Talk:Eliot Indian Bible/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aven13 (talk · contribs) 12:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I'll review this article. Aven13 12:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

From a first read-through, it looks like a good, solid article. Here are some suggestions:

• Put the fact that it was published in 1663 into the intro somehow.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Stephen Daye of England contracted with Jose Glover". Do you need the "with" here? Would it make it clearer if it was just "contracted Jose Glover"?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• There are a lot of commas in this article. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but in some sentences like "where religious materials, such as" could do without them.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "(a language they little understood)". Change the little around to make it "a language they understood little of".

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Eliot’s Indian Bible was printed in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at Harvard College by Samuel Green." You've said that Samuel Green was the printer and that it was printed at Harvard multiple times throughout the article at this point, so you don't really need this sentences.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Make sure to put commas in all numbers with more than three digits that aren't years.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "In 1685, after some debate, the 'Corporation' decided to..." Instead of using corporation, use the name New England Company.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of the "legacy" section, you start two sentences in a row with the phrase "Eliot's Indian Bible". Substitute the second one with a pronoun.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• You don't have to necessarily have a citation after every single sentence. The exact example I'm thinking of is the fourth paragraph of the "Legacy" section, where for three consecutive sentences, you cite the same source three times. Once at the end of those three sentences should be enough.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• At the end of the article, under the "see also" section, there's a mention of John Ratcliff. However, throughout the entire article, he isn't at all mentioned. Mention him once as one of the main people who bound the Bible for Eliot.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the infobox, why was it "new testaments in 1663" the "preceded by" segment? Also, the note that just says "x" has to be removed. You don't need the "media type", "subject", "cover artist" or "series" sections either. Just author, publisher, language, genre, publication date, country, and the picture of the cover should be enough.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• There's a big red link under citation 11.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have for right now. More to come. Aven13 13:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• You should probably add a paragraph break somewhere in the first paragraph (I'd recommend before the phrase Mamusse Wunneetupanatamwe Up Biblum God). It's a bit long as it is and covers many different subjects. Make it into two paragraphs.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Johnson had a three-year contract to help assist to print". This sentence needs fixed. Aven13 16:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aven13: - All issues have been addressed. Can you take a look at it. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Yes, the vast majority of the prose is clear.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Complete list of sources with all paragraphs referenced

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   You've written just about all that can be written

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Hesitant yes; the article is quite wordy, but it's still good enough for GA criteria

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   It's a well-written article on a topic that it is rather difficult to get good info about. Good job. It is hereby promoted to GA. Aven13 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)