Talk:Siwanoy/GA1

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

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 23:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting this review. My plan is to do two major passes through the article, first for prose, the second to verify the references. In general, all my comments will be suggestions which you can accept or reject as you see fit.

Checklist

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lead section

 * At the time the Siwanoy inhabited the area, Westchester, Fairfield, and The Bronx didn't exist by those names, so, "along the coasts of..." -> "along the coasts of what are now..."


 * "extended from Hell Gate to Norwalk, Connecticut, and as far inland as White Plains, New York,[4] and became hotly contested", the repetition of "and" is awkward. I think you can also leave out "New York" after White Plains (if anybody's not sure which state it's in, they can click the link).  So, "...and as far inland as White Plains; it became ...".


 * In the infobox, it's frustrating that when you click on the image, the full-size map doesn't have the dots for the settlement locations. Is there some way to fix this?  It's also odd that the base map includes lots of modern-day details like airports and highway exit numbers.  A more period-appropriate base map would be better.

History

 * I would eliminate the "History" heading, and promote each of the sub-sections within History to level-2 headings.

Culture

 * "Like the greater Lenape, the Siwanoy generally had black hair and brown eyes." This is a physical description, not a cultural one.  It's odd that it goes under culture, but I'll admit I'm not sure what else to do with it.


 * "each with a sagamore or chieftain" This could be read as having a chieftain being an alternative to having a sagamore. I think what you're trying to say is that sagamore is another word for chieftian.  If so, "each with a sagamore (chieftain)" would be clearer.

Settlements

 * "near modern-day Rye, New York". Leave out "New York", and let people click through to discover what state it's in.

Religion

 * "However, many Siwanoys likely became Christianized", leave out "However". Also, later in that sentence, "Siwanoy sagamore Wampage I" suffers from WP:SEAOFBLUE; you should only link a term the first time it's used, and sagamore is already linked earlier, so just unlink it here.  Plus, ", and he took John White..." would read better as, ", taking John White..."

Conflict with European colonists

 * "involved in war with the Dutch in 1640, which lasted five years". I think you want, "involved in A war with...".  And maybe rewrite the whole thing as, "were at war with the Dutch from 1640 to 1645".


 * "This period is often referred to as Kieft's War", the linked-to article says the war was 1643–1645, which is at odds with what you say here. That should be resolved.


 * "this undoubtedly led to the massacre of Anne Hutchinson and her family in 1643." that assertion needs to be backed up with a source.


 * "A group of Siwanoy, led by Wampage I,", only link Wampage I the first time it's used.

Treaty with Thomas Pell

 * " New Netherland authorities did not recognize his title. They accused the New Englanders of continued encroachment upon Dutch territory". Combine these two sentences, perhaps as, "New Netherland authorities did not recognize his title, accusing the New Englanders of continued encroachment upon their territory".


 * "Pell's coup turned out to be decisive", calling it a "coup" is editorializing. Find another way to say this.

Merger and removal
No issues.

Notable Siwanoys
I'm not sure what qualifies somebody for inclusion on this list. Perhaps only people who have a wikipedia article should be included? Also, see WP:Manual of Style/Lists and consider reworking this as running prose.

Break
I'm going to stop here and let you work through some of the improvements I've suggested. My next pass will be to work on the WP:V aspects. Before I do that, however, please work through this and make sure everything is sourced. There's a few places where citations appear to be missing. Once you've had a chance to work on that, ping me and I'll proceed with the rest of the review.

I should note that the reason I picked this article to review is that I live in the area. Many of the events that are discussed here took place within walking distance of my house. I'm thus familiar with much of the history (although there's plenty in the article that's new to me).

More about prose

 * You ended up with, "were at war with the Dutch from 1640 to 1645, which lasted five years.". With the start and end years, you don't need to have the "which lasted five years" part.

I'll take another break here. You've got a fair amount of work to do reviewing references, eliminating those that are not reliable, and finding replacements that are.

Progress
I see you've been continuing to edit Siwanoy, which is great. I think it's fundamentally a well-written article that just needs some cleanup, especially around the sourcing, to get to GA status. If you think it's going to be ready for me to take another look at soon, that's cool. If not, I could put this on hold for a week. Alternatively, if you're having problems making progress, it's not a terrible thing to fail the review and then you're free to work on it without the tyranny of deadlines, and bring it back for another fresh review at a time that's convenient to you. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard back from you, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to wrap up this review as a failed nomination. As I noted above, this is a good topic, and the article is mostly well written, so I think another nomination could be successful if the sources are cleaned up.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)