Talk:Benning Wentworth/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 22:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll pick this one up in the next day or two. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- General:
- Which date format is being used here? His birth and death dates are in Day-Month-Year, but the Board of Trade ruling date is Month-Day-Year. Pick one.
- I was slightly unsure about the date matter. After pontificating (such a lovely word) on the matter for a while, I thought it would be best if the dates were changed to month-day-year, since Wentworth 'is' an American. What do you think?
- I think so too, just makes more sense. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I was slightly unsure about the date matter. After pontificating (such a lovely word) on the matter for a while, I thought it would be best if the dates were changed to month-day-year, since Wentworth 'is' an American. What do you think?
- Which date format is being used here? His birth and death dates are in Day-Month-Year, but the Board of Trade ruling date is Month-Day-Year. Pick one.
- Early life:
- Any siblings for him?
- Yes, ten, to be exact. I didn't think putting them into the article was really necessary as none of them have their own Wikipedia articles or were ever remotely as important as Benning was. Do you think they should be mentioned in the article?
- I would, since his family does have some bearing on his political career. Don't need to even mention all their names - just "# brothers and # sisters" would be fine. If most of them ended up working in the family business, that might be worthwhile too. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Added a section on his family members in the bottom-most section. Your opinion?
- I would, since his family does have some bearing on his political career. Don't need to even mention all their names - just "# brothers and # sisters" would be fine. If most of them ended up working in the family business, that might be worthwhile too. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, ten, to be exact. I didn't think putting them into the article was really necessary as none of them have their own Wikipedia articles or were ever remotely as important as Benning was. Do you think they should be mentioned in the article?
- Link "pounds"?
- Done
- Any siblings for him?
- Political career:
- "During this period, Belcher and Waldron" which period? I'd assume it was the period while Wentworth was in Boston but it's not clear.
- Correct- reworded. What do you think now?
- Works. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Correct- reworded. What do you think now?
- "thanks to being patronized by" most folks are going to be confused by this as "patronized" can mean (and usually does in these days) "be condescending". Suggest "thanks to his patron"
- Done
- "During this period, Belcher and Waldron" which period? I'd assume it was the period while Wentworth was in Boston but it's not clear.
- Governorship:
- "members converted to Anglicanism" converted from what?
- My sources don't say, but judging from their status as New Englanders in the 1740's, the usual suspect here is the English Dissenters. What do you think of me adding it in?
- Hm... I'd leave it alone then, since it'd have to be something like "Most colonists were dissenters, but we don't know what church the family had been members of prior to becoming Anglican" .. which is always a mess. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, that sounds like a good idea.
- Hm... I'd leave it alone then, since it'd have to be something like "Most colonists were dissenters, but we don't know what church the family had been members of prior to becoming Anglican" .. which is always a mess. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- My sources don't say, but judging from their status as New Englanders in the 1740's, the usual suspect here is the English Dissenters. What do you think of me adding it in?
- "From 1748 to 1752, Wentworth sparked a constitutional crisis when his political opponents gained a majority in the assembly by unilaterally extending representation to newly-established colonial settlements which he knew politically supported him; Wentworth also vetoed the assembly's decision to nominate Waldron as speaker of the house." That's ... quite the sentence to parse. Suggest "From 1748 to 1752, Wentworth sparked a constitutional crisis by unilaterally extending representation to newly-established colonial settlements which he knew politically supported him. Wentworth also vetoed the assembly's decision to nominate Waldron as speaker of the house. He took these steps because his political opponents had gained a majority in the assembly."
- Reworded; what do you think now?
- It's better, still convoluted, but understandable now. It wouldn't be considered "brilliant prose" for an FAC, but it'll work for GA status. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Higher praise than I ever got from any relevant father figures. I'll take it!
- It's better, still convoluted, but understandable now. It wouldn't be considered "brilliant prose" for an FAC, but it'll work for GA status. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reworded; what do you think now?
- "from being dismissed in disgrace due to his relationship with the Marquess of Rockingham" who had a relationship with the marquess and ... what exactly was the nature of the relationship - if it was a political alliance, suggest rephrasing to make it clear it wasn't a personal relationship ... as "relationship" will instantly suggest to readers that it was sexual.
- Haha, I didn't realise that! (Oops...) It 'was' a political relationship, which has now been made clear. Whaddya think?
- Works. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Haha, I didn't realise that! (Oops...) It 'was' a political relationship, which has now been made clear. Whaddya think?
- "members converted to Anglicanism" converted from what?
- I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
- Great to hear.
- I did some copyediting - please make sure I didn't mangle the meaning or distort things.
- No worries, I'm sure a Wikipedia veteran such as you is far more familiar with the MOS than I am.
- I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ealdgyth, thank you for reviewing this article. Luckily I've got quite a bit of free time right around now, so I'll just begin addressing the issues you have raised. Just to let you know, I will be active on this article for the next hour or so if you are too then we can wrap it up before long. Regards, Dabberoni15 (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The only thing outstanding is the siblings and church issues... once those are resolved, we'll be good to go. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think I've addressed those. Please get back to me whenever possible (circumstances permitting, obviously).Dabberoni15 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Those look good - passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think I've addressed those. Please get back to me whenever possible (circumstances permitting, obviously).Dabberoni15 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The only thing outstanding is the siblings and church issues... once those are resolved, we'll be good to go. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ealdgyth, thank you for reviewing this article. Luckily I've got quite a bit of free time right around now, so I'll just begin addressing the issues you have raised. Just to let you know, I will be active on this article for the next hour or so if you are too then we can wrap it up before long. Regards, Dabberoni15 (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)