Talk:Saybrook Colony

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saybrook Colony/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gazingo (talk · contribs) 02:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 22:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I will be starting this review shortly! IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See issues below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead needs to be improved. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I checked most of the sources and all info was verified. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	passed copyvio check. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until issues with criteria 1 are addressed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Although there are better sources available on the topic this article still meets the GAC. It is reasonably well written, complies with the MOS, has reliable sources, no plagiarism, is broad, not overly detailed, stable, and no issues with images. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• The lead here could be expanded and shouldn't need citations. I suggest reading Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section to help you create a better lead section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Dutch explorer Adrian Block was the first European to sail up the Connecticut River and thus the area that would become Saybrook. I'm a little unsure as to what you are trying to say here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• The group of investors, besides the eponymous Viscount Saye and Sele and Baron Brooke also included future Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, Robert Rich, 2nd Earl of Warwick, John Hampden, Sir Arthur Hesilrige, and John Pym. I feel like this could be reworded a bit. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  I believe I've fixed your issues with the prose, I'll fix the lead later as its obviously a bigger undertaking. Gazingo (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Just let me know when you've fixed the lead. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  The lead has largely been rewritten with its citations moved to other parts of the article, if its still not to your satisfaction please tell me what specifically you think should be in the lead. Gazingo (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  The lead looks much better now thank you. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Asking for a second opinion regarding the sourcing after a recent talk page discussion. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sourcing issues

Figured I should ping @Gazingo: and @IntentionallyDense: for this; large portions of the article is sourced to the Historical Marker Database, which is user-generated and thus inappropriate for use on the wiki. No harm on either the reviewer or writer here, but this article is just not sourced to a GA level. Many of the citations are confusing, such as a BBC page on Cromwell (instead of any of the books or biographies available on the topic) or John Winthrop's 1639 History of New England. I really do think this needs a large revision of sources towards more academic publications in order for these to be truly reliable sources for the topic at hand. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm not super familiar with non science sources so that is why I missed this. I will be more deligent in the future. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: @IntentionallyDense: I've fixed the issues with the sources, was unaware HMDB wasn't allowed as the markers themselves are usually put up by local historical societies. Gazingo (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for a second opinion here. hopefully someone will weigh in soon. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima Just wondering if you think the sourcing issues have been adeqautely addressed? IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement; one of the citations is misformatted (Journal articles hosted on JSTOR should use template:cite journal instead of cite website, and include volume and issue. There is still a lot of stuff I would be hesitant to use unless I had absolutely zero other options (local historical society pamphlets, modern press coverage, etc.) I'm also unsure why the two sources in further reading, which appear to be the highest quality available, are not used.

I'll ask a couple editors who I know have done articles on early American history before, Guerillero, Relativity and Dugan Murphy; hopefully this is not too much of a bother for them and they'll be able to give more specific insights! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

What insights do you seek? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy Any major sourcing issues here? From my very basic search there doesn’t appear to be many sources available on the topic but I’m not too comfortable with this area and wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing anything obvious here. Thanks! IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Going to ping @Gazingo in regards to why the further reading wasn't used. I fixed ref 7. Thank you for your valuable opinion. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about Connecticut and I've never heard of the Saybrook Colony before. A quick Google Books search brought up this book, this book, and this book. I don't see any of these in the current references list. I imagine there are many other scholarly works that treat Connecticut history more generally that include sections or mentions relevant to this topic. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The further reading section predates my edits and consist of a book concerning a period after Saybrook was absorbed and a book about the larger history of Connecticut which only briefly mentions Saybrook. I admit I should use the latter, or a more recent Connecticut History to verify some of the basic facts about the colony. Gazingo (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Saybrook Colony was sold to Connecticut for annual payment of 130 pounds of one-third wheat, one-third peas, and one-third rye or barley?

• Source: https://www.americanheritage.com/main-stream-new-england

• ALT1: ... that Oliver Cromwell attempted to emigrate to the Saybrook Colony, but was prevented from doing so? Source: Dean, John Ward (1866). The Story of the Embarkation of Cromwell and His Friends for New England.
• ALT2: ... that the Saybrook Colony was besieged for several months during the Pequot War? Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pequot-War
• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Gazingo (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Gazingo (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC).