Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anne Hutchinson/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 Ian Rose 02:33, 16 November 2012.

Anne Hutchinson

 * Nominator(s): Sarnold17 (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...


 * (1)The subject is quite notable: Anne Hutchinson has been called the most famous (or infamous) English woman in colonial American history.
 * (2) The article gets a lot of hits--more than 70,000 last month. (September 2012)
 * (3) I've been researching and editing the article for the past 15 months, and feel that it is complete and well written.
 * (4) The article recently went through an extensive peer review.
 * (5) I've been with wikipedia for two years, have a handful of good articles, and now it's high time I see what the FA process is all about. Sarnold17 (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images - welcome to FAC, Sarnold! Some sourcing and image-related commentary to get you started:
 * I notice you've centred your captions - any particular reason for that?
 * For the look


 * File:JohnCotton.jpg needs a US copyright tag, as does File:JohnWinthropColorPortrait.jpg, File:Nicaea_icon.jpg and File:Calvin.png
 * I'm not sure what I need to do to fix this; I don't want to reinvent the wheel, and could use someone with expertise to help with this seemingly simple fix. Will be fixed shortly The Cotton and Winthrop images have been fixed.  Christian History template that contained the Nicaea image has been removed.  I am prepared to remove the Calvinism template if the Calvin image cannot be easily licensed.


 * File:Anne_Hutchinson_statue.jpeg: as the US does not have freedom of panorama for statues, you'll need to account for its copyright status in addition to the licensing already present for the photo
 * Can I get some help with this?
 * Do we know who created the statue and when it was erected? If so, we can add a second licensing tag as appropriate (PD-old-100, PD-US, whatever). Here's an example of an image that does this: separate licensing tags for the photo and the statue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A new licensing tag has been added to the image file.


 * Make sure all page ranges use endashes, not hyphens, and decide whether you'd like to abbreviate ranges or write out both numbers in full each time
 * Can a bot do this? Done; numbers written out in full for page ranges
 * There is a script available for the former issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * FN56 is broken
 * Fixed


 * Web citations should always include publisher
 * All of the web references have been redone.


 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
 * The first is probably as reliable as any web source. A large nationally recognized genealogical institution is basically endorsing the claims made on the genealogical chart. The second website, though a private individual, is simply reading something off of a historic plaque.  The substance of the inscription is of less importance than the intent of it, which is to honor and recognize Hutchinson.  In fact, the inscription has an error which has been duly noted.  I see no reason to not accept what has been written here, and I can likely find other web sources to corroborate it.  Here's another website with identical information: here.  Here is a Rhode Island government website with the same info: here.  I've gone ahead and replaced the private website with the RI state gov website to reference the inscription.
 * Normally I'd agree with you on the former, but the particular subpage you're citing is a wiki, which raises a big flag as to reliability. Who can edit the page? What kind of editorial oversight does the host site employ? To give you an analogy, an official statement by the Wikimedia Foundation would be a reliable source, but a Wikipedia article editable by anyone wouldn't be. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the website, but the ancestor chart (a photo on the site) that is the source. It is not editable, and can be enlarged to see the relationships.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Publisher for Austin?
 * Added


 * Be consistent in whether you include publisher location for books
 * My intent is to always include publisher location (as long as I can find it, which may not always be the case with google books). Have I missed some? Publisher location added to five sources


 * Check for template glitches like doubled periods
 * If I see an example I'll know what to look for. Now fixed.


 * FN130 needs a full citation
 * Added


 * Be consistent in whether you include publisher for journals
 * publisher info removed from two journal references so that all are now consistent


 * No citations to Colacurcio, Gomes, Koehler, Risjord, Rogers
 * all five have been removed; they were either from removed material, or else from websites


 * Further reading should be an independent section, not a subsection. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * reformatted


 * Comments
 * You have a mix of citation styles, books are sfn, and web sites aren't. They should be consistent. SFN is the way to go here because most of your refs are already in that format. See Franz Kafka and Harry S. Truman for examples of how to put web sites into sfn. Let me know if you have questions. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is MOST helpful. I've been wanting to do this for more than a year, but didn't want to spend an hour reading a technical manual.  Five minutes with a good example is all it took.  Thank you for the education!Sarnold17 (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Support with the disclaimer that I did the peer review. This is an excellently researched and comprehensive piece of work. A few nitpicks:
 * I agree with Nikkimaria; Familysearch isn't a reliable source, so either we find one (wouldn't the Mormon Church have something?) or that material has to be deleted until something better is found.
 * I'm not sure what the issue is here. The source is the Mormon Church.  The source being cited is not the web site, per se, but a photograph of an ancestor chart presented in the website.  The ancestor chart hangs on a wall of the Family History Library, which is a branch of the Mormon Church.  The Family History Library, which I believe is the largest genealogical library in the world, is basically endorsing that ancestor chart by putting it on their wall.  This chart, which can be enlarged by clicking on it, shows every generation between Anne Hutchinson and each one of the prominent descendants mentioned in the article.  Since some of the chart is difficult to read, I've downloaded a copy that I can further enlarge to read the fine print.Sarnold17 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized that. Change the citation to show the site is published by the Church of Latter Day Saints. In that case it's fine, and if the Family History Library shows a picture of the plaque on the wall that can at a later date be found and not sourced to a wiki, that would be better, but having seen that it's the Church's wiki, I'll accept it. Also suggest linking to FamilySearch. They do have a good reputation. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been done.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure this is required, but the Winthrop quotes are attributed to Winship (presumably quoted from there) which is confusing. When taking a secondary quote from a reference I tend to add something like "qtd. in ..." Not sure whether {sfn}s allow this though. So maybe not necessary.
 * This sounds like a valid point; are there specific places I've done this, or is it widespread through the article? I'd like to attribute quotes to the speaker.Sarnold17 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's widespread because Winthrop is quoted often but no Winthrop in the sources that I can find. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I found two places where I could attribute quotes to Winthrop. There were one or two others I could not attribute: they may have come from Winthrop's journal, Short Story, or the transcript of the trial published by Gov. Thomas Hutchinson.  They may have been attributed in the modern book only by footnote, which I did not take notice of.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not strictly necessary, but I mean that when a Winthrop quote is taken from Winship, should be formatted as "quoted in Winship, p. xx" or something like that. The problem, as I mentioned above, is that I don't think {sfn}s allow for this. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. However, this is virtually impossible when quoting from something like Winthrop's journal, which is not paginated, and not even dated in many places.  There are published versions of Winthrop's journal, but then when you cite the source you are adding yet another layer of "who said it" and it really gets messy.  Winship, in his accounts of Hutchinson and the Antinomian Controversy generally just says "Winthrop said..." but does not always attribute the quote to a specific writing of Winthrop (though it is possible this is done in the endnotes at the back of his books).Sarnold17 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I re-read your comment, maybe I don't fully understand, but I get the sense that this is probably not worth pursuing.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean and you're attributing to the secondary instead of the primary source. Adding after edit conflict - agree that it's not worth pursuing. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm still combing through and if I find anything else will post later. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC) I'm still combing through and if I find anything else will post later. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support.Sarnold17 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support this well-written article about an especially important American. Kolob1x2 (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Leaning to support, with the rider that I'm short of time and have only read the first half. Beautiful prose. The paragraph "Events of 1637" however has no citations at all. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we just can't see the forest for the trees. Two inline references have been added.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I've been giving this article a nice read since last night, and I've gotta to hand it to you; It looks great. I'm happy to support.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   21:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your support.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes -- hello Sarnold, and welcome to FAC...
 * Going through the lead, while I tend to agree with Hamiltonstone on the overall quality of the prose, a couple of sentences went on a bit, and seemed to benefit from breaking up. Sarnold, could I ask you to walk through the main body of the article to see if there are similar occurrences that could do with recasting. No need to go overboard, we don't want short staccato sentences either, but if you look at what I considered needed attention in the lead I hope you'll get the idea.
 * Truthkeeper and I have gone through and done some sentence maintenance, breaking up a few very long sentences, and reformatting a few others for improved readability.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that TK was satisfied with his spotcheck of sources in the earlier Peer Review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


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