Talk:Richard Bellingham/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sarnold17 (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello again; another fine article on one of the early Mass. magistrates. I find that the article is a good read, and easily meets the GA criteria. I've done a bunch of small edits, mostly spelling and word use. I also moved some images because on my wide screen the Mary Dyer image was pushing the next heading to the right of the image. Here are some additional small issues that should be addressed:

Early Life

 * "...they resided at the manor at Bromby Wood." This is stated as if the reader knows where Bromby Wood is located.  What is this place?  Perhaps:  "they resided at a manor called Bromby Wood."
 * Well, they don't say what the name of the manor was -- Bromby (or Brumby) Wood is a place in North Lincolnshire. I've clarified its location a little more.  Magic ♪piano 12:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the lead it suggests he sailed in 1633. Here it says he departed the year after 1633.  Which is it?
 * 'Twas 1634.  Magic ♪piano 12:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Massachusetts Bay Colony

 * last paragraph, second to last sentence: "According to contemporary writers, Bellingham was "an active instrument in whatever laws were enacted against them [the Quakers]". This quote is attributed to multiple individuals.  Shouldn't a quote be attributed to a single author?  I wouldn't think all of the authors made the exact same quote.  The footnote references Goss.
 * While it is possible to have group writing, in this case I think I made a bit of hash out of this, but I wasn't helped by the author of that Bellingham bio, whose attribution of various remarks I wasn't able to verify. I've temporized the language to remove the quote.  Magic ♪piano 12:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

English Restoration

 * paragraph 2: "The letter questioned whether the request actually originated with the king, protested the colony's loyalty, and claimed the magistrates had already explained fully why they were unable to comply with the king's demands."  Why would a letter from Massachusetts protest their own colony's loyalty?  I'm confused as to who is questioning whose loyalty.
 * The implication is supposed to be that the king is questioning the colony's loyalty, and the magistrates are protesting that they are in fact loyal. I've clarified this.  Magic ♪piano 12:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I still have to check all the wikilinks and the references, so that may take me a day or two, but the article is quite good, and very nicely written, and will be an easy pass once I'm done.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for taking the time to review. Are there more issues?  Magic ♪piano 12:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Good to go!Sarnold17 (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Recap

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Yes; word choice, grammar, sentence length are appropriate
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Yes, references are suitable, diverse and used appropriately
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Yes, the life of the person is broadly presented
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yes
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * no problems here
 * 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):
 * Yes
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * PASS