Talk:Jonathan Belcher

Jonathan Belcher 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 20, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Massachusetts / New Hampshire Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance).
	New Hampshire portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as Mid-importance).

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

African diaspora

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 00:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reviewing this article, and add that I am very familiar with the subject from my professional research. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope I've done a decent job of covering this fellow; I found him to be somewhat complicated to write about. Magic♪piano 04:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not getting a chance to begin my review here (despite reading the article twice and taking notes for it). So far, I like what I see and my comments will likely be minor and easily addressed. For the past several days, I've had a rather contentious review with my nomination at Talk:Thomas Traherne/GA1 (frustrated by a very intransigent reviewer who seems not to have read the article and doesn't know how enough about policies/guidelines). I will complete my first review/comments for the article later tonight (before 1:00 a.m. EDT, 15 March 2013). Once again, I apologize for the inconvenience.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the inconvenience too. Michael! (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm in no hurry. :) Magic♪piano 12:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First review[edit]

I customarily do a copy edit because I don't like wasting a nominator's time with minor issues I can easily fix myself. So in the next hour or two, I intend to perform that copy edit, paragraph by paragraph.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1 concerns[edit]

This is a very well-written article and my only emendations were minor copyediting, organizational issues, a few clarifications within the lede, and repositioning images to avoid awkward breaks between paragraphs and sections, and revising image captions to comport with expectations of WP:CAPTION. Per criterion 1a, I assert the prose is clear and concise, there are no obvious copyright violations. Will do a closer look for spelling and grammar, but nothing sticks out after a first pass. Per criterion 1b, I do not see any issues and this article complies with the five MOS sections required by the criterion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2 concerns[edit]

2a – list of references compliant with layout style guideline

Some of the sources listed in the list of references are not quoted for the footnotes. Per WP:FNNR, these should be split into separate lists of (1) works cited in the article and (2) further reading (those relevant sources not cited in the article) I would recommend a format of:

References

Notes
Sources / Works Cited
Further reading

- You'll have to be specific: I don't see which ones aren't being used. Magic♪piano 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the single cites for Stark and Fenety, withdrawn.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several citations are not consistent…if you’re going to use short citations (which I tend to avoid) for the article, the citation format ought to be consistent. There are several that are longer formats, most using the citeweb template, that ought to be addressed (fn. 25, 48, 103, 113, 114, 115)
- Done. Magic♪piano 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2b – inline citations and WP:RS

I do not see any obvious issues with criterion 2b.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2c – contains WP:NOR

I do not see any obvious issues with criterion 2c.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 3 concerns[edit]

3a – addresses main aspects of topic.

I assert this article adequately covers the main aspects of the topic and applaud the nominator and his fellow editors for the comprehensive nature of the article.

I would suggest as the article moves forward that a little more information regarding:

Belcher's conduct of the French and Indian War--i.e. bounties on Indians, the indian raids on the frontier (the Hunt-Swartout Raid on militia leaders, other attacks on settlers, the resulting reaction), the arming of the colony's Frontier Guard and the cordon of forts along the Upper Delaware), how Reading and Belcher concluded the hostilities after his sudden death (i.e. lead up to the Easton treaty).
Belcher's influence in the founding and support of Princeton University/The College of New Jersey--influenced heavily by his affections for the Great Awakening and New Light Presbyterianism, that he gave his library to the university, etc. While there is a brief overview, I think a little more precision and content can be drawn from the sources.
Perhaps a little more on his legacy beyond a few homes on the national register.

I don't intend to hold up the GA on them because it does very adequately summarize the war and his relationship with Princeton, but this is just a suggestion moving forward on something that might be added/developed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree that material on his Indian policy while in NJ is lacking; I'll have to find suitable sources for that, since it's not something the more political histories cover well. As far as the legacy is concerned, other aspects of it are covered elsewhere (e.g. Nassau Hall and his library); is there something specific you think could be elaborated on? Magic♪piano 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These suggestions don't weigh on my GA decision, as far as WP:WIAGA is concerned, it's sufficient. My suggestions are just ideas for going forward...i.e. FAC. As for the Princeton stuff, I just think a little more contextual detail would make that paragraph zing, I'd have to think about sources and the exact "how" of that suggestion, and my comments (Princeton means a lot to me) are based off of first impressions when reading that passage. As for the war history...it is a lament a lot of historians have mentioned that NJ's role in the greater F&I war is quite neglected. I'd refer you to the many-volumed NJ Archives set (newspaper archives, etc.), Volume 20 or 21 I think, and to Larrabee, Edward C. McM. "New Jersey and the Fortified Frontier System of the 1750's." Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1970, which discusses the politics/war strategy at length.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding his legacy...what happened as the mess was resolved after he left Mass/NH? after his death in NJ how his policies impacted the handling of the war, some of the negotiations started in 1756/1757 led to the Treaty of Easton the year after his death and to the Brotherton Reservation (one of the first Indian reservations, 1758-1802), and later to the migrations to Ohio, Wisconsin and Ontario of the Munsee/Lenape. Just things to consider for future development.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are good suggestions. I recall a bit about the F&I war stuff from having worked on Sir Francis Bernard, 1st Baronet (another MA/NJ gov), which could probably also use a bit more detail in that area (not to mention the political situation Bernard inherited). Magic♪piano 18:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3b – stays focused without unnecessary detail / WP:SUMMARY I do not see any problems regarding criterion 3b and point out the editors have done a wonderful job in balancing requirements of the summary style with the comprehensiveness of information provided.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 4 concerns[edit]

I do not see any obvious biases or POV issues and believe this article is both neutral and comprehensive in how it treats the sides of issues regarding this subject.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 5 concerns[edit]

Regarding stability, I generally check the last 6 months of revision history to see if there are any major edit wars, content disputes, or vandalism issues. However, I notice for the last two years, the nominator (User:Magicpiano) has been the lead contributor with most of the edits and content additions, and I do not see any stability issues. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 6 concerns[edit]

6a – appropriately tagged, free content, no copyvio/fair use issues

It appears that all the images are free content (most public domain) and none post any copyright or fair use problems.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6b – images relevant and well-captioned.

Excellent selection of images (I added one of the Belcher-Ogden House), and revised the captions in accordance with the expectations of WP:CAPTION.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous comments[edit]

(Suggestion/doesn't hold up any GA promotion) I hope you don't mind my boldness in moving the two sentence paragraph about his first marriage and three kids into the Personal section because it did not seem to fit in among the business section. I would suggest adding another sentence reiterating his second marriage to the widow Teale into that section...did she have children by her previous marriage? I'm certain Belcher didn't have any children with her. I know that the mention of her above in the NJ Governor section is key because she was quite the helpmeet/amanuensis and helped him steer the ship of state during his final illness But a brief reiteration to that effect would complete it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of moving the bit on the first marriage earlier, because not having it early complicates explaining his second marriage. I also noted his lack of offspring with Louise and the marriage between his son and her daughter. Magic♪piano 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do the review! I think I've addressed your issues... Magic♪piano 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted to GA[edit]

Congratulations, I have promoted this article to Good Article status, and categorized it under the Historical figures: politicians in the History/World History section. To User:Magicpiano and other contributors to the article before, thank you for your work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Freemason Born in America[edit]

Jonathan Belcher was the first Freemason born in North America. He was made a Mason in Europe in 1704, and upon his return to Boston in 1705, he was the Senior Freemason of North America.

Moly 20:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/first.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moly (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]