# Talk:John Endecott

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Endecott/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sarnold17 (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2011 {UTC)

I am making my first Good Article Review.  For this reason, I would like to have others join in the review.
I have read over the good article criteria many times, and find that this article meets all of those criteria.  I have looked at the documentation for each image, and I have checked all of the wikilinks (that took several hours).  I do not understand the criterion for multiple footnotes being in order; in what order should they be?  My overall impression is that, with a few minor edits, this article is ready for Good Article status.

The rule on order of footnotes is that adjacent ones should appear in numerically increasing order (i.e. [1][3] rather than [3][1]). This can get messed up when an editor rearranges sections or adds or removes footnotes. Magic♪piano 16:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I suspected that might be the case, but now fully understand.  Thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have made numerous small edits, and one rather large edit regarding the wives of John Endecott.  As originally written, the article presented Endecott as having two wives, and then allowed for the possibility that he may have had three.  From my understanding, using Anderson, Sanborn & Sanborn's Great Migration Begins I think the case for his having had more than two wives is stronger than his having had just two.  I therefore attempted to reword the section to at least give equal weight to the two theories of two wives vs three.

Thanks for expanding on this -- I wasn't sure on how far to go with it. Magic♪piano 16:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Having printed out the article and completed several readings, I have the following comments:


### Life
In the last sentence, it says "Some early colonial documents refer to him as "Captain Endecott," indicating some military experience..."  Though I made some edits on this sentence, it still needs to be reworded, because his military experience was well known and well documented, and is not just assumed from the title "Captain."  Therefore the sentence should acknowledge his military experience, and then just allude to his medical training (of which nothing is written).
His military experience prior to Massachusetts does not appear to be well documented (unless your sources say otherwise).  But Endecott is apparently sometimes referred to as Captain even in early company documents and correspondence. Magic♪piano 16:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Good; I was jumping the gun, thinking of his future military experience, rather than his experience up to his arrival in New England.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


### Settlement in the New World
Towards the end of the section the word "Puritanism" is wiki-linked.  Though the link doesn't go to a disambiguation page, per se, it does go to a page which for all intents is the same as a disambiguation page, of little meaning to a reader.  I suspect the link should probably go to "Puritans." Fixed Magic♪piano 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


### Pequot War
"...the body of John Oldham was found "in his Indian-occupied boat..."  Did someone board the boat which was full of Indians and discover the body?  This should be reworded to reflect that Indians attacked his boat, boarded it, and killed several of the crew/passengers including Oldham. Rephrased Magic♪piano 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Same paragraph as above:  "The supposed harbouring of the fugitive Narragansetts was combined by Massachusetts authorities...with anger that the Pequots had earlier failed to..."  Sentence needs clarification.  It was the other Indians who were harbouring the fugitive Narragnsetts, but it was the colonists who were angered by the Pequots.  I can't really tell what the noun and verb are meant to be in this sentence. Rephrased Magic♪piano 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the same section:  "He was then to go to the Pequots on the mainland, and demand..."  I had difficulty with this sentence, and wouldn't mind if another reviewer took a look.  I could follow much more easily if it were worded as such:  "He was then to go to the Pequots on the mainland with three demands:  first, the surrender of the killers...; second, a thousand fathoms of wampum; and third, some Pequot children..." Rephrased Magic♪piano 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
In the following sentence to the above it reads, "Although most of the Block Island Indians only briefly disputed the English landing on Block Island..."  The word "disputed" sounds awkward to me.  I understand "disputed territory" and other forms of dispute, but the context suggests a type of military encounter, so perhaps the word "repulsed" would be a better choice. Changed to "opposed" Magic♪piano 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


### Later terms as governor
the words "power struggle" are linked to a non-existent page
This is OK.  There is presently no article on the Acadian Civil War, although there ought to be. Magic♪piano 16:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, interesting.  Is this one way that the community gets people to write articles?  All these months I thought that these were all articles that had been removed from the "repertoire."Sarnold17 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This is indeed one of the ways we build the web.  Red links, within reason, are good.  In this particular case, I will probably write a basic article on it, unless someone else beats me to it. Magic♪piano 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Second paragraph, second to last sentence:  "shires: Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and Norfolk."  I have been doing U.S. genealogy for over 40 years, and have never heard of any American county being called a shire.  I checked the link on "shires" and saw no mention of the term being used in New England or anywhere else in the U.S.  It should read "counties." Fixed I think Mayo used the term. Magic♪piano 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


### Religious intolerance
Second paragraph.  "When Oliver Cromwell consolodated his control over England..."  Can a timeframe be added for this? (early 1650s?) Done Magic♪piano 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


### Overall assessment
While I've noted a few areas where I had difficulty with the article, overall I find this to be a very well written piece which readily meets the wikipedia criteria for a Good Article.  I am delighted to see some excellent works such as this concerning  colonial American figures.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do the review; I've responded to some of your points above, will get to more of them later.  Also, for reasons unknown, the GA bot has not been able to detect the review; this may have had something to do with how you started this review page.  I've posted a note at WT:GAN. Magic♪piano 16:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I've addressed your concerns -- let me know if my changes are adequate.  (If you want to have another reviewer double check your review, you should follow the instructions at WP:GAN for getting a second opinion.) Magic♪piano 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
All of my concerns have been addressed, but as a newcomer I would like to get a second review, and have changed the status to needing a second opinion.  Pending that, I find this to be an excellent article and ready for GA status.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
From a superficial look all seems to be o.k. with this article. Sources are all RS, and the photograph is PD. The point of the GA process is that a single reviewer has to be satisfied that the article meets the criteria; so if you are, then it's a GA! Cheers. Buchraeumer (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
OK!  That's good enough for me.  Now let me figure out what buttons to push to make it happen...Sarnold17 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


### Review closeout
Just to close out the review, I would like to summarize the GA criteria in regards to this article:

Well written--yes, prose is clear; spelling and grammar are good.
Factually accurate and verifiable--yes, sources are appropriate for this subject, and citations are adequate throughout.
Broad in coverage--yes, the life of this individual is broadly covered.
Neutral--yes, a good balance of material has been presented, both favorable and unfavorable to the subject.
Stable--no problems here
Illustrated--yes, ample, but not too many; illustrations of good size and placement throughout the article.
PASS 
I will update the status of the article.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

where was he born? 185.130.156.202 (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Currently there is a footnote that states:

" In the Julian calendar, then in use in England, the year began on 25 March. To avoid confusion with dates in the Gregorian calendar, then in use in other parts of Europe, dates between January and March were often written with both years. Dates in this article are in the Julian calendar unless otherwise noted."
This is unclear and does not follow the MOS See MOS:OSNS:

At some places and times, the new year began on a date other than 1 January. For example, in England and its colonies until 1752, the year began on Annunciation Day, 25 March; see the New Year article for other styles. In writing about historical events, however, years should be assumed to have begun on 1 January (see the example of the execution of Charles I in "Differences in the start of the year"); if there is reason to use another start-of-year date, this should be noted.
The footnote needs to say

"This article uses Julian dates with the start of year adjusted to 1 January (see Old Style and New Style dates), unless othewise noted.
Are there any dates in this article that do not meet this MOS standard as at the moment ? -- PBS (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

is his name indicott? 185.130.156.202 (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

why>? 185.130.156.202 (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)