Talk:Wessagusset Colony
 | Wessagusset 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 3, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Wessagusset Colony was the site of Miles Standish's real-life attack against Native Americans as depicted in Longfellow's poem The Courtship of Miles Standish? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Image copyright problem with File:WEYMOUTH.JPG
edit
The image File:WEYMOUTH.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Mismanaged
editMoving from my talk page, paraphrased conversation with editor: In terms of word 'mismanaged' in the intro, I am not sure the the source referenced backs that up. It seems clear that they never really had much food to begin with, then they tried to steal food? Perhaps more appropriate is the inability to secure a self-sufficient food source? I am not sure that they can mismanage something that they don't have? -- Lucas20 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Other reference errors
editLooking at citation six, specifically the sentence "Weston was associated with the Plymouth Council for New England which, fifteen years prior, had funded the short-lived Popham Colony in modern Maine." This is either an uncited sentence or miscited.
Also, not sure why the notes do not follow sequential order in the article. -- Lucas20 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- The notes appear sequential to me. Also, you don't need to cite *every* sentence (WP:CITE: "When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged") and while I think I was more careful citing everything that I did, it was from an abundance of caution rather than a requirement.
- All that said, I have some new books arriving which will allow me to shift some of the citations off of the source which you questioned earlier. (The Dempsey book.) The downside for you is that you won't have convenient Google docs links to verify my citations. JRP (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- You don't need to be when you write a sentence that should be cited and then another and only have one footnote then it is assumed both of the previous sentences belong to the one reference. As for the expanded bibliography this is something I've been imploring you for - kudos on expanding past Google books. -- Lucas20 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'll look at reformatting that one. FYI, I have posted a note on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard about the Jack Dempsey book. I'd like to get an outside opinion on the book. (The guy has a doctorate in early American studies and the book is pretty much "local history", I find it hard to fault him for being unable to find a mainstream publisher. Unfortunately, his published email address isn't working.) The first of my additional sources has arrived though and I'll start looking through that to switch up citations, but I want to make sure I'm doing it carefully. JRP (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- You don't need to be when you write a sentence that should be cited and then another and only have one footnote then it is assumed both of the previous sentences belong to the one reference. As for the expanded bibliography this is something I've been imploring you for - kudos on expanding past Google books. -- Lucas20 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)