Talk:John Clarke (Baptist minister)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Clarke (Baptist minister)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 09:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I will review this, probably over the weekend. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Very sorry for the delay. Overall, this is a good and comprehensive article, but several things need to be sorted out:

• I removed the last sentence of the lead, since it was not neutrally phrased. Feel free to replace with a more neutral statement.

* This is fine

• Antinomian Controversy: The first paragraphs need inline citations!

* Citations added

• Sometimes you call him Dr. John Clarke, sometimes without the title. Did he have a doctorate? Nothing of this is mentioned in "Early life". If there is no evidence of him having a doctorate, you should remove the mentions of this in the prose. In those instances where "Dr." is mentioned in quotes from sources, you should add a note.

* I've removed all the non-quoted instances using the title of "Dr." A note has been added to the first instance where the title was given in a quote.

• Antinomian Controversy: The quote at the end of Clarke is very long and describes events that are important, just in very old English. It might be better to keep the quote shorter and explain more of the events in your own words.

* The entire section basically describes what Clarke was quoting. I added the quote because I've studied the controversy extensively, and I was very interested in Clarke's take. However, as you pointed out, it is not written in a way that is easily understood today, and it really doesn't add to anyone's understanding of events. I've therefore removed the entire quote.

• Rhode Island: First paragraph: Are the years in parentheses in the quote? If not, you should write [1637].

* Ah, I mis-read my own notes. The dates are not in the quote, so I've converted to square brackets.

• Rhode Island: garden of their patent - whose?

* I've reworded this without using quotes, expressing the notion that the parcel of land was the garden of the Plymouth colony.

• John Clarke's Four Religious Principles: Paragraph two is the only one without a full stop at the end - by accident?

* Fixed; this was an oversight

• Imprisonment: There should be a citation for the "was worthy to be hanged" quote.

* citation added

• Aftermath: There is a whole paragraph here about his book, while you have an own section on it just a little later. This paragraph should be merged into that later section. This would also mean that the note explaining the title is where the title first appears.

* I removed the earlier mention of Clarke's book, and consolidated all of the material into the section that deals with the book

• Ill Newes from New England: The last sentence of this section is also not neutral in style. Please rephrase.

* Done

• Rhode Island agent: Same goes for the first sentence here. Wether or not his pay was sufficient is pure speculation, unless you give a source for this statement, then you could write was not considered sufficient.

* First sentence reworded

• Negotiating a charter: The text says he filed "at least ten petitions" while the caption says exactly ten. Which was it?

* Caption corrected to match the text

• Rhode Island's Royal Charter: it was the oldest constitutional charter in the world - was it?? The Constitution of San Marino is from 1600....

* "Oldest" was the wrong word; I've changed to read the "longest surviving" constitutional charter

• I wonder if the information about the SS John Clarke is also in ref #104?

* I've added an online reference for the Liberty Ship

That's what I was able to find. I place the review on hold for seven days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Bibliography: You should add accessdates to the online sources.

* both online sources have access dates

• Bicknell, 2005, was not available to me, you might want to check that. This is however no failing criteria, since the source is adequate even if the online version is unavailable.

* Hmmm; I was able to access the pdf readily from the bibliography. The PDF is not paginated, so I had to download it in order to get a page number.

• Winship 2002 and Hall 1990 are not in the Bibliography??

* yes, they were missing and have now been added to the bibliography

Response

Thanks very much for the review! I've been away for a few days, and now have some time to address your concerns. I'll respond to each comment individually.Sarnold17 (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order now. It's a pass, congratulations :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Delightful! Many thanks for your review!Sarnold17 (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)