Talk:William Stoughton (judge)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarnold17 (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! This may take me a few days, but I'll get started with the review today with some minor items.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Comments

Another well-written, informative, and intersting article. I only have the following four comments:

In the lead, the beginning of the second paragraph should tell when he left for England (1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, or early 1750s) to balance the statement that he returned in 1762. It could read, "A graduate of Harvard College, he went to England for religious studies in [or about ____], where he..."

In the section "Politics and land development" in line 3 it says he was on the governor's council from 1671 to 1686, but in the last sentence it says he refused to serve in 1684. This contradiction needs resolution.

Section entitled "New England True Interest." The title of this section makes no sense to the casual reader, and probably does not need to be a section title. I recommend eliminating this section by putting the material as paragraph #2 under "Family and legacy," thus turning two very short sections into a single longer section.

- I've taken care of the above three things. Magic♪piano 15:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Stoughton's seal mentions Bridget Bishop, but she is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I don't know if this is OK or not. However, since there is not supposed to be any un-echoed material in the lead of an article, I would suppose that new material should also not be presented in the caption of an image. I don't personally have any heartburn with the way it is now, but I just have a feeling that there may be some policy out there somewhere that says new material should not be added in the caption of an image.

Well, the relevant guideline is WP:CAPTION, although you can also search WP:CITE for guidance. Technically, material that is in the caption that does not appear in the article body ought to be separately cited. (See William Tailer for an interesting example of this.) However, my personal opinion is this: if the caption content is not controversial, it's not a big deal. Magic♪piano 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/comments that have nothing or little to do with the GA review

This is a good chance for me to get some questions answered and make some general comments of interest.

How does one make the monetary pound symbol on a standard U.S. keyboard?

On Windows (a platform I don't use much anymore) you have to set up a US-International keyboard configuration. From there, you can specify a key (like "AltGr" or "Alt") that acts as a key for composing symbols not on the keyboard. Then you hit AltGr, then L, then - (for example) to get a pound symbol.

What is a copy-edit? I've heard the expression a lot, and notice you used it in the edit comments when you were readying the article for GA review.

Copyediting is work to improve the prose of an article without materially affecting its content. In theory, you don't need any detailed subject knowledge to do it. Magic♪piano 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suppose that the building in the image of Stoughton is Stoughton Hall at Harvard? Reminds me of the image of Rhode Island's Stephen Hopkins, that has Brown University in the background.

I believe it is (I think I've seen some author mention it.) Magic♪piano 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just recently been studying the French Hugenots of Frenchtown (in East Greenwich), Rhode Island, most of whom went to Massachusetts and New York in the early 1690s, following clashes with the English settlers. I wonder if the ones who went to Mass. went to Oxford.

When did this "Kingdom of England" business come into vogue??? What's wrong with just plain old "England?"

In this case, it's a contrast to fully identifying the Massachusetts Bay Colony (which is needed, since "Massachusetts" is potentially ambiguous in context).

I've checked the images, but still need to check all the links and finish with the references. It may be a couple days before I can get to this.Sarnold17 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review! I'll get to changes in due course. Magic♪piano 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Very well written throughout; minor issues have been resolved
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): thoroughly documented with a wide range of sources, and inline citations throughout
It is broad in its coverage.
a Covers the subject thoroughly
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
No problems here
It is stable.
No issues with this, either
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
well illustrated with appropriate and properly licensed images
Overall:
Pass

Final comments

Another well done article! Thanks for the helpful info as well; I've learned a lot from you.Sarnold17 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]