Talk:Edmund Andros/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, and I apologize for taking a few days to get back to you on this. It looks like some good work has been done on the article since the end of the last review. My new review should be up in full shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Previous issues

There are still a few issues from the previous GA review that have not been addressed, so I'm listing them here for ease of reference (all conversations prior to February 7, 2012 copied from Talk:Edmund Andros/GA1):


 * King Phillip's War, "Andros annoyed Massachusetts fishermen by restricting their use of the duke's land for drying fish." First, this is a big jump from the previous few sentences, where you are talking about the Indians and building forts. Second, did this have any bearing on him as governor? Every governor annoys some group of people with just about every decision s/he makes...
 * Perhaps this is better deleted.  DCI  talk
 * Is it important to his term as governor? What weight do sources give to this incident? Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's my rationale for including it: by the time Andros became governor of the Dominion of New England, he had already acquired a negative reputation in Massachusetts and Connecticut. This sort of thing is one example; the disagreement over how to handle King Philip's War was another.  Magic ♪piano 03:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, that makes sense. Are there any sources that actually offer that sort of analysis? In other words, are there any sources that spell out that incidents such as this gave him a bad reputation which didn't help during his time as governor of the Dominion? If so, it would make it more clear to really spell it out, rather than just leaving it up to the reader to infer from the multiple examples scattered through the text. Dana boomer (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Uncertain. Lustig (who has written on New York colonial history in addition to biographing Andros) may make this assessment, but her works on the subject are not particularly convenient for me to access.  Historians who cover that period of American colonial history might also do so.  Magic ♪piano 22:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been absolutely unable to find a source that makes the direct connotation, or even a good analysis of the instances. I will keep trying, but I'm not sure that this is the most pressing issue with the article.   dci  &#124;  TALK   23:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Well, I'll leave this open for now...if you can find something then add it in; if not, no biggie. Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Southern border disputes, "Andros offered them protection from their English enemies". Wasn't Andros English? So how come he wasn't the enemy?
 * Does the new wording seem any better?  DCI  talk
 * I'm still confused as to why they had enemies among the English if they had (apparently, from the rest of the section) been fairly friendly with the various governors... Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There was significant inter-colonial rivalry going on at the time. The colonies were vying with each other for (1) land and (2) control (or claims of control) over native populations.  Andros was rare among colonial administrators in actually treating the natives with some respect, something that annoyed expansionist settlers.  Magic ♪piano 03:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes things way more clear. Do we have any sources that explain this? Dana boomer (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This material (which is somewhat messy to explain because of the number of actors and issues involved) should be covered by any good colonial history that covers Maryland/Pennsylvania/New Jersey relations in this time. I'm not sure how explicitly Andros' distinctiveness in managing colonial-Indian relations would be addressed outside works on either Andros or those relations (e.g. books about the Convenant Chain).  Magic ♪piano 22:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussed by Lustig, added. Should be fixed.   dci  &#124;  TALK   00:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Control of the Jerseys, what are "commissions under his authority."?


 * Control of the Jerseys - there is a hidden comment in this section that says "TODO other domestic politics". I would be interested to know what information was/is going to be put here.
 * I am not the main contributor to this article, and have no idea why that tag is present. The current information seems adequate; I don't feel that this is the most important chapter of Andros' life.   DCI  talk
 * The TODO represents a placeholder I placed for adding detail on New York colonial politics. Events that led Dutch patroons and/or English interests to work against him, for example.  Magic ♪piano 22:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MP, do you feel that this is something that needs to be in the article for it to be considered "broad", or is it more of a "comprehensive" thing? Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It probably ought to have a sentence or two.  Magic ♪piano 03:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Recall - This section is very abrupt, and the next section begins with him being appointed governor of another area. What happened in his interview with the duke? What did he do in the five years between ending his term as governor of New York and picking up as governor of New England? If he was in England this whole time, did his wife stay in New York the whole time?
 * I'm not sure there's much information we can throw in here. I can't find anything more about the wife in the Brodhead book.  I don't think the author found it a very important event, but it is fairly confusing.   dci  &#124;  TALK   19:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if the information on his wife isn't out there, then I guess there's nothing to add. Do we have anything on what he did during these five years?


 * Dominion of New England, "The Lords of Trade had insisted that he govern without an assembly, something he expressed concern over while his commission was being drafted." More on this subject would be interesting. Who were the Lords of Trade? Why did they want him to govern without an assembly? Why did he want to govern with an assembly?
 * The Lords of Trade were the precursor to the Board of Trade. They were a special committee of the Privy Council that helped to administer the colonies by managing and promoting the "plantations" in America.   DCI  talk
 * OK, I see you've linked them earlier. However, that still doesn't answer the rest of my questions about governing with/without an assembly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See the bottom of the new review.  dci  &#124;  TALK   23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does the new wording clarify anything? This seems to be one of our major sourcing issues, but I'll see what I can do.   dci  &#124;  TALK   19:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The new wording does help. It would still be interesting to see more on this topic (why he wanted an assembly, why some historians say it would have been inefficient), but in my opinion this doesn't fall within the "broadness" criteria required for GA, so I'll consider this finished. Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Land title reform, what are "writs of intrusion"?
 * When a tenant-for-life died and the property reverted to its prior owner, an intruder or unauthorized presence on the land could find this writ used against them.  dci  &#124;  TALK   23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An expansion within the text on this subject would be useful, since this is not a common term. A link would also be helpful, if we have an article on this subject. Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely provide the link. Would you like me to add a footnote on the subject?  This might be less distracting, and efficient for the casual reader.  If not, I'll find a way to incorporate the definition.   dci  &#124;  TALK   19:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed.  dci  &#124;  TALK   21:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the solution of the information in a footnote. Dana boomer (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Indian diplomacy, "shipping the captives to Boston." Why did they ship them to Boston? What did they think Boston was going to do with them?
 * I see that you have added "potentially for incarceration." to this sentence, but it still doesn't really answer my question. Why would English settlers have shipped captives from Maine to Boston? If they wanted to put them in jail, couldn't they have done it a bit closer to home? What was the reason for taking them captive in the first place? Obviously it wasn't a very good reason, or Andros wouldn't have "castigated the Mainers for this unwarranted act", but there had to have been some sort of thought process behind shipping them down the seaboard. Dana boomer (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems they were rather piqued and decided to send them down as a means of voicing their grievances against the Indians. They may also have expected them to receive punishment here.  I'll find a better source and reword, if you'd like.   dci  &#124;  TALK   23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rewording would be good. Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed.  dci  &#124;  TALK   19:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much like the new paragraph. It makes it much easier to understand the situation, including how and why it developed. Dana boomer (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A couple of areas that need references:
 * First paragraph of Southern border disputes
 * Last paragraph of Revenue laws


 * I've tried to add some sourceable information.  dci  &#124;  TALK   18:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Image licensing is good, but the images are clumped together at the bottom of the article, leading to a large wall of text at the top of the article and minor sandwiching at the bottom. Could they be spread out more?
 * I'm not sure there's anything I can do about the images. The content they depict is all located in that section of the article.   DCI  talk 01:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then are there any images that we can put in the top part of the article? It's really wall-of-texty right now, with nothing to break up the visual.
 * Indeed. Here are a few suggestions: images of Elizabeth of Bohemia, Metacom, George Carteret, James Blair. Images related to King Philip's War.  Images exist (I don't know if they're on Wikipedia or Commons) depicting the famous Connecticut "Charter Oak" incident.  The Nicholson image can be moved to the Virginia section.  Magic ♪piano 03:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed.  dci  &#124;  TALK   23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * New issues
 * Where is ref #51 supposed to be? It's currently screwing up the Dominion of New England section header.
 * In the Dominion of New England section, a new sentence ("In a brief work, Sir Edmund Andros, historian Henry Ferguson attested to the fact that certain legislation in the dominion could have proved to be wasteful.") has been added, and I'm not sure I understand the purpose or the meaning of this sentence. First, it needs a reference. Two, how does this relate to the previous sentences? Was the legislation wasteful because there was no assembly taking part in the government? What is meant by "could have proved to be wasteful"? After over 300 years, don't we know if it was wasteful or not?
 * It demonstrates why there was opposition to governing with a legislature. I think I fixed the issue with ref 51.   dci  &#124;  TALK   23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't demonstrate this. All the sentence demonstrates is that one historian thought that some legislation (we're not told what legislation) might be "wasteful". If this sentence is indeed intended to answer the questions I have above, it needs to be better explained and tied into the existing prose. Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Dana boomer (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's it for now. There are a few remaining issues from the last review to be ironed out and a couple of new things that jumped out at me. Once these are done I'll take another run through the article and see if there are any remaining issues, and then we should be good to go! Dana boomer (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is more work going to be done on this? It's a little frustrating to be asked to re-review this article when there are quite a few issues from the last review that have yet to be dealt with, and then to have this review proceeding so slowly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'll be out of my home state this next week, and will probably not be editing much, so I'll see what I can fix up in the coming hours.   dci  &#124;  TALK   18:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm having some trouble with the sourcing for the new paragraph on the Maine/captive/shipping to Boston incidents, and I'm a bit confused about why this is happening. I'll try to get it fixed, but, just so you know, that info is sourced.   dci  &#124;  TALK   18:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so you're aware, my responses are in the "old review" section, underneath their respective comments.  dci  &#124;  TALK   23:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, my apologies for taking a few days to get back to this - I somehow completely missed your replies on the 18th. At the moment, I think the missing sources in a couple of places is probably the biggest remaining issue. Dana boomer (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we get an update on this? The unsourced information is currently the biggest issue. I saw your response above, but all you did was add new information and a source - the old information is still there and, AFAIK, not sourced. As soon as those sources go in, the article should be fairly close to passing, although I'll still want to take a final read-through. Dana boomer (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed your comment when I checked this last, sorry for that. I'll see what I can do tonight.   dci  &#124;  TALK   22:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DCI, nothing has been done on this article in almost a month - and these are comments that have been entered since the beginning of my first review, which should have been addressed before it was nominated the second time! Are you planning to continue working on this article? Dana boomer (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to find sources for the phrases you mentioned explicitly in the review, and I do not have access to the paper copies of some of those books. To repeat what I've mentioned above a few times, I'm not sure if these are the most important parts of the article, or if the lack of sources for these parts is a major deterrent to the continuation of this review.  However, you are the reviewer, and all decisions regarding this are up to you.  In the meantime, I'll continue looking.   dci  &#124;  TALK   20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While I still feel that these points need references, and I would withhold support at FAC over this, I am not going to fail the GA nomination over these minor points. At this point, I am passing this article to GA status, as it is quite a nice article. However, I would hope that the nominator would continue working to address the final comments above, especially if they plan to take the article to FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)