Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/John Cotton (Puritan)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of John Cotton (Puritan)'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC).

John Cotton (Puritan); Preparationism

[edit]

John Cotton

Created/expanded by Sarnold17 (talk). Self nom at 03:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. I came here looking for an article to review so that I could post my own nomination for preparationism, which is basically the same topic. I wasn't going to mention Cotton, but I could. So how about a double nomination? StAnselm (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that criticisms John Cotton (pictured) made of the doctrine of preparationism were a factor in the Antinomian Controversy and the banishment of Anne Hutchinson from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1638?
  • Comment. Actually, I'm note sure about the validity of the proposed hook, anyway. It wasn't the excommunication that made Cotton withdraw his support, but Hutchinson's expressions of direct revelation. The article says at this point Cotton signaled that he had given up on her. Cotton's fellow minister in the Boston church, John Wilson, then read the order of excommunication. So the excommunication came after Cotton withdrew his support. The hook makes it sound like he withdrew support because Hutchinson was excommunicated. StAnselm (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's even better. StAnselm (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Full review needed of both articles and the (remaining) ALT2 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Article dates and lengths (one expansion and one new article) are OK. Both articles are sufficiently supported by reference citations. To the extent that I could see the sources, I saw no indication of too-close paraphrasing. AGF on the ALT2 hook fact (I verified parts of the articles, but not nearly the whole basis for the hook fact). The public domain claim for the image appears to be valid, but more information should be added to the Commons page. Apparently the image was obtained from an 1856 book by Samuel Gardner Drake, but the Commons page indicates only author name and title, without supporting details such as the date of the book. Details should be added to the Commons page. --Orlady (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I have added the date of the book to the commons page. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I added the page to the commons page (opposite page 157). Sarnold17 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Great! Now the image is fully acceptable for use in DYK. --Orlady (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)