Talk:Robert Coles (settler)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Coles (settler)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 01:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:

I'll review it over the coming weekend. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• The two paragraphs of Arrival and settlements can probably be merged into one. A quick suggestion would be to start it like this: "Robert Coles arrived in New England in the summer of 1630 as a passenger in the Winthrop Fleet, and was among the first settles of the town of Roxbury. In October of that year he petitioned the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court in Boston to become a freeman and in 1631 he took the oath. He was a founding member of the First Church of Roxbury, which was a non-separating Congregationalist church established in 1631, and in 1632 he was one of two townsmen elected to represent Roxbury in the General Court."

✅ done

• "In October of that year he petitioned the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court in Boston to become a freeman and in 1631 he took the oath." I would clarify that the oath is for that of a freeman, as it is unclear initially; something simple as "in 1631 he took the freeman's oath" would suffice.

✅ done

• "In 1631, Robert Coles was fined five marks (about £3)..." You don't need his first name here (and in later occurrences, too). Also would be nice to have a modern conversion for the fine; whether that is a direct conversion to a specific amount, or a note of if it is a great number or small, something to give context is good though.

✅ done

@Kaiser matias: I plan to use this link for moden conversions: https://www.uwyo.edu/numimage/currency.htm

• "...Edward Gibbons and Mr. Shepheard aboard the Friendship and with Samuel Maverick at Winnissimet, now Chelsea." Are these individuals notable at all? Even if they were just local colonists it would be good to note that, as otherwise its just a list of names without context.

✅ done

• "In 1632, Coles was fined £1 for drunkenness at Charlestown. He was required to appear before the General Court and the Court of Assistants to publicly confess." This can be added to the preceding paragraph, as it deals with similar situations. I'd re-write it though: "In 1632 Coles was again fined for drunkenness, this time in Charlestown. He was fined £1 and was required to appear before the General Court and the Court of Assistants to publicly confess."

✅ done

• "In 1633, John Shatswell and Robert Coles were charged with drunkenness at Agawam." This is the third sentence in a row (plus one more after it) that starts with "In [year]." It's good to mix it up a bit, so perhaps something like: "Coles was charged a third time for drunkenness in 1633, along with John Shatswell (note: again it's good to specify who Shatswell is).

✅ done

• Add the "In 1634..." paragraph to the preceeding one, as it further shows sever disciplinary action against Coles for drunkenness.

✅ done

• It's mentioned that he was mentioned in later literature. This is something that looks like it could be expanded on: instead of saying "Some scholars argue..." give names and why they think that. If possible note the first scholar to make that connection and why they did (if that's possible). This seems like an important part of Coles' legacy, and should be expanded as much as possible, and definitely is something that should be included in the lead.

✅ done

• Pawtuxet sachem Socononoco: Is "sachem" supposed to be lowercase? I'm not familiar with the topic at all so want to make sure this is correct.

✅ Verified.

@Kaiser matias: Recent books seem to use lower case. See the following.

https://books.google.com/books?id=y2GGAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA181&dq=sachem+Socononoco&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiygaGLi9XhAhWorVQKHYzcAyUQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=sachem%20Socononoco&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=2MjxPJ9W4gwC&pg=PA88&dq=sachem+Socononoco&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiygaGLi9XhAhWorVQKHYzcAyUQ6AEIPDAD#v=onepage&q=sachem%20Socononoco&f=false

Thanks for the clarification.

• The Life and Family section is rather disjointed and goes between his family and his personal life; I'd suggest organising it so that all the family stuff is together and all the other stuff in one group. You could even combine the descendants section into a larger "Family" section, as it would be more condensed and organised.

✅ done

• There is a note about Coles' place of origin: "Claims about his place of origin and parentage remain unproven." Is there a discrepancy within the sources about this, or do they note that is uncertain? A citation to the claim of uncertainty is a good choice to include.

✅ done

• Citation 1 (Stewart 2015) links to an article that has a published date of 2005; which is correct?

✅ done - 2015

• Citation 62 and 72 are for "Stiles 1901" and "Stiles 1900", respectively; the bibliography only has a "Stiles 1900."

✅ done --Miller 1901 (stiles was series editor)

• Citation 21 is for "Salinger 2004", while the only Salinger in the bibliography is dated 1858.

✅ done 2004

• There are multiple duplicate links throughout, which should be avoided as much as possible.

✅ reduce duplicates

• As noted above, the lead can be expanded a bit more; include details about his legacy in literature, mention his family and his frequent moves (that seems unusual, especially for the era).

✅ done

There are some things that can be done to clean the article up; once these are addressed I'll take another look through. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: Thank you for the extensive comments. I will attempt to update the article by Sunday 4/21/2019. Diogenes99 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. I don't know much about this topic so was neat to read up on it. Just let me know when everything's ready, I'll take another look through. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: First pass complete. Diogenes99 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: Second pass complete. Ready for re-review. Diogenes99 (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll give it another look through and add any new thoughts. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Second comments

• "...in Massachusetts Bay Colony." Should there be a "the" before Massachusetts Bay Colony? I'm not sure of the style here.

I don't know. Contradictory recent examples. I'll go with "the" because there is a "the" before Providence Plantations in the same sentence.

https://books.google.com/books?id=IDVcBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA102&dq=%22in+massachusetts+bay+colony%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVyIPc4uHhAhVuU98KHWieD_UQ6AEIWzAJ#v=onepage&q=%22in%20massachusetts%20bay%20colony%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=E_Vc69tkLjEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22in+the+massachusetts+bay+colony%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuscCa4-HhAhWPMd8KHdhEB8AQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&q=%22in%20the%20massachusetts%20bay%20colony%22&f=false

✅ done

• "In 1631, Coles was fined five marks (about £3 then and US$750 today)..." Glad to see the conversion, but I'd be cautious of using "today." It's best to note the year of the conversion ("about £3 then and US$750 in 2019"). Same for the later mention of "fined £10 (about US$2500 today)."

✅ done

Other than those two brief things, it looks good. A much-improved article, and a really interesting topic. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: Thank you for all your detailed comments. The article is better now. I tend to be a researcher and not a writer, and your suggestions were helpful.

Looks good to me, so will pass it. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)