Talk:William Dummer

William Dummer has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 17, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

United States: Massachusetts / Governors Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Low-importance).

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Dummer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 20:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Early life, "While in England he is reported to have married a cousin" Why "reported to"? Is this in doubt?

All that is known about this English episode appears to be sketchy and third-hand. All of the biographers who mention it use some sort of tempering language. Magic♪piano 18:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant governor, "The assembly also complicated his negotiations" Whose negotiations? Dummers or Shutes? Clarified Magic♪piano 18:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other policies, "tolerating, for example, the selection of Elisha Cooke as speaker of the assembly." Why was this something to "tolerate"? Also, should Cooke's name be linked in the article, rather than just in the image caption? Clarified and linked. Magic♪piano 18:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
I don't think that File:GovernorJonathanBelcher.gif has the right tag, at least for the source information provided. A pre-1923 publication tag requires evidence of publication before 1923. If you can prove the artist (James Vaughan) died more than 70 years ago, an author death+70 tag would be appropriate.

I've been unable to locate vitals for the artist. I've replaced PD-1923 with PD-US-unpublished, which strikes me as a more plausible license. (PD-old-70 implies that it shouldn't be used for US copyrights.) Magic♪piano 14:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we know the painting was created pre-1893? All the source says is that it was "19th century". I agree that it's likely that it was created pre-1893, but that's not specified by the source. Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the tagging on File:Fort Dummer Plaque.jpg. The tag is PD-Art, but I don't think a plaque which is nothing more than text can have the visual rights copyrighted. The image description mentions that it was from a postcard, which depending on when the postcard was released, could still be under copyright. I don't know which one of these things (the public domain plaque or the possibly copyrighted postcard, takes precedence.

It's an old postcard photograph of the plaque, which arguably has copyrightable elements (the logo in the lower left, mainly). I've set it to use PD-Art|PD-1923. Magic♪piano 14:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we know the postcard was pre-1923? Dana boomer (talk)

00:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Rather than hold things up here while I try to sort out provenance, I've swapped other images for these to whose provenance is a bit more reliable. Magic♪piano 01:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, very nice. There are a few minor prose niggles and a couple of image issues that I would like to see resolved before I pass this, so for now I'm placing the article on hold. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've answered your issues. Thanks as always for taking the time to review articles, it's much appreciated! Magic♪piano 18:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work, as always! Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

In its current state, the article is inconsistent and self-contradictory on his dates. William Dummer was born in 1677, in an area and time when the Julian calendar was in force. The Gregorian calendar had been adopted (in 1751) before Dummer's death in 1761. At the very least, this requires us to specify in which calendar we are giving the dates - this has been done, more or less, in footnote 5, but we need to be more obvious, and do what we say we have done. We shouldn't state all dates are Gregorian when some of them are Julian. But there are other problems. The article states he was baptized on October 10, 1677 (in one place), on September 29/October 10, 1677 in another, and that he was born on October 10, 1677 in the Infobox. It seems clear that he was baptized on 29 September 1677 (O.S.), which corresponds to 10 October 1677 (N.S.), and that the date has been wrongly given as a proleptic Gregorian date, and that his date of baptism has been mistaken for a date of birth. I will edit the article to reflect this. I don't know if any of the other dates are also Julian but have failed to be so noted, and so go against what we say in footnote 5. - Nunh-huh 16:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Dummer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007211741/http://www.dummerfamily.org.uk/ to http://www.dummerfamily.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]