Talk:Samuel Shute/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 00:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review for GA status, and should have my initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Early life, first paragraph. Perhaps move the link for Dissenter from the description of the brother to where in first appears, in the description of the grandfather? Also, in the description of the grandfather, the term is lower-case, while the two other times it appears in this section, it is upper-case.
   • Early life, " They also informed Shute of the political situation in the province after he won the appointment." This sentence confuses me. What is it supposed to mean? They misled him before he won the appointment?
   • Disputes with Massachusetts assembly, "(The salary issue was a regular source of disagreement between the provincial assembly and the governor until the Belcher administration of the 1730s.)" Possibly take this sentence out of parentheses and reframe it as "The salary issue would continue to be a regular source..."?
   • Indian policy, "(which the British claimed also encompassed all of present-day New Brunswick)" Huh? I don't understand what this is trying to say.
   • Indian policy, "had not signed any treaties at all." Redundant. The last two words can be removed.
   • Indian policy, "The Kennebec sachem" Link or explain sachem.
   • Indian policy, link to Kennebec tribe should be moved to first occurrence of tribe name.
   • Do we know what happened in the last 13 years of his life? Even a general outline?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • In references, but not notes: Dictionary of National Biography (first reference)
   • In notes, but not references: Malone

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall very nice. A few confusing spots and linking issues in the prose that need to be ironed out, and a couple of minor reference issues, but mainly small things. Once these are taken care of, the article should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made changes to address the above issues. Shute is not (to my knowledge, despite seeking) covered in anything other than fairly brief biographical sketches -- if a multi-page memorial of his life existed (something I've not found), it might say what if anything happened after 1728. Consequently most of what we know of him is from materials related to his Massachusetts service. (If you think this 13-year gap is bad, the last 30 years of William Dummer's life appear to be completely undocumented.) Magic♪piano 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good with your changes, so I'm promoting the article to GA. Thanks for the quick reply! Dana boomer (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)