Talk:Antinomian Controversy/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hfeatherina (talk · contribs) 07:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Am reviewingHfeatherina (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for picking this up for review.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Completed a cursory read-over and edited the lead section to make the tone more neutral and the overall content more concise. Hfeatherina (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"Historical impact" discussion is overly American-centric, too long to be appropriate for an encyclopedia article and opinion rather than fact based. I removed references to its importance from the lead-in as a teaser, but am of the opinion that the entire subsection should be cut - at the very least, it should be halved.Hfeatherina (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I missed the above comments that were made on 13 December. I'll get on this in the next day or two.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed material from this section, and consolidated the material into a single paragraph. Why shouldn't the historical impact section be American-centric? The event occurred in colonial America, and based on my readings, was of interest to English people in America and to English people in England. I have mentioned the impact to both groups of people. I don't understand why you consider the quotes of two of the most eminent authorities on the subject to be "opinion-based" rather than "fact-based." If I can't trust their assessments of the controversy, then whose can I trust? The controversy had an impact; in fact it had a big impact, because it set the stage for the persecution of the Quakers 20 years later and for the Salem Witch Trials that would transpire a half century later. I don't understand why you don't find merit in the quotations that I give in this section.Sarnold17 (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Hfeatherina, the reviewer, has not edited on Wikipedia for a month, since the comment post above on this page. Sarnold17, as it's only been nine days since your reply, you can wait in the hopes of a return, or the review can be ended and the nomination put back into the GAN pool. Please let me know your preference. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's just put it back in the pool and try again.Sarnold17 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll do that now. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)