Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of colonial governors of Massachusetts/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:42, 4 July 2011 [1].

List of colonial governors of Massachusetts

Featured list candidates/List of colonial governors of Massachusetts/archive1

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 23:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this one for a while, and think it is ready for feature list consideration. Massachusetts has a somewhat tangled early colonial history into which this list opens a window. Thanks in advance for your time and feedback. Magic♪piano 23:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I know it's obvious to you, but perhaps a clarification that this is the United States we're talking about in the opening paragraph wouldn't go amiss to non-expert readers. Fixed Magic♪piano 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not keen on the See also note in the lead image caption, that's what See also sections are for. Removed Magic♪piano 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"first permanent settlement... second major settlement" - is that to say the second wasn't permanent then?
- Correct. The second settlement was Wessagusset, which failed. Magic♪piano 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merchant Adventurers appears to be a disambiguation link. Fixed Magic♪piano 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"settlers to engage in profit-making activities in the colony.[2] The settlers had intended to settle near" suffering from "settle" overdose I'm afraid. Reworded Magic♪piano 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"more than thirty terms" - did I miss the bit where you told me how long a term was?
- Yes, in the first sentence of the paragraph. Magic♪piano 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what MOS says about year ranges, but if it's the same century, I've always tended to just include the last two digits, so 1622–23 instead of 1622–1623.
- WP:MOS says "A closing CE–AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986)." WP:YEAR is silent on the matter. WP:MILMOS#DATERANGE (not that this bit of MOS applies here, but one I've used a fair amount) allows either method. Aren't WP guidelines wonderful? I've change it to two digit years where appropriate. Magic♪piano 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dominion in the lists is shown in italics, but in the prose without, seems inconsistent to me. Fixed Magic♪piano 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 21, 38, 48 need spaces after the comma. Fixed Magic♪piano 01:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"the newly-formed Commonwealth of Massachusetts elected John Hancock as its first governor." The hyphen after -ly should only be there if it's in a compounding part of a sentence. It's borderline as to whether that's the case here.
Popham County: "and was replaced by Ralegh Gilbert. Gilbert...". It would be better without the repetition in the sentence transition.
Governor-General of New England: Hyphen in "recently-failed" is one that I'm pretty sure should be removed.
Massachusetts Bay Colony: William Phips doesn't need a link here since he was already linked in an earlier section.
Dominion of New England: Charles II was linked in the last section, and also doesn't need a second link later.
Province of Massachusetts Bay: I see another Phips link and a "newly-formed" that matches the one in the lead.
At the bottom of the table, the page range needs an en dash.
Last note: "This is de facto end of Oliver's tenure". The previous note has "the" after "This is", and I think that is needed here as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I've left "newly-formed" as is (I'm the wrong person to know the ins and outs of hyphen placement), but have addressed the others. Magic♪piano 19:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from W F C

*Comment I'm preoccupied today, but of all the current nominations that I haven't looked at, this is one that I'm particularly keen to review. If I forget to return in the coming days, and this is in danger of being archived for lack of reviews, please could one of the directors ping me? —W F C— 12:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFC

The list is excellent, and most of the nit-picking has already been covered. Just a few loose ends to clear up before I support.

Richard Greene's article states that he died in October 1622, but this list says November 1622. The former might be wrong, but if it's correct, I assume that he didn't remain as governor for the extra month? There may be one or two other situations like this, I didn't check everyone to see if they had died.
On that note, it's possibly worth denoting where someone died in office, for instance with a †. This would have the added advantage of helping a reader more easily understand why there is sometimes a more detailed date within the same table, such as the May 1657 entry in the Plymouth table.
For notes 57 and 58, de facto and de jure tenures appear to be different. Assuming this to be the case, would it be possible to give the latter as part of the notes for completeness? —W F C— 15:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! A few comments in response:

Greene's date of death is actually uncertain. Bradford's record, on which the Greene article relies, implies it occurred in September or October 1622. I have adjusted that date in this article to reflect the uncertainty. Sanders is described as Greene's replacement, but no precise date of assumption is given.
I've added indications when various officeholders died in office or left without immediate replacement, and added more detailed dates to the Plymouth table.
As far as the de jure ends of the royal governance are concerned, I've not seen any source indicating when the Gage and Oliver commissions were formally terminated. (This information might exist, but it's probably buried in the colonial office records. Gage's biographer John Alden, for example, does not report when his commission ended, only noting that he continued to technically hold the office at least into 1776.) Magic♪piano 13:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support an excellently constructed list that I implore others to review. I also think that this would be a great candidate at Today's featured list submissions once it passes; it deserves main page exposure, and I've yet to see another one like this. —W F C— 14:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - excellent work -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, read through and found no issues. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.