Talk:Thomas Dudley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarnold17 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and kudos for improving upon this article to the point that it can be considered for GA review. Overall, I find that the article meets the six good article criteria, but needs a few items tweaked. I've made several minor edits; here are additional comments:

Early years

• Near the end of the first paragraph, the name "Purefoy" is wikilinked. The link goes to a disambiguation page whose members are not related directly to Dudley. I checked each link, and none is appropriate, so the link should be removed. Done Magic♪piano 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph appears some family information, some of which is redundant to that appearing at the end of the article. All family info should be moved to the end of the article, and incorporated with what is already there. Then the second and third paragraphs should be combined to read, "After he was discharged from his military service, Dudley returned to Northamptonshire. He then entered the service of Sir..." Just because his mother is later mentioned, we really don't need to know who she was at this point. Moved Magic♪piano 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• At the end of the current third paragraph it reads that Simon Bradstreet was hired by Dudley in 1622 and "soon" became interested in Dudley's daughter Anne. Doing the math, Dudley's daughter Anne was TEN years old in 1622. Something seems a bit amiss. Even though Bradstreet married Anne when she was 16, do we want to imply that he was interested in a ten year old girl? If so, was she already intellectually advanced at her young age? Was she precocious? Either some explanation would be helpful, or a wording change to stear away from this difficulty would help. I do not have a copy of Kellogg to see how this was treated in the book. Reworded Kellogg and other sources are weaselly about how/when the romance started. Magic♪piano 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that the word "soon" be changed to "eventually," and that is exactly what you did.Sarnold17 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Founding of Cambridge

• In the last paragraph, it opens with "the colony came under legal threat in 1632..." The paragraph then elucidates Dudley's role in this threat. Good. However, the paragraph ends there, and never tells how the legal threat was resolved. Another sentence is needed to close the thought that was intoduced in the opening sentence. I do not have a copy of Bremer to offer suggestions, so hopefully you do. Done Magic♪piano 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Anne Hutchinson affair

• In the second paragraph, "Cross of St George" is wikilinked. This is really not an appropriate link, because the article refers to an award that was given in the 1800s, and has no relevance to this article or subject. Relinked to St George's Cross, which is the correct article. Magic♪piano 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• The last paragraph beginning "In 1638 Dudley and Winthrop..." doesn't really belong under "Anne Hutchinson affair" Even though it is one of those "between topics" type of paragraphs, it might fit better in the next section entitled "Other political activites" since this is kind of a catch-all section for a variety of events. This is not a show-stopper for me, but just an item for consideration. Here's an idea, though: maybe we could say "While Dudley and Winthrop had strong disagreements on many issues, they did agree on the disposition of Hutchinson. Another event illustrates their regard for each other, and their relationship through marriage, when in 1638..." Done This is a good idea. Magic♪piano 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Founding of Harvard and Roxbury Latin

• at the end of the first paragraph, "Second World War" is wikilinked. The second World War has nothing to do with this article, and should not be linked. In this context, the war is simply being used as a time marker, and "Second World War" could be easily replaced with "1945" as a suitable synonym.
  • In the absence of a specific year (and Bethell is not specific), I'd rather describe it the way the source does. (I'll note it took a while to track down a somewhat reliable source that was even that specific as to the gate's fate; Morison was of course writing in the 1930s, when the gate still stood.) Magic♪piano 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the wording of the sentence; my issue was with giving "the Second World War" a wikilink. Here's my perspective: I checked out every wikilink in the article, and while doing so I found appropriate historical links to colonial people and colonial events and then I clicked on "the Second World War." First of all, I get an article that is huge and takes a lot of time to upload (making me sorry that I clicked on it), and then I get an article about an event that happened 300 years after the events of the article. It just seemed really out of place to me. Now, if you feel that it is important to make the wikilink, that's OK with me, because this is a very very minor consideration. I'm just saying that this one link really seemed out of place while I was doing my link check.Sarnold17 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I obviously don't think the link inappropriate, but I'll not belabor the point either. I found another source that more closely dates the gate's destruction (it was done preparatory to the construction of Lamont Library, which was finished in 1947). Magic♪piano 22:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Family

• What is your feeling about including a bit more information on Dudley's well-known descendents? Would someone in English-speaking Malaysia, for example, know who these five people are/were? If the article is printed, it won't have wikilinks available. Could we say, "U.S. 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry; U.S. President Herbert Hoover; U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter; and so forth? I'm not suggesting we do this. I've done this in the articles I've written, but this is likely a matter of preference. I will defer to your experience on this one. Done Excellent point. Magic♪piano 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I originally wrote this, then deleted it, and now I am once again including the following:

This is no reflection on your article, but you've made several references to the "Dudley-Winthrop" family. I am somewhat dismayed that such an article even exists in Wikipedia. This family is a concoction in somebody's mind, and is no more a real entity than the Dudley-Winthrop-Stanhope-MacGilicutty-Bumstead family. Famous familes intermarry all the time, but this doesn't create a new family anymore than any other marriage in history. A look through the card catalog of the Library of Congress will very likely show many references to the Dudley family and many references to the Winthrop family, but I doubt that one will find the combination of the two. If we accept this as a "family," then we've exponentially expanded the number of families in existence. Most genealogical works include members of a single surname, or all the descendants of a specific individual. Combining surnames and calling it a family really opens a can of worms. I would like to delete the article on the "Dudley-Winthrop" family. It is terribly unbalanced and in my opinion inappropriate. It could be replaced with articles entitled "Dudley family" and "Winthrop family" though as I discovered with the "Arnold family" article, giving such an article proper balance requires a very broad understanding of all members of a certain name--an understanding that few if any wikipedians possess. Anyway, this is a complaint about what is out there, and again is not a criticism of your article. I'll stand down off my soap box now.

I personally am ambivalent about various "X family" and "X-Y family" articles that it always seems like amateur family genealogists write. However, I do feel that they should be linked if they exist, and leave the wrangling about their existence to others. (If you object to the existence of the Dudley-Winthrop article, express your objections at WP:AFD, although issues of balance should be raised on its talk page.) (Side note: this article, before I picked it up, had a much longer list of descendants in it.) Magic♪piano 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. I think your phrase "amateur family genealogists" really hit the nail on the head.Sarnold17 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

• There are four images and one text box in the article, and each one is appropriate to the article's content. Unfortunately, two of the images and the text box are all related to the section entitled "Founding of Harvard and Roxbury Latin," which is a short section that cannot handle more than one image. Therefore, the other two images would either have to be placed in a gallery at the end, or else placed elsewhere in the article. The article as it currently appears has one of the images close to the Harvard section, and the other placed near the beginning of the article. This, however, forces subsections to begin to the right of left-justified pictures. I played around with this, and have moved the images about a bit. Please take a look at User:Sarnold17/new article name here with the images in different positions to see if this might be better. Again, I will defer to your experience on the ultimate choice. Moved I should have worked on image placement before... Magic♪piano 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I still have a little more work to do on references. Looks pretty good at this point.Sarnold17 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for reviewing. I won't be in a position to deal substantively with this until Thursday, so there's plenty of time. Magic♪piano 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are additional commentsSarnold17 (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

References

I've made some minor edits on references.

• References 27 and 71 both refer to websites. However, the material presented in both cases has an author and a source. For the sake of consistency, both of these sources should be listed under "References." While I haven't changed either reference in your article, on my work page User:Sarnold17/new article name here I have redone the Roberts reference to get your thoughts on this (I've looked through the various wiki articles concerning citations, but don't find anything to say this is needed, but again, for the sake of consistency it would be a good idea). Unfortunately, the Roberts reference gives neither a date nor page numbers. Ref 27 should likewise be attributed to Scottow, and give a source and a date (1696), and since it is paginated, a page number should also be included.
  • The Scottow reference is actually a web reference, not a book reference. The page linked has a description of Scottow's work, so the author is not Scottow, but the (anonymous) page creator at UNL. If I had actually referenced Scottow's work directly, I would indeed list it as a reference.
  • The most consistent advice I've had on unpaginated web references is that they should be given in full inline, which is the style I've now adopted on my articles. (You're right that wiki articles on citations are not specific on formatting particulars. The important thing for review purposes is that citations and references be formatted consistently: web cites should have accessdate, publisher, and title; books should have cataloging and publishing information in consistent format, and so on.) Magic♪piano 16:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• There are two references to Bremer: one solo and the other with a co-author. Even though one can figure out that "Bremer" means only Bremer and "Bremer & Webster" refers to the reference with the co-author, it might be more clear to include the year of publication with the inline reference; this way the reader will go to the correct citation rather than have to search around for it. Done Magic♪piano 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• In my workspace, I've moved the reference for "Harvard..." to make it alphabetical with the other references, even though it has no author. It seems like this is what I have done in the past, but I didn't find anything in the wiki--help pages to give me further guidance. Changed If there are many authorless sources, I usually list them after the authored ones, but it's not a big deal to me. Magic♪piano 16:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

I've looked through the image citations, and they seem to be in order.

I think I've addressed your issues -- let me know if not. Magic♪piano 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

all issues, except for the trivial issue concerning the linking of WWII, have been addressed, and the article is good to go (or rather, to go good). I will plan to do another reading or two (I just talked with a friend this morning who published a book, and told me how there was a mis-spelling in the opening paragraph, despite countless edits), and then move the article forward tomorrow. How did you come upon the likely provenance of the Dudley portrait? Looks like the portrait of Joseph was inverted and fuzzied up a bit to create the supposed portrait of Thomas. The position of the clothing (scarves) looks identical. I was hesitant to review a second one of your articles so soon after the last one, but then I thought it may be a year before any more articles come along in which I have a serious interest, so I had better do this one now before the opportunity is lost. Will you be doing any more work on the old magistrates?Sarnold17 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Overall assessment

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Yes; word choice, grammar, sentence length are appropriate; see comments where additions/deletions or rewording should be made

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Yes, references are suitable, diverse and used appropriately; see comments on consistency

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Yes, the life of the person is broadly presented

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes, to the extent that references present an unbiased representation, so does the article

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   no problems here

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Yes, but see comments on image placement

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

PASS