# Talk:Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement

This review is transcluded from Talk:Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I will review this shortly.  MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I have made the following edits to this article.[1] Any objections?  MathewTownsend (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Otherwise, the article is concise but accurate and clear. I have evaluated the article. I have AGF the citations. Very interesting article, covering a subject I knew little about. Thank you.   MathewTownsend (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Just two things. First, there should be an n-dash between the dates (you were right that a m-dash was wrong). Second, as to Tureen, I replaced your parenthetical with a more specific one. Savidan 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Reply
A few more nitpicks: (R-CT), (D-CT), (R-ME) - should these be spelled out for the non American?
non-Indian gambling - should this be "non-Native American" gambling?
MathewTownsend (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
Clear because it's concise for such a complex topic
B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
I added slightly to the lede
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources: 
AGF off line sources
B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 

B. Remains focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I made a few more edits which you are free to change.[2]
I am passing the article with confidence that you will address the above small nitpicks appropriately, as they are not enough to hold up the article. I have noted them on your talk page.
Congratulations,  MathewTownsend (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I prefer not to spell out states/party affiliations. The text of the article makes clear we are talking about Congresspeople. I think non-US readers will have to follow the link if they want a lesson on US politics. As for Indian vs. Native American, both are acceptable and I use them interchangeably. Savidan 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)