Talk:Massachusetts/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Buffaboy (talk · contribs) 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I have nothing going on the next couple of days and will be bored out of my mine. Since my GA reviews are concentrated on the U.S., I will review Massachusetts. Beware this may take a week or two, or longer depending on whether or not it's in good shape. Buffaboy ^talk 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this on! I've done my best to prep the article for GA status, but it is a huge article so there are likely many improvements to be made! Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and you can expect me to be helpful during the process! Buffaboy ^talk 01:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ran a checklinks of the references, and everything seems to be in order except for refs 275 (archive URL: [1]) and 277 (archive URL: [2].) I'm not checking for WP:RS right now, as I am about to start the read-thru, but that's the only issue I see ATM. I will comment along with changes as I go. Buffaboy ^talk 01:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the See also conforms with WP:MOS, but I like it a lot.
C WP:ALSO doesn't say whether including headers in the see also section is good or bad. So I'll leave it to your editorial judgement. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A couple references are in a journal format when a web format would suit them better, and some date formats are incorrect. I'm done for tonight, but sofar those are my observations. Buffaboy ^talk 02:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Massachusetts is the 6th smallest by land area, but the 14th most populous and the 3rd most densely populated of the 50 United States. I feel as though it should say "state" after smallest, but if you're okay with the wording then I am too.
Done Added. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEADCITE, it's not necessary to reference lead content of the content is in the article (I believe), but there aren't many refs so I'll leave that to you as well.
Done I've removed many of the citations in the lead, but have kept a few where I believe it may be difficult to find sources for the statements in the wikilinked articles. I can tone it down further if you think there are still too many. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm not responding as fast, but I've been working on a few things today. So far, everything looks good, and tomorrow (today) I'll go through extensively for a few hours, and I might be able to come back with a pass or fail. Buffaboy ^talk 04:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, there's no rush. Remember, there is no deadline. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. I actually just caught a cold so I'll put it on hold just for a couple of days. It'll give me time to read it in the meantime. Buffaboy ^talk 02:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winner 42: Do you want to keep the section headings under "History?" Buffaboy ^talk 04:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally yes, seems like a good way to organize a long history section and it fits nicely with most history sections of other political regions. I'm open to suggestions though.Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffaboy: While I did say there is no deadline, I was wondering if you intend to finish this review. It's fine if you would like to pass it on to someone else, I would just prefer that it doesn't stay in on hold limbo indefinitely. Thanks for your efforts so far. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winner 42: Thank you for your understanding. I have had to cut back on editing recently because of increased IRL commitments, and the size and scope of the article requires a fine toothed comb. I sincerely wish I could find the time to do a thorough review, but in order to be completely thorough it would take at least a month of constant source checking and potentially copy editing. I hope we get to review each other's GA nominations in the future, but for now, I don't have much time. In the meantime I will find someone with time who can help thoroughly review the article. Buffaboy ^talk 02:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]