Talk:Thomas Bryan Martin/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by West Virginian in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 13:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll review this over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Coemgenus, thank you for selecting this article for review. I look forward to working with you throughout this process. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Checklist edit
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments edit
- Images
- All look to be in order.
- Lede
I'd link "Anglican" and "peer"."He later represented Hampshire County in the House of Burgesses from 1768 to 1758..." The years seem to be off here."...to use his considerable resources to act in response to Native American attacks." I think you could cut "to act" without changing the meaning.
- Early life
"Martin's mother Frances was the daughter..." The word "Frances" should be set off with commas or, my preference, left out.Is there any detail you could add to "humble surroundings"?
- Coemgenus, thank you for these suggested edits thus far. I've incorporated all of the above with exception to the last and will continue to check back to incorporate your further suggestions. As for humble surroundings, the Brown source used similar wording but did not elaborate on what specifically made his origins so humble. I wonder if this information was gleaned from an offhanded comment in a letter. I'll dig around and see if I can add any additional information to support this description, but as of yet, that is the only information I have regarding the quality of life during his childhood. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK. If that's all the sources provide, that's all we can say.
- Coemgenus, thank you for these suggested edits thus far. I've incorporated all of the above with exception to the last and will continue to check back to incorporate your further suggestions. As for humble surroundings, the Brown source used similar wording but did not elaborate on what specifically made his origins so humble. I wonder if this information was gleaned from an offhanded comment in a letter. I'll dig around and see if I can add any additional information to support this description, but as of yet, that is the only information I have regarding the quality of life during his childhood. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Northern Neck
*"The proprietary constituted up to 5,000,000 acres..." "up to" is confusing here. Did the property change over time, or were estimates uncertain, or something?
- "Up to" was the wording in the Munske source, but I wouldn't be opposed to using wording such as "approximately" since 5,000,000 is an estimate for the Proprietary's lands. The terms of the Proprietary's extent are subjective which would allow for a multitude of acreage totals.
- Again, by were limited the sources we have, I suppose.
- "Up to" was the wording in the Munske source, but I wouldn't be opposed to using wording such as "approximately" since 5,000,000 is an estimate for the Proprietary's lands. The terms of the Proprietary's extent are subjective which would allow for a multitude of acreage totals.
*"Lord Fairfax sent for Martin, whom arrived..." I think this should be "who"
- This has been fixed, per GAR.
*"In desiring a larger role..." Could probably lose the first word.
- This has been fixed, per GAR.
"...which were evidenced by his letters authored during this period." might be tightened up. Perhaps "...as evidenced by his letters during this period."
- This has been reworded, per GAR.
"While residing at his uncle's Greenway Court,..." I thought Fairfax had deeded the property to Martin by this time.
- This has been modified, per GAR.
- Political and civic affairs
Might be good to link "vestryman" and "Mason" (maybe spell out "Freemason", too, to avoid confusion).
- Thanks for the catches, these have been modified as such per GAR.
"As a result of the election, Washington received..." You don't really need the first six words.
- "As a result of the election," has been removed, per GAR.
"...especially in response to attacks by Native Americans." Were there actually any Indian attacks during this time? If so, it might be interesting to add some details of Martin's role in defending against them.
- The sources didn't specify particular Native American attacks where Martin was particularly resourceful, so I wouldn't be opposed to striking this mention from the sentence if it's problematic.
- I think it's fine to leave it in.
- The sources didn't specify particular Native American attacks where Martin was particularly resourceful, so I wouldn't be opposed to striking this mention from the sentence if it's problematic.
- American Revolution
*"As a British subject..." This confused me. Did he somehow refuse American citizenship? My impression was that all Virginians were British subjects, until they weren't. Maybe "As a Loyalist..."?
- Changed to Loyalist and wiki-linked Loyalist, per GAR.
- Later life
- Is it worth mentioning Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee and Martin v. Hunter's Lessee? Or too tangential? Your call.
- References
- The Maxwell & Swisher source isn't used in the article.
That's all I have. Very nice article, I enjoyed reading it. Look forward to promoting after these minor points are resolved. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Coemgenus, thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive review. I've been a huge fan of your contributions to Wikipedia, and I am honored to have you review one of my articles. I have responded to your suggestions, and have incorporated many of them. Please take a look at my responses and let me know if these are deal breakers. I will address the incorporation of Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee and Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and the Maxwell & Swisher comments tomorrow. Thanks again for your comments and suggestions! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Glad I could help. Once you deal with the source issue, I'm ready to promote, whether you choose to include the court cases or not. I'll leave it to your discretion as to whether it would add to the article or just be unnecessary trivia. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Coemgenus, I have removed the Maxwell and Swisher reference from the bibliography as there was only a tangential reference to Martin in the book. I've also added a paragraph incorporating Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee and Martin v. Hunter's Lessee. Please let me know if this works, and feel free to copyedit as necessary. If you feel it comes off as unnecessary trivia, I wouldn't be opposed to striking it either. I leave the final decision to you. Thank you again as it has been a pleasure working with you throughout this review process. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- That all looks fine. I'm happy to promote. Nice working with you. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Coemgenus, thanks for the review! I look forward to working with you again soon! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- That all looks fine. I'm happy to promote. Nice working with you. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Coemgenus, I have removed the Maxwell and Swisher reference from the bibliography as there was only a tangential reference to Martin in the book. I've also added a paragraph incorporating Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee and Martin v. Hunter's Lessee. Please let me know if this works, and feel free to copyedit as necessary. If you feel it comes off as unnecessary trivia, I wouldn't be opposed to striking it either. I leave the final decision to you. Thank you again as it has been a pleasure working with you throughout this review process. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Glad I could help. Once you deal with the source issue, I'm ready to promote, whether you choose to include the court cases or not. I'll leave it to your discretion as to whether it would add to the article or just be unnecessary trivia. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Coemgenus, thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive review. I've been a huge fan of your contributions to Wikipedia, and I am honored to have you review one of my articles. I have responded to your suggestions, and have incorporated many of them. Please take a look at my responses and let me know if these are deal breakers. I will address the incorporation of Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee and Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and the Maxwell & Swisher comments tomorrow. Thanks again for your comments and suggestions! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)