Talk:Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the following edits to this article.[1] Any objections? MathewTownsend (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, the article is concise but accurate and clear. I have evaluated the article. I have AGF the citations. Very interesting article, covering a subject I knew little about. Thank you. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just two things. First, there should be an n-dash between the dates (you were right that a m-dash was wrong). Second, as to Tureen, I replaced your parenthetical with a more specific one. Savidan 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

A few more nitpicks: (R-CT), (D-CT), (R-ME) - should these be spelled out for the non American?

non-Indian gambling - should this be "non-Native American" gambling?

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
Clear because it's concise for such a complex topic

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I added slightly to the lede
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources:
AGF off line sources

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed:

B. Remains focused:
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I made a few more edits which you are free to change.[2]
I am passing the article with confidence that you will address the above small nitpicks appropriately, as they are not enough to hold up the article. I have noted them on your talk page.
Congratulations, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I prefer not to spell out states/party affiliations. The text of the article makes clear we are talking about Congresspeople. I think non-US readers will have to follow the link if they want a lesson on US politics. As for Indian vs. Native American, both are acceptable and I use them interchangeably. Savidan 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]