Talk:Francis Nash/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one. Have made some initial comments, will review prose in the next few days.

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.	Several instances of "Nash" when a pronoun could be used instead. Be careful though when preceding sentences refer to Nash and other people, that the following sentence should make it clear (if appropriate) that Nash is the subject. "(in a portion that would later...) suggest replacing "portion" with "area" or "region" "In 1770, Nash married Sarah Moore...": This starts a really long sentence; suggest breaking it down. "A later trial found Nash...": suggest deleting "later", unless there was a previous trial, in which case that should be mentioned. Regulators is used in quotes at least once, which is inconsistent with other mentions. "in the colonial Assembly": should that be the North Carolina Assembly? "...among others who would soon become Patriot supporters...": doesn't flow well. Suggestion: ...many of whom would later become Patriot supporters... "...along with 69 other North Carolinians, who then...": should the who be a "which" as it was the body that selected the delegates? "Governor Martin attempted to call a session of the Colonial Assembly...": is that the same as the North Carolina Assembly? "Assembly was set to convene...": repeated use of convene, suggest using "meet". "A musket ball struck him in the head, causing him to be blind.": It is not clear if this is Nash or Witherspoon. If Nash, was it the musket ball that mortally wounded him or the cannonball? This sentence should be rephrased anyway. "He was [also?] blinded by a musket ball which struck him in the head." "personal physician, James Craik, but Craik could not...": rephrase: "...personal physician, James Craik, who could not..."
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	several duplicate links: Orange County, James Moore, Continental Congress, Alexander Martin at least one of the links to James Moore is a dab link Updated checklist, 1b issues fixed. Zawed (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	external ref links all good
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Images appear to have appropriate tags
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Other comments:

Not a requirement for GA but just a suggestion; the comment associated with note 10 may work better as a footnote.
No PD portraits that you could use to illustrate the article?

As noted above, comments on prose to follow. Zawed (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

Removed duplinks (except for dups in infoboxes and the lead)
Corrected James Moore dablink – rookie mistake!

I look forward to seeing your prose comments! Thank you so much for taking on this review! Cdtew (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added prose comments. Zawed (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed:: I have addressed all of your 1(a) concerns at this point (see [1]), with the following exception:

"'in the colonial Assembly': should that be the North Carolina Assembly?" -- in theory it could be called that, and has been called that before, but legally it was title the North Carolina General Assembly, which is confusing because North Carolina's current legislature is the North Carolina General Assembly. For formalities' sake, I've corrected the lead, but I generally prefer to use the informal "colonial Assembly" otherwise to distinguish.

Many thanks for your comments! Please let me know if you think there's any other way I can improve this article. Cdtew (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes and responses look good, updated checklist and passing as GA.