Talk:Robert and Thomas Wintour/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Parrot of Doom in topic Anything left?
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A highly important topic, and certainly one worthy of a high quality article.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Just a few things which need clarifying- see below.
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Just a few things to see to, and then I'd be happy to pass the article. It was an interesting choice to cover both people in one article, but I think it works. I wonder whether you hope to take this to FAC?
- Pass or Fail:
- "John Wintour" He notable? If so, don't be scared of redlinks.
- Certainly notable as the Wintours' half-brother, but I'm taking a long break from Gunpowder Plot related articles. I'll probably create it at some point in the future.
- "By 1600, however, he changed his mind and became a fervent Catholic" Perhaps use the word "converted"? "Changed his mind" makes it sound a little... Flippant
- It's debatable if he ever was a Protestant, more likely he was a Papist who became openly Catholic. Something caused that change, what it was nobody knows.
- I see what you mean. Perhaps instead of saying he'd "changed his mind", say that he was no longer serving in the military and had become a fervent Catholic? J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- From what I can gather he did indeed change his mind. He trained as a lawyer but decided instead to go fighting, and then changed his mind because he wanted to do something else. It's speculation of course, but it seems to me that Thomas was a man looking for a cause.
- I see what you mean. Perhaps instead of saying he'd "changed his mind", say that he was no longer serving in the military and had become a fervent Catholic? J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's debatable if he ever was a Protestant, more likely he was a Papist who became openly Catholic. Something caused that change, what it was nobody knows.
- "and suggesting that with Spanish support, a Catholic rebellion was likely." Comma after "that"?
- I've rephrased the sentence to avoid too many commas.
- Mention Robert's fate in the lead?
- Done.
- "that with funding, "3,000 Catholics" would" Comma after "that"?
- I tend to read sentences aloud when considering punctuation, I think that one can work both ways but your suggestion is certainly better and I've changed it accordingly.
- "Thomas meets with Catesby and John Wright" Refer to both by surname or both by given and surname?
- Done.
- "which Thomas did respond to" to which Thomas did respond?
- Changed to "that".
- Could we have an attribution in the quotebox? Who said that, and where?
- Done, IIRC it was Wintour's confession that was quoted, I'll check later and append if right.
- "they had supposedly tunnelled near to" to which they had supposedly tunnelled near? If you're happy ending sentences it prepositions, that's fine (I had a discussion with another user about the subject recently...), but it jars with me personally.
- I've removed "to", the only other way I could think to write that involved turning things around and making it a bit more wordy. I try to be as concise as I can.
- "Alan Haynes' opinion" Haynes's, for consistency with how you have handled possessives previously in the article?
- Done.
- "He asked them" Who's "he"? Robert?
- Added "Thomas"
- "by William Waad" Who's he?
- Done.
- Perhaps rename "interrogation" to "Thomas's interrogation", or add something about Robert's? I note below he "confessed", perhaps a note of that somewhere?
- Tricky this. Many of the Gunpowder Plot historians casually omit the more interesting details of the minor conspirators, something which I've found pretty annoying. Thus, I've had little success finding out exactly when Robert was interrogated. All I can infer (and I hope the reader does too) is that Robert was interrogated as a matter of course, but that he had little to say that was worth writing about.
- Do we even know if he was? Perhaps just a note in the section saying that he was also interrogated? J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- He wasn't captured until only a few weeks before the trial, I'm fairly certain he was in the Tower until then but the sources don't elaborate. He may have been held for a few days elsewhere, but I don't know.
- Then we still have the issue of not mentioning Robert- I think changing the section title to "Thomas's interrogation" would be the best way forward. J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've changed it to "Thomas's confession" Parrot of Doom 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then we still have the issue of not mentioning Robert- I think changing the section title to "Thomas's interrogation" would be the best way forward. J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- He wasn't captured until only a few weeks before the trial, I'm fairly certain he was in the Tower until then but the sources don't elaborate. He may have been held for a few days elsewhere, but I don't know.
- Do we even know if he was? Perhaps just a note in the section saying that he was also interrogated? J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Tricky this. Many of the Gunpowder Plot historians casually omit the more interesting details of the minor conspirators, something which I've found pretty annoying. Thus, I've had little success finding out exactly when Robert was interrogated. All I can infer (and I hope the reader does too) is that Robert was interrogated as a matter of course, but that he had little to say that was worth writing about.
- "with no defence counsel" Why? Were they not allowed one? Could they not afford one?
- The accused then had no right to a defence, their interests being held by the trial judge - although I'm not sure the latter applies with high treason. For that reason I've not expanded on this, in case I presume incorrectly.
- Ok, makes sense. J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- The accused then had no right to a defence, their interests being held by the trial judge - although I'm not sure the latter applies with high treason. For that reason I've not expanded on this, in case I presume incorrectly.
- "his grim sentence" Perhaps lose "grim"? If you want to get across the nastiness, note that he was still alive (I assume he was)?
- I see where you're coming from but I don't think there's any harm in reminding the reader just how horrible the sentence was. Parrot of Doom 22:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- It just doesn't read completely neutrally to me- the tone seems a little off. Surely any death sentence is pretty grim? J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well the word I'd like to use is horrific, but I think grim is a nice compromise. Having your bollocks chopped off on a freezing cold winter morning in London, and having to watch your intestines be pulled out and fried by your side, is pretty grim I think. Parrot of Doom 23:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, obviously, but I just worry about its neutrality. Equally, I wouldn't think it appropriate to describe a celebrity as attractive, unless it's attributed to someone, or a book as exciting, unless attributed. I'm not overly fussed about it, but I think it would read better without it. J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well the word I'd like to use is horrific, but I think grim is a nice compromise. Having your bollocks chopped off on a freezing cold winter morning in London, and having to watch your intestines be pulled out and fried by your side, is pretty grim I think. Parrot of Doom 23:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- It just doesn't read completely neutrally to me- the tone seems a little off. Surely any death sentence is pretty grim? J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I see where you're coming from but I don't think there's any harm in reminding the reader just how horrible the sentence was. Parrot of Doom 22:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Anything left?
editSorry, is there anything else you'd like me to attend to? Parrot of Doom 01:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's looking good. I'm still not wild about the use of "grim", but I don't think it gets in way of the article overall. I am promoting now. J Milburn (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about the delay. I've added it to Wikipedia:Good articles/History#Royalty and nobility, but I've no objection to you moving it to elsewhere. Nice work. J Milburn (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks :) I might go for a Gunpowder Plot featured topic now, there's only one article left that needs work (Robert Keyes), and I don't think that'll ever be a GA. Parrot of Doom 02:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about the delay. I've added it to Wikipedia:Good articles/History#Royalty and nobility, but I've no objection to you moving it to elsewhere. Nice work. J Milburn (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)