Still need to address the issue of the frequency of the elections as above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that. Taken care of now.  Magic ♪piano 16:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * 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: