Talk:John Wheelwright/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Magicpiano (talk · contribs) 20:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this; stay tuned. Magic♪piano 20:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I plan to pick up your Danforth article in about a week, but have to take care of some other things first. I hate to let a colonial Massachusetts person article pass me by. I still greatly regret not doing your Henry Vane article; it would have helped me a lot in my Anne Hutchinson research.Sarnold17 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

There are instances where linkable terms are used before they are linked (Charles Bell and Cambridge spring to mind, but there are probably others). There is also some overlinking, and some minor facts are repeated (e.g. the renaming of Newtown to Cambridge).

I think I've fixed these

Bell is referred to as "Governor Bell" without comment or explanation. If his governorship is important it should be explained; otherwise it suffices to use "Bell" or "Charles Bell".

This should now be taken care of

Lead

It sounds like Wheelwright and Hutchinson are opposed to Cotton in the Antinomian Controversy; it should be clarified that they are opposed to the colonial leadership.

Reworded

What are the "extraordinary events" before 1656? You should link to what you mean.

reworded

Early life

"landed property" sounds redundant. FIXED
Words like "Deacon" and "Priest" are not proper nouns (second paragraph) FIXED
2nd para last sentence is overlong REDID
It sounds like Wheelwright was suspended before his successor was chosen; I suspect this is not what you mean. REWORDED
Who is "Winship"? (First use: for all I know without visiting the references, he could be a contemporary) FIXED
What were his opinions that caused him to be "silenced"? Who was doing the silencing? I'd expect this section to outline his developing religious views; as it is, I have no idea what they are.

I added that he was silenced for his puritan opinions by the anglican church. Being silenced was a badge of honor for puritan ministers; it was a pretty routine occurrence for the New England divines.

Antinomian controversy

You need to explain a little more the different theological positions (more than quoting Winthrop). Wheelwright's differs from Hutchinson's how? from those of the magistrates how? What made Hutchinson's view "extreme" (this word BTW is POV--obviously not everyone thought these views were "extreme")? What differentiates a "covenant of grace" from a "covenant of works"?

I've attempted to address these issues by adding additional material. I'm trying not to get too involved with Hutchinson in this article; the two shared many theological opinions, but Hutchinson did not appear to have much impact on Wheelwright; she just agreed with his "covenant of grace" theology.

Exeter, Wells, and Hampton

I would attempt to locate other sources on the publication of A Short Story and the rebuttal. The Bell quotes sound awfully hagiographic. See articles on Vane and Winthrop, I know this came up.
"Wheelwright published a vindication [...] which has not survived." cited to Bell. See New England Quarterly, March 1991, wherein a writer describes finding it, and extensively analyzes it. (If you don't have access to JSTOR (JSTOR 365896) or a physical copy, I can email you a PDF of the article.)

New section added detailing this self-vindication. This turns out to be extremely important, because it was written by Wheelwright himself, and expresses his feelings about the controversy that have haunted him most of his life.

England

It is never made explicit that the "commoner" referred to is Cromwell. FIXED
What did Wheelwright do between 1656 and 1658? (Was he at all involved in the politics or religion of those years?)

It appears that he preached, just like he did in New England. I've not seen any mention of his involvement with any of the politics

No mention of the events that prompted Vane's arrest and execution. It's naive to suggest that your reader will know about the restoration without linking it.

I've added minimal material to simply address the issue; I don't want to get too side-tracked here.

Salisbury

"Few records of his time in Salisbury exist, despite this being the longest pastorate in his varied life, lasting nearly 17 years." This is cited to Bell, a history more than 125 years old. Have no records been found since then? (This is one of the perils of relying on old works that you should be aware of, given the genealogical todo of your ancestor.) I would poke at local histories (of Salisbury and Amesbury) to see what underlay their division.

I haven't done this yet; I've added a bit on the conflict with Pike, since that seems to be the most written-about ordeal of Wheelwright's tenure in Salisbury.

Sourcing

I'm concerned about overreliance on a single 19th century source (Bell). Other, more modern, sources appear to be available, in some cases having non-trivial content on Wheelwright. (See e.g. Winship's Making Heretics, and works by Francis Bremer, whose take on Mercurius Americanus in Congregational Communion is noteworthy.) Google Books also turns up a book entitled John Wheelwright by John Heard, published 1930 (available at URI and Brown, according to Worldcat).

I've added extensive material from Winship, who currently is the last word on the Antinomian Controversy. His research is extensive, and his story is a bit of a game changer in that the focus of the controversy has been moving away from Hutchinson, with Cotton, Wheelwright and Vane coming more into the spotlight, along with their biggest adversary, Thomas Shepard. David Hall, in 1990, already demonstrated Cotton's centrality to the ordeal, and he also presented some source material that put more of the spotlight on Shepard. Winship portrays Shepard as the "heresy hunter" who pushed the free grace advocates into their strong anti-legalist posturing. Winship also, for the first time, makes Vane and his more radical theology a major player. Cotton and Vane, however, are untouchable because of their high social standings, and Winthrop always considered Wheelwright to be a godly minister, despite his opinions and demeanor. This left Hutchinson to take the blame for the entire mess, and it was Winthrop who made her famous as the great pariah of the age.

Images

Images check out fine.

Overall

I view the sourcing (a minimal use of modern scholarship) to be a troubling issue, given what I was able to find in about 15 minutes of online searching. (I've not actually poked hard at how well you've used your sources, which is still needed; however, if significant sourcing work is to come, that work can wait.) This is arguably fixable in the context of this review; I'm willing to hold it open if you think it can be addressed in a reasonable time frame (two weeks or so). --Magic♪piano 21:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The article was written based on available sources, and then I got hold of some more recent material which has prompted some patchwork changes, resulting in a few of your comments. I did an inter-library loan of Winship's 2002 work, which I will have access to for nine more days. Let's see what I can put together during that time, and then assess where the article should go. I would like to get the pdf of the NE Quarterly article you mentioned. Can you access my email through wikipedia? I know it's been done before. Otherwise I'll just give you the address here. By the way, concerning access to sourcing, how does one get access to JSTOR? Is there a subscription? Also, what can you tell me about "high beam research," something I see on the user pages of other wikipedians?
I have access to both JSTOR and Highbeam through my public library (the "Gale Virtual Reference Library" is what they call Highbeam); you might inquire at library systems in your area. I know that Wikimedia acquired a number of seats to Highbeam for "experienced" editors (1,000+ edits I think so you'd qualify); it's a collection of databases, mostly of 20th century newspapers, encyclopedias, and the like. I've not found it all that useful for colonial-era stuff, but there are also biographical dictionaries (with sketch-length bios) which sometimes give useful info. Wikimedia also has a pilot program to facilitate access to JSTOR (see Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access), but all the accounts have probably been given away. If you want to spend money, you can buy articles and individual journal subscriptions from JSTOR. I believe you can search it for free, but you'll only get abstracts for non-free content. (It has PD materials like pre-1923 journals that you can probably access without cost.) Magic♪piano 14:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelwright's earlier article needed a lot of work, so I rewrote it as an aside to the work I've been doing on Hutchinson and the Antinomian controversy. Since Wheelwright wasn't my focus, I did not pick up Heard's 1930 biography, though I'm quite familiar with Heard. Battis did not focus too heavily on Wheelwright, but Winship does, so therein should be some good up-to-date material. In fact, Winship downplays Hutchinson in the controversy, and greatly magnifies the role of Vane, and to a lesser extent Cotton; however, Cotton's role in the controversy was already considered focal in 1990 by Hall, and perhaps earlier. There is a lot of Wheelwright material in Winship, so, again, I'll see what I can put together.Sarnold17 (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good; I'll hold the nomination then. Magic♪piano 14:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can reasonably do in the time allotted. There are other sources out there; I would like to look at Bremer's treatment of Mercurius Americanus, but can't do that in the context of this review. I'm delighted to have added the additional material, because I agree with your assessment that more modern sources were needed. Though not all-inclusive, I think the subject is now well-covered. There are additional details that can be added, but I don't think they will change the overall story much, especially since I think I've hit the most important aspect of Wheelwright's life (the Antinomian Controversy) with the latest material.

Article is looking much better; are you still planning to add material on the Salisbury time (mentioned above as not done yet)? Magic♪piano 15:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything else on Salisbury. Did you have some sources in mind, or did you run across something on the web? Both Bell and Winship mention nothing of Salisbury other than the conflict with Pike. Am I missing something important?Sarnold17 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not missing anything, it's just you stated above that you hadn't finished with it. If the more recent sources don't have more to say on Salisbury, I'm fine with what's there. Magic♪piano 13:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A web search came up with a 1673 divorce of one of Wheelwright's daughters, but this is hardly worth mentioning in this article. Therefore, I'm done with any major edits, and will await your comments on the rewritten article.Sarnold17 (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
You might try to find images to further illustrate the second half of the article.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: