1761 Milestone has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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: October 31, 2014. ( Reviewed version).

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

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Rhode Island Low‑importance 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Rhode Island (assessed as Low-importance).

This review is transcluded from Talk:1761 Milestone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mackensen ( talk · contribs) 15:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello ChrisGualtieri, thanks for your work on this article. I'll take this review on. Please excuse any missteps as this is my first crack at reviewing. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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.	This is mostly fine. The second paragraph in the History section is awkward. A few examples: "is described..." by whom? "unknown stonecutter, the inscription" this is a comma splice "inscription is likened to" again, by whom?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).	Please fix the link to The American Monthly Magazine to link directly to the relevant information I realize it's a nitpick, but nowhere is the NRHP addition cited inline
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article would benefit from a brief discussion of Colonial-era highways to help place the milestone in context. "Colonial" is not wiki-linked and may be unfamiliar to foreign readers. The "electrical line" in the article was described as an "electric road" in the source; that's probably an interurban. Is it possible to clarify? Benjamin Franklin may have had a connection to the milestone as postmaster general (which would fit with the discussion above). Is there a reliable source which makes the claim?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	The image is available under a free license, and is the only image which makes sense for the article.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Just a note: I'll be away for a week so I will not get to fixes if needed until that time. Thanks for starting the review. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I've noted some areas for improvement above but in general I think this article is in good shape. The article's a bit short but there's probably not much else to say on the subject. Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• • 1a fixed. Not sure how to link directly to that page in Google Books - how do I do that? The NRHP is cited inline... I added it to the missing quote though, if that's what you meant. As for the Franklin reference... I dunno, but I removed Waymarking as a ref. The position did not yet exist, but he was active, but I have no reliable source stating his personal involvement in the project. One site states: "Benjamin Franklin is generally credited with erecting milestones along the major post roads between Boston and Philadelphia in the 1760’s. However, according to Franklin scholars, this attribution is not true. There is no evidence he was ever involved in erecting any of many red sandstone milestones along the post roads in Massachusetts and Connecticut or any other place in the American colonies. Who erected these milestones is currently unknown. Careful examination of the stones indicates they were the work of different carvers and were probably erected in different years." [1] And this is clearly true according to other stones and their various styles, dates and carvings. Though this one is not of sandstone either. As for the electric road, I'll give a call and ask if anyone knows more, but this was a tough topic to get even cursory information on. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 09:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you. What I meant for the NRHP is the fact of the stone being added to the NRHP in 1982. That needs a citation. If Franklin's involvement is rumored enough having a source knocking it down might be worthwhile. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply
      • The "all data" database seems to be the best here. The current (and very large 7.5 mb excel spreadsheet) lists it here. I do not want to link directly in the article to that (as decided before) but I've linked it for you since it was not a direct part of the nomination form I linked within. I really dislike the MPS submissions which typically have precious little. In other news (related) I called the historical society for another property and they might have 1 image I do not have... nothing new on the milestone yet. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 01:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Thanks, that works for me. I think if we can place this article in a slightly broader context we're all set. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• I cannot find any other source about it. The problem is that this type of research is done in the reviewing process for NRHP listings. Many trivial things, like washing or repairs to NRHP properties are not listed and this stone is not going to have a "land deed" or other record next to it. I have no idea. The lead I have opens in 2 hours, but I'll check to see if they have anything more. I am not certain about the DAR chapter. Many times I wait weeks for responses from such places, but hopefully this is quicker. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • What I think this article needs is some discussion of Colonial-era highways and milestones, not this specific milestone. I did some brief Googling and there seem to be plenty of sources on the subject. There are also sources knocking down Franklin's involvement, which seems useful since it keeps coming up. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Query

Mackensen, ChrisGualtieri, it has been over a month since the last post here (I don't see any edits to address it), and longer than that since the article was edited. I think it's getting to be about time to conclude the review, if no further work is contemplated. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I think the article is fine as is... considering related milestones and their usage and whether or not legendary accounts of Benjamin Franklin are related to this one seems off... this milestone is not even listed in the book on postal milestones. It seems to be a standalone case that is not part of a larger system and not of complete understanding. It would be wrong to make assumptions and tie things together that are unsupported by the evidence and documentation just because others exist. It may be a milestone, but there is no details on any administrative or business aspect surrounding it. The name of the carver and erector are unknown - but are not covered in any other comprehensive listing of other milestones. There is just a bunch of unknowns about this marker - barring some new study, I don't think there is much more known on it. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I think I must concur; and I'm going to pass the article as is. I appreciate all your hard work and I apologize if I drew this process out unnecessarily. Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

My only criticism of this article is that it doesn't connect to the larger picture. It is apparently part of a greater system of milestones. Parenthetically, I would note that while the Postmaster General position had not come into being until 1775, his service as postmaster had gone on for decades before. 1761 Milestone by Franklin elsewhere 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply