# Talk:Aboriginal title statutes in the Thirteen Colonies

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aboriginal title statutes in the Thirteen Colonies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm reviewing this article.  Hope I can do the subject justice. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
This article, for the most part, is well-written.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I'm not a legal person, so I'm doing the best I can, focusing on its prose and other WP technical issues.  This article strikes me as more of a list, which may be appropriate for legal articles.  I'm not aware of another article about a similar topic (focusing on laws regarding Aboriginal title statutes in other countries); it would be helpful if the nominator of this article, User:Savidan, directs me towards them, if they exist.  I wonder, then, if this article can be restructured to be more pros-y.  It's my practice to make general comments first, and then move to more specific suggestions and feedback later in the review, so I'll explain what I mean below.  I'm assuming good faith here, since the nominator is an experienced editor who seems knowledgeable about WP editing, the law, and the topic, so I trust that this article follows legal MOS and is similar to legal articles like it in its structure.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Again, I'm assuming good faith, since I know very little about the topic.  I also trust that the references are accurate and formatted correctly. and that there is little OR here.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
This article seems very focused and seems to cover the important aspects of the laws in question.  See my concerns below.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
No opinions seem to be given here, very straightforward and clear.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No edit wars.  As a matter of fact, very little editing has even occurred other than copyediting, sometimes a year between edits.
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): 
This article currently has one image: the map of the 13 colonies in the lead.  I wonder, if it follows the practice of similar articles, if more images could be added, like maps of the individual colonies mentioned.  Not all of them, of course, but a few of the more important colonies or of those with the most discussion.  This is a suggestion; I'll bow to the knowledge of the nominator if this is untenable.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Nice job, I'll put the article on hold for a week to give time for my comments to be addressed.  See below for more.
Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

List-y nature of article: As I state above, this article feels more of a list to me.  I wonder if you could add more prose to make it more "prose-y".  Perhaps you could take the information in the lead and move it into a "Discussion" section, and then write a new/different lead.  I also wonder if you could structure your discussion, instead of by colony, by theme: the colonies that removed the Indians to reservations and how they did it, for example.  Perhaps you could structure the article by themes, if that's tenable in regards to this type of article.
British law: There is currently just one sentence in this section, with a link that isn't very helpful.  You mention two laws, but don't go into what the laws did and how they affected the residents of the colonies, both Indian and English.
Statutes by colony: This section is the most "list-y".  Would it be possible to, instead of listing each colony, of making them into prose?  I'm not really sure how, though, since the current format may be like other similar articles.  Again, take what I say with a grain of salt, especially if you're following established practice.
Massachusetts Bay: Who is Steven Winthrope?  A little biographical information, maybe?  Perhaps you could add it for all the people you mention.
North Carolina: You mention "the Meherrin Indians" and "Tuscarora lands".  Who are they, and what part of NC did they live?  I wonder if you could give a little background about them, again, if that's tenable.  I also wonder if you could do that with all the Indians mentioned.
That's all for now.  I realize that much of my feedback may be worthless.  If I can be assured that you've done what you can, I see no problems with passing it to GA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that I can do much to address these suggested improvements. Additional prose requires additional sources, and I don't have the ability to do a substantial amount of additional research on this topic now (nor do I know where I would start). I think structuring by theme instead of by colony would make it harder for the reader to understand the chronology of the issues within each colony, each of which had a separate legal system. There's more on the English law background in the article aboriginal title, but I view that as beyond the scope of this article.  Ditto for the biogrpahy of Winthrop and the history of all the Indian nations and tribes. This article's scope is much more focused. Savidan 06:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I wasn't sure how to respond, and I did let this fall through the cracks.  I understand what you're saying about changing the structure, so I'm ok with that.  Re: British law: Often, when I write a section of an article that is explained better in another article, I treat it as a "forked article", meaning that I summarize the forked article in the section.  Often, all that summary is the forked article's lead, with some edits to fit the first article.  For example, you could expand the "British law" section in this article by using the lead in Aboriginal title, with a few changes.  I can demonstrate what I mean if you like.  I suppose what I meant about adding "biographical information" isn't as detailed as you seem to think.  When you talk about Winthrop, for example, all I'm asking for is a short identification about who he is; i.e., "author Ernest Hemingway".  Re: the Indian nations: again, a short identifier, such as "the Meherrin Indians, who resided in rural northeastern North Carolina".  These, I think, would be simple additions.
These ideas are simply suggestions; after thinking about it, I think that this article, as it stands, is eligible to be a GA.  I suggest that you make these changes if you want to take the article any further, and that you bring it to WP:PR or WP:GOCE. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aboriginal title statutes in the Thirteen Colonies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706191329/http://www.ohlj.ca/archive/articles/33_4_walters.pdf to http://www.ohlj.ca/archive/articles/33_4_walters.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)