Talk:Isaac Davis (soldier)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –MuZemike 17:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose issue

~~Is it "Minute Man" or "The Minute Man". You mention both, but you should stick to one.~~
In the "Preparations for war" section, Most Minuteman companies were not equipped with bayonets. → When I read the previous sentence and then the one I just mentioned, it seems out of place. I think a little more context is needed to make that part of the paragraph flow a bit better.

Verifiability issues

"Legacy" section, that first sentence that follows Emerson's piece is going to need a reference. I am fine with the proceeding sentence, which is more quantitative than anything, but that one sentence where it's claimed that the "Minute Man" statue is iconic is significant enough of a claim in which I think it needs to be cited.
~~I see that you added an appropriate reference, but could you add an inline citation there so that readers know where you got it from? –MuZemike 15:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
Do you have a page number(s) for the Ryan and Bracken references?
~~I have added {{Failed verification}} tags where I could not verify the information against the references. Please go through and rectify those issues where they are tagged.~~
- To clarify, for the second tag (at the end of that first paragraph in the "Preparations for war" section), the only thing which I could not verify was the date of establishment of the Minutemen; the reference mentions nothing about 1774.

Coverage issue

You can probably add a little more in the "Early life and family" section; the Fletcher reference has a little bit more relevant information (e.g. birthdate) which you can add.

Conclusions

In progress – I still need to go through the sources in more detail and make sure the content in the article are in the citations given. Just a pointer for future articles: try and write longer, fuller paragraphs when you can, preferably somewhere between 4-9 sentences. That makes the prose look more professional and appealing to readers. Hopefully I'll finish with the GA review sometime later today. –MuZemike 17:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments. The statue is called "The Minute Man." Thanks for catching the inconsistency, I've fixed it. I re-wrote the sentences about bayonets and equipment and I hope it flows better now. I added a reference for the "iconic" statement. Let me know if you think there is anything else that needs fixing. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On hold – I've completed my GA review and have placed it on hold pending resolution of the issues I noted above. I have added a couple of verifiability issues and an additional recommendation to expand with the sources that you have, because I think you could expand just a little more. Also, I have struck those issues which were resolved. Apologies (now and in advance) for the hold-up on the review, as I am reviewing this while on my vacation. –MuZemike 15:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added the citation re: "iconic" here. I do not have page numbers for the Bracken or Ryan articles. The versions I am using are the electronic ones and therefore do not indicate page numbers of the original magazine/journal articles. I have added new citations where you placed the failed citation template...Galvin addresses these events and specifically notes the dates. Under early life, I added his birthdate and the birth year of his wife, but beyond that, I really could find any additional information. There's almost nothing recorded about his life prior to 1775. I hope this addresses the above. Historical Perspective (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed – Your explanations are perfectly reasonable; I didn't think of the electronic-only copies of the books, just make sure you have the correct OCLC/ISSN numbers there, so that they can be accessible. I also figured that only one or two more sentences at most could be added to the "birth" section, and IMO I'm not going to lose much sleep over it. Good work! –MuZemike 01:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added OCLC numbers for the online publications. Thanks very much for the review! Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]