Talk:Thomas Gage/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Historical Perspective (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be working on the GA review for this article. Historical Perspective (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Will soon be starting the review...the blank below template will be filled in as I progress...

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The second paragraph of “Rising colonial tension” is problematic. The first sentence is awkward and needs revision. The statement about buying off or threatening patriot leaders needs a citation and more specifics. Who did he attempt to buy off? Sam Adams was one, but this came later. The statement re: one of the regiments being hostile to Bostonians needs a citation or revision.

   Fischer (the cited source) is unfortunately being somewhat facile date-wise in discussing this. The person Gage bought off was Benjamin Church, but that probably didn't happen until Gage arrived in Boston -- Fischer doesn't say that. I'll have to consider how to rework this. As far as making threats, the very next sentence addresses this, but I'll be rewriting it anyway... Magic♪piano 03:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

   I've reworked this material. Magic♪piano 17:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

   Looks good.Historical Perspective (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   In section, “French and Indian War,” I suggest you provide a sentence or two explaining the purpose of Gen. Braddock’s expedition.

   Can you provide specific dates for his promotion to colonel and brigadier general?

   In “Pontiac’s Rebellion” section, I think perhaps a sentence or two establishing the context of command would be helpful, i.e. that Amherst was in command at the beginning of the rebellion (and generally making matters worse) and Gage responsible for correcting the course Amherst set. As it now reads it sounds a bit like Gage was in command during the entire rebellion.

   I think I've addressed these. If I get to a suitable library, I'll double check whether Alden gives more precise dates on his promotions -- other sources are vague (and at times inconsistently so) on the subject. Magic♪piano 16:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

   I think you're good here.Historical Perspective (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

   The source info for the image of Pontiac cites back to wikipedia...and something is wrong with the description. This image may be problematic.

   The image's page had been vandalized. There are also other versions of the image in commons that had an actual provenance, so I've cleaned the image page up some. Magic♪piano 02:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

   All set.Historical Perspective (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall: This article is very well written, comprehensive and well cited. Nice work. If you can clear up a few matters listed above, I'd be happy to give it a pass. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

Historical Perspective (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this. I think I've addressed your issues -- let me know if there's more to do (or if you'd like more precision on the issue of his promotions). Magic♪piano 17:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Nicely done. Good to have such a significant figure moving up in the world of Wikipedia. Historical Perspective (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)