Talk:John Winthrop/GA1

GA Review

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

Hello again,

I haven't had much time to do a review, especially on such an extensive article, but I am going to begin the process sometime today or tomorrow, and it may take a week or two.Sarnold17 (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm back. This article shows a lot of effort, and over all it is well-written and well researched, as is your hallmark. I have made several minor edits, and see the following as areas for further improvement:

Infobox

Mention should be made of Winthrop's fourth wife.

• Done. Magic♪piano 00:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Family and early life

End of fifth sentence: Henry married Elizabeth, who came to be of some notoriety... First, which one was of notoriety? Second, the reader is left to wonder why this person was notorious. I think either something less brow-raising should be mentioned about Henry (or his wife), or an example or two of the notoriety should be offered.

When I first reviewed the article, I used a paper copy, and thus did not visit any links. The link on Henry Winthrop tells me that Henry's widow apparently was later married to two different men at the same time. Is this the notoriety? Can mention be made of it, or else can the word notoriety be dropped from the article?Sarnold17 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think to whole business with Henry's wife is out of place here, I've removed it. Magic♪piano 00:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Last sentence: Adam completed the transfer, but I don't recall the transfer of the estate ever beginning. Why is Adam transferring an estate to his 25-year old son? This seems odd. I think some additional explanation would help.

This is a bit messy to explain, which is why I avoided it. Here's the explanation, summarizing Bremer:

Groton belonged to Winthrop's uncle (John Sr), and was entailed such that Adam (John's father) would inherit it if John Sr died without issue. John Sr sought to force Adam to buy Groton so that he would realize funds for other purposes, and used the threat of alienating the entailment to force Adam to act. The financial and legal arrangements ended up with Adam never actually owning the property, and were complicated by a financial claim on the property's income for the support of John Sr's wife. Adam also sold other properties to help fund John's acquisition of the estate, and was in his early 60s at the time, not a spring chicken.

I personally think this is "too much information" for this article; it would also require introducing John Sr and some of his background. It might be well placed in articles about Adam or John Sr, if they existed. I also don't think it particularly necessary to describe the beginning of the transfer process, but could reword to just say the transfer took place in 1613. Magic♪piano 00:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

you're right, too messy and too much for this article. Just saying the transfer took place in 1613 would be fine.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Magic♪piano 16:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Decision to emigrate

End of fourth paragraph, "Humphrey was chosen as deputy governor, a post he relinquished the following year when he decided to delay his emigration." You've mentioned this in one or more of your other articles, and now I'm curious; can you say if he ever did emigrate? I checked Anderson's GMB, and don't find him there. Did he come later, or not at all?

According to Magna Carta ancestry, he came over in 1634, and went back to England in 1641, leaving (presumably grown) children. Which would make his absence from Anderson a bit odd. Magic♪piano 02:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no action required, but I did find him in the Great Migration, v III, G-H, a rather extensive writeup by Anderson et al. As you noted, he did arrive in 1634, returned to England in 1638, came back to New England again, and then returned to England permanently in 1641.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, Winthrop was elected in England to be the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. However, the existing colony already had a sitting governor (Endecott). By what mechanism was Endecott replaced by Winthrop?

The traditional method, I assume: the governor on site remains in control until his replacement arrives. Magic♪piano 02:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked the question in part because some sources say that Endecott was the first governor of the Mass. Bay Colony, and some say Winthrop was the first governor. It may boil down to semantics. Since you have researched the issue extensively, who was the first governor? If the answer is "Endecott, of course, since that's what's in the wiki articles", then why would Winthrop be considered the first governor by some? Sarnold17 (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how the sources treat the pre-Winthrop officials. Whitmore's Massachusetts Civil List, for example, only considers officials who were simultaneously head of company and colony, and thus excludes Cradock and Endecott from his list. The Mass.gov page on Endecott, on the other hand, describes him as the first governor. (At least partly for reasons like this I've left numbering off the List of colonial governors of Massachusetts.) I personally agree with the assessment that Endecott was the "first governor in the colony". He never got as much press as Winthrop, though. Magic♪piano 18:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Massachusetts Bay Colony, Arrival

Four ships came initially, and 700 people came total. That leaves the reader wondering, how many total ships delivered the 700 people? Or, how many people were on the first four ships? It would be good to have similar units to compare the initial migration with the follow-on migration. Do any of your sources help in this regard?

I'm not convinced that Bremer is right when he says those four ships carried 700, when the whole fleet (17 ships) supposedly carried about 1,000. I've changed this bit to be a bit clearer on this. Magic♪piano 02:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

When I first reviewed this article, I used a paper copy, and therefore had not examined any of the links. I think the wiki article on the Winthrop Fleet is accurate in saying that there were 11 ships in the fleet (four sailing in April and the other seven in May), carrying about 700 total passengers. This is supported by this 1 and this 2. The other six ships that came that year, I believe, were not a part of the "Winthrop fleet." By the way, you give the sailing date as 11 April; source #1 above says 8 April. I will try to look into this with the materials that I have. Apparently the first four ships set sail on the same day, but arrived on different days.Sarnold17 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I found the 11/17 thing confusing, since some sources don't seem to make a distinction. I've gone to a source that uses the 11-ship 700 person story, which (if the sources in Winthrop Fleet are to be believed) are what Winthrop recorded. Magic♪piano 00:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, son Henry missed the boat and came presumably later. When did he come? In the second wave? Were there only two waves, or were there more?

He was (as it says) on the Talbot, which was part of the "Winthrop Fleet". Magic♪piano 02:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, what I am now understanding is that Henry missed the lead ship (with his father and brothers aboard), and therefore sailed later the same day aboard the Talbot. The way the article currently reads can be construed to imply that Henry was out screwing off some way, and foolishly missed the boat. I don't think this was the case; I think he was dealing with some (important?) issue, thus missing the sailing of the lead ship, but was able to jump aboard later the same day. I don't have a source for this; it comes from the wiki article on Henry.Sarnold17 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the language (as currently stated) is neutral with respect to the reason for Henry's missing the Arbella. (It could also be construed that he missed it because of the weather, for example.) Magic♪piano 00:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can live with that. Some of my original comments were on issues that were clarified just by going to the links.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Colonial governance

Last paragraph, first sentence: "Winthrop spoke out on" seems to be awkwardly worded. Can we change the sentence to read: Another major issue drawing/garnering/commanding/receiving Winthrop's attention occurred in 1647...

Reworded. Magic♪piano 02:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Massachusetts Bay Colony

The last two sections, "Property and family" and "Slavery and slave trade" should be switched in position. His position on slavery is a natural follow-on to his positions on Indians and trade, whereas in property and family you are essentially bringing us to the conclusion of his life, and it would more naturally go at the end of his time in Mass., and just before the discussion of his writings and legacy.

• Done. Magic♪piano 00:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Literature

The word "literature" in an article almost always connotes things written about a subject (like a bibliography), rather than by a subject. I would change the word to "Writings."

• Done. Magic♪piano 00:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

Second paragraph: For political reasons, one might wonder how the order of Reagan, Palin, Dukakis, and Kennedy was chosen. I would suggest putting them in chronological order (the order in which they became public icons): Kennedy, Reagan, Dukakis, and Palin.

• Done. Magic♪piano 00:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Notes

In note #1, you give an explanation of the two calendars, and then state that the article uses the Julian calendar. I didn't notice any place where Julian was used. For dates where there would be a conflict (between 1 Jan and 25 March), you have used the dual date, which is the most correct date, because then the reader does not have to guess which calendar is being used, since both are being used (assuming the reader is familiar with dual dating). For all your other dates, there is no conflict between the two calendars. I would therefore just eliminate the last sentence, since every one of the dates used in the article is accurate in either calendar.

Well, the dates aren't "accurate in either calendar" -- they're either Julian or Gregorian. If I was to modify the article to use Gregorian dates, I'd have to add 10 days to every date. The note is there just to emphasize that the dates are in the old calendar. I only put the note in articles that have January-March confusion, where it is necessary to give dual years. What's possibly confusing is using the dual year, but not also providing dual day-of-month, but I don't think this a big deal. Magic♪piano 00:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Organization

Having two sections entitled "Family and early life" and "Property and family" appears redundant (even though the text is not redundant). Also, Winthrop spent 2/3 of his life in England, and has a significant record there. For these reasons, I would re-organize the article into three major sections:

Life in England or England

• Early life
• Lord of the manor
• Decision to emigrate

Massachusetts Bay Colony

• Arrival, etc., etc.

Writings and Legacy

• Writings
• Legacy

Leaving the Writings and Legacy as separate main headers is OK, but a bit less balanced.

I've adjusted the section headers. Magic♪piano 16:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is everything I've found after a couple of reads. I now need to check the wikilinks, images, and sources.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

All looks good. I've completed the review by checking all the images, all the links, and the references.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Review summary

Good article criteria:

• Well written--yes, prose is clear; spelling and grammar are good. Sentence length and paragraph length are appropriate.

• Factually accurate and verifiable--yes, sources are diverse and appropriate for this subject, and citations are thorough throughout.

• Broad in coverage--yes, the life of this individual is broadly covered from cradle to grave.

• Neutral--yes, a good balance of material has been presented, and is well organized.

• Stable--no problems here

• Illustrated--yes, ample illustrations of good size and placement throughout the article.

PASS