# Talk:Thomas Hines

If I can ever find a copy of my Master's thesis, I can really fill in the Hines information.--Bedford 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Hines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi!  I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.  Done
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
There's really not supposed to be new information in the lead section; instead, it's supposed to be a summary of the entire article.
In the Early life section you say "this began the struggles of the Masonic University that continued until its closure two decades later."  Is the relevant?  If so, could you expand upon this to make it clearly exactly what you mean?  What were the struggles about? Losing faculty? Affiliations with Civil War volunteers?  What?
In the 1863 section "(Despite being Morgan's second-in-command, Colonel Duke was usually not told of all the espionage Hines was carrying out, causing some to believe that Hines and Duke did not like each other, which was not the case.)" probably does not need to be in parentheses.
In the 1863 section you say "It was Hines' reports that encouraged Morgan to be rough with anyone posing as a Confederate sympathizer in Indiana."  Could you expand on this?  What was in Hines' reports that caused Morgan to suspect Confederate sympathizers were actually spies?
In the "Escape" section you say "As Hines and the six others that would accompany Hines and John Hunt Morgan, a thin crust was left to hide the tunneling from the prison officials."  It may just be me, but this doesn't make sense.
In the Post-war section you say "twelve buckshot".  Should this be twelve-gauge buckshot?
It is factually accurate and verifiable. Done
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
All book sources should have publishers.
Book titles shouldn't be bolded.
That is actually a chapter heading, as the chapters were written by different people.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 20:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Web refs should have access dates.
One was actually a link to a pic I uploaded onto Wikipedia.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I actually just meant the second one.  My apologies, I should have been more specific.
References are needed:
The last two sentences of the first paragraph of the Early war experiences section.
The second and third paragraphs of the Northwest Conspiracy section.
The second and fourth paragraphs of the Post-war section.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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): 
OK, I know this is picky, but on the map graphic you can see the text of the page behind the map.  Is there any way to correct this?  It's not a huge deal, but it would be nice...
Not any time soon.  I'd either have to go 100 miles, or wait two-three weeks getting the book back.  (I lost my copy of my thesis, which the map came from, so I had to take pictures of every page to get a copy of it, as I couldn't take it from the library).  By the time I go for FA for this article, it will be corrected.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Sigh...I suppose... *grin*  OK, no big deal.
Is there a reason that it's important that the picture in the Northwest Conspiracy section was taken for his wife?  Could you say "A picture of Thomas Hines, taken while he was in Canada" or something approximate to this?
I thought it showed his personal side, but feel free to delete if you feel it's unencyclopedic.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I reworded slightly; feel free to change it back if you don't like it.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Overall a good article, although not quite yet a Good Article.  I am putting the article on hold in order to allow you time to address the concerns above. If you have any questions, you can ask them here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I am passing the article.  Thanks for the quick response, and great work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)