Talk:Haddam Island State Park/GA1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Jsayre64 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jsayre64 (talk · contribs) 19:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
- What/where was the 150-square-mile (390 km2) tract of land sold to European colonists? At least add brief descriptions in the lead and the history section to make clear that this was not Haddam Island. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is pretty confusing. But I found a surviving copy of the deed, a copy of the document for the Mohegans.
all the Land from Mattabezit mill River to the Lower End of pattaquonk Meadow on both sides of the great River Six Miles breadth into the Country of Each side the great River the whole Length afore said Except thirty mile Island and forty acres of Land at Pattaquonk which they do Reserve for of ye afore Said bounds for to have and to holdall...
- If you are able to figure out the boundary on both sides, be my guest, but I think that would go into the Wangunk article even if I had a source for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I just noticed that this says in the middle of the 2nd paragraph that the island was included in those 150 square miles. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you are able to figure out the boundary on both sides, be my guest, but I think that would go into the Wangunk article even if I had a source for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- What were the "continued land sales including three reservations"? Did natives sell this land to colonists? Are you talking about Indian reservations? Clarify based on reliable information available. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- What were the "thirty coats"? Jsayre64 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Coats. Yes, 5 square miles of land for a coat. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not such a good deal for the Wangunk. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Normally, details about the Wangunk tribe wouldn't belong in this sort of article, but since there is little information about them and no article for them, I think it's fine to have that in the history section. Bottom line: always consider criterion 3B above. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I removed a bunch of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- "In 1785, a committee was formed by the colonists to pay tribal members for the sale of the land." Doesn't this mean that colonists simply purchased land from the tribe? Jsayre64 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Removed that line. The last land was sold in 1769 and attempts to pay them in 1785 (talk about a delay) resulted in the discovery that the tribe had moved away from the area. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- "By this time, the Wangunk tribe had moved away from the Connecticut River and brought a quiet and poorly documented end to what was once a great tribe that chose to peacefully coexist with the colonists." Stay neutral and encyclopedic. Just say that the Wangunk peacefully coexisted with the colonists, and then they moved away from the river. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Removed. I veered too close to the college source's wording. Records do show it was a "great tribe", but this does not mean "great" in character, but in power. The tribe was peaceful, but would have been a big threat to the colonists if they had decided to go to war. But that is another matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are there still any piers since some were built in the 19th century? Jsayre64 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, they are gone. When? I do not know. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- From whom did the State of Connecticut purchase the island? Jsayre64 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've never heard of "chemical toilets" and do not like the idea of that. Do you just mean toilets with running water? Jsayre64 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Chemical toilets do not have running water. Easiest way to describe them is a toilet with a bucket that is filled with some water with a chemical (nitrate-based) to deodorize the waste. They are fine if properly maintained, but people have tipped these over (eww does not begin to describe that result) or are so full of liquidized waste and garbage that they overfill and are unusable. They are much better than other alternatives even though they are repugnant and you definitely do not wish to touch any part of the toilet if at all possible. And just to be clear, they do not have sanitary cleaners, water to wash and (all too often) no toilet paper. The Wikipedia article is poorly detailed and rather idealistic about them - because they are not cleaned every week or month. You do not want me to elaborate on the finer points of "when things go wrong" with these. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I guess I have come across those before. They get really hot and stinky in the summer. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Chemical toilets do not have running water. Easiest way to describe them is a toilet with a bucket that is filled with some water with a chemical (nitrate-based) to deodorize the waste. They are fine if properly maintained, but people have tipped these over (eww does not begin to describe that result) or are so full of liquidized waste and garbage that they overfill and are unusable. They are much better than other alternatives even though they are repugnant and you definitely do not wish to touch any part of the toilet if at all possible. And just to be clear, they do not have sanitary cleaners, water to wash and (all too often) no toilet paper. The Wikipedia article is poorly detailed and rather idealistic about them - because they are not cleaned every week or month. You do not want me to elaborate on the finer points of "when things go wrong" with these. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are there any free images available? Jsayre64 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I wish, I cannot add fair use ones because it is a public area and anyone could grab a photo or two. I just have never been there to take a photo. Thanks for reviewing @Jsayre64: - any more fixes you want me to do? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just make sure to remove from the lead what you removed from the body, so that it all matches up. And find out - if it says anywhere - who sold the island to the state. We need these kinds of relevant details because the article is so short. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ChrisGualtieri: I will be away from the Internet from Saturday to Sunday evening, so I will check back then or Monday. We're on the right track to getting this passed. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just make sure to remove from the lead what you removed from the body, so that it all matches up. And find out - if it says anywhere - who sold the island to the state. We need these kinds of relevant details because the article is so short. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- I wish, I cannot add fair use ones because it is a public area and anyone could grab a photo or two. I just have never been there to take a photo. Thanks for reviewing @Jsayre64: - any more fixes you want me to do? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion here, but what issues remain? Also, the "In 1662 sale of 150 square miles of land, including Haddam Island, was sold for 30 coats to a group of British Colonists looking to create another settlement." is actually an error in the text. Which is weird because the exception is "thirty mile Island and forty acres of Land at Pattaquonk". Perhaps a note to correct this error in the text, the source it links to is not an error nor is the other documents which detail this transaction and the history. The island was later sold, but I do not know when or when it was acquired by the state - another state park was acquired at about the same time, but I do not see that it was owned by the same trust. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's an unfortunate error, but we will get this done. Since that excerpt about the sale is from the old deed that you linked to further above, add that as a reference in the article and explain in the text what you are citing. Then, you should change the wording in the lead to agree with the body text about the "continued land sales" issue that you resolved in the body. After that, you're all set. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose it is not technically an error. The land was sold, but they reserved use of the land and it was recognized as belonging to the Wangunk tribe. Given the nature of the ownership concept, it is actually accurate in a weird way. I may be incorrect in the application of "sold" as a concept here and have let the two expert sources stand because the original deed uses words with different meanings and implications. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like we've found a solution, and I've made some additional improvements, so I am passing the article. Good work. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose it is not technically an error. The land was sold, but they reserved use of the land and it was recognized as belonging to the Wangunk tribe. Given the nature of the ownership concept, it is actually accurate in a weird way. I may be incorrect in the application of "sold" as a concept here and have let the two expert sources stand because the original deed uses words with different meanings and implications. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)