Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plymouth Colony


 * 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 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Plymouth Colony
previous FAC

This article failed its previous FAC in April, 2007. Since then it has undergone a peer review: and extensive changes have been made based on the failed FAC and the peer review. Also, two different copyeditors from WP:LOCE have gone over and fully copyedited the article. All prior objections raised in the earlier FAC seem to have been addressed, so I am resubmitting this for another consideration. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 17:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: Very well-written and informative. The article gives a great overview of the colony, and it has clearly improved since its previous FAC. I found some very minor grammatical issues, and corrected each. Each image used in the the article is public domain, and clearly marked with appropriate tags. The article is extremely well-rounded in all areas, with references throughout. There are several reliable sources, and the article does not rely mostly on one source (one reason the past FAC failed). The article is good length. A few more images in the article would not hurt, but it is definitely not in dire need of them. One issue I had was a link to the current settlement of Plymouth, Massachusetts in the article's introduction, as for much of the early part of the article, the history of the modern town is one-in-the-same with the history of the colony. However, this issue has been readily addressed with a prominent sentence at the beginning of the article. I went ahead and proofread the entire article, and fixed the minor errors I found (which were very few). Overall, this is a job well-done, and the article is definitely worthy of FA status. Raime 03:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: On 19 July 07, the "Christian Communism" section was added to the Plymouth Colony article. The section is in need of serious work, the most notable additions required being referencing and sourcing. The entire section was copied verbatim from the "Plymouth Colony" section of the Christian Communism article. In addition, the section is based entiurely on two very lengthy quotations from Of Plymouth Plantation, and I personally believe that the article would flow better if these quotations were cut down and summarized. I have made some changes, but this section still needs a lot of work, and these improvements should be made before Plymouth Colony achieves FA status. Perhaps this issue warrants only some mentioning in the "religion" section in the article rather than its own separate sub-heading. Raime 00:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC) The situation has been completely fixed, as the passage in question was removed. Raime 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The newly added section lacked any reference, and quite honestly, looked like original research so I removed it without prejudice. I will admit, I have not read EVERY book about Plymouth Colony; though I have never seen it refered to as a "Christian communist" society.  It is entirely possible that a reputable historian has published that thesis.  However, lacking any reference, I thought it prudent to remove the whole section.  I see no problem with returning the information with relevent reference; however barring that it should be removed.  As I have done.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you made the right move, and have thus removed my comment. The lengthy passages in the article from Of Plymouth Plantation did not flow well, and the fact that it was copied verbatim from another article and lacked any references or sources clearly showed that it was quite possibly an example of original research. Raime 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Partial review of the article raised the following concerns for me:
 * Under Origins, the last sentence of the third paragraph reads, "Upon arriving in America, the Pilgrims would then work to repay their debts." I think an improvement would be "Upon ariving in America, the Pilgrims began working to repay their debts." I feel it's more consistent wording. *:✅
 * I'm going to have to double check, but I thought mention of dates and years should almost always have a comma before and after. For example, "They met in Augusta, in 1947, before he left for the war." rather than "They met in Augusta in 1947 before he left for the war." The latter being how this article reads. I corrected a few but, as I noticed more, I've decided I might should do some research. Nope. After only, according to Comma (punctuation).
 * I don't have time to finish the article tonight. But I'll resume my review tomorrow. Lara  Love  05:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a consistency in the writing out of, or the use of numerals for, numbers over ten. Under the section of "Childhood, adolescence, and education", for example. Lara  Love  17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅: I have changed the writing-out forms of number over ten into numerical form in the section you mentioned as well as in other locations throughout the article. However, some sentences read "in their twenties" or "in their thirties", and I left it in written-out form becuase "20s" seems too informal. This does not really break consistency, as "twenties" is not a definite number. Raime 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think the Historical populations table could be improved. It may look different for me (I use Firefox) than it does for others (who use IE or another browser), but it doesn't look good at all to me.
 * The Military history sections reads like a recap to previously mentioned information. It seems as though it would be more appropriate for the Standish article. Lara  ♥Love  06:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment- You need to remove red links.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅, though not sure it was necessary. Raime 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Could you cite the part of WP:WIAFA where it says there should be NO red links in any articles?  Or maybe you could find the passage in WP:MOS or WP:MOSLINKS where it says that as well?  The article contains maybe 3-4 redlinks.  I can create stubs for those articles, if you wish, but it seems pointless to do so considering the article complies with all Linking guidelines as it is... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As an aside, another editor has removed every redlink. So there are now NONE.  But I still want to know why 3-4 redlinks in an article of this size somehow makes the article substandard?  Don't redlinks encourage the creation of needed articles?  One redlink, for example, was to Adam Willaerts, who was a notable Dutch artist.  That he doesn't have an article begs for someone to create it... I mean, it seems kind of arbitrary to require the removal of a few redlinks from an article that otherwise was feature quality... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayron, I didn't realize that you were thinking about creating articles for some of the red links, so I went ahead and deleted the links, and I apologise. For what its worth, the red links I removed were Sowams, Wessagussett, Sakonnet, Richard Greenham, John Demos, Adam Willaerts, and The Sovereignty and Goodness of God, if you are going to go back and write articles. But I agree, I don't think that so few red links really a hindrance to achieving FA status. I didn't think removal was necessary, I was just going along with what Wikidudeman said. Raime 03:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing them is fine. I had no problem leaving them as redlinks.  A few I would have probably started articles about (wessagussett, sowams) but others I lacked the expertise and resources to create a reasonable article; that is the purpose of redlinks, to invite people to create the article... However, if people are being randomly petty, its best to just go with the flow and let them have their way.  It was a small issue, I don't care that much, and if that is all that is causing Wikidudeman to hold up his support, I am fine to make that random fix, as otherwise this article meets the FA criteria... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is stated somewhere, possibly one of the links that Jayron posted (I would go look, but I'm going to be real about it... I'm too tired and don't feel like it), that redlinks are appropriate as long as it is relevant to the topic and notable as it's own article. Redlinks make editors aware that it is an article that needs to be created, in a way encouraging its creation. When relevant to the topic, chances are that someone reading that article will have some knowledge of the redlink topic and be inclined to create the article. For the purpose of FA, I wouldn't think it would be a problem to have a few (small few) redlinks. It may, however, hinder the chances of making the main page, but that's something Raul would have to comment on. Lara  Love  04:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support polished up nicely since last time. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments. Please have a look at WP:DASH (no spaced emdashes), WP:MSH (use of "the"), and WP:MOSCAPS (all caps in refs). Nice job ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed all 3 issues: I removed spaces around the mdashes, I removed "The" from header titles with one exception (The Mayflower Society is a proper name with "The" as part of it, so I felt it pertinent to leave it in), and I fixed all of the refs that used ALLCAPS. Any other issues?  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Plimouth—I presume it's the intended spelling.
 * MOS: en dashes required for page ranges in the Notes; read it on circa. Title page caption is not a complete sentence, so no dot.
 * "Organization of the goverment"—as a title, better as "Governmental organization"? Tony 02:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Replies to Tony: In places where a direct quote or paraphrase of an historical source is used, I used the historically used spelling.  Prior to the 18th century, there was no standardized English orthography.  Thus many historical sources use various spellings: Plimoth, Plymoth, Plimouth, etc.  In places where a modern context is used, I used the modern "Plymouth" spelling.  If you see a specific error, please point it out specifically.  I will fix the section header to the less verbose one as well.  And I will ask Brightorange to run the script to fix the endashes.  Thanks for pointing that out... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All you had to say was "Yes". It was reasonable to check whether it was a typo. Tony 13:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that it MIGHT be a typo or a misspelling. Unless you tell me where the particular spelling occurs, I can't check it.  I may have missed something.  Plimouth MAY be appropriate in one place in the article, but not in others.  I was trying to let you know that, and if you could point out the SPECIFIC instance that troubles you, I can double check.  I didn't say "yes", becayse the answer wasn't "yes"... it was a qualified "maybe" and it depended on where you saw the issue... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  01:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * will run a script to fix the endashes in the page nos. if you ask him. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will get on that. Any other fixes needed assuming that gets done?  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Brighterorgange ran his script, and all MOS hyphen/endash issues should be now corrected. Any other issues? --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Every other use of the words "Spring" "summer" or "autumn" has been removed from the article. Could you please tell me how to fix these sentances to remove the word "winter" from them?--Jayron32| talk | contribs 03:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Would it be possible to incorporate the Demographics section with the other sections? Much of the information is already repeated elsewhere in the article. Karanacs 19:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the section has already been condensed from two prior sections; one titled "People" and one titled "Demographics". I am not sure I can see where it is really repetitive.  A few sentances refer back to earlier ideas for context, but really, it isn;t repetitive.  For example, the "English" section explains the differences between the groups of English settlers, an analysis that isn't done anywhere else in the article; the section on Black Slaves has no other mention anywhere, and neither does the section on infant mortality and birthrate.  Do you have any specific recommendations about what and how to merge, if one is done?  The information in that section doesn't really belong elsewhere, IMHO. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the information you have is very useful, and I would hate to have it removed. However, the Origins and Mayflower Voyage section already go into detail on the Pilgrims and the Strangers, and it should be fairly easy to incorporate the additional information about them into those sections.  Likewise, the Marriage and Family section already has some information about infant and maternal mortality, and the paragraph you have in the Family size section would fit there very well.  If you know when the Particulars came, the description and naming of them should appear there.  I think the only information in the Native American section that is not covered already in the article is the first sentence, and that could be incorporated into earlier sections.  The only section that I question is Black slaves, and it might be able to go into the Growth of Plymouth section.  I'll support the article regardless of which path you decide to take, but I think incorporating this section into the rest of the article makes more sense, since so much of it is very related to other topics that are covered earlier.  Karanacs 20:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I am still going to respectfully disagree with you, and here are my reasons. The Origins and Mayflower Voyage section are part of the history narrative, which has a certain flow to it; it tells a story.  The Demographics section is more of a description of the various people in the story; look at it this way: The history section is the "novel", while the Demographics section is the "character analysis"; both are important, but to drop in bits of the demographics section into the history narrative interrupts the narrative flow; while it may contain some overlap, it presents the information in a different way and in a different context.  Look at any article about a political entity (country, state, city, etc.); there are separate sections dealing with history, government, culture, demographics, etc. etc.  Lets say I invent a nation, "Jayronistan".  The section on the history of Jayronistan may mention the arrival of an immigrant group, say the "Karanacs" as an historical event in the life of as nation; the demographics section may talk about what proportion of the population is made up of that "Karanacs"; the culture section may mention that "Karanacs" in terms of their contribution to the arts.  You don't group every mention of the "Karanacs" into a single section; you mention them where important per the context.  Likewise, I feel this article does that in its organization as well. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Well argued, Jayron. Overall, you did an excellent job with this. Karanacs 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose MOS violation with seasonal references: the spring of 1620, The celebration in autumn, 1621. There are other seasonal references that need to be checked as well because they appear to be stylistically ambiguous. Need careful review of all seasonal references to ensure that they are indeed discussing the time of the year and are not being used as substitutes for dates, per MOS. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 02:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed all references to seasons with the exception of these sentances. Could you please tell me if these sentances use seasons appropriately, or perhaps come up with a suggestion on how to replace the season in them so as to be unambiguos?  Thanks:
 * "With winter approaching and provisions running dangerously low, the passengers decided to return north and abandon their original landing plans.[11]" In this case, do you have a better way to refer to the cold and snowy months that occur in the northern hemisphere during the months of December, January, and February?
 * "The first structure, a "common house" of wattle and daub, took two weeks to complete in the harsh New England winter." Again, I am not sure how to remove the problem from this sentance. Could you help suggest how to remove the word winter from it?
 * "Thus, only seven residences (of a planned nineteen) and four common houses were constructed during the first winter.[22]" Again, help please?
 * "Nearly half of the original 102 passengers died during the first winter.[31] " Same problem as above. Any suggestions?
 * "Standish also organized the able-bodied men into military orders in February of the first winter. During the second winter, he helped design and organize the construction of a large palisade wall surrounding the settlement. " Argh. Unfortunately, the phrase "second winter" is the best I can use, since all references don't list exact dates, only using the phrase "winter".
 * "each of who lost their spouses during the harsh winter of 1620–1621, " again here, should I say something like "harsh snowy months of December, January, and February of 1620-1621"
 * In these cases, the season is clearly having an impact on the protagonists of the article, and therefore it is not necessary to change them. The MOS does not allow seasons to be used as a substitute for dates. However, the seasons themselves and their effects are not date references and are therefore not contraindicated by the MOS. You may want to make sure that you haven't overdone the removal of seasons. In some cases augmentation may be more appropriate. For example,  changing The celebration in autumn, 1621 to autumn celebration in November 1621. The festival celebrates the harvest in autumn, so it is appropriate to mention autumn here, and mentioning the month tells the readers when the festival took place.
 * With winter approaching and provisions running dangerously low ... Here, the winter is important to the context. The date is given earlier in the same paragraph. No change needed.
 * The first structure ... took two weeks to complete in the harsh New England winter. As above, no change needed.
 * [O]nly seven residences ... and four common houses were constructed during the first winter. As above, no change needed.
 * "Nearly half of the original 102 passengers died during the first winter. As above, winter is a cause of death, not a date, so no change needed.
 * Standish also organized the able-bodied men into military orders in February of the first winter. This may need to be revised. Does the winter play a crucial role here? Would the article lose important information if this was substituted? If the phrase "of the first winter" was substituted with the year "1621", would the lack of mention of winter here be problematic? What effects did the winter have on the ability of Standish to organise the men into a militia?
 * During the second winter, he helped design and organize the construction of a large palisade wall surrounding the settlement. What role did the winter play here? Undoubtedly it must have had one. Did the ground freeze, making it difficult to dig? Perhaps this would benefit from some form of augmentation (mentioning the years would be helpful here).
 * each of who lost their spouses during the harsh winter of 1620–1621 The winter impacted on the protagonists. However, I would change "each of who" to "each of whom" here.
 * It may also be helpful to review these other changes, with my suggestions for your consideration:
 * The celebration in autumn, 1621 -> The autumn celebration in (November?) 1621 (This was a celebration of the autumn harvest, so a seasonal reference is useful here. Specify a month if it is known, otherwise I suggest "late 1621" as an alternative. Such usage may appear redundant for a northern-hemisphere reader but is helpful for a southern hemisphere audience.)
 * Throughout the summer, as promised by Massasoit -> Throughout the middle of (specify year), as promised by Massasoit, or one can let the edit stand as is.
 * Seasons can be difficult, but the guidelines I use is simple - if the seasonal reference is acting like a date, reword it, eg: the spring of 1620 -> early 1620.
 * Keep up the good work. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 04:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the two instances you specifically quoted as violations have been removed and fixed. We cannot say that the celebration you cite happened in November.  One source says that it MIGHT have been in October, but even that is a WAG, and the source admits that, so I thought Autumn was as close as I can get.  I am pretty sure that no where in the article as it stands now is there a season "standing in" as a date... everywhere a season is mentioned, it is in the context of the weather of said season (harsh winter, etc.) and not as a date.  Could you please review the article and tell me if you now support it? --Jayron32| talk | contribs  06:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.