Talk:Territorial era of Minnesota/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Why is "early" italicized in the sentence: Many of the facets of Minnesota culture that are perceived as the area's early history in fact originated after this era.?
 * That one's debatable. If I were speaking I would put a special emphasis on that word since some people would say this and other's would consider that a misnomer. I seemed to me that emphasizing this word is called for since I am pointing out that the word is potentially a misnomer. Disagree? --Mcorazao (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'll buy that. It might be queried by others if you wish to take this to WP:FAC. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The first half of the 19th century was rather a much rougher era characterized by sparse communities, hardship, and, to some degree, lawlessness - Clumsy
 * ✅ I rephrased. OK? --Mcorazao (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The word "era" is rather over-used, consider using synonyms, such as period, time, etc.
 * ✅ --Mcorazao (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Much of these lands were claimed by other states who subsequently ceded these to the federal government. Many would be better
 * ✅ Agreed that phrasing was erroneously. Changed to "Much of this region" since a plural construct sounds odd in this context. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Until 1818 the Red River Valley as a whole in what is today southeastern Manitoba and northwestern Minnesota was considered British ... - "as a whole"?
 * ✅ Changed to "entire". --Mcorazao (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Red River Colony, established to supply the British fur trade, was fraught with problems from the beginning  - what sort of problems?
 * Since this is a background section I didn't want to get into the details. I had in mind that if the reader was really curious about that they could follow the link. Is it better to simply remove that little comment (I don't want to make the section any longer)? --Mcorazao (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I looked at the source again and the problems were various complex and difficult to succinctly summarise here
 * At the beginning of the 19th century many parts of the Minnesota area were already well traveled by British and French explorers with some small settlements. - Clumsy - "well traveled by British and French explorers with some small settlements."
 * ✅ Removed "with some small settlements". --Mcorazao (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * had been acquired in 1805 by legendary explorer Zebulon Pike What makes him legendary?
 * ✅ Pike is a major figure in American history and the inclusion of this term was simply to say "yes, THE Zebulon Pike". But it didn't seem appropriate to go into what his future exploits were going to be since they have nothing to do with Minnesota. Is it preferable just to remove "legendary"?
 * Oh, that Pike! :-) I had heard of the Peak. I won't protest about the legendary. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Paradoxically whereas Anglo-Americans were generally accepting of black-owned businesses they largely opposed business development by Irish immigrants. - Clumsy
 * ✅ Rephrased. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Information about the black immigrants during the earlier periods is sparse but records show at least that most of those at Fort Snelling were slaves. - Clumsy
 * ✅ Rephrased. Better? --Mcorazao (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, from the start of the Minnesota Territory in 1848 the leadership was predominantly antislavery thus ending the practice in this era. - "Nevertheless", not a good word to start a sentence with.
 * It seems there a variety of opinions on that. Ummmm, I'm trying to think of a way to rephrase this without using a word or clause equivalent to "Nevertheless" ... --Mcorazao (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about: "Despite this, from the beginnings of the Minnesota Territory in 1848, the leadership was predominantly antislavery, bringing an end to the practice at this time." But if you don't agree, let it stand
 * ✅ --Mcorazao (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He would go on to serve as an interpreter in negotiations with the Ojibwe including assistance to Michigan Governor Lewis Cass - Clumsy
 * ✅ Rephrased. Better? --Mcorazao (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have highlighted some clumsy phrasing above. Recommend that you read the article out loud to identify areas where the prose could be improved.
 * I made a number of copy-edits. In particular there were a number of instances where commas needed to be inserted.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All online sources are live links. All sources appear to be WP:RS
 * Online sources supported the statements, I assume good faith for off-line sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Broad, thorough and focussed.
 * 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:
 * An interesting and well researched article. I shall place this on hold for seven days to allow the above issue to be addressed. 12:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think the major points have been addressed and I am happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * An interesting and well researched article. I shall place this on hold for seven days to allow the above issue to be addressed. 12:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think the major points have been addressed and I am happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)