Talk:William Arnold (settler)

Another early William Arnold
Interestingly there was another William Arnold, also born in the UK West country and a distinguished architect. His dates - though unknown - would appear to coincide roughly with the Rhode Island immigrant.

Arnold the architect is widely regarded as perhaps the last of the mediaeval master masons in England before the modern concept of architect took hold in the renaissance. Amongst the buildings known to be by him are the very fine Wadham College, Oxford (1611-13) and Montacute House, Somerset ( National Trust).

Arnold ancestry
Research published in 1915 (Salisbury, Edson Jones, “Parentage of William Arnold and Thomas Arnold”, The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol. 69:64, 1915) purported to debunk previous pedigrees of William that listed his father as Thomas and his grandfather as Richard, and on back to Ynyr. William's father was shown to be Nicholas, and no connection was found to Richard. Has there been reliable research since then documenting the pedigree discussed in this article?--AMG41 (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As discussed in the revised article, the ONLY known ancestors of William Arnold are his parents, Nicholas and Alice (Gully) Arnold and his maternal grandparents, John and Alice Gully. This is what Edson Jones concluded in his 1915 article, and there has been no evidence of additional ancestors presented since that time.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos
contribs) 22:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoever put in the picture of St. Mary's Major Church in Ilchester--many thanks! This is my first article, and that is my first photo in an article--a great thrill!96.244.129.86 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest just putting a link to the page Church of St Andrew, Northover --Traveler100 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I could just put a link, but then (1) I still have a 30,000 byte document with only two photos and (2) the church was significant to the subject, and it's the caption with the photo that will make it much more appropriate to this article. Could it be included?
 * yes of course you can add the image if you think it helps the article. The people who took the photographs have allowed the free use of them. Simply copy paste the syntax from the other article.--Traveler100 (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've included this photo in my article.Sarnold17 (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Image is on the Ilchester page. Is it really needed here too? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, it's the enhancement of the article I'm doing, and the caption that will tie it in with the article; may I include it? The photo of St. Mary's Major was also in the Ilchester article, but that photo is REALLY germain to the subject, and is a tremendous enhancement to the article.  Thanks very much for putting that photo in, and thanks for all you've done to the entire wikipedia project with your photo work.Sarnold17 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just add what you think is useful. If someone else thinks it is not appropriate it will be changed.--Traveler100 (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, also. Done. I'm really liking the look of the article with several photos.Sarnold17 (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I found this article via Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Somerset & don't understand what you want a photographer in Somerset to do?&mdash; Rod talk 18:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

William Arnold (settler)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first article, and I would like to see what kinds of improvements it needs to bump up its rating. Are the references OK? Are there enough sources? Are there comparable articles on lesser-known historical figures that I could look at?

Thanks, Sarnold17 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: First off, this is a commendable effort for a first article (compared, say, with my own first effort which was rubbish). There are, however, numerous points needing your attention if this is to develop into a first class article.
 * Lead
 * ✅ The function of the lead is to provide a general overview, or summary, of the article, without getting into too much detail. The first paragraph should state who the subject is and why he is noteworthy. The remaining paragraphs should briefly outline the course of his life, touching on but not describing the significant elements. At present, the second and third paragraphs are somewhat overdetailed., beyond the summary style requires in th lead.
 * ✅ It is not necessary to cite information in the lead when that same information (in greater detail) appears in the body of the article – which is where it should be cited.
 * Balance
 * ✅ Almost half of the article is taken up with "Ancestry and early life". This is disproportionate; the section needs to be reduced considerably. The section often appears written as journalism rather than as an encyclopedia entry, e.g. "Unfortunately, in this age of the internet, one can find websites that show attractive lineages of Nicholas Arnold back many generations, often incorporating some of Somerby's discredited work. However, not a shred of evidence has as yet been made public illuminating us to the ancestry of Nicholas Arnold." and "Mr. Somerby probably never intended for his work to be published, and he probably should not be entirely saddled with the blame". There are  many uncited assertions, e.g. "The impact of both of these documents has no parallel in the realm of New England genealocial [sic - presumably "genealogical"?] research".
 * ✅ There is further inconsequential detail in the "Voyage to New England" section, relating to a "Thomas Arnold" who is evidently unconnected to our subject.
 * material put into a note at end

I am not able to carry out a full copyedit, but here are a few pointers towards improving the prose:-
 * Prose generally
 * ✅ Avoid contractions such as "wasn't" and "didn't"
 * ✅ Arnold is referred to in the article variously as "Arnold", "William Arnold" and "William". Except when it is necessary to distinguish him from other Arnolds, as the aubject he should be called "Arnold" consistently.
 * I've changed the name in most instances to Arnold, but have retained the full name on several occasions for either style or because other Arnolds are mentioned.

Possibly too many, and not all of them are necessary (three from England?). If at all possible you should avoid having text "squeezed" between two images, as in the "Settling Providence and Pawtuxet" and "End of life" sections. The left-hand image in he End of life section appears to have no connection with this article; according to the image description it is from the early 1800s.
 * ✅ Awkward phrasing, e.g.: "Arnold would become" ("Arnold became"); "Gorton had bought of the Indians..." ("from" rather than "of"?), etc. It would be a good idea to seek an independent copyeditor, to cast a fresh eye over the article.
 * ✅ The "Family" section should be given in prose rather than bullet points
 * ✅ ;Images
 * MOS points
 * ✅ Be consistent in your formatting of year ranges. The generally approved format is "1571–72" rather than "1571/72" (using dashes, not hyphens).
 * the issue with the dates was discussed in the first note at end
 * the issue with the dates was discussed in the first note at end


 * Dashes are also required in the footnote page ranges.
 * Not sure what needs to be done; I believe that my footnote references all have  dashes in them


 * ✅ Avoid overlinking; there are many everyday terms which do not require links, e.g. baptism, marriage, bible and many others.
 * many links have been removed


 * ✅ Values less than 10 should be written out rather than presented numerically.
 * Is there a reason why dates are represented in the British style (1 September) rather than American (September 1)?
 * yes, even in the U.S., genealogists typically use day-month-year, and it is a strong personal preference of mine

I believe that there is the basis for an interesting historical article here, once the above points have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Brianboulton, this is a good first effort. I've been working a lot on one of his most notorious descendants, but I was unfamiliar with the details of his ancestry before the first Benedict. That said, I have some issues that Brian did not mention above. I would recommend putting the details of the documentary controversy and historiography at the end of the article, after his life story. (Mention it at the beginning, but only present what is known today there.)
 * Comments by Magicpiano

The points I raise below are not to denigrate your work; I point them out to illustrate that there are policies and guidelines about how to write Wikipedia articles that you probably need to gain a deeper understanding of. --  Magic ♪piano 03:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ "The impact of both of these documents has no parallel in the realm of New England genealocial research." This is peacock opinion language, and should not be presented in the editorial voice.  If a historian said something like it, present it as that historian's opinion.
 * ✅ You don't need to say "it is a fact that"; the editorial voice is assumed to be presenting "facts" (it actually is supposed to present verifiable statements, which is not quite the same thing).
 * ✅ "even the very careful genealogist John Osborne Austin accepted this incorrect lineage, publishing it in his otherwise excellent Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island in 1887.[9]" The citation is to Austin himself; who is asserting that Austin is "very careful"?  If this is your opinion, it is not suitable to present; you need to find someone else's published opinion of Austin to say that.  This advice also applies to e.g. much of the second paragraph of "The correct ancestry".
 * ✅ The infobox says he died in Rhode Island. This entity did not exist before 1776; you should link the correct political entity that existed at the time of his death.  As a rule, you should avoid these sorts of anachronistic usages, although using pipe links to more modern terms is OK (e.g. in this case using Rhode Island).
 * ✅ The "See also" section does not need to include links for things that are already linked in the article, like Roger Williams and Benedict Arnold (governor).
 * You should include ISBNs for all books that have them, and OCLC numbers for those that do not. (You can get OCLC numbers from worldcat.org; cite book has an oclc parameter.)  Older books that have full view through either Google Books or archive.org ought to include urls to one of those.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Arnold (settler). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111206161359/http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/RhodeIslandHistory/ to http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/RhodeIslandHistory/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)