Talk:William Beverley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rationalobserver (talk · contribs) 20:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The first paragraph is kinda listy and full of year ranges.
- I've reworded and bracketed the dates of service. Please let me know if this remedies your concern. -- Caponer (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is now much improved. Nice work! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rationalobserver! I truly appreciate your guidance, and feel that your suggestions have really improved the overall flow of the article. I cannot thank you enough for your patience and suggestions. -- Caponer (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

Beverley's father wrote History of the Present State of Virginia in 1705

This is a bit confusing, as you've mentioned so many Beverley's in this paragraph that it's not clear to whom you are referring, particularly because the last one mentioned before this example was Robert Beverley, Jr. Consider using a few given names in this section for clarity.

I've added given names where appropriate. Thank you for the suggestion, and please let me know if this paragraph requires further modification. -- Caponer (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Beverley's father Robert Beverley, Jr. wrote History of the Present State of Virginia in 1705, this is still a bit rough, since you are still using his father's full name when he was so recently introduced as such. I think you can replace "William Beverley's father Robert Beverley, Jr." with "Robert", as limited use of first names is sometimes better than repeating this stuff. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, so I've just used Robert in this instance. Very good idea! -- Caponer (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political career

Beverley served as the Clerk of Court for Essex County from 1716 until 1745.[2][3][7][8]

Per Wikipedia:Citation overkill, there is no need to include four different citations for this basic fact, and in fact it can contribute to clutter.

As with the lead, this section is too list-like, and it lacks transitional sentences to tie the information together.
- I have removed internal citations from the article so that no more than three inline citations appear in a sentence. Let me know if this is still considered overkill, and I can continue removing superfluous inline citations. Also, I've tried to improve the flow of the narrative in this section. Please let me know if I've been successful in this. Thank you for these wonderful suggestions! -- Caponer (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that one cite would do, but I don't think this is a sticking point for GAN. This section flows better now, but it's still a bit listy.Rationalobserver (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree on both counts. I still like to keep multiple internal citations so that the readers can see the content is substantiated by several sources, but I do concur that that fewer inline citations are more aesthetically pleasing. If it's alright with you, I'd like to keep at least three and will make that my ceiling. As for the listy-ness, I will also continue to tweak it to see if I can smooth out the rough edges some more. -- Caponer (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural pursuits and landholdings

following the death of his father, Robert Beverley, Jr., in 1722

It's odd to mention his father again by full name.

I've removed his father's name. -- Caponer (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main source of Beverley's income was accrued through his vast landholdings

This is a matter of syntax; i.e., this currently reads like: "the main source of his income was accrued", when I think you mean to say "he accrued income", not "he accrued a source of income".

Thank you for the catch. This has been corrected per your suggestion. -- Caponer (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the income Beverley received from 119 tenant farmers ... was far more lucrative

Can this be expanded a bit to explain why this was more lucrative?

The sources state that Beverley made the majority of his revenue from the fees from his tenants, and while the sources don't state why, I would assume that it's because he owned so much land, and the tenants were bringing in a lot of income from their crops, etc. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for how best to deal with this in the prose, as it's not specifically sourced. -- Caponer (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following his marriage to Elizabeth Bland around 1725

Is the exact date unknown?

The references state that it was around 1725, so I left the caveat attached to the date. Let me know if this will work. -- Caponer (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley established his residence at an estate known as Blandfield should be combined with Beverley named the estate after the family of his wife

I've combined the two sentences. Let me know if this fix works. -- Caponer (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley named the estate after the family of his wife.[3][12][15][16]

Again, there is no need or advantage to including four cites for this statement.

Done! I've limited it to three. -- Caponer (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are an awful lot of uses of Beverley when pronouns would do the job; e.g., According to Beverley's 1756 will, Beverley possessed landholdings in Essex

I've removed the troublesome Beverley in question--it flows much better now! -- Caponer (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is also much improved, with a stronger narrative and less repetition of "Beverley", but I still see a few good spots to swap the proper name for a pronoun. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words Rationalobserver. It's improved due to your sound advice, and for that I'm very appreciative. I removed a few more Beverley's, too. -- Caponer (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage and family

Beverley married around 1725 to Elizabeth Bland (born May 26, 1706)

Again, is the date unknown? Also, the syntax suggests he married "around 1725", when I mean to say he married Bland around that year.

I've corrected the syntax per your suggestion. As stated above, the sources state that the marriage occurred around 1725, so I've left the caveat to be true to the references. -- Caponer (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley and his wife Elizabeth

There is no need to mention he by name her, as she's just been introduced.

Done! -- Caponer (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section also lacks flow, and reads as a rather jarring list of trivial facts about who his kids married. Try to transition the prose with an overarching narrative in mind.

Please see my revised section to see if this flows better. -- Caponer (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better; nice work! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you! It's all due to your guidance and your suggestions. -- Caponer (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Later life and death

This also reads as a rather disconnected collection of facts about how his will was dispersed, but there is no explanation of Beverley's cause of death.

I've reworked this section somewhat, so please re-review. Also, there are no sources that explain Beverley's cause of death, or else it would be listed in the prose, along with a category for the type of death below. -- Caponer (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work; this reads much better now. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good--thank you! -- Caponer (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

There are currently no images in the article, and while I don't see any of Beverly, commons has several of Blandenfield. I think it would be nice to add at least one, preferably to Agricultural pursuits and landholdings, as this is the largest section, and it's also relevant to his estate.

I had originally omitted an image of the current Blandfield mansion on account of it being built by his son Robert. To remedy this, I expounded about the construction of the current mansion under the Later life and death section to provide context for inclusion of the image, then folded some content into the image caption. Let me know if this works. -- Caponer (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and refs

Your refs look quite tidy and very organized. One thing I noticed was that this ref: Waddell 1901, pp. 278-279, has the full page range after the endash. It's certainly not a sticking point, but I think these should typically be rendered as 278–79, but it's really your choice.

Thanks for the catch! It's been modified to 278–79. -- Caponer (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Since there is apparently no content at commons for Beverly, I would drop this or swap it with a link to the content on Blandenfield.

It's been removed. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info box

Are you certain that all the information contained in the infobox is clearly stated in the body of the article? For example, I don't see where the article identifies his religion as Anglican.

I've found a source about two connections with Anglicanism. The second is tenuous but I include it nonetheless. It's difficult to find an exact source stating more information about his connections with the Anglican Church. Let me know if these work. If not, we can strike his Anglican connection all together. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I will readily admit that this is my first GA review, so if you think I am wrong I encourage you to seek another opinion, but as of now I am heavily leaning towards failing the GAN, primarily for the fact that the article lacks an overarching narrative and is instead a loosely organized collection of factoids that do not really tell the reader anything about the person that was William Beverley. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost Rationalobserver, I appreciate your thorough review of this article, and I thank you for taking the time to undertake such a feat. As a Good Article author and reviewer myself, I know the amount of work that goes into each role. I especially appreciate you taking the time to review this article, as you are also a fellow participant in this year's Wikipedia:WikiCup. I've made the corrections that you've suggested above, and would like to work with you to remedy the article so that it meets Good Article status. However, I must write the content that my references provide, and work within that framework. Please review my edits, and let me know how best to proceed from here. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to be part of the process, but I hope the fact that we are both Wikicup contestants doesn't make my taking it a conflict of interest (I hadn't noticed when I started the review). You've improved the narrative significantly; nice work! It's much more fluid and less listy now, but a little more polishing might be in order. I made a couple of minor edits to this effect, but the article could use just a bit more polishing. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalobserver, I'm truly honored to have had you review this article. As I stated above, I appreciate your suggestions and feel they really improved the article's flow. I found your review to be completely impartial and objective, and was just glad to have the support of a talented WikiCup contestant! I have a habit of being listy, so I'm always happy to limit that where possible. Your edits look wonderful. I'll continue to polish and will report back here for your final review. Thank you again! -- Caponer (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalobserver, I've done some more smoothing. Please take a look and let me know if there are any overly-listy patches left to tend to. Your edits were superb! -- Caponer (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

1a and b

The article is well-written and prose is clear and concise. The spelling and grammar are correct; and it respects copyright laws and complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2a, b and c

The refs are listed in an accepted format, the in-line cites are to reliable sources, and the article contains no WP:OR.

3a and b

The coverage is broad, though a little patchy, and the article is focused and not overly detailed.

4 and 5

The article is neutral and stable.

6a and b

While there is only one image in the article, I believe the author will/would any that become available.

Make certain that you don't need a citation in the caption for File:Blandfield, U.S. Route 17 & State Route 624, Caret vicinity (Essex County, Virginia).jpg, as it appears to contain novel information that might not be cited in the article body.

Rationalobserver, thank you tremendously for your re-review and kind words. FYSA, the caption is cited in the final paragraph. -- Caponer (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]