Talk:Connecticut Colony/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Gazingo (talk · contribs) 13:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 03:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Image review

File:Pequot-war-underhill.jpg: the source at Commons is a dead link; US PD tag is needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The map is from John Underhill's "Newes from America" https://cthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Underhill-News-From-America.pdf Gazingo (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Could you list all sources cited in section "Sources"?
Why do you think Calder (1930), DeForest (1851), Atwater (1902), Gates (1935), Palfrey (1858), Jones (1904), Atwater (1881), Carpenter (1854), Stiles (1859), Walker (1891), Winthorp (1908) are still to be regarded as reliable sources? Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These books were all present in the library most accessible to me, and I desired to use the maximum amount of sources. The bulk of the article is cited to the more recent books on the topic. Winthrop (1908) is a primary source that was first published in 1908 and is only used as a citation for Winthrop's own words. Gazingo (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources are still often cited by historians? Can we say they are neutral? Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazingo: when do you think you can address the above issues? Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After waiting more than a week, I have no other choice than fail the article. I think the article needs more modern sources. Borsoka (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me where one of the sources is inaccurate due to the advancement of modern scholarship and I will happily update it. @Borsoka Gazingo (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My problem has been that I do not know whether those sources are neutral and still regularly cited by modern historians. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]