Talk:Saybrook Colony

Saybrook Colony has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 3, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Connecticut Mid‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States History Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Saybrook Colony appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 December 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Saybrook Colony was sold to Connecticut for an annual payment of 180 pounds of equal quantities of wheat, peas, and either rye or barley?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Saybrook Colony.

Wikipedia

GA Review

Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saybrook Colony/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gazingo (talk · contribs) 02:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 22:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be starting this review shortly! IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See issues below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead needs to be improved. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I checked most of the sources and all info was verified. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	passed copyvio check. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until issues with criteria 1 are addressed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Although there are better sources available on the topic this article still meets the GAC. It is reasonably well written, complies with the MOS, has reliable sources, no plagiarism, is broad, not overly detailed, stable, and no issues with images. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead here could be expanded and shouldn't need citations. I suggest reading Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section to help you create a better lead section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dutch explorer Adrian Block was the first European to sail up the Connecticut River and thus the area that would become Saybrook. I'm a little unsure as to what you are trying to say here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The group of investors, besides the eponymous Viscount Saye and Sele and Baron Brooke also included future Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, Robert Rich, 2nd Earl of Warwick, John Hampden, Sir Arthur Hesilrige, and John Pym. I feel like this could be reworded a bit. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've fixed your issues with the prose, I'll fix the lead later as its obviously a bigger undertaking. Gazingo (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Just let me know when you've fixed the lead. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has largely been rewritten with its citations moved to other parts of the article, if its still not to your satisfaction please tell me what specifically you think should be in the lead. Gazingo (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead looks much better now thank you. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for a second opinion regarding the sourcing after a recent talk page discussion. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sourcing issues

Figured I should ping @Gazingo: and @IntentionallyDense: for this; large portions of the article is sourced to the Historical Marker Database, which is user-generated and thus inappropriate for use on the wiki. No harm on either the reviewer or writer here, but this article is just not sourced to a GA level. Many of the citations are confusing, such as a BBC page on Cromwell (instead of any of the books or biographies available on the topic) or John Winthrop's 1639 History of New England. I really do think this needs a large revision of sources towards more academic publications in order for these to be truly reliable sources for the topic at hand. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm not super familiar with non science sources so that is why I missed this. I will be more deligent in the future. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: @IntentionallyDense: I've fixed the issues with the sources, was unaware HMDB wasn't allowed as the markers themselves are usually put up by local historical societies. Gazingo (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask for a second opinion here. hopefully someone will weigh in soon. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima Just wondering if you think the sourcing issues have been adeqautely addressed? IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an improvement; one of the citations is misformatted (Journal articles hosted on JSTOR should use template:cite journal instead of cite website, and include volume and issue. There is still a lot of stuff I would be hesitant to use unless I had absolutely zero other options (local historical society pamphlets, modern press coverage, etc.) I'm also unsure why the two sources in further reading, which appear to be the highest quality available, are not used.

I'll ask a couple editors who I know have done articles on early American history before, Guerillero, Relativity and Dugan Murphy; hopefully this is not too much of a bother for them and they'll be able to give more specific insights! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What insights do you seek? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy Any major sourcing issues here? From my very basic search there doesn’t appear to be many sources available on the topic but I’m not too comfortable with this area and wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing anything obvious here. Thanks! IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to ping @Gazingo in regards to why the further reading wasn't used. I fixed ref 7. Thank you for your valuable opinion. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Connecticut and I've never heard of the Saybrook Colony before. A quick Google Books search brought up this book, this book, and this book. I don't see any of these in the current references list. I imagine there are many other scholarly works that treat Connecticut history more generally that include sections or mentions relevant to this topic. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The further reading section predates my edits and consist of a book concerning a period after Saybrook was absorbed and a book about the larger history of Connecticut which only briefly mentions Saybrook. I admit I should use the latter, or a more recent Connecticut History to verify some of the basic facts about the colony. Gazingo (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Saybrook Colony was sold to Connecticut for annual payment of 180 pounds of one-third wheat, one-third peas, and one-third rye or barley?

Source: https://www.americanheritage.com/main-stream-new-england

ALT1: ... that Oliver Cromwell attempted to emigrate to the Saybrook Colony, but was prevented from doing so? Source: Dean, John Ward (1866). The Story of the Embarkation of Cromwell and His Friends for New England.
ALT2: ... that the Saybrook Colony was besieged for several months during the Pequot War? Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pequot-War
Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Gazingo (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Gazingo (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall:

~~Hook and article should be updated to include the correct statistic.~~ Looks good to go. Thanks for doing the correction so quickly. Great work on this! PersusjCP (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]