Talk:Great Dismal Swamp maroons/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 19:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Sorry, Matthew, got caught in an edit conflict so I'm adding my review here. If you want to give a second opinion I'll wait for it before I close this up, though.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
"There was some maroonage in all the Southern states" -> I assume "maroonage" is the escaping of slaves? Perhaps clarify that a little, as "There was some desertion of slaves, or maroonage..."
--Fixed with rephrase to more closely reflect nuance -- Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Sayers, it is possible that the acidity of the swamp disintegrated the bones." -> Perhaps "any bones" or "the bones which may have been left behind". Just "the bones" reads as though it refers back to bones previously mentioned.
--Fixed with soft rephrase to avoid redundant info that which describes Sayers in a later section, see comment to other suggestion below -- Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The difficult conditions also made the swamp an ideal hiding place — not just for escaped slaves but also for free blacks" - An em-dash with spaces either side is to be avoided; either remove the spaces (thus "place—not") or use a spaced en-dash instead (such as "place – not").
--dash avoided --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Great Dismal Swamp Landscape Study began in 2002 and was led by Dan Sayers, a historical archaeologist at American University's Department of Anthropology." -> Sayers is mentioned earlier on, in passing, and introduced here in full. Perhaps added "Dan Sayers, a historical archaeologist at American University's Department of Anthropology" to the first mention, and replaced it with "archaeologist Dan Sayers" at this instance.
-- Not a big deal, but I think it works better the other way around, as this section focuses on the research effort, hence is the best place for the full vitae, so to speak. JMO, though, I tweaked it back, but not a big deal either way other than the history section not really benefitting from more tangential material. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Sourcing looks good to me. The source for ref 1 is a multi-page PDF, which usually would require page numbers, but it's very short and I'm not convinced they're necessary in this case. If you want to make the change you can but I'd not think it's needed.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Overall grand, but that "literary references" heading is a little small. Maybe a very brief summary of both the works mentioned would be useful, just a short sentence for each.
More on the poem added, and a ref with the complete text, also a bit on one painting and the artist. The book is covered by the linked article. If wanted, more could be added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Grand, no issues here.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No problems with this.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are fine, both are free and used well.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not a lot needs seeing to, so I'm going to stick this on hold so it can be fixed. Pretty interesting article. GRAPPLE X 19:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes look good. Going to pass this one now. Well done! GRAPPLE X 21:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! And yes, thank you, Grapple! Montanabw^(talk) 15:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already gone through the article, checked the references etc. so I know the article is a pass overall. I won't bother adding my review. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]