Talk:Thomas Danforth/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting if complicated reading for me - I'm unfamiliar with most of the article's content. I don't really know much about Puritans.
 * I'll review this soon! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * review


 * Lede could be expanded some to be more descriptive - like what was Danforth's religious beliefs?


 * "colonial Massachusetts. He served for many years as one of the colony's" - "colonial Massachusetts" to me doesn't mean a specific colony, but "the colony's" is used in the next sentence Clarified  Magic ♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "when in real life" - when historical evidence indicates? or some other wording? Rephrased  Magic ♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "violating bans from the colony" - they were banned from the colony and violated the ban - or are you using "bans" in the sense of breaking religious rules? Clarified  Magic ♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "a conservative declaration that the colonial government was essentially sovereign except where its laws conflicted with English law." - I'm not familiar with English law regarding religion but didn't they have some? did the monarchy control the English church?


 * "Danforth's politics and religion were relatively conservative" - could be more specific about what relatively conservative means in this case?


 * "were sent to England to argue the colony's case" - which was what?


 * " Colonial agents then purchased the territory" - again, this seems vague to me as weren't there other colonies? - the Colony's agents?


 * "King Philip's War" - perhaps a little more explanation of what this war was, as the reader might assume that some king of England, Spain or whatever was involved somehow.


 * would a little context for linked names be ok? - it would give more of a sense of what was happening - e.g. magistrate Simon Bradstreet, Puritan missionary John Eliot, etc. Readers like me need all the help we can get to understand the situation


 * "refused to make changes to its administration that were demanded by King Charles" - like what changes were demanded?


 * link "Dominion of New England" in the article body (some people like me don't read infoboxes) Fixed  Magic ♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "In 1686 the Dominion of New England was established" - who established it? Clarified  Magic ♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "excluded Danforth from their councils, given his opposition to crown authority" - clarify why - was the Dominion a crown colony? - readers shouldn't have to click on every link to get the picture.
 * I've added some words here, but I thought it was clear that (1) the dominion governors were appointed by the crown, and (2) Danforth already had a track record of opposing crown control of the colony.  Magic ♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Salem End Road in Framingham is now in the area where they settled" - the importance of this isn't clear until later in the article - it just seems like an unnecessary detail the way it's presented here.
 * I couldn't find a better place to put it; I supposed it could go under a legacy umbrella, but it seemed more appropriate to mention it here than elsewhere.  Magic ♪piano 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

An interesting insight into the times. I don't see any other issues.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
 * b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
 * b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * c. no original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * 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:
 * pass!
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * pass!
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * pass!
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)