Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1689 Boston revolt/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011.

1689 Boston revolt

 * Nominator(s):  DCI 2026 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article for several reasons. The article has been much expanded by User:Magicpiano from the original, small one that I created a year ago, and is now a Good Article. It has undergone a peer review and is in a Military History A-class review that is progressing well (but somewhat slowly). I believe it to be a comprehensive, but not exhaustive, description of the uprising.  DCI 2026 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FN 51: is this a magazine article?
 * I believe this has been replaced or fixed.  Magic ♪piano 10:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether you include locations for publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Added missing locations.  Magic ♪piano 10:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape search - This text from the Lead, "of provincial militia and citizens formed in the city, arresting dominion officials and adherents of the Church of England, who were suspected of being sympathetic to the dominion" is duplicated here: On that website, Wikipedia is not acknowledged as a source. Could the nominator respond to this? Graham Colm (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no personal connection whatsoever with the Miner Descent webpage, and cannot recall. I do not believe that it is copied from the other site, and it doesn't look like any editor of the Wikipedia article has listed it as a source.  I'm willing to revise.   DCI 2026 22:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, the miner descent page includes a Lead that used to be on the article.
 * The "dif" might be adequate evidence of Wikipedia's priority, but it won't do any harm to recast the text in question—it's a little convoluted in any case:-) Graham Colm (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.  DCI 2026 22:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Oppose, tentatively. I may have this wrong, but I believe User:Magicpiano (who has done most of the expansion) wasn't consulted before this article was put up at A-class (Sept 23) before the nominator had responded to comments from the peer review (Sept 4), and wasn't consulted before bringing the article here. Let's let the A-class review run before we tackle this at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand, but I would like to give this article its chance at an FA review. Could we at least wait to see what others say as to the article's quality?   DCI 2026 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Since Magicpiano appears to be a primary contributor, why don't you notify them of the FAC and see if they approve of it? If so, there's no problem. If not, I think this should be archived.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have notified Magicpiano.  DCI talk 00:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC) (DCI2026)


 * I have no issue with this article being at FAC (or in the A-class review). DCI is probably not aware that it is recommended to notify major contributors to articles when putting them into formal reviews.  I will attend to review issues that seem to fall within my purview, but I am also going to be on a wikibreak in about a week, with generally reduced activity here for several weeks.  Magic ♪piano 00:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll withdraw the oppose. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from nominator The article's A-class review has ended. The article was not promoted for the reason that there is a review underway here.  DCI talk 15:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then clearly, we should decline to promote this article to FA status for the reason that it did not attain an A-class rating. --Kafka [[Image:Face-wink.svg|25px]]

Link Check - No DAB links, no dead external links, 2 minor wikilinks fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell:
 * Completed issues moved to talk.


 * Support. This article meets our FAC criteria. The prose is clear and lively, the article is well organized, and the sourcing is reliable. – Quadell (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture. If anyone is curious as to demands for Andros to surrender, there is a Commons file called File:1689 surrender Andros Boston MassachusettsArchives.png. It is a picture of the posted letter signed by some rebel leaders, calling for the governor to give in.  DCI talk 23:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Question. I am wondering if the demographics of those arrested in the revolt should be mentioned. The article currently seems to infer that the rebels rounded up any Anglicans they could find. They did not. Anglicans were arrested, but most of these were dominion officials and militia officers. A few town authorities, including the marshal and a tax collector, were jailed, as well. It seems that the only Anglican private citizens seized were a churchwarden and an apothecary.

I also have a question as to the aftermath of the revolt. The day after Andros's overthrow, a group calling itself the "Council for the Safety of the People and Conservation of the Peace" met in Boston to organize colonial government. Governor Bradstreet was appointed council president, and other members were magistrates, leaders of the rebellion, and some of Andros's council, the majority of which had supported the revolt. The council was disbanded after citizens expressed concern that "revolutionary" elements held sway over it. Should this be explained in the article?  DCI talk 22:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Comprehensive, well-written and -sourced. One minor suggestion:
 * "At about 5:00 am on April 18, militia companies began gathering outside Boston at Charlestown (then a separate community), just across the Charles River, and at Roxbury (also then not part of Boston), at the far end of the neck connecting Boston to the mainland." ==> Could the bracketed information be moved into a separate note similar to the note about different calenders? I understand, the information is needed to avoid confusion about the locations, but it's a bit distracting in the main text. GermanJoe (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure.  DCI talk 00:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Images:
 * All check out as far as I can see, except for Sir Edmund Andros.jpg, where the pre-1919 date of creation needs to be explained further on the description page by reference to the date of death of the collector. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the Andros image with one that has better provenance (and is a color portrait to boot).  Magic ♪piano 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Background: Don't think multiple Massachusetts Bay Colony links are needed in this section.
 * Fixed.  Magic ♪piano 10:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Same goes for Puritan.
 * What do we all think about using the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica as a source? It is a fellow encyclopedia (and an old one at that), which is kind of odd to be using in a potential FA, at least to me.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 15:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only use is to cite a relatively uncontroversial point in the aftermath (the duration of Jacob Leisler's tenure in New York).  Magic ♪piano 22:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down about halfway, to Revolt in Boston. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The text says "restoration of Massachusetts's colonial charter, revoked by Andros", but a recent edit summary says "Andros didn't revoke or establish charters". - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure at this point who added that language, but it's quite wrong. Andros had nothing to do with the Mass. charter revocation.  Magic ♪piano 07:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was probably me, when I attempted to reword the sentence. I was certainly wrong - Andros did not revoke the charters, and the dominion charter had already taken effect by the time he reached Massachusetts.   DCI talk 15:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wondering - should any of the events listed in Webb's Lord Churchill's Coup be included in the article's "Aftermath" section? The book includes detailed descriptions of what happened after Andros's overthrow.   DCI talk 15:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No opinion, I'm just dealing with prose on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Continuing. "A boat from the Rose, of potential use in this escape attempt, was intercepted by militia": This doesn't feel right to me. If the boat was in some sense intended for his use, I'd prefer "A waiting boat from the Rose was intercepted by militia".  If you want to be more specific, that's fine too.
 * The boat came ashore when they saw what was going on, probably to help out in an escape attempt.  DCI talk 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I went with "A boat that came ashore from the Rose ..." - Dank (push to talk)
 * "citing the mob of which they claimed to be "wholly ignorant".": If they knew about the mob, they weren't ignorant of it. Maybe they were claiming not to know where it came from. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The mob was running rampant, hauling off dominion officials and trying to remove supposedly idolatrous objects from Kings Chapel, the Anglican church in town. The council was not a typical revolutionary body - it was a majority of Andros's council, with some old magistrates and officials removed from office because of the dominion charter.  From what I can make out, the council was a little astonished by the speed of the locals' reaction, which is why they claimed to be "wholly ignorant" of their rebelling supporters.   DCI talk 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we can leave it if that's what they said. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this one has been at FAC a while, I did another copyedit; looking good. - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quadell says the "sourcing is reliable", but I'm not sure what that means. There's a lot on the talk page. And, although it's not the question you asked, Magicpiano wrote most of the article in its current form, and he's got a solid track record at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources are reliable, and most can be found on Google Books in an abridged "preview" format. Some (anything by Webb, for instance) can be found in hard copy in a library.   DCI talk 16:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of the sources used, Lustig's biography of Andros is probably the most difficult to access. I found only a few non-circulating copies (unless you are affiliated with the holding institution) in the Boston area, where one might expect it to be a little more widely available. Portions are available in Google Books preview.  Magic ♪piano 21:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Spotcheck clear 3/13 sources 15/59 citations. I am a modernist, not an early modernist. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quality: Barns [1923] checked for claims that would be outdated, passes.
 * Palfrey passes (1 cite). Steele passes (2 cites).
 * Webb (12 cites): fn28 doesn't make sense to me, source says 10 January not 19 January, is this an OS/NS issue? It looks like a misreading of 1 January, 9 Days later, 10 January.
 * This is a math/reading error, fixed. All of the dates in the article are (or should be) OS.  Magic ♪piano 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Webb 40a surely "As quoted in...?" This isn't a quote of Webb, it is a quote of a quote in Webb.
 * Are you suggesting that I have to go through all my other feature articles and add "as quoted in" language before such quotes? In context it is clearly not a quote of Webb. (A brief survey of some other FAs indicates similar sorts of quotations, and Webb furthermore does not identify who/what he is quoting.)  Magic ♪piano 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever solution is adopted here, I just want us to make sure we're all agreed that history is hard, and that an accepted style among historians of early modern history (certainly, and some later history, too) is not to insist on saying "I don't know for sure who said this first" every time they believe something is likely true but don't know for sure where it came from. This differs from more modern standards. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While I defer to Dank on matters of style relating to citation amongst early modernists, I'd suggest emending the text to indicate that we as readers ought to treat that particular quotation as from the "horse's mouth" but backed up by a historian as true, representative, important. I skimmed over the quotes going, "oh this is just a historian's opinion," rather than giving it the true attention it deserved.  Perhaps instead of "There he was told that, "…"" we could use "There [the mob/the Bostonians/a delegation/…] told him, "…"".  I read "There he was told that, "…"" to mean that the quote was a historian's paraphrase.
 * Good point. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Humbly, I was raised on Turabian with the full chain of publications back to the person who cited the document indicated in the footnote, but my period has a luxury and even superfluity of primary sources) Fifelfoo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While I strugged at first to figure how to phrase this unambiguously given Webb's lack of source ID, Palfrey helpfully explains the document (see footnote on this page, quote is on next page).  Magic ♪piano 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the issue the agentic noun who told Andros off? "The Council of the revolt told him, "…"" appears to be fully supported by the Riggs document in Palfray?  As far as a citation, if Webb doesn't identify it, "As Quoted in Webb...; also found as John Riggs (Servant to Sir Edmund Andros) 22 July 1689 "A Narrative of the Proceedings at Boston in New England upon the Inhabitants seizing the Government there" as recorded in full in Palfray… ? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you've lost me (as in, I have no idea what you're asking for, or what your issue is, in the above). I've never been asked before to openly source quotes of this sort to this degree (and now wonder why the same level of explication is not being demanded of other quotes in this article).  Referencing these sorts of quotations to reliable secondary materials seems to have passed muster in all manner of earlier reviews I've had to deal with.  Magic ♪piano 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Two separate issues, at this point they're merely stylistic and do not require action to complete the FAC. First issue: properly indicating where the quote is from for citation purposes: what style you use to cite quotes contained in the work you are quoting. If you are comfortable with your current practice, I am not concerned.
 * Second issue: properly indicating where the quote is from for prose and reader purposes: making clear to the reader whether you're quoting the historian (Webb), or quoting primary material quoted by Webb (the Council of the revolt). As I noted above, perhaps confusingly, I misread this quote as a quote from Webb; it would vastly improve my reading experience if I knew it was a quote from the revolters which was merely contained in Webb. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. I have added words clarifying what is known of the quote's source.  Magic ♪piano 23:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 40b completely fails to support its assertion. No such man is named in the work.  Suggest rewrite to match facts as put in Webb for the conditions of arrest.
 * Umm, true. There are other sources that do identify the man and his house; I've added one.  (Neither identifies Usher as treasurer, but I'm not going to add yet another citation just to prove that bit.)  Magic ♪piano 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If everyone knows Usher was treasurer, I'm not going to prevaricate. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't actually know what to do next with this. All observed issues were resolved, but they kind of imply another two undiscovered issues on the scale of "January 19" => "January 10"?  How do we deal with a spotcheck that finds minor issues?  FAC delegate, regulars, advice? Fifelfoo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have notified Ucucha.   DCI talk 01:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would encourage a spotcheck. I just changed the last word; the new charter of Massachusetts required religious toleration, not just tolerance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * N.B. I have checked the references to Lustig against my notes and Google Books preview and am satisfied that they are consistent.  Magic ♪piano 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am rather confused, as I have been away from this page for some time. I think that the details of the arrest are rather clear: Andros went to meet with the Council, which told him that they'd "have the Government in their hands."  He was then taken to Usher's house.  At some point (when the 1500 militiamen entered, according to Webb), Andros was taken to less comfortable confinement in the town jail.  And, as for quotations, I think that it's fine to quote the text.  As long as there's an inline citation near the quote, the reader should be able to tell what content is from primary sources and what is from secondary, eg. Webb.  I also don't find it likely that a reader will be overly concerned with this matter.   DCI talk 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support w/ comments
 * "Among the first to be arrested was Captain John George of the HMS Rose, who came ashore between 9:00 and 10:00, only to be met by a platoon of militia and the ship's carpenter, who had joined the rebels." - what was the Rose doing in the area, and why had George come ashore? As-is, it begs the question as to why the ship was not used in some way to counter the revolt. Also, what kind of ship was it?
 * Also, Rose should be linked, even if it's redlinked.
 * It sounds like the ship was captured at the end of the revolt. Make it clear what subsequently happened to it, as it was a notable piece of military hardware.
 * Just looking for a little clarity on that one detail in the article. — Ed! (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support. HMS Rose (1683) was a 26-gun frigate.  It seems to have been skippered by William Phips in 1684.  On August 9 of 1689, during a period in which the rebel council still held sway over Boston, a group of merchants appealed to the council to restore Captain George to his ship.  George wholeheartedly endorsed this plan (not surprisingly!).  George sailed north to Maine, to defend locals against French and Indian attacks, and was killed during a clash with a French ship in May of 1690.  I assume that the ship was the Rose, but do not know if it was sunk or badly damaged.  I am inclined to assume that it was, and will search for info.   DCI talk 00:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.