Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia/Peer review/Stephen Trigg
Failed GA, would like to see what it needs to get to GA :-) plange 00:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll review it carefully once I return (I.E. top of my plate). Mean while, the Big A beckons! ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 12:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Review
Overall, I believe Trigg to be a great article, hampered by a number of small things, versus in any one massive flaw. Stylistically, the writing can be improved on. At the moment, its not bad, but it can be made better. There are some awkward sentences, such as: "The creation of Botetourt only served the needs of the growing population for several more years when in 1772, the county was split." This could be better phrased as,"Due to the needs of a growing population, the southern half of Botetourt county was seperated in 1772 and named Fincastle County."
- Family section: This section can probably be condensed into two paragraphs. As most of Trigg's children do not appear to be notable, I would simply remove them and reference Mary Trigg alone (notable for her son). Otherwise, the list seems to disrupt the flow of the article so early on.
- Virginia Pioneer: I would move the last paragraph into the next section on Kentucky. At the present, its the first reference to Kentucky, and seems out of place. A minor qualm, Trigg's timeline with Lord Dunmore's War seems to contradict with his activities in the Revolutionary period.
- Early Kentucky Pioneer: The quote by Howard seems disjointed from the section. Either it needs to be better introduced or simply removed from the section (tho' it is a nice quote).
- Revolutionary War period: I think this section can be broken up into subsections, such as Revolutionary Legislator and Revolutionary Soldier and Death, etc. It will reduce the "wall of text" effect and make for easier reading.
Overall, I'll have to agree with an earlier assessment. While Justice of the Peace is self explanatory, I believe the role of the Committee on Safety needs to be defined. Too many lists of titles can simply overwhelm the reader and lead to their disinterest. I think this article can easily be Good Article quality, it just needs the tweaks and touch ups necessary to do so.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Er, by the way, does reviewing the article remove for me the possibility of helping to edit?~ (The Rebel At) ~ 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! And you can help edit, definitely, if you want! I would welcome any help. I had tried to explain the Committee of Safety better based on that reviewer's comments, but I guess I haven't done enough... I might take out the Lord Dunmore's reference as I can't locate records for that yet (though I haven't made a concerted effort)... Will be back later today to work on this....
- Meh. I must have missed the explanatory sentence about the Committee of Safety. Disregard that part of the assessment. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 02:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)