Jump to content

Talk:Sam Houston and Native American relations/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 04:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) at 22:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh, If you can give me a day or so, I would be happy to go through some of your comments from the Talk:Sam Houston and slavery/GA1 like: commas, duplicate links, reference date format, ensure that there is a short description, add alt text to images, capitalization, etc.—and modify this article accordingly before your review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, ping me/leave a message on my talk page whenever we are ready. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kavyansh.Singh, I finished some editing and clean-up of the article. I hope that it makes it much easier to review. It was good to come back fresh, because the article really needed some copy editing. No hurry.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): }
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments

[edit]

General

[edit]
I did use that review for all the edits that I made... as mentioned above. Is there something in particular that you think I missed?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you did a fine job! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The script says: "No duplicated links were detected". Thats great!
Yay!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed

[edit]
  • We start the article directly from "Samuel Houston first lived among the Cherokee as a teenager.". An introductory sentence would better serve that purpose. Also, specify in which year did he left his house.
I took a stab here. What do you think? If it is faster-easier to make copy edits directly, I am cool with that... or leave comments here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is better! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a U.S. congressman from Tennessee, — remove 'U.S.'
I was trying to distinguish US congressman from state congressman. Is there a better way to do that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think if someone is a "congressman from Tennessee", he definitely is in the U.S. Congress. If he is a state representative, that would be congressman in Tennessee. But this is something which may confuse few readers. I'll leave it upto you. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I like the "from" and "in" distinction - makes sense to me - plus the first instance with United States. I also changed one instance of "United States government" to "federal government" here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and lived, talked, and dressed like other members of the tribe — is there a better way of saying so?
How is this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Houston asserting the right of Native Americans to own land. — should be 'asserted'
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a United States senator — can remove 'United States'
 Done - good point, it's in the section heading.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1,280-acre — suggesting to use {{convert}} for km^2
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 5-paragraphed lead is pretty long.
I trimmed 400 bytes from the lede here and made it 3 vs. 5 paragraphs. How is that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the current lead section looks fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ten miles, 619-acre — suggesting to use {{convert}}
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Haley, — We have not yet been introduced to this distinguished gentleman.
He is the author that is cited for that content. Is that a problem? If so, we have a couple of changes to the Sam Houston and slavery article. I hope that doesn't come off snarky, just wondering if you had not noticed that he was the cited author. A solution, though, if you want to be clearer is to say something like: "According to biographer James L. Haley,"... What do you think?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no issue in citing his opinion, the reader just needs to be informed who he is and why his opinion matters. I see that James L. Haley is an author specialized in Texas history. Maybe just mentioning and linking his full name would be sufficient. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done changed it to "According to Texas historian James L. Haley,"–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (southwest) — fine without parenthesis as well
 Done I tend to put content in parenthesis if it 1) did not come from the source and 2) is very easily discerned.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Jolly (various instances) — Remove the first name
 Done –CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the largest...finest homes in the South." — add {{nbsp}} before the ellipsis, and a space after it.
 Done –CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These experiences helped shape his character and gave him skills that aided him while serving in the military and as a leader — we'll need attribution as to who believes this.
Added the authors full name, but happy to adjust depending upon your response to the "According to Haley" bullet above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my reponse above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Jackson (various instances) — remove the first name
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • unbecoming of an officer in the United States Army. — I'd remove 'United States'
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a U.S. congressman — same as above
 Done - agreed, not needed for the 2nd+ instances
  • Captain John Rogers — Captain should be piped out of the link
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They aimed to live like successful white people. — according to whom?
 Done, again - used full name will modify to include author, biographer, etc. if you think that is helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is helpful. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • how the United States government operated — remove US
There is nothing so far in this section to identify that he was working with the federal vs. state government. Do you think it will be clear that national / United States government is what is being referred to?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, better keep it as it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • likely because of his drinking and volatile behavior. — can remove this. It is just a speculation.
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • neither of whom had issue — ?
 Done. Changed "issue" to "children".–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "might indeed look to this, as a land of happiness and contentment. But until suitable Agents are sent to them, then can only regard this as the land of promises; where fraud will supplant faith, and injustice triumph over humanity". — we'll need a citation immediately after this quote.
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the United States government was — remove US
 Done Good point, order from the president over a national issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • December 2, 1832 — comma after 1932
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention that Houston became the president of the Republic of Texas.
 Done here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many tribes thus came to respect him as their friend.[83][84][85][86][87] — Citation overkill
 Done Yep. I broke out two sources from the five, with their own sentences, leaving 3 sources as a group here. How is that for you?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forbes and Cameron — comma after 'Forbes'
Better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (That this included Buffalo Hump, after the events at the Council House, showed the faith the Comanche had in Houston.) — better as a end footnote?
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In February 1846, the Texas legislature elected Houston as one two inaugural U.S. senators from the state. — apparently, it appears as if a word is missing here.
 Done - fixed to "one of two"–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is it. An article in much, much better condition! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • File:Sam Houston, the Cherokee citizen.jpg — If the author is Unknown, how can we say that "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer"?
Where to you think this needs to be mentioned? I think I misunderstood what you wanted done on the Sam Houston and slavery article - and you fixed it, but I didn't catch what you did.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood and struck out my first take on this. The work is from 1830, which is 191 years ago. If the artist was 20 years old when the work was made, he or she was born about 1810, which was 211 years ago. 70 years from 2021 is 1951, if 20 at the time the work was made, they would have to lived 141 years for there to be an issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that is practically impossible. Fine with it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggesting to scale up few maps to improve their readability. Use the |upright= parameter
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • If possible, can we replace these two sources by more reliable ones?
  • How about substituting this one Wright, Muriel H. (Muriel Hazel); Shirk, George H.; Franks, Kenny Arthur (1976). "Mark of Heritage". The Gateway to Oklahoma History. Retrieved 4 January 2022.

That is it. Putting on hold. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh - Above, I've suggested a substitute for the hmdb source. But I'm puzzled why you don't consider the other one reliable. It's the Briscoe Center at the University of Texas at Austin. They literally are the archives for the actual documents. — Maile (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with substituting replacement for the first one. As for the second one, no issues, I am all-in-all fine with that one also. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then I'll just let CaroleHenson have a look and make a substitute of that one, if she agrees that's what she wants. — Maile (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, for the source Maile66. I updated the source in two places. Do you know if it covers the content for the two places it's used? If you are not sure, that's ok. I can look at it tomorrow.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that looks like a really good source for the content, with Kreneck. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another thorough review, Kavyansh.Singh. I really appreciate it.

I tackled what I was clear about, but there are some items above where I have questions for you. Nothing is major for me, I just thought it would be helpful to get your input and/or direction.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above. Thanks for you work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kavyansh.Singh, I finished making edits based upon your reply.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gave the article another read, and it is looking good. Passing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much again, Kavyansh.Singh!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pleasure reading and learning about Sam Houston! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sam_Houston_and_Native_American_relations/GA1&oldid=1064128922"