Talk:Joseph Jenckes Jr.

Reviewer Note

This appears to satisfy notability requirements, and will be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Diogenes99 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Jenckes Jr./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't leave this open indefinitely, and given the low activity of the nominator, am going to fail it. The article is close to meeting the criteria, but there are some critical verifiability/neutrality issues in a couple of places that are not trivial to fix. Once these have been addressed, anyone should feel free to renominate this, and if this happens in the next few months, please feel free to ping me for a quick review, and I will do my best to ensure this does not sit in the queue for a long time. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for your efforts on this. The request to lengthen the article was the key sticking point, and required checking out books and reading them in the library, so yes completion would have exceeded the time allowed. Diogenes99 (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Diogenes99: Quite understandable. Please don't be discouraged; I'll be happy to review this again once you've made the changes. Feel free to ping me when you have renominated it. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Spotchecks clear, Earwig's tool clear

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Checks out to the best of my abilities.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• You need a citation for note "a"
• Link/explain "cutler"
• " the widower Joseph Jenckes Sr." Somewhat redundant, surely; "Jenckes Sr." is enough; you've said that his wife died in the previous sentence.
• Link "New England", especially since it was a colony at the time
• The caption for the reconstruction is oddly phrased; If it is just a reconstruction, why not simply say "A reconstruction of the forge and mill at Saugus Iron Works"
• "after working with his father at the Saugus Iron Works" I'd add "for some years", for flow
• Link "iron smelting"
• Footnote b is confusingly placed; I would put it right after the first quote.
• Footnote c needs a citation
• "ruled in Jenckes's favor" this is again a little confusing. Was he convicted of treason, and was this a pardon? Or was he acquitted? If it's the former, then the conviction needs mention, and this needs rephrasing. If it's the latter, then why is the "change of heart" relevant at all?
• "1661 and 1669, Joseph Jenckes Jr." You've already referred to him as "Jenckes" above, making it clear that as far as this article is concerned, that's him. You don't need the full name again.
• "100 acres of the commons" we need a link and/or more explanation here for "the commons"
• Link/explain "incorporated"; link Rhode Island
• The difference between town representative and colonial representative isn't clear; can you add a little explanation?
• Is there a link for the revolt? Also, if there was a revolt against the governor, the monarch would be expected to take his side; what were the circumstances that allowed the town to nonchalantly tell the king they had arrested his representative?
• "Joseph was the governor" confusing tense, here and later. became would be more usual, here, and later in that sentence.
• You use very specific addresses in a couple of places in the article. These are unlikely to be of interest to anyone who isn't visiting or living in the town; I would leave them out.
• I would merge the "family" and "notable descendents" section; descendents are family, and there's a little redundancy between them at the moment.
• You've done a very creditable job given the time period this is from, but the article is rather short, for all that. Do any of the further reading entries have any detail to add?
• The body of the article doesn't make it clear why Jenckes is considered the "founder" of Pawtucket; indeed it doesn't say that he was at all. Whereas the lead says that he was the founder quite definitively.
• The third paragraph of the lead needs a couple more dates to anchor it, I think; at least one, in the first sentence.
• I am concerned about the reliability of a couple of sources; pawtucketpreservation.org, relativefinder.org, and famouskin.com. What makes these reliable?