Wikipedia:Peer review/Anne Hutchinson/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Anne Hutchinson[edit]


* Further information

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to elevate it to FA status, but need someone to look it over. I've done the basic FA requirements (fixed DAB links, added alt text, and worked on citations ad nauseum). I'd greatly appreciate any assistance with prose and format.

Thanks, Sarnold17 (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take this but bear with me - it will take a bit of time. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I know this will be no light task, so I greatly appreciate this. I'm in no hurry; just want it to be good, and need more eyes on it.Sarnold17 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

First, really nice job on this page. I've been watching you build it and have been impressed with the work. Not many comments yet - I've read as far as the Boston section and generally it's well written and engaging. It is a long page, so I'd suggest if at all possible to go through and trim anything that seems like it's not necessary. Can't make any suggestions because nothing is jumping out me.

  • Thanks for your kind words. OK. My sense is that the article length is suitable for someone of her stature. This is a very famous colonial American figure about whom scores of books and countless articles have been written. My inclination is to not make the article shorter, but if you come across some unnecessary material, I'd be happy to trim it out. Feel free to question me on anything suspect.

Lead - I'll come back to this, because I tend to read leads after I've read the entire article. A few points though: move the bolding of her birth name to the first sentence of the lead; and I'm wondering about the phrasing that she was a participant in the Antimonian controversy - wasn't she the cause of it? That might need a bit of rephrasing.

  • OK, I can fix the bolding. BOLDING FIXED.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Most people, for good reason, think that Hutchinson was the cause of the Antinomian Controversy. The reason is because Governor Winthrop said she was, and this was supported by most of the other early writers on the subject as well. It wasn't until ten years ago, when Michael Winship came out with the latest work on the controversy, that her role was seen as being less central to the issue than previously thought. John Cotton, John Wheelwright, and Henry Vane were all players in the conflict whose importance to the events was equal to that of Hutchinson. However, Winthrop hung all the goods on Hutchinson for some cagey political reasons. First, John Cotton was a rock star. He was one of the three most important puritan ministers in New England (with Hooker and Davenport), and though his theology diverged from that of all the other New England ministers (except Wheelwright), he was WAY too important a person to go after. Losing one of the greatest puritans in the world from the Boston church would bring disgrace to the colony, and turn off the tap of immigration which kept the colony alive. Henry Vane, whose involvement in the controversy was thought minimal until recently, had, for his young age, some serious (and radical) theological ideas, and he may have been an instigator of far more than has been discovered. But like Cotton, Vane was untouchable. Vane was the son of a member of King Charles I's privy council (and thus one of the most powerful men in England). Winthrop and the other magistrates were deathly afraid of putting Vane's name in a bad light, because they could see losing their colonial charter, and Vane coming back as a royal governor (with much more power than as the elected governor for a year). Finally, it was probably Wheelwright, more than Hutchinson, who lit the fuse of the controversy with his incendiary fast-day sermon. Wheelwright was a contentious individual, and many historians can find plenty of good reason for his banishment. So what about Hutchinson? Well, as a woman, her activities were mostly behind closed doors, but her convictions, coupled with her boldness, made her quickly noticed by the ministers who did not like what they saw. They probably would have ignored her had she not been a woman. But she was unique among the women of the colony, and she had talents that she was not afraid to use. Ultimately it became quite convenient to run her through the muck of two trials, and pin the blame for everything on her, and sweep the rest under the carpet. And the outcome? Today, she is the shining star of the colonial era. Her fame eclipses that of every one of the other players, even the great Winthrop, who holds as much respect today as he did during his lifetime. There's a chance that Hutchinson would be much less famous today, had Winthrop not made such a pariah out of her.
Thinking about how to deal with this & I'll mull it over for a few days. I'm aware of most of this though not up-to-date on the newest research. I read the lead on the Antinomian controversy where I think the wording is a bit different. I think what you've written above is of course the full summary; now if that could be synthesized into a few words, it would be perfect! Working on these kinds of things are sometimes quite difficult if not impossible - that's why I want to think it over a bit. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the article on the Antinomian Controversy will need some rewording to reflect the latest research of Michael Winship (de-emphasizing Hutchinson somewhat, and adding in a few other events). I ordered all my books from the library early this summer, and wrote the above article in July. Well, the Winship book didn't arrive till August, and I was slow to accept it because it changed the tenor of 350 years of literature (on which the A.C. article is based). Furthermore, Winship is a really tough read, because the theology is unintelligible, but his account of the controversy is the most learned I've yet seen, and it is apparent that he has not only scoured all the literature, but has gone back and read most of the early sermons that are available, including some in England. I've just recently revamped the Wheelwright article using his material, and I will probably insert more into this article as we progress with this peer review.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


  • A bit confusing with the father in Marshalsea, and then in Alford, working, and then not working again.
  • Hopefully the trimming has helped this somewhat.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems to read better than the first time through. Still a bit on the long side though, e.g., although interesting, unless directly germane to the Hutchinson family, the info about the playwrights can probably go the sub-article. There a section on Elizabethan London could well be worked up and would be interesting. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Going back and taking a look, I can see what you are saying. I've taken some things out of chronological order, and that is likely confusing. Let me work on this.
You mentioned the article being too long, with some possibly unnecessary material. I think to satisfy that comment, and also the confusion on Anne's father, I would like to remove about a paragraph's worth of material on him. He is now well covered in his own article (which he wasn't when I began editing Anne's article), so it would probably be worthwhile to trim out some fat here, and simplify her childhood. My reluctance to do so is that I'll have to get rid of one of the images, but that's OK, since the images are more of a filler rather than highly important.
I think that's one of the areas that won't suffer from a bit of trimming. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Re length a few things. First, I tend to be a bit minimalist and prefer the less is more philosophy but it's important to know that's only my viewpoint. Also telling an engaging story rather than a dry account is important and I think you've achieved that goal, but it is possible that at FAC you'll run into requests for trimming. The other issue is that these are not easy concepts (you're writing not only a bio but have to explain some very convoluted theological dogma) which I think you've dealt with well. The only caveat is that I'm quite familiar with this material, so I'd suggest you try to get another set of eyes on this page before taking it to FAC; either at a GA review, or invite someone else to comment here. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I just perused a bunch of FA articles on people I'm familiar with. Of the history articles I viewed, Malcolm X is the longest at about 97K. Of military people, there are several (very famous) like Douglas MacArthur around 145K? Presidents go even further; both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama are right around 200K. I think it would be OK if we ended up at 105 or 110K for this article. I'm not sure I'm going to find another set of eyes like yours, because you are interested in the subject and have some knowledge about it, and are willing to devote a lot of time to feedback. I'm reluctant to go through GA because I put one article there in May and it didn't get picked up until this month. I think I'd rather suffer through an FA rejection, and pick up the pieces from there than wait forever for GA. At least that should offer more feedback. And that's why I chose peer review rather than GA for some feedback. I will continue to work on your comments, though some I have no ideas about, yet. Also, I have to do some editing on the civil trial. I just finished re-reading Winship's 2002 account, and see that this article is missing way too much. Actually, there should be a separate article entitled "The trials of Anne Hutchinson," but there are highlights that need to be included here.
  • Okay, that makes sense. I tend to go by word count, and it's at about 9800 or so now, but to be honest I think I might be in the minority in this regard, so probably not a lot to worry about. I just wanted to mention it here in case it comes up again. I'll post the remaining comments tomorrow. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


  • A suggestion, but I haven't a clue how where to put this: somehow the split between the Puritan tenets and Laud's tenets needs to be explained (maybe?) so the reader understands why her father was imprisoned, as well as Cotton later.
    • this is probably a good idea; I read these differences in all the books, so it is assumed knowledge for me, yet I likely have not conveyed this in the article. I'll work on this.
This material will be added just before Laud chases Cotton from England. I have to dig up a reference, first, but I know I have one or more available.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
DONE. I've added two sentences about what made Puritans not conform with Anglican Church before mentioning that Laud came after Cotton. This was the most appropriate place for this discussion. Marbury, though a Puritan, was imprisoned more for his brash impudence and behavior, and he eventually conformed to the established church (and thus became successful in England).
  • "Outwardly all seemed to be going well, but in February 1611, when Anne was 19 years old, Marbury died suddenly, at the age of 55." > might consider doing without the outwardly; for some reason it threw me, and 55 wasn't an unusual age to die at that period.

THIS HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF, AND THE MATERIAL REWORDED A BIT.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

    • Will remove "outwardly." I'm inclined to leave the age bit as is. Marbury was a robust man who was at the height of his career. There is nothing known about him to suggest that he should have died at such an age. Working on colonial New England biographies, I find it notable when someone dies in their 40s or 50s. Off the top of my head, I would give 70-75 as being an average age for colonial people of prominence. I have found a good number of them who lived into their 80s. Wheelwright died when about 87.
  • Sorry, I only meant remove "outwardly"; the age should stay. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


  • "Shortly after their 9 August 1612 marriage, the couple moved to their hometown of Alford where they visited a variety of nearby parish churches." > I think this is explained in the following sentences, but as it stands is confusing. Presumably they were looking for a preacher whom they liked and according to Puritan tenets could attend church outside of their parish, but I think that needs to be explained somehow other than having them look at churches and then finally finding Cotton on Boston. (Btw - I didn't realize Cotton was also in Boston - interesting that).

THIS SECTION HAS BEEN REWORDED, SO CHECK AGAIN FOR ITS FLOW.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


  • Check for overlinking. I removed a few links that weren't necessary and there are so many important links that I'd definitely stay away from unimportant links.
    • I will go through the article with an eye for these; in the meantime, please unlink anything that is unimportant.
  • Have been both delinking and linking. I think that many or the theological doctrines should be linked with the assumption that not every one is Christian and that this is difficult Puritan theology (to say the least!). Have a look at the Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych - about a religious painting - where many points of Christian theology are linked. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Check for logical quotations – house style is to have quotation marks outside of the punctuation unless the punctuation is part of the sentence, i.e a full-stop at the end of a sentence - then the quotations marks are after the punctuation.
    • please correct any obvious occurrences of this; I suspect most of these are typos.
    • on second viewing, and looking at your edits, these are not typos. I've been doing this intentionally all along because that's what I learned to do in elementary school ## years ago. You mean we now put the transitioning punctuation outside the quotes? It makes sense, but I will have to do some re-learning.
  • We follow a different style on Wikipedia - well because for one thing it's done differently in different English speaking countries. Lots of us are unlearning, but only for these pages - in real life what you learned in elementary school still stands. Also, to confuse it even more, if the quote ends with a period, then the quote marks come after; otherwise before. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been changing the ones that are obvious; but those am leaving those about which I'm unsure. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Probaby need some non-breaking spaces for the dates. Sorry can't remember where that policy is but will try to find it for you.
    • I find these terribly annoying; can we let someone go through the article with AWB to clean these up? Actually, I think this has probably been done in the past, but I've made so many edits that it likely needs another go-round.
  • One of dates broke (leaving a seemingly random number just before a line break) and that's why I noticed; I don't mind adding as I'm reading through.Truthkeeper (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • MIles are converted to km in the England section but not in the Boston section; suggest eliminating the conversions. Otherwise they will have to be added everywhere for consistency and it wouldn't make sense in the Boston section
Shouldn't we covert all units? I thought that was an FA requirement, but I may be wrong. I'm not sure what you mean by not making sense in the Boston section.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Probably we should; but we do have to be consistent. What I meant is that it's not consistently converted throughout the article, so all miles have to be converted to km. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Captions: the only place I've seen captions centered is on one of my own early articles (in a gallery and I think since changed). I looked in MOS:CAPTION and it didn't say anything
Feel free to uncenter. I just thought they had a certain aesthetic appeal centered, but maybe not.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother about it. I like them too. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


  • I think it would be useful to explain that William set up as a merchant upon arrival in Boston earlier than the description of the house. I found myself wondering how they afforded a 3 story house with glazed windows and then the 600 acres in Quincy. Probably move the sentence beginning with "Once established ... " up a little?

Home Bible study group

  • "Often her spiritual interpretation was widely divergent from the more refined and legalistic renderings from the colony's ministers. > slightly awkward with the "from" and then another "from" soon after
  • "Others, particularly merchants and craftsmen, were attracted by her ideas of the disassociation of the state of a man's soul and his outward behavior" > needs explanation here. But ... it is explained in a lower section and I have a suggestion for a slight re-org.
  • The mention of craftsmen and merchants comes from Battis' 1962 sociological study of the controversy. He was trying to establish why so many families of wealth were the ones who left the colony.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, that makes sense. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Increasingly, the ministers opposed Hutchinson’s meetings" > the Puritan ministers? clarify, same problem as above
  • All the ministers were Puritan; there were no others. Any time the word ministers is used in the article, it means all the ministers except for Cotton and Wheelwright, who were the only "free grace advocates" among the ministers.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I understand, but the general reader doesn't know that, unless it's explicitly stated. I may have missed it though. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Boston Church

  • Have you considered placing this section before the Home Bible study group? I think it would help the flow, and help explain why her ideas (that I say in the section above need clarification) were out of the mainstream
  • DONE

Antinomian controversy

  • The second paragraph gives a good background that's needed for the general reader. It would do well if it were move (but not sure where?). Either at the end of the "Boston" section, after the "Home bible study", or as a separate "Background" to the "Antinomian controversy" section.
  • "While Hutchinson took a leading role as the chief antagonist of the orthodox party, theologically it was Cotton's differences of opinion with the other ministers in Massachusetts that was at the heart of the controversy.[39] " > probably a good idea to attribute this directly to a scholarly source.
  • Man & woman emphasized after Hutchinson's long quote > not sure we do that because it's considered editorializing. Need to see what MoS says about it but maybe best to eliminate
  • Thus ended the civil trial of Hutchinson, in an infant community whose leaders looked on democracy as the worst form of government.[10]" > this sentence will come as a surprise to some (many?) general readers who might (may?) believe the colonies were settled on the belief of democracy so I'd suggest direct attribution here as well.
  • Should it be explained the reason for the civil trial and then the church trial? Again on the assumption that the general reader may well not know that at that time Boston was a theocracy. (if that's the right word)
  • I think the rewritten version of these sections will address this issue. As of now, I think the long intro to the Antinomian Controversy section explains the reasoning for the civil trial, but if not, the rewritten version does (and in the sandbox I've added material on the October 1636 meeting of the ministers which is critically important to what transpires during the civil trial).
  • "Fearful that Hutchinson's example might be imitated by other women, the divines wished to catch her in a major theological error, then subject her to public punishment" > consider rewording "devines" to something the like the authorities, unless divines has a specific meaning / title here.
  • I am reluctant to define a word that is an everyday word in the literature concerning the controversy. I think the best bet, as with any other fancy word, is to use the word in clear context early in the article so that the reader gains some understanding of its meaning. For example, "The colony's ministers were offended by Hutchinson's insinuations. These divines were therefore more than willing to let her accusations be known during her trial."Sarnold17 (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • To allow for a varied word choice, the ministers are given a variety of names, all meaning the same group of people: preachers, pastors, divines, priests, and clergy all mean essentially the same thing as minister in this article.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The argument for variety is valid - but I'm still wondering if it might trip up a general reader. On the fence about this. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • see comment made about same subject belowSarnold17 (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've totally rewritten the section on the Antinomian Controversy, but it is probably more than twice as long as the original version. I would like you to take a look at it in my sandbox before I transfer it to the article, and put in the remainder of the citations. It includes most of the events, some of which don't directly involve Hutchinson, but are crucial to the controversy. Here's the link: User:Sarnold17/sandbox4.
  • I've had a look at the sandbox version and I've skimmed the Antinomian Controversy; my feeling is that it's becoming too detailed again. Since you have subarticles (daughter articles) which is always a luxury in my view, I'd suggest the following: adhere as much as possible to summary style and shove everything not to do directly with Hutchinson's biography into the subarticles. At the same time try to avoid overlap between the biography article and the subarticles. This is not always easy, but in the end is best practice in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Church trial

  • "The ministers were all on hand to protect the pristine integrity of their doctrine" > should be attributed or reworded such that they believed their doctrine to be pristine

More later. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Have you thought about adding a quote from her recantation? It's moving and gives more of her voice in this story in my view.
  • Do you have anything in mind? I'll take a look at this later.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's in the trial which I see is linked in external links. I noticed a quote in Winthrop's Modell of Christian Charity but having Winthrop quote Hutchinson wouldn't work. The trial is interesting though. It is a primary source, but I think fine to use for one or two direct quotes but not anything else. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Final pregnancy

  • Is it worth adding that Winthrop described the miscarriage as "a monstrous birth"? and it was seen as proof of her depravity? > adding: have found something about this at the end of the paragraph; might be worth bringing that up and then the discussion re menopause
  • A quote from Winthrop about the monstrous births was added where it seemed to fit well.Sarnold17 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


  • Winthrop noted in his journal > is this from A Model of Christian Charity? Or any of his other quotes? If so, should probably mention the title. Tangential: that page is a mess!
  • No, I think any mention of his journal comes from the journal proper. I don't think I have his journal as a reference in this article, but I do have it as a reference on the daughter's article, Susanna Cole. In this article, any mention or quote from the journal is made by someone else, not me.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This needs to be checked. I have A Modell of Christian Charity and will check there's no cross-over; I thought I saw some, but have been tired and might have gotten confused. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "During her tenure in Portsmouth, Hutchinson came to a new result of her philosophy" > very nitpicky, but maybe result isn't quite the right word here. Came to a "new belief in her philosophy" or something like that?
This is one of the many sentences I inherited, and I attempted to be defferential to previous authors and maintain their material. A lot I had to remove because it was not adequately sourced, including some stuff I'd have liked to keep. I can reword this when I get there.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've reworded the opening sentence about her philosophy. I may later add that she became a seeker (like Roger Williams), but need to find the quote in Winship.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to finish this soon but suspect it might not be until the weekend. Sorry, but busy in real life at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit bogged down. I will also wait till the weekend to put some fresh effort into this.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

New Netherland

  • The background is a little heavy here. I've been thinking about this for several days and I'd consider trimming the following: "As the governor of Rhode Island (Aquidneck Island), Coddington made overtures to both the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Plymouth Colony, wanting his island to become part of the United Colonies. These two larger colonies would only agree to this if they were allowed to absorb Rhode Island, which Coddington would not accept. Nevertheless, both colonies regularly threatened the sovereignty of the Rhode Island colony and her people, causing Hutchinson and other settlers much anxiety. This compelled her to move totally out of the reach of the Bay colony and its sister colonies in Connecticut, and New Haven and move into the jurisdiction of the Dutch.[84]" > and then start with "Sometime after the summer of 1642 ... ".
  • I've reworded the intro to a single important sentence.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The long quote in the 2nd para should be a blockquote
  • changed to a blockquote.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hutchinson home site

  • A bit overdeveloped. Everything after the quote in the second sentence seems to be supposition and probably can be condensed in the text and some even shoved into a note. If this section were to be trimmed, I suggest combining with the one above.
  • Removed some sentences, and eliminated subsection, making it part of the overall section on New Netherland. I had gone overboard on the explanations, since it was all new and interesting to me, but I agree that it needed trimming.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


  • Section needs an active topic sentence that comes right out says what happened and when - should come before the blockquote
  • I added to the opening sentence, hinting at what was coming, but I didn't want to spill all the beans at once; this is way too interesting to not read what follows.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "The warriors then dragged the bodies into the house along with the cattle, and then set fire to the place, which burned to the ground" > rephrase to avoid repetition of "then"
  • Removed second "then."Sarnold17 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Cultural impact & HIstorical impact

  • Suggestion for structure: have you considered having only the single level two section, with gender, heretic and politics as separate paras, followed by the two paras in historical impact? The ToC is a bit long and this would be a way of cutting it down. Also, maybe trim these a bit.
This has been the most troublesome part of the entire article for me, and it is where I took stuff from the original article and swept it into this one section. I'd like to get rid of the entire mess, except I did add the historical stuff.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Let it sit for a while and ignore it, and then come back to it with fresh eyes and see what you think. These sections can be tricky. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I combined the two sections into a single section titled "Historical impact," then added a subsection "modern view." I generally left everything else alone; I'm still uneasy with a lot of this, because I didn't write it, but if it sounds OK to others, I'm OK with leaving it.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is better. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Many historians suggest" > best to avoid that kind of construction. Because this is generally true, I'd suggest attributing to the source, e.g. something like "Lauter writes that many historian suggest .... "
  • I changed this to "Some historians suggest" because it's too clutsy for me to attribute this, since this is not material that I put into the article.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll come back to this, but certainly Winthrop gives much attention to her in a Modell of Christian Charity which was much read. Should probably add something about it here. That might take of this point discussed up-page.
  • I don't have access to "Modell of Christian Charity." Isn't this the speech made during the crossing from England? If so, why would it mention Hutchinson?Sarnold17 (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Winship calls Hutchison" > Winship needs to be introduced (presumably a historian) with his first name on first occurrence and use surname on subsequent occurrences.
  • I labeled him as "historian Michael Winship" the first time mentioned.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Memorials and legacy

  • Consider reducing footprint and size of the inscription for two reasons: 1., it's repeated in the Split Rock page that's linked directly above (or remove it from there?); 2., it's a little distracting. This is subjective though, so feel free to ignore. Also, probably not a good idea to use the rootsweb page as a source for this, it must exist somewhere else
Can't change the inscription without messing up the centering. It's the only way I could get it to work. Also, this is different than the inscription on the Split Rock page. That inscription came from a plaque that used to be affixed to the rock, but was vandalized. I'll look for another source for the quote, but in the dozens of books I've so far consulted, I've not seen the inscription written out.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I kind of laughed when I saw it; it's the same rootsweb page we use in our family. This is not a big deal. Just wanted to mention because it might come up. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think too much detail to the Quincy memorial: the Wheelwrights, though interesting, could be taken out and then link from that page to this section; much of the rest has been stated up-page so a little repetitive
  • Removed the bit about Wheelwright. Thought it was interesting at the time I wrote it, but I agree it is best left out in this article.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Literary works

  • "Some literary critics" > same as the comment above. This is certainly true and I'm sure I have a source lying around that says something to the effect the Hester/Hutchinson relationship is fully accepted by lit. critics
OK, I'll reword. This is another sentence that I inherited.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Hester was what orthodox Puritans said Hutchinson was, either in reality or at least spiritually.[110] The parallel is that Hutchinson is the heretic who metaphorically seduces the Puritan community, while in Hawthorne's novel Hester Pyrnne literally seduces the minister of her community.[111]" This sentence needs attribution for a number of reasons: 1., although lit critics general agree on the Hester/Hutchinson relationship, that's where the agreement ends & 2., the issue of who was doing the seducing is a debatable question in American lit., so I'd just pin this on Lang
That's exactly where it comes from. Did I not source this correctly?Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's sourced correctly. I mean attribute it to Lang. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, gotcha; that's a good point. Can do easy.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I made attributions to both LaPlante and Lang.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


  • The sentence about Sacagawea is bordering on trivia; suggest trimming it out.
  • I inherited the above sentence, and was happy to remove it.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As with the section/s above, with some trimming and shoving around, it can be tightened and possibly the subsections removed. An example would be the "Legacy" section in Brothers Grimm and Ernest Hemingway (I've just noticed that Hemingway has bloated, so maybe not a great example, but the point is that these sections tend to become trivia magnets).
  • I kinda want to leave this material in, but if you have a specific sentence for deletion, let me know.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure. Will think about it; if I don't respond, just let it be. I'm a bit overly picky about these sections. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


  • This is another piece I mulled over for a few days: I think this section would work better if it were moved way up - perhaps to come after the "Massacre" section. Certainly the beginning of it flows from the events in the "Massacre" section so logically it makes sense to put it there.
  • In all the articles I've written, and the many quality biographical articles that I've reviewed or read, the family section invariably comes at the end. It would feel very awkward to me to move it elsewhere. How strongly do you feel about this?Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Not that strongly. I've not done a biography like this, so defer to you on it. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


  • Fixed, to the best of my ability, since this is not my work.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Current policy is that if something is linked in the body of the page to trim from the "See also", so that needs to be checked
OK; this is an easy fix.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see where the four items under "See also" are linked anywhere in the article.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Neither can I - sorry about that. Must have been tired. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Further reading

  • I'd delete this. You can't read all the literature nor can you list all the literature, so it's a no win situation. Be certain though, you've done a thorough and comprehensive literature search (and used as sources) per 1., c. of WP:WIAFA. Also, I wondered why Winship's 2002 title wasn't used - that looks interesting.
Holy smokes, I've never checked as many sources for any other article. This article is two summers worth of borrowing books through inter-library loan followed by a lot of reading. The books and articles are generally the latest and the greatest as well, except for what I couldn't get my hands on. Lang (1987) was too tough for me to read (she writes in PHDese), so I only used a little material from her. Winship 2002 is great, and is the reason that I've rewritten or am re-writing the sections of this article covering the Antinomian Controversy (including the two trials). When I collected all my books early this summer for two months of research, the two Winship books were delayed getting to me (took 5-6 weeks), so I did all my writing, and after all my articles were complete (I thought), I then got the Winship books and began plowing through them. The 2005 book was OK, but I had tremendous difficulty with it, because after Hutchinson had been the center, no, make that the cause, of the controversy, here comes Winship telling us that she was just one of the players, and much less important than the entire world has believed for 375 years. This was a game changer and a tough pill to swallow. Then after finishing Winship's 2005 book, I launched into the 2002 book, with tremendous difficulty. At least I knew what he was going to say from his later book, but the theological groundwork in the early part of the 2002 book is so thick that I could barely negotiate my way through it. The book becomes much more inteiligible as one gets into the familiar sequence of events that formed the controversy. Anyway, by the time the Winship books had arrived, I had already put the Antinomian Controversy and the John Wheelwright article up for GA status. The reviewer of the Wheelwright article said that more current sources needed to be used, so in nine days I basically rewrote the article using Winship 2002 and another 1991 article that the reviewer sent me. The result is that I am WAY MORE pleased with Wheelwright's article than before. I'm hoping that if the Antinomian Controversy article gets picked up soon that the reviewer will be as flexible, and allow me to make changes. My thinking is that a lot of changes are going to be made anyway; why not use the review as the stimulus to make the important updates as well. I've already tried to slip in a bunch of Winship in the Antinomian Controversy article, but the lead needs to be entirely revamped. I just don't want to make major changes right before a review; let me make them as part of the review. Oh, and by the way, I have owned LaPlante's 2004 biography of Hutchinson for a year, and because I now view Winship's 2002 book as THE most important and current work on the controversy (his research is truly impressive, reading all those early sermons...), I went and ordered it from Amazon, and now have my own copy to continue with my research and writing. My plan is to begin working on Cotton's article soon, but the volume of literature will be somewhat daunting, so it will take time, just like Hutchinson has. Anyway, I will be VERY surprised if anyone suggests that this article is not well sourced.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I think that came across wrong on my part. I think you have done a wonderful job with the research - that's why you can most likely do without the "Further reading" section, unless you feel strongly about keeping it. Interesting story though, and it does show that perspectives vary. I've had similar experiences. Anyway, this isn't a big deal and apologize for having given the wrong impression. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The further reading stems from my own affinity toward bibliographies. Someone somewhere published a bibliography on Anne Hutchinson, and I used it to find some pretty good material. I just think it's neat to see what's out there, and the number of biographies shows how important the world thinks Hutchinson is. As to the biographies, I generally only consulted those that were listed by others as being important, since I couldn't read them all. This was another reason I was slow to pick up Winship's books--they were too new to be on any of the "must read" lists that I came across, and I hate to waste time plowing through low-grade material. I had to check them out only because they were new, and they were worth the wait, despite messing up my time table.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


  • Almost all FAC noms are spotchecked (for close paraphrasing, etc.,) so I looked at the few online sources and didn't find any problems.
I got hit hard for close paraphrasing during the GA review of my Mary Pickersgill article. That was the first time the subject had ever come up during any of my reviews, and I am now ultra-sensitive to it. As I make changes in this article for the peer review, I am also rewording other items that look like I may have borrowed a few too many words from the source.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Phew. Nice job and good luck! Truthkeeper (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a job! You've really put some time and effort into this, and I hope I can justify your work with some good responses, and an article that's worthy to move up.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I enjoyed it. Also to be clear – don't feel you have to do all of this. As I said, I'm picky, and these are suggestions only. Anyway, it'll stay on my watchlist so I'll follow the progress. And don't forget that we don't have deadlines! Truthkeeper (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)