Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Johannes Schade (talk)

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like to improve the quality of this article to FA-level and my FA-mentor, Gog the Mild, recommends to submit it to Military History A-Class first. Johannes Schade (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right off the bat I am seeing issues with collapsed templates and WP:DONTHIDE. Besides, some of the detailed genealogy info in such templates may be duplicative, WP:UNDUE, or better presented in a different format such as prose. For FA status, you will need an inline citation for all content, such as "Donough and his siblings grew up to be Catholics." (t · c) buidhe 08:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Buidhe. I wondered why you deleted the Timeline and the two collapsed family trees under MOS:DONTHIDE, but left the two collapsed tables listing his brothers and sisters? Did you just forget to delete them or are there reasons? MOS:DONTHIDE seems to have exceptions. Some FAs comprise collapsed Ahnentafels and navboxes. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an article that cites many sources, it can be helpful to organize the "sources" section by type of source in order to aid navigation. You can see an example at The_Holocaust_in_Slovakia#Sources, a featured article (this is optional). (t · c) buidhe 08:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Buidhe. I followed your advice and subdivided into "Books" and "Journal articles". I find it makes it more difficult to find a source. I remember them by author. Now I have two lists to search through alphabetically or must remember whether this source was in a book or in a journal. In addition MOS:APPENDIX says that "Books" should be a level 3 heading. The one in The_Holocaust_in_Slovakia is level 4 (==== Books ====). I once tried a similar subdivision scheme and was called to order by another user because "See also" had become a level 3. Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found it was Nikkimaria who objected to the heading Appendices, but I have read up and though and think I understand. There is no problem with ==== Books ====. I agopted the way how Gog the Mild does his reference headinsg and adopted that for Donough. With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes have been improvements but I am still seeing many OR/SYNTH issues. For instance, "His father carries the distinctive epithet "oge",[29] which is anglicised from Irish óg, young.[30]" the sources seem to say that his father's epithet was "oge" (although you should probably remove "distinctive") and that Irish word óg means "young", but no source that says his father's epithet comes from the Irish word or is anglicized. Therefore, this is WP:SYNTH. (t · c) buidhe 02:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Buidhe. Please understand me right: I appreciate your efforts and your input has already improved the article. However, do you seriously doubt the origin, derivation, or meaning of the epithet? At that level of scrutiny, the 322 citations will explode into thousands (if they can be found). Donough stands at 16 words per citation. Your FA "Holocaust in Slovakia" has 23w/c, Gog's "Battle of Inverkeithing" 44w/c. Of course, we can always delete: the only good Indian is a dead Indian. I do not speak Irish, perhaps you do. Isn't "buidhe" from Irish (or Scottish Gaelic) buí (yellow)?. I will ask an(other) Irish-speaking Wikipedian for advice. This problem must have arisen before. Thanks, best regards and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My username is indeed Scottish Gaelic buidhe which can mean "yellow" but also "glad, grateful, fortunate, or lucky"[1] I can speak Scottish Gaelic (not Irish) although am a bit rusty atm. Knowing what I do about Gaelic languages I am confident that the epithet "oge" does indeed come from Goidelic "óg", but that doesn't exempt me from WP:NOR policy and the need to cite reliable sources for all statements in the article. It doesn't matter exactly how many refs you have per text as long as all content is directly supported by the sources, rather than inferences you have made. (t · c) buidhe 14:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear Buidhe. I think that we agree that the missing citation is the one that demonstrates that the "oge" in the English "stands in for", or "is" the Irish "óg". I have consulted User Guliolopez, who like you objects to "distinctive epithet". He says "oge" is a generational suffix. So I changed "distinctive epithet" -> generational suffix. He referred me to some articles about people named with Oge: Conn Oge O'Donnell, Donn Óge Mag Oireachtaigh, Niall Oge O'Neill, and Rory Oge O'More. Unluckily they are starts or stubs. The problem does not seem to have been solved before. The article "Suffix (name)" explains "In Irish, 'óg' (young), sometimes anglicised as 'oge', may be used to distinguish two related people who might otherwise have the same name.[10]". This article cites the Irish dictionary in [10] and cites it with the quote "Óg adj (in names): Séamas Óg; James Junior [..] óg adj. young; junior" in the note. So I changed to this more specific and adequate note-quote. Guliolopez also suggested to simply delete. It seems that many WP:NOR discussions end in deletions that make the article worse. The reader, I feel, e.g. a Japanese one, in an A-class article deserves an explanation of "oge". WP:NOR is not the only requirement. The subject must also be understandable and sufficiently covered. How should the Nigerian reader be supposed to understand "Cormac Oge" without an explanation? I added another citation but it is not very good. I will try a bit more. Johannes Schade (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2021
  • Dear Buidhe. I am on a learning curve. Until now I had not really seen Wikipedia writing under that angle. Now I see that in addition to having the reader in mind, I must also consider available citations and keep close but not too close to the wording found in the citations (but beware of WP:CLOP). I added about 30 citations since the beginning of this review. For example, the latest addition is in Section "Honours and Parliaments", 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence where it says "religious freedom". This is the only citation in this sentence. It did not have a citation before. I took the citation from Wallace (1973) because of concerns about the antiquity of my sources. I could have taken a similar one from Cusack (1871). Does the citation fully support the sentence? e.g. I wrote "religious freedom", Wallace just said "religion". Do I need a second citation to cover "freedom" (using a different source protects against WP:CLOP)? Should I change my wording, or delete? The treatment of the Graces in Cusack and in Wallace is very similar. It looks to me as if there are no new insights due to "later scholarship" in Wallace in this regard. Should the later source always be preferred? Am I doing the right thing? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Buidhe. I am not so sure I understand your latest edit this morning 04:12 12 March 2021 with the edit summary "this still appears to need citatino". What a ghostly time to work! I believe you are in England. Having been pinged by BlueMoonset with regard to DYK, you moved your {{cn}} from section "Restoration and death", last paragraph, end of last sentence, to the middle of that same sentence. The sentence now reads, "The succession then reverted to the 1st Earl's second son,[citation needed] Callaghan, who succeeded as the 3rd Earl of Clancarty.[358]" The history to this is that you added the {{cn}} at the end of this sentence at 14:25 27 February 2021 when there was no citation in this place. I added a citation at 10:02, 28 February 2021 and hoped you would check the citation, find it adequate, and remove your {{cn}}, which I respectfully left there. Instead, this morning, you moved it to the middle of the sentence as described. Do you really mean that this sentence needs a second citation in this place? His son Callaghan appears, as should be, in the list of his sons with a citation that says he is the second son. Should I repeat it here? If you feel it would be better I will of course do so. It is easy enough. However, WP:WTC says "If the article mentions the fact repeatedly, it suffices to cite it once" and WP:CITEKILL talks about "needless repetition". Perhaps it does not apply in this case? With many thanks for your effort and patience, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I don't think we're in the same time zone. I'm not seeing the assertion about "second son" clearly stated in the source, but perhaps it's there and I just don't understand the format. If you think it is adequately cited, please feel free to remove the tag. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Buidhe. Thanks for the remark. I had another look at the citation for "second son". Cokayne (1913) says "CALLAGHAN (MACCARTY) EARL OF CLANCARTY etc [I.], uncle and h., being 2nd s. of the 1st Earl." using abbreviations "h." and "s." I suppose that your remark about "format" refers to these abbreviations. I will therefore explain such abbreviations in all the genealogical quotes, changing the above quotation to "CALLAGHAN (MACCARTY) EARL OF CLANCARTY etc [I.], uncle and h. [heir], being 2nd s. [son] of the 1st Earl." I hope I understand you right. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Reserving a spot. Some quick first thoughts.

  • A lot of information seems to lack referencing. Eg several notes; three of the four paragraphs in "Restoration, death, and timeline" don't end with citations. This last gives me pause regarding the source to text accuracy of the rest of these paragraphs where a lack of adequate referencing would not be so obvious.
  • The age, I could say antiquity, of the majority of the sources also gives me pause. I am not ruling out a 1779 or 1789 source per se, or even 1689, but when 57 sources are more than a century old I have to ask if there are not more recent replacements for at least some of them. Having recently taken two articles from this period to FAC I sympathise, but it does not seem to me that the latest scholarship, of which there is quite a bit, has been fully represented. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Gog the Mild. You are of course right: the latest scholarship should be included, but how is this done? Their books and articles sit in ivory towers behind pay-walls or can be consulted only in the big libraries of the capital, or perhaps at Universities. I am not an academic and live in Bangor Northern Ireland. I have the impression neither I, nor my Nigerian reader can read what today's scholars write. I looked at your FA "Battle of Inverkeithing". Nice article, beautiful young sources, 21 one them, the oldest from 1954. But, except the one website, I cannot click and read any of them. Websites have their own problems, as we know. Donough has 100 sources, books, some articles. Antiques, I admit, but they can all be clicked and read in Internet Archive, Google Books, JSTOR or elsewhere on the web, even by my Nigerian friend. How did you find and where did you read these 20 opaque sources? With many thanks and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was recently asked a similar question on my talk page, to which I responded:

    I never do serious work on an article unless I own a hardback RS which covers it. Often several. This or these frequently serve as the "spine" of the article. After that Google Scholar is helpful, as is Academia. Google Books can be very helpful - sometimes - if you know how to use it, but time consuming. Sometimes books oft cited on Wikipedia or in other books or articles can be useful. Unfortunately the chaff to wheat ratio is high, one reason I like to write several articles from a similar period - to maximise the output to input. And the more articles I write on a period, the more books on it I stumble across and a virtuous cycle emerges.

    For example, click for access to Woolrych or here for Ashley. My article - if you look closely at the sourcing - uses The Civil Wars: a Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland 1638-1660 a lot - £7.04 on AbeBooks with free deivery. I also recommend getting access to JSTOR via TWL, and scouring the Internet Archive. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only needed a very few hardcopy materials for the articles I've written and brought up to good and featured status, although that has a lot to do with the topics that I write about. The vast majority of the academic papers and books I've cited can be accessed with TWL and/or by volunteers at RX. (t · c) buidhe 19:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Gog the Mild. Thanks for good and kind advice. I try to run my hobby on a zero budget. I will look for more recent sources. If I find the same information in an older and in a younger source, which should be cited (e.g. DNB vs. ODNB)? Is it worthwhile (improves the article) to replace an older with a younger source to support the same fact? You remark that "57 sources are more than a century old"; can you please define this in terms of a goal to attain like "reduce the number of >100 years old source to less than 25" or to "less than 50% of the sources" or "Cite at least 20 sources less than 10 years old" or whatever make sense for you. At present the article uses 112 sources with an average publication date of 1917, meaning that more than half of them are >100. Looking around in FAs of aristocratic biographies I find not more than 25% of such old sources, e.g. in Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I allow myself up to £5 a month, but rarely go near £60 a year. Well now, what you are trying to cover at A class is "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". So for many basic facts - eg a date of birth - an elderly source may be fine. And a non-exhaustive look at this article suggests that the sources have been used judiciously. The problem is that one doesn't know what new knowledge has been published if one hasn't looked at many more recent sources. Anything startling can probably be spotted via the likes of Academia and JSTOR. Often what changes the the centuries is the tone, which is a bit ineffable. I am loath to attempt to apply an arbitrary target to this.
Bear in mind that many FAs promoted ten or more years ago are currently being reviewed. See the list of former featured articles. So many of those you are looking at may not be up to current FAC standards. Sourcing is frequently an issue. Eg note this exchange. Note that for FAC the requirement is "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature".
So the question for a wannabe FAC is not so much one of statistics, as has most of the (modern) scholarship been covered in the article?
I am not sure how much this helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog the Wise. You are spot on and very helpful. You bring us back to where we should be. Luckily, in this case I can give an answer: the latest scholarship central to the subject is found in the article "Donough MacCarthy" of the Dictionary of Irish Biography (DIB), published in 2009 (on paper) and also online. If there were any significant advance since 2009, it should theoretically be found in the online version, which is cited in the article. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog the Mild. There are now 140 sources, 81 146 sources, 80 140 sources, 71 of them >100 years old. What is outstanding? Or do you feel there are still so many problems that I should retract the candidate? With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog the Mild. I have replaced some more "old" (>100 years) sources with "new" (<100 years) ones. The old ones are now a minority (68 of the 141). I believe I covered modern scholarship among others in form of 6 DIB and 16 ODNB articles. I hope I have now complied with your "age" objection. What is outstanding? Or do you feel there are still so many problems that I should retract the candidate? With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, did you want to continue/complete this review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Break
edit
  • "He rebelled against Charles I, King of England, Scotland, and Ireland, demanding religious freedom as a Catholic and defended the rights of the Gaelic nobility in the Irish Catholic Confederation, but later supported the king against his parliamentarian enemies in the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, a part of the Wars of the three kingdoms, also known as the British Civil War." This is an overly long sentence, perhaps best split into two, or even three.
    • Split in two.
  • "He sat as a member of parliament in the House of Commons of the Irish parliaments of 1634–1635 and 1640–1649 where he opposed Strafford, Charles I's authoritarian chief governor,[b] and in 1641 contributed to the governor's fall. In 1642 when the rebellion reached his estates in Munster, he joined the Irish Catholic Confederates, sat on their Supreme Council, and fought in the Irish Confederate Wars against the government." Likewise.
    • Split in two.
  • "the peace of 1646 between the Confederates and the king." Upper case K.
    • Done
  • "a medieval Prince of Desmond." Lower case p.
    • Done
  • "as will be seen further down." Delete.
    • Done
  • "("possibly an idiot")" I am not sure that this is best in brackets and the MoS states that for quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
    • The source says "living (possibly an idiot) at this time". Dropped the quotation, replaced by "probably insane". What do you think?
  • "He possibly had been married once before and had a son". Then both are given as a fact "this first marriage and this son are ignored by the major genealogical sources. So were they "possible", or definite but ignored?
    • This marriage is mentioned by O'Hart only, who gives us neither the name of the woman nor that of the the child, but the story has the ring of truth. I changed to give it as definitive based on this source.
  • "His marriage with Eleanor made him". "with → 'to'.
    • Done
  • "Donough and Eleanor had five children, three sons:" Don't give them as a list, put them in prose. (I know, but the MoS insists.)
    • Does it? Without doubt you know the MOS much better than I do, but MOS:LIST has a section about "embedded lists" (lists appearing in a text) so they are not forbidden in all cases. MOS:LIST mentions the case of works of an author (Charles Dickens has a long list of works). It then discusses list vs. prose on an example of skyscrapers. The one does not exclude the other. I present the children in a list, but of course they also appear in the prose in events concerning them, e.g. the daughters at the time when he arranges marriages for them. The FA (29 Sep 2018) Caroline of Ansbach presents her children in a table. I still regret that other important list, the timetable, that Buidhe deleted right at the beginning. I often would like to consult it to quickly verify by date what happened when, without wading through the prose. But then I remember: it's not there any more. Thanks for all your efforts, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—and two daughters". Likewise.
  • "He was elected as one of the two "knights of the shire", as county MPs were then called,[112] for Cork County[7] in the Parliament of 1634–1635,[113] the first of Charles I." Mention somewhere that this was the Irish parliament.
    • Done
  • "all pomp". Suggest being specific or deleting.
    • Deleted
  • "who had taken up office in July 1633." Delete "up".
    • Deleted
  • "as King James I had created more than 30 pocket boroughs to that effect". What does "to that effect" mean?
    • From the French "à cet effet". Deleted and rephrased by inserting "Protestant".
  • "concede certain rights to the Irish Catholics against payment." Could "against payment" be rephrased in modern English?
    • Replaced with "if paid well enough"
  • "had agreed upon a list of 51 articles". "upon" → 'on'.
    • Done (I removed "list of", which is needless).
  • "(about £23,800,000 today)" I assume that this is not in the 2006 source given? If not, give your source. And don't use "today", give a specific year. (To future proof the article.) Likewise for similar cases later.
    • As you guessed rightly, I have no source for "(about £23,800,000 today)". I invoked the Inflation template by "(about £{{Inflation}} today)", but had a very poor understaning of the template's use. Having read up better, I corrected to "(about £{{Inflation}} in {{Inflation/year}})[1]", which I hope might find your approval. Thanks for querying. This is important.
  • "The Graces had been proclaimed, and a first instalment had been paid." Why the change in tense? From "was" in the previous sentence to "had" here.
  • "The Graces had been proclaimed, and a first instalment had been paid." (2) When?
    • 1628 added a citation from Gillespie 2006. However, perhaps I go into too much detail here. Sir Donough seems to have been just a backbencher in this parliament. Wikipedia has articles about the [[Graces]] and the Parliament 1634/5 albeit both still at Start class.
  • "while Wentworth was apprehensive of the demands that would be made on him in this regard." I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
    • The source uses the word "apprehension"; changed to "while Wentworth expected trouble when he refused". Further away from the source but more understandable.
  • "despite having become a baronet" → 'despite his having become a baronet'.
    • Done. My English here shows that it is 2nd language.
  • "Strafford (i.e. Wentworth)". Should this not come at the mentions of Strafford in the previous paragraph?
    • Moved the reminder about the name change to the previous paragraph where it appears now as "Strafford, as Wentworth was now called,".

References

  1. ^ UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved May 7, 2024.
Break 2
edit
  • Link Impeachment.
    • Done
  • "He had to quit his seat in the House of Commons". Perhaps a footnote explaining why?
    • Added "The advancement made him lose"
  • "Lord Muskerry would be his name for 16 eventful years". Delete "eventful".
    • Deleted the whole sentence as too talkative and off the strict chronological order.
  • "On 3 March 1641, the lords replaced Sir Donough's father as member of the lords' delegation in London with Thomas Roper, 2nd Viscount Baltinglass. On 22 March Strafford's trial before". Either put commas after dates or don't, but be consistent.
    • Removed the comma.
  • " the lords replaced Sir Donough's father as member of the lords' delegation in London ... On 22 March Strafford's trial before the House of Lords began". This gives the clear impression that Strafford's trial was before the Irish House of Lords. Was this the case?
    • Added "at Westminster"
  • "This eleven years' war" → 'These'.
  • "Wars of the three kingdoms". Upper case T and K.
    • Done
  • "an armed force of his tenants and dependants attempting to maintain law and order." Delete "attempting".
    • Done
  • Link citadel, bastion and mines.
  • "The Confederates had rebelled against the government." Delete. We know this. It happened several paragraphs ago.
  • "when the King would regain control." → 'when the King regained control.'
    • Done
  • Cite 126, and probably others: the MoS states "Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis."
    • Thank you very much for telling me I wondered about this.
      • Done
  • Is a "save-conduct" the same as a safe-conduct?
    • Should have been safe-conduct.
      • Done
  • "and oblivion for their rebellion". Would something like 'a full amnesty' be better than "oblivion"?
    • Yes it would.
      • Done
  • "Inchiquin declared for the Parliament". Delete "the".
    • Done
  • "He decided to step up the help for the Irish Catholic Confederates." Do we have any details as to what form this help took?
    • He sent the nuncio with weapons and money as is explained in the sentences that follow immediately after this statement.
  • "the pope Urban VIII" → 'Pope Urban VIII'.
    • Done
  • "Their 11-year old eldest son Charles was also present at this occasion." Delete "at this occasion."
    • Done
  • "Bristol had fallen in 1645". Give the month.
  • "The Confederates armies therefore kept their full strength." I don't see how this follows from the foregoing. As the first sentence of a section it sits even more awkwardly.
    • Prepended "As the Confederates sent no troops to the King,". Is this WP:SYNTH? I have no citation for it. We are allowed to use routine calculation but apparently no logic deductions, even if simple enough.
  • "They got pay and weapons from the nuncio that enabled the Ulster army to win the Battle of Benburb over the Covenanters on 5 June 1646." "got" → 'obtained'; "over" → 'against'.
    • Done
  • "The Confederates lacked however the money to pay the army." Move "however" to the start of the sentence.
    • Deleted
  • "Muskerry replaced Glamorgan end of May" → 'Muskerry replaced Glamorgan at the end of May'.
    • Done
  • "Rinuccini came end of June" → 'Rinuccini arrived at the end of June'.
    • Done
  • "However, when on 1 July 1646 a chance shot through a window killed the Parliamentarian commander,[341] Muskerry pressed on[342] and the castle capitulated on 14 July.[343][344] The garrison was evacuated to Cork by the Parliamentarian Navy.[345]" Run this on from the previous paragraph.
    • Done
  • "Link capitulated.
    • Done
  • "on 28 March 1646 and on 20 July 1646." Remove the first "1646".
    • Done
  • "Muskerry got it ratified". Perhaps a little more detail on this?
    • I will have to ask you some time for this. I will need one or more additional citations
      • A new citation From Dunlop in the Cambridge Modern History shows that the ratification was by a vote in the Supreme council. Changed the text to clarify this.
  • "However, Rinuccini objected to this peace". Suddenly a lot of "however"s. Suggest removing this one.
    • Done
  • Delete "not surprisingly".
    • Done
  • "He replaced Muskerry with Glamorgan". "He" → 'Rinuccini'.
    • Done
  • "a Catholic garrison into Dublin". Remove "into Dublin".
    • Deleted as Muskerry was not involved.
  • "Ormond refused. However, O'Neill had to abandon the siege soon afterwards due to a lack of cooperation between him and Preston." → 'Ormond refused but O'Neill abandoned the siege soon afterwards due to a lack of cooperation between him and Preston.'
    • Deleted. Rereading myself I found I let myself go in general Irish history that is not directly relevant to the subject.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break 3
edit
  • "where the troops acclaimed him as their leader; this was called the mutiny." The last five words don't really make sense to me. Why "the" mutiny? Then there is no follow up.
    • Changed to "a" and explained the context better but probably need another citation.
  • "where the troops acclaimed him as their leader". So did he actually become leader?
    • Added a sentence and citation from Warner showing that he did.
  • "He submitted a remonstrance against Owen Roe O'Neill." Who is he?
    • Deleted
  • "he was forced to resign from the command". How - by what/whom.
    • Reformulated. The Supreme Council did.
  • "but only for a few days to save the form." What is a (the) "form"?
    • Reformulated. ... to show that the mutiny had been suppressed.
  • Sometimes you use 3000, sometimes 2,000. Is there a reason for the apparent inconsistency?
    • Will use comma separators only >= 10,000
  • "to Queen Henrietta Maria in her court in exile". "in her" → 'at her'.
    • Done
  • "On 3 April 1648 N.S." Don't use NS. Use one style cosistently throughout (whichever the RSs tend towards) if necessary explaining in a footnote. (See note 1 of Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747) for an example.
    • Done. Beautiful article, the Finisterre. Converted to O.S. (in the footquote Corish, 1976, gives the date in N.S., breaking your rule).
  • "a Catholic Lord Lieutenant should be appointed"; "to appoint Ormond as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland". Lower case Ls.
    • Done
  • "He returned to Ireland in June to prepare for Ormond's return, who landed at Cork on 29 September 1648." Bad grammar. Maybe 'He returned to Ireland in June to prepare for Ormond's return; Ormond landed at Cork on 29 September 1648.'?
    • Done
  • "Muskerry was made Irish Lord High Admiral and President". Lower case L, H, A and P.
    • Done
  • "and the power handed to". 'and power handed to'?
    • Done
  • "On 30 January 1649, Charles I was beheaded". Link to Execution of Charles I.
    • Deleted the sentence as stuffing not directly relevant to the subject.
  • "The Nuncio left Ireland on 23 February 1649.[399] On 2 August 1649". No need to repeat the year after the first mentio in a paragraph.
    • Done. Thank you very much for the rule, which I did not know. Deleted the sentence as stuffing not directly relevant to the subject. It is in Giovanni Battista Rinuccini.
  • "On 3 April 1648, Inchiquin changed sides ... who landed at Cork on 29 September 1648 ... In November 1648 he signed". Similarly.
    • Done
  • "to pay off some of the Parliament's debts". Insert 'English'.
    • Done
  • "Muskerry fought the last three years of this campaign in Munster". If you are going to use this phrasing, you need to have already stated when the campaign ended.
  • "to hurry back to England where the Third English Civil War had started." This conflict is not known as "the Third English Civil War", see English invasion of Scotland (1650). And it started when Cromwell led the New Model Army into Scotland, not while he was still in Ireland.
  • "Muskerry disbanded his 5,000 men strong army." Delete "men" and insert a hyphen.
    • Done
  • "He returned to Ireland late in 1653 to recruit". For whom or what? (The Venetians?)
    • I found no source that explains his purpose.
  • "At the trial". "the" → 'his'.
    • Done
  • "having been responsible for murders of English settlers in 1642 at three occasions" → 'having been responsible for the murders of English settlers in 1642 on three occasions'.
    • Done
  • Break up the subsequent sentence.
    • Done
  • "the killing of a man and a woman unknown" → 'the killing of an unnamed man and woman'.
    • Done
  • "again allowed to embark to Spain" → 'again allowed for embark to Spain'.
    • 'again allowed for embark to Spain' sounds strange to me. I assumed you mean to correct my 'embark to Spain' -> 'embark for Spain'.
  • "again allowed to embark to Spain". What 5,000 Irish? They seem to spring from nowhere. Were they following him around while he visited his relatives?
    • I found no source that traces the origin of these 5000.
  • "as he was called now" → 'as he was now called'.
    • Changed to "as he now was". I follow in this Woolrych (2002) e.g. p 132 “Lord Finch, as he now was, had dealt …”.
  • "and were compensated if found necessary and as far as possible". Is it possible to be more precise?
    • Deleted
  • "3rd or the fourth". Be consistent.
    • Done
  • "but these works could also have been conducted by". "conducted" → 'carried out'.
    • Deleted
  • "His eldest son, now the Lord Muskerry". Delete "the".
    • Done
  • "The elder, Helen, married first John FitzGerald of Dromana as his second wife after the first wife, Katharine, daughter of John Power, 5th Baron Curraghmore, had died in 1660;[488] and secondly William Burke, 7th Earl of Clanricarde." Is it known when either of these took place?
    • I found no sources that give more exact dates.
  • "as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland". Both Ls should be lower case.
    • Done
  • "Clancarty became the proxy of Lord Inchiquin". Explain briefly in line what this meant.
    • Done
  • "Lord Clancarty sat on the committee that ... Lord Clancarty submitted" etc. Just 'Clancarty' after first mention.
    • Done
  • "On 11 December 1662, the lords passed". Upper case L.
    • Done
  • "had seen to it that Clancarty received last rites from a Catholic priest". "had seen" → 'saw'.
    • Reformulated: called in a Catholic priest

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes
edit

I am doing a little copy editing as I go. Shout if anything alarms.

  • "Wentworth's (later Strafford's) title was first Lord Deputy and then Lord Lieutenant." Lower case titles.
    • Done
  • "Her age can be deduced as it is known that she died in April 1682 aged 70." This doesn't make sense. Her age is known because it is known?
    • Changed to "Her age when she married (about 20) can be deduced as John Lodge states that she died in April 1682 aged 70."
  • "Fermoy and Muskerry were both viscounts". Link viscount.
    • Done
  • Note t: link Second Anglo-Dutch War.
    • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog the Mild. I was astonished to see "variously" added. I think, if it had been there, you or another editor would have removed it as "superfluous" in the interest of a terse, concise, sober, encyclopedic style. In Wiktionary the word is exemplified by "My caravan served variously as a changing room, office and bedroom". There also "My caravan served as a changing room, office and bedroom" seems to be good enough. However, if you feel it is an improvement, so it is. Perhaps it is just my poor 2nd-language English. With many thanks for your patience with this long-running review. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk)

Hi Johannes, I am starting into what I hope will be a final run through. Where I can I will copy edit directly into the article, but please feel free to flag up here any changes you disagree with or don't see why I have made. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sir Donough" Just 'Donough' after first mention.
MOS:SURNAME says "Generally speaking, subjects should not otherwise be referred to by their given name; exceptions include royalty, e.g. Prince Charles or Charles". That is why I did not drop the Sir, but I think you are right. They just forgot to add this as another exception. Perhaps you have enough influence to have this added.
Done
Then use his surname, or his title at the time (as you do elsewhere). It is the occasional use of "Sir" which should be avoided.
Dear Gog the Mild. If my use of "Sir" was consistent. I changed his name whenever he was advanced. I called him "Donough" at birth and in the context of his parents and siblings, then "MacCarty" as an adult, then when he was knighted in 1634 I called him Sir Donough MacCarty on 1st use, then "Sir Donough". I did not change when he was made a baronet. When in 1641 he succeeded his father, I called him 2nd Viscount Muskerry on 1st use and "Muskerry" thereafter until when in 1658 he became earl. I called him then 1st Earl of Clancarty on the 1st use and "Clancarty" thereafter. Now I encounter your objections and also found MOS:SIR, which states "Honorific titles used with forenames only (such as "Sir Elton", "Sir David", "Dame Judi") should be avoided" (they seem to target modern celebrity than 17th-century aristocracy). Nevertheless I must comply. I now continue to call him MacCarty until he becomes Viscount. I hope this is correct Wikipedian. I will also have to do this across all of my watchlist.
"Wentworth let 10 articles be voted into law ... except articles 24 and 25 ... which he rejected." How did he do this. What power or influence did he exercise?
Due to Poyning's Law the Irish parliament could only vote on laws proposed by the Irish Privy Council and agreed to by the English Privy Council had. I feel that it would go too far to explain all this in the biography discussed here. He was only a back-bencher in the parliament of 1634–1635.
Perhaps replace "Wentworth" with 'the Irish Privy Council' then. Or 'the Irish Privy Council chaired by Wentworth'? (I assume that was the case.)
I fear many readers will not understand "Privy Council" without some introduction. I replaced Wentworth with Lord Deputy. Hope you agree.
I removed the entire sentence in further simplification of the section about the 1634 parliament trying to make the biography less bloated, as discussed.
"About 1640 his father built a new townhouse on College Green, Dublin." Strafford's father?
Donough's father. Done
Moved this out of its chronological place to later when the subject loses the townhouse by forfeiture in order to reduce random factoids, as discussed. The problem being that the citation refers to its building, not to its loss, which is inferred (WP:SYNTH?). However, I might be wrong. MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL prescribes "In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order". Is avoiding random factoids a sufficiently good reason? (still learning).
"which are usually divided into the Rebellion of 1641, the Confederate Wars, and the Cromwellian Conquest". Could we be told which time periods the latter two cover?
All these three are linked, where the reader can find this information. Do you object to the term British Civil War? We could of course just drop this term or even the entire first two introductory sentences. I felt it was nice for the reader to introduce the three terms here. I use them as heading of the subdivisions of the "Irish Wars" section. I do not like the term "Wars of the three kingdoms" it sounds terribly vague.
"also known as the British Civil Wars". Do you have a source for this?
Eventually David Plant http://bcw-project.org/
What I or you like is often irrelevant. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and such things should reflect the consensus of high quality scholarly sources. I have read reasonably widely on the period and participated in a debate on renaming Third English Civil War - see its talk page - which I currently have at FAC and have only seen it occasionally. Checking, Kenyon & Ohlmeyer also use the term, so fine.
I tried to find the term British Civil Wars in some of Kenyon's or Ohlmeyer's writing but failed. However, the University of Strathclyde (Glasgow) in 1972 published proceedings of a conference under the title "Celtic Dimensions of the British Civil Wars" (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=u4lnAAAAMAAJ).
"Castlehaven calls him an old man. He was turning 49 in that year." I don't see the relevance of this to the rest of the paragraph. (Or to anything.)
I thought it useful to remind the reader of his advancing age. It explains some of his reluctance to assume military leadership and tells us what people thought of him.
You go from his participation in a battle, to an insult by a rival to mentioning his age (which will not seem advanced to most readers). It seems to leap around a bit. 'Muskerry turned 49 that year and may have been feeling the strains of campaigning, as Castlehaven, a rival, referred to him as an old man' or similar? If it is the case and can be sourced of course.
The reason why this is all together in that paragraph is chronology: it all happened in 1643. It is sourced (don't you read the footquotes?).
Given that I have commented in some details on the footnotes I am disappointed by this comment.
I thought it should be included because it is really about the biographical subject rather than the general historical background, which still IMHO still takes too much place in this somewhat blown-up biography of a minor figure.
I am inclined to agree with both of those. But putting it with the battle because that is the chronology makes it look like a random factoid. I could just about agree that this meets the A class criterion of "The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear", but it doesn't meet the FAC "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" which you have suggested is the standard you would like to meet.
Thanks for your remark. Your proposed sentence "Muskerry turned 49 that year and may have been feeling the strains of campaigning, as Castlehaven, a rival, referred to him as an old man' or similar" is very nice. The first part "turned 49" is I think allowed under WP:CALC, but I failed to source the second part "feeling the strains". The third part "old man" is sourced in Castlehaven as "the old General" which I hope is sufficiently close. I put "Castlehaven found him slow and called him an old man, hoping that the "slow" will make it link up with the battle action described in the sentence before it.
Link magnate.
Done. Ó Siochrú uses the word, I still wonder whether it is correct in the context. Is a magnate not an Hungarian? Could we use "big landlord"?
No, magnate is fine.
"The articles of the cessation"; "The Cessation allowed the Confederates". "C" or "c"?
Cessation. Done.
"Parliamentarian". "P" or "p"?
Parliamentarian. Done
If so, why not Royalist? And Covenantor? I have just spotted that you are also inconsistent with C/covenantors.
You would surely know better than I. I feel royalists have existed at many times in many countries and are not one single well-defined movement, but the Covenanters were. The Wikipedia article Covenanters capitalises the word. I will follow that example.
"signed the First Ormond Peace again on 29 July 1646. The peace was thus concluded twice: on 28 March and on 20 July 1646"> I make that three times. Or is one of those a typo?
Good catch! There is no typo but Webb says 29 July, Coonan 20 July. Changed to "in July".
"comprising 17 members of which Glamorgan, Fermoy, and Owen Roe O'Neill". Something is missing here.
"comprising 17 members of which were Glamorgan, Fermoy, and Owen Roe O'Neill".
I have tweaked this.
I simplified omitting that there were 17 members.
"the Queen"; "the queen". Which?
Changed to the Queen. Done. There are 3 queens mentioned in the article. The 1st is Queen Elizabeth in the section "Religion". She is linked and used only once. The 2nd queen is Queen Henrietta Maria of England, widow of Charles I. She is introduced in the section "Decline of the Confederation", 2nd paragraph, linked, and mentioned a couple of times as "the Queen" in the context of Muskerry's visit to the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye. The 3rd is Marie Louise Gonzaga, Queen of Poland, introduced in section "Exile and prosecution" and mentioned only once. I believe the reader is unlikely to get confused.
"He returned to Ireland late in 1653 to recruit". What or who was he recruiting for?
I do not know and none of the cited sources says it. It could possibly have been for the Venetians and his arrest would be the reason why he never served them, but this is pure speculation of mine.
I cite Burghclere (1912) so his recruiting is not OR. Why do you want to remove it? Is Burghclere not a RS or too old?
"and his 5000 Irish" ?! Some background on where these came from, where they were and what they were doing perhaps?
I do not know and none of the cited sources says it. It could possibly be the 5000 that surrendered with him at Ross Castle, but this is speculation.
5000 Irish going into foreign service at the end of the war is not astonishing. It happened in the 1650s and then again in 1680 with the Irish Brigade (France) (about 5000 men). All I say is quite well supported by citations: Clark (1972), Bagwell, Cusack, and Prendergast. Admittedly none of them gives much detail and all are quite old. However, this is not OR. Why do you want to remove it? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that you are ORing, nor that 5,000 Irish going into foreign service is unusual. You state "He returned to Ireland late in 1653 to recruit ..." Then move on. Recruit who for what a reader will be asking. Fruitlessly. Domestic servants? For a travelling circus? Who knows. You don't even mention that he is recruiting men (assuming he is, you don't say; perhaps recruiting comely ladies for his personal harem?) for foreign service, which above you suggest you can source. I am suggesting that you give a reader more detail on why he returned to Ireland or delete "to recruit".
"Muskerry and his 5000 Irish in Polish service". My objection is just to the sudden introduction of "his 5000 Irish". A reader is likely to skimming back up the article to see how they missed previous mention of them. I have no doubt they existed but they need introducing. If they simply spring into existence in the sources, then say so.
"returned with £20,000 for the King". Perhaps worth mentioning that this is not the same person as the last time "the King" was mentioned?
Charles II is mentioned just before in the same paragraph.
Link "Protectorate". And why an upper case P?
changed to lower case "protectorate". Done.
I reconsider. Is not Cromwell's Protectorate a proper noun and would keep its capitalisation even when used as a qualifier? The article The Protectorate uses "Protectorate Parliament" and "Protectorate England". The article Knights, baronets and peers of the Protectorate used "Protectorate baronet" and "Protectorate baronetcy".
"now called Clancarty House". "now" meaning 1660, or meaning 2021?
The house on College Green does not exist any more. This is 1660. Changed to "which became "Clancarty House" to avoid the "now".

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Dear Gog the Mild. Thank you so much! Johannes Schade (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reread all of my notes and your responses above and am content other than where I have commented in this post. Except for the "recruiting" and the 5000 Irish who seem to appear. I can guess what happened, but if you can't source it, it may be best to trim or remove it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just three issues left. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog the Mild. Thank for your wise remarks, that put into perspective what we are trying to reach. I had my nose too near the screen. I am working on it. Besides, I said "footquote" as in WP:FOOTQUOTE. I really appreciate your efforts. With many, many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You changed "The titles were probably bought" to "The titles were probably purchased". I wondered why. Is "purchased" not the pretentious Norman-French speak of the upper class that we try to avoid and replace with Plain English. The noun "purchase" might be sometimes unavoidable as a "buy" can be confusing. WP:PLAINENGLISH is an essay but it claims the MOS recommends Plain English (I have not found where). I am still busy simplifying and chafing off needless detail and not ready. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert, but I think it usual to use "buy" for simple, everyday purchases (sic) and "purchase" for larger, more important ones. Such as "house purchase". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog the Mild. Thank you for your kind reply. You are of course right and I will not revert.

Dear Gog the Mild, I wondered whether dates should drop the day and the month according to how much precision is needed in the context. Such simplification seems to be evidently acceptable in the lead as all its dates are repeated in the body. However, should dates be simplified in the body, e.g. in section "Early life, marriage and children", 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, I simplified the date of his paternal grandfather's death from "23 February 1616" to "1616" to be concise and make the article less bloated as the day and month appear irrelevant in the context. The full date can still be found in the citation's footquote. I searched MOS and guidelines but found nothing. With regards and many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggest, it is at an editor's discretion and depends on context. Your change seems reasonable to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found a cite for British Civil War (BCW mentioned in the title of the article):
*{{Cite journal|last=Ó Siochrú |first= Micheál |date=2007 |title=Atrocity, Codes of Conduct, and the Irish in the British Civil Wars 1641–1653 |journal=Past & Present |issue=195 |pages=55–86 |jstor=25096669 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/25096669/}}
Thanks for your patience. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog the Mild. I hope I have now removed the last obstacle by introducing "his men" when he tries to serve Venice (it can be sourced) and mentioning such men again when they are proposed to the Poles. I have cleaned out about 200 words by simplifying dates and dropping unwarranted detail, You probably know that citation from Saint-Exupéry: "La perfection est atteinte, non pas quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retirer". Most of the removed content can still be found in the biographies of his father and his eldest son. Sometimes, It is of course alo true that gaps in the content can persist after the last superfluous word is removed. I feel, conciseness can interfere with readability and the "engaging prose" requirement that, as I see it, asks to guide the reader, to provide introductions, transitions, reasons, keeping things together despite MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL by using flashbacks.—The article certainly still has issues with the content e.g. I feel that not being a lawyer, I do not treat the war crime trials well. The entire checking of for WP:V needs still to be done if I understand it right. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting.
That made me smile - I don't have time to write a succinct article, so I have written a long one.
Suggest "employ Muskerry and his men (5000 of them) in Polish service" → 'employ Muskerry and his following - 5000 men - in Polish service', but I don't insist.
Verifiability gets a relatively light touch at ACR.
I agree that concaseness and readability can sometimes be in opposition.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, Johannes, thanks for your efforts with this article. I found the subject a bit beyond me, to be honest, but I took a quick run through for some bold adjustments. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are a few maintenance tags that should be addressed, or removed (if they have already been addressed) e.g. "citation needed" and "original research"
  • after a siege of three weeks.Template:Sfn O Callaghan: citation error
  • two hostages to garantee --> "guarantee"?
  • having having been responsible --> typo
  • the end of this paragraph needs a ref (even if it is a duplicate) for A-class: This eleven years' war in turn formed part of the Wars of the three kingdoms, also known as the British Civil Wars
  • as above, this should be referenced: He then sailed on to France and joined the Queen at her court in exile at the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye.
  • as above, The Prince of Wales stayed in France and no treaty was signed
  • as above, marked the effective end of the resistance to the Cromwellian invasion.
  • He was allowed to embark for Spain: probably best to replace "He" with "MacCarty" here to vary the language a little
    • Dear AustralianRupert. If you find the article difficult to understand, it should be rewritten to become more understandable for an Australian user. This is my first A-Class nomination. I feel I should not remove CN or OR tags after having made a change. The reviewer will evaluate my change and decide whether the tag can indeed be removed. At least that is how I understand the procedure. I struggle to find the right citations, but have added some. Thanks for pointing out the typos. Best regards, many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, Johannes, thanks for your edits so far. It isn't so much the wording that I find difficult to understand; it's the topic -- not something I know much about, is all (not much you can do about that, as the locus of that issue rests with me...). Regarding the cn and or tags; I would suggest that if you have made a good faith effort to address them that you can remove them, normally; however, if you are uncomfortable with that, no worries. Please just ask buidhe if they are happy with your changes in relation to those tags, or if more work is required. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, against the king demanding religious: probably best to name the king here as it is the first mention
  • No children from this marriage are recorded in the major genealogical sources: needs a ref
    • How to demonstrate the absence of something? I do not think that a ref can be found that says the marriage was childless. The best I could do would be to say "No children from this marriage are recorded in the cited sources" and then give the pages in the 112 sources cited where I can prove they are not mentioned. However, 112 citations at the end of this sentence would not look pretty. I have added two (2), which are the ones where I think such a mention would be most likely. On the other hand, for some of his five sisters no citation was found showing that the mother was his first wife. It is therefore possible that some of his sisters are from his second wife, notably Helen, the fifth.
  • using Gaelic as his medium as this was still the predominant language among the rank and file.: needs a ref
  • This was for now an empty menace, as his estates lay within the territories held by the rebels and the government could not seize them: this needs ref
  • reactivating the southern front around Cork, where the Munster army was deployed.: this needs a ref
    • The reactivation of the southern front was a direct consequence of Inchiquin's changing sides from royalist (in peace with the Confederates) to Parliament (in war with the Confederates). I gave a cit for his change of side. I try to position the citation to the most relevant place, not necessarily at the end of the sentence. The position at the end of the paragraph also has the disadvantage that the reader cannot know without reading the source whether the cit pertains to the last sentence or to the entire paragraph.Johannes Schade (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donough MacCarty married Eleanor Butler,[80] a Catholic, the eldest daughter of: suggest splitting the sentence is a bit complex.
  • —and two daughters: probably best just to join the two lists " had five children, three sons and two daughters" (the names make it clear who the sons are and who the daughters are, IMO)
    • Unless precise birth dates are available for all children, genealogical sources always list sons separately from daughters. They are focussing on the sons' chances to succeed to the title and in the daughters' chances to become a rich heiress. Both lists are as far as possible in birth order, but the birth order of the children in general is usually unknown. The eldest daughter could well be born before the eldest son etc. To preserve this information the two lists are kept separate here.Johannes Schade (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear AustralianRupert, sorry to have kept you waiting so long and thanks for your patience. I think I have finally cits at all paragraph ends (except for things like "Also see the lists of siblings and children in the text") and would now pass MH B-Class. I suppose we can now progress to sentence-level and the question of how well the cits support the statements. Thank you very much again for all your hard work and your patience, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and had to give it up in 1660, being compensated with land at Shanagarry near Cloyne (East of Cork).[389] and had to give it up in 1660, being compensated with land at Shanagarry near Cloyne (East of Cork).[390]: typo/duplicate sentence fragment. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the infobox says he died on 5 August, but the body of the article isn't quite so sure, offering "Only one and a half months later, on 4 or 5 August 1665,[408][409] Clancarty died..." (best to make this consistent, IMO --> suggest changing the infobox to "4 or 5 August". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, DUBLIN, DECEMBER 1ST 1653. Trial of the LORD VISCOUNT MUSKERRY" (and other examples throughout the article) --> best to avoid all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you say, there are quite a few such all-caps words. They appear in quotations from Burke, Cokayne, Hickson, O'Hart and perhaps others. I kept the capitalisation as it is in the source. I believe one should keep the quotations as near to the original as reasonably possible. The all-caps also helps the readers (and reviewers) to find the quotations in the source. However, you are not the first to want to correct them according to MOS. I had a nice and very polite discussion about this with user Ira Leviton (under Donough on her talk page). She finished by saying she got ä dose of doubt" about whether MOS:ALLCAPS applies to quotations. I believe it does not, just like MOS:DATES does not apply to dates in quotations, which are usually in queer old formats. There have been users who "corrected" such dates. Are you sure? Johannes Schade (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, not a major issue, but yes I believe ALLCAPS applies in quotes, per MOS:CONFORM, which provides "Generally preserve bold and italics (see § Italics), but most other styling should be altered. Underlining, spac ing within words, colors, ALL CAPS, small caps, etc. should generally be normalized to plain text. If it clearly indicates emphasis, use italic emphasis ({{em}}) or, in an already-italic passage, boldface (with {{strong}})". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear AustralianRupert. I am astonished. Somehow, I had never seen MOS:CONFORM. You are of course right and I will implement the corresponding changes. I had done about the opposite: preserved the capitalisation but dropped the italics and bolds. Thanks for telling me. Johannes Schade (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries, off Wiki I'd probably do the same -- I actually find a few aspects of the MOS to be counterintuitive and at odds with how I would normally format things at work (particularly with regards to capitalisation). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AustralianRupert. I am not so sure what is left. Should I remove the map? Should I add a citation to the caption of the map? With many thanks for your patience. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Hi, I see this needs a further review. I'm not terribly familiar with this era or with bios of nobility, but I will start one shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Wars of the three kingdoms→ Wars of the Three Kingdoms
    • Good catch. Done
  • In 1641 he contributed to Strafford's fallimpeachment
  • he stood trial in Dublin for war crimes but was acquitted
    • Done (belatedly)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and origins
  • Full name (at birth) when introduced first time in the body. I assume that is Donough MacCarty?
    • Done. However, perhaps not strictly necessary. MOS:FULLNAME pertains to the lead sentence. The article Fidel Castro is cited as example in MOS:BIO. It gives the full name only in the lead. Its body starts with "Castro was born ...". I was trying to be concise.
      • Everything needs to be cited, and there are no citations in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fail to see what you mean. Do you ask for citations in the lead?—Besides, the statement "everything needs to be cited" is obviously false. Beyond WP:BLUESKY (which is only an essay) there is WP:CALC (part of NOR policy) that allows to write e.g. "Smith was born in 1910 and died in 1924.[1] He lived for nine whole years." The first sentence must be cited, not so the second.—but this is just an aside. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is just good practice that everything in the lead is provided and cited in the body (with the rare exception of things that are WP:BLUE), and the concision achieved in removing one word is hardly earth-shattering when the article is the length it is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done (Added his surname. Is that all you wanted? You seem to say that an additional citation is needed, where? for what?)
  • and his first wife Margaret née O'Brien
  • are Dermot MacCarthy and Cormac MacCarthy-Mor likely to be notable? Redlink?
  • is it MacCartys of Muskerry or MacCarthys of Muskerry? Both are used.
    • Done. MacCartys of Muskerry -> MacCarthys of Muskerry. The spelling varies. MacCarthy seem to be more common, but the subject seems to be spelled more often MacCarty.
  • the "Donough listed among his brothers" table is completely superfluous, the content is already included in the prose, but the info about his brother could be brought out and placed after his parents marriage.
    • You are right, but I routinely include lists or tables of siblings and lists of children. I feel it would be incoherent to drop the brothers table but retain the sisters table. What do you think?
      • Or should I drop both? I could in this case as his siblings are listed as children in his father's article. What do you think?
        • Deleted the two tables and replaced them by a sentence of prose linking the corresponding section in his father's article (the disadvantage is that such links are fragile). A note with citations serves to comply with the obligation to source the statement.
  • suggest "Although most Irish remained Catholics under the Protestant monarchs Henry VIII..."
    • Done
  • "and would in 1642 join the Irish Catholic Confederates.[76] He wanted to support the Catholic religion[77] and fight for it.[78]" is really out of place, and belongs at the point in the chronology when these events occur.

− More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early life, marriage, and children
  • In 1616,[87] MacCarty's father
    • I removed the comma. I do not understand what you object to. Is it the placement of the citation? It is here because the citation supports the given year, 1616 (WP:INTEGRITY).
      • Done. Sorry, I was stupid. Somehow took me a while to understand. Finally replaced "his" with "MacCarty's", which was clearly what you intended.
  • a better contemporary description for an "idiot" would be "intellectually disabled" rather than "insane"
    • Done. I see there is an article Intellectual Disability, which I linked. It is a pity that "intellectually disabled" is such a mouthful and has this euphemistic reek.
  • According to Irish Pedigrees: Or, the Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation, he had been married once before and had a son from this wife,[4] but this marriage is not mentioned by other genealogical sources.[100][101][102]
    • I agree that the formulation I used is problematic, but should not names of authors and titles of publications be avoided in the main text? Is the citation not sufficient? Is not "according to" to be avoided when it is possible to be more direct? The reported fact seems to be essential and is probably the reason why Donough arrived so late in public life. It was not rare that important heirs engaged in marriages that were not accepted by the family, who then destroyed this relationship by finding some flaw in the marriage procedures or by more brutal measures as in the case of Agnes Bernauer. There is still a bit more detail in O'Hart, which I should perhaps add.
      • You are making an unexplained judgement that the sources that don't mention it are major, and implying that O'Hart isn't major. I presume O'Hart is a genealogical source, so my suggested formulation doesn't make value judgements about the sources, it just lays out what they say. If you didn't want to attribute the minority source in-text, you could just use "One genealogical source states that he had been married once before and had a son from this wife,[4] but this marriage is not mentioned by other similar sources.[100][101][102]"
  • link Earl of Ormond (Ireland)
    • Done

Dear Peacemaker67: Thank you very much for your efforts. It shows that even after user:AustralianRupert and user:Gog the Mild have worked through the text, correcting the spelling, syntax, and grammar and making it more concise, there are still serious flaws and ample room for improvement. However, the task that user:Buidhe started and left unfinished was the WP:V. I think he dropped it because the citations in the text (at the time 322 for a readable prose size of about 4900 words, which I thought was a lot) were hopelessly far from giving sufficient support. He wrote, "It doesn't matter exactly how many refs you have per text as long as all content is directly supported by the sources, rather than inferences you have made." I feel that it is in this area that the need for improvement is most urgent. I do not seem to know how to cite and write so that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are avoided and a reasonably well written text (not a sequence of "random factoids" as Gog the Mild called it) can be supported. I seem to tend to "infer" as Buidhe says. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy and can take a lot of work to get the hang of verifiability. (for me, it really took this). It can be especially difficult when you are trying to put together a large number of sources and the sources don't always provide the analysis that connects different facts. What I would try to do when writing is first get the facts out of different sources, then try to organize them in a logical order. (t · c) buidhe 14:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Buidhe. Thank you very much for your intervention and good advice. Best regards, Johannes, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Buidhe. The timeline (which you deleted) was my way of trying to "get the facts out of different sources, then try to organize them in a logical order" as you say. Is not "organize them in a logical order" already WP:SYNTH unless it is simply chronologically, which is probably allowed by WP:CALC? Perhaps I have sources for most of the facts but omitted the analyses (resulting in "random factoids" as User:Gog the Mild says) or inferred my own (WP:OR!, WP:SYNTH!). As you say, "the sources don't always provide the analysis". This goes with the bias to older and genealogical sources that Gog objected to. Genealogical sources are usually facts only. What I should do is look for citations for the analyses. Analyses are harder to source (and correctly understand and cite avoiding WP:CLOP) than bare facts. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johannes, organizing information by topic (or by time) is not original research. I agree it can be a challenge if sources don't give the analysis but in that case a bit of disjointedness is to be expected. The reason the timeline had to be removed is that it duplicates information in the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will review this aspect at the end. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parliaments
  • When Charles I summoned the Irish Parliament of 1634–1635
    • Done
  • He had been knighted in 1634 - this is past tense, but it isn't stated when in 1634 he was knighted, so perhaps it would be better as "He was also knighted in 1634."
    • Good catch. This tense is usually called "past perfect". The situation is that he was quite certainly knighted to help his election as "knight of the shire" (county MP). However, at the time this was already not a requirement any more but just a nicety. His successor was just an esquire. The problem is that the source for his knighting gives only the year, whereas the source for his election gives the full date. I think this is the kind of thing that user:Buidhe objects to. He would probably suggest to delete all this, or is there a way how to save it?
  • a sentence fragment explaining what the Graces were would be useful
  • 3000→3,000
    • MOS:DIGITS prescribes "Left of the decimal point, five or more digits are grouped into threes separated by commas (e.g. 12,200; 255,200 km; 8,274,527th; 1⁄86,400)." Admittedly, it adds "Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped (either 1,250 or 1250), with consistency within any given article." I tried to consistently present 4-digit numbers without separators. Are there any reasons for not doing so?
  • 9000→9,000
  • "Gormanston, Dillon, Kilmallock" can we have a fuller version of these names please?
    • Done (Removed the names for conciseness. They are given in his father's article).
  • same for "Parsons and Borlase"
  • unbold 2nd Viscount Muskerry
    • Done. I was so convinced bold was prescribed for the first mention of article title terms in the body in the MOS (under MOS:BOLD under Article Title Terms?) but I can't find it any more. I am astonished user:Gog the Mild has not caught this.

I think I picked this usage up from Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry, where Baron Stewart, Earl Vane, and Viscount Seaham were already bolded in the oldest version, dated of the 11 August 2004 by 62.254.32.9. In Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava user:Proteus bolded the title Baron ClaneboyeDufferin. The articles Charles FitzGerald, 1st Baron Lecale and Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly also show bolded titles in the body. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidance is MOS:BOLD. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Peacemaker67. It is as you said. I reread MOS:BOLD and see now that the existence of a redirect justifies the bolding. In Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry there are in fact redirects Baron Steward, Earl Vane, and Viscount Seaham, but all three point to Marquess of Londonderry rather than Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry so I would say the bolding is not justified. The case of Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava seems similar. I contacted the editor (User:Proteus) but do not seem to get a speedy reply. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, MOS:BOLD talks about bolding alternative names in the lead, but not about doing so in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lords→House of Lords
    • Done.
  • "Muskerry gave evidence/alleged that Strafford"
    • Made it "witnessed"; shorter than "gave evidence"; not "alleged" as there is no reason to suspect it was not true.
      • "Witnessed" used in this context is an unusual use of the word, which is the past participle of witness, meaning either to see an event happen or to have knowledge of an event from observation or experience, not to relate something you know to a court. You seem to be using it to refer to him giving evidence, which I don't think is correct usage. Given it is in a sentence when the trial in already mentioned, you could just say "Muskerry stated that Strafford had prevented people from seeing the King". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the final para, there is a bit of overlapping use of MacCarty and Muskerry. Shouldn't he be Muskerry after he became Viscount?
  • "His advancement caused MacCarty lose his seat in the Commons where he was replaced by Redmond Roche, an uncle by his stepmother" is a strange sentence. Was it possible in that time for one person to hold a seat in both the Commons and Lords? Perhaps "Due to Muskerry's elevation to the House Lords, his Commons seat became vacant, and it was filled by..."
    • You are right. Gaining the seat at the Lords made him lose the one at the Commons. I had moved the sentence and now moved it back into strict chronological order, which causes a bit this haphazard sequence of factoids that Gog the Mild objects to. WP:CHRONOLOGY seems to demand strict chronological order, but this is contravened in many published biographies where flashbacks are used or events are grouped by theme such as family and career.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. Some might advise I should just silently implement your corrections and obtain your SUPPORT. However, I would in fact not mind an OPPOSE. I need to learn and understand, I therefore discuss your objections when I do not understand them and try to find the rules behind them. This serves not only for myself but also when I review other editors' articles in quid pro quo (or how do you call this? Obviously when I ask for a review I should provide such reviews for others and must learn how to do this. Otherwise the system comes to a halt.). With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Johannes, I certainly hope that you will ask questions when you don't understand what I am getting at, and hopefully no reviewer expects mute conformity. I will go through the above and explain where needed before I proceed. Once I have gone right through the article in detail I will make some overall observations and recommendations as well. I don't know yet whether I will be supporting, opposing or what. I don't decide that until I've been through and my comments have been addressed or alternatives implemented. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. Thank you very much, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done that where necessary. I'll crack on with the rest now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irish wars
  • is there no article for this Eleven Year War?
  • "Phelim O'Neill launched the Rebellion" - a sentence fragment explaining the cause or aim of the rebellion is needed to provide context. Not sure about Rebellion→rebellion, but I suspect the latter is correct
  • delete the period between the citations here .[162].[163]
    • Done
  • "He lost the Dublin townhouse, that his father had built about 1640"
    • Done
  • what was "the Spanish service"?
  • suggest "Muskerry was his second-in-command."
    • I used the "second-in-command" but do not understand why the link has a leading colon [:]. I also find that the article Second-in-command does not provide a useful explanation for the reader as it focusses on modern British use.
  • suggest "Inchiquin, the vice-president, took over command of the government/anti-rebel forces"
    • made it "Inchiquin, the vice-president, took over the command of the government forces in Munster".
  • for clarity where there are multiple people with the same surname, use first names rather than or in addition to ranks alone for subsequent mentions, ie Garret Barry or General Garret Barry rather than just General Barry
    • Done

Down to Confederation. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • briefly explain what the Confederation was and why it was formed
  • "old man" as this is meant euphemistically
  • I know that "Muskerry was turning 49 in that year." doesn't require a citation given we have a citation for his year of birth, but I suggest to avoid the para ending without a citation you go with "Castlehaven considered him a slow commander, and despite the fact that Muskerry was only turning 49 that year, called him an "old man".[234]"
  • suggest "His Lieutenant-Colonel, Patrick Purcell, unsuccessfully besieged Lismore Castle, the seat of the Earls of Cork."
  • link parley
    • Done
  • "in September (see below)."
    • Done
  • "Muskerry, like most of the magnates among the Confederates, had his lands declared forfeit." hadn't this already happened?
  • link safe conduct
    • Done
  • "but not Fermoy" → "but Fermoy did not". I prefer this laconic three letter "but not Fermoy" over the more correct and conventional 4-word variant.
    • Done
  • now Purcell is a Lieutenant-General? Or is this a different Purcell?
    • Yes, I think it is the same Patrick Purcell of Croagh who got promotion. There is no article on him but perhaps it should be written one day. There are indeed other Purcells around.
      • Created the article Patrick Purcell of Croagh
        • Sources seem to call him sometimes Major-General (Coffey, 1914, cited in Patrick Purcell of Croagh) and sometimes Lieutenant-General (O'Donoghue, 1860) and "Vice-Generalis" (Prodinus, 1721: Descriptio Regni Hiberniae) in Latin. However, as this text stands now Patrick Purcell is always called Lieutenant-General.
          • Does this resolve the issue?

Down to Nuncio. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67, Thank you very much. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67, I have recently spent time moving content from the article to his father's article and other linked articles. Speaking to myself I tend to call this "equilibrate between articles". It seems Wikipedia calls this "summary style" WP:SUMMARY. This feels quite important to do, but reviews seem to rarely mention it. Why not?

Yes, it is fairly complex, IMHO. When there are excellent quality articles on key aspects of the reviewed article that can be linked, there is a lot of scope to summarise those aspects in the reviewed article and reduce the detail needed. However, many times the articles on key aspects of the reviewed article are not yet of high quality. This draws editors to develop a more detailed article which covers the material that should be in the linked articles. Of course, in a perfect world, every editor would fix up the linked articles so that they could be more succinct in the reviewed article, but this can lead to going down endless rabbit holes, and few editors are keen to do that when the article they have spent a great deal of time on is currently under review and the clock is ticking. I hope that explains the practical difficulties of WP:SUMMARY. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Peacmake67, Thanks for your comment. I feel there is also the danger of unbalancing the article when some aspects are summarised as a corresponding article exists (e.g. a battle) whereas other, equally or even less important important (e.g. a skirmish) aspects are treated with full detail. Johannes Schade (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued:

  • "her 11-year-old eldest son, Charles," Charles has already been linked above. I don't think another link is necessary here.
    • Done
  • perhaps "looked after"→"hosted"
  • "official reception by President Mountgarret[279]"
    • Done (removed "President").
  • the link of Glamorgan to Edward Somerset, 2nd Marquess of Worcester is very eastereggy, he was the Earl of Glamorgan then, was he not?
    • The literature about his intervention in Ireland always calls him so. The title was created for him by Charles I in 1644, but it seems to was invalid for some reason. He succeeded his father as Marquess of Worcester in 1646. This name change is usually ignored in the Irish literature.
  • what was "the episode of the Glamorgan treaty"? There is no context or explanation of what this was or meant
  • suggest "According to the treaty, the Confederates were expected to send an Irish army of 10,000 men, about half the Confederate army, to England before 1 May"
    • Done
  • Richard Swanley seems likely to be notable, redlink?
    • Dpne (redlinked)
  • don't pipe Penn's rank with his name
    • Done
  • better to use the first names of the Purcell's rather than ranks (unless they have changed since last mention) in "Lieutenant-General Purcell, Major-General Stephenson, and Colonel Purcell", also is this Major-General Stephenson named Oliver Stephenson?
    • Done. Lieutenant-General Purcell -> Patrick Purcell. There is an Oliver Stephenson who fell in the Battle of Liscarroll in 1642. So this one is a different one.
  • "Vice-Admiral William Penn"→"now-Vice-Admiral Penn"
  • "Rinuccini arrested Muskerry, Richard Bellings,"
    • Done
  • link Nicholas Plunkett
    • Done
  • "with the Marquess of Antrim"
    • Done
  • full contemporary name for Taaffe
    • Done

Dear Peacemaker67. I have to tell you that I am leaving for France this evening to see some relatives of my wife. Back in a week. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Decline of the Confederation. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "but Jones beatdefeated him"
    • Done
  • who or what was Geoffrey Browne?
  • the sentence beginning "Towards the end of 1647..." is very long and complex. Suggest breaking it in two.
    • Done
  • "Ormond escaped from England", it isn't clear from earlier mentions that he had gone to England under duress or as a captive, and therefore needed to escape.
    • Changed to "Ormond left England"
  • "and asking the Confederates if he could become their ally"
    • Done
  • "the privateers Mary of Antrim and St John of Waterford" I am assuming they were privateers, and I would have thought they would be notable.
    • Done
  • was Muskerry one of the 12 Commissioners of Trust? If so, explicitly state that.
    • Done
  • who is Clanricarde? Link here rather than later.
  • "He then sought employment bywith the Venetian Republic for himself"
    • Done
  • link war crimes
    • Done
  • "He was accused of having been an accessory"
    • Done
  • "to France where the Queen mother Henrietta Maria lived" we already know this, but now she is the Queen Mother. Needs rewording.
  • did the Irish troops fight as part of the Polish army against the Swedes? Did Muskerry? This isn't clear.
    • I have not found more information. Muskerry seems to have gone straight back. The Poles might have found him too old and might have found it difficult to communicate with him. The Irish troops probably did as you say, but I have not found any mention in the sources.
  • who were the "Protectorate English"
  • unbold "Earl of Clancarty"
    • Done
  • "now-Admiral Penn"
  • "whose name changed to"→"which now became"
    • Done
  • what was Gallaris?
    • Some place name that I have not been able to find. Nor do I know who "John FitzGerald of Enismore" was. Enismore, Ennismore, Inish More etc. (big island in Irish) is not a rare place name.
  • "Charles MacCarty, Viscount Muskerry", but then he is named as "Lord Muskerry"? Probably don't need to restate that he is the eldest son.
    • I do not understand what you mean. With Muskerry becoming Clancarty, the title Viscount Muskerry became the courtesy title of his heir apparent as I do explain in the text.
      • I don't understand why he is mentioned as "his eldest son, Charles MacCarty, Viscount Muskerry", then shortly thereafter mentioned as "Charles, Lord Muskerry, Clancarty's eldest son". It might be clearer if some explanation was provided, such as when the courtesy title is introduced, saying "The title Viscount Muskerry passed to his eldest son and heir apparent, Charles, as a courtesy title", then (as we will already know he is Viscount Muskerry) "his eldest son, Charles, replaced" and (as his title still hadn't changed) "Clancarty's eldest son, Charles, was killed". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear Peacemaker67, the explanation that you ask for appears in the last sentence of Section "Exile and prosecution". I deleted the repetitions except when announcing Charles's death, where a fuller and more formal name is, I believe, not out of place. I still do not dare to call Charles simply "Muskerry" as that was his father's name until so recently and might be confusing.
          • Done

That's it for the prose and MOS review. A query about the huge number of citations – could some of them be combined or moved to the end of sentences to improve the readability? Also, are all the quotes and other material in the footnotes necessary, such as columns and lines? If the material they are supporting can be verified by reference to the page of the source, then they don't appear to be necessary. This is causing extreme bloat in the Citations subsection, which is undesirable. Some of the citations could be combined by cutting out the additional information from the footnotes, eg Ohlmeyer 2004 p. 107 has 18 separate footnotes (with various info about where on the page the info is located, which frankly is completely unnecessary) which could just be one footnote with multiple iterations (like fn 75). There are several other examples where the number of individual footnotes could be seriously reduced without any reduction in verifiability, such as Dunlop 1906 p. 530, Cokayne 1913 p. 215 and p. 216, Bagwell 1909b p. 64 etc. Finally, assuming most of my comments above are addressed, I am leaning towards support, but due to the current state of the footnotes, I wouldn't support this at FAC until it was addressed. Well done thus far. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. First of all a hearty thank you for all your hard work. I learned a lot from you, e.g. to always give a full contemporary name at the first mention of a person in the text, even if the name is linked.

With regard to the citations. User:Buidhe would tell you that they are still too few and he is of course right. I know of quite a few that I still need to hunt down and add. WP:INTEGRITY prescribes that we should keep citations near to the supported statements but in the examples given the citations seem to always follow some punctuation. I will look for citations that could be moved to the nearest punctuation without losing text-source integrity. End of phrase rather than end of sentence position seems to be generally well accepted though, I feel. I have not found a rule that prescribes that all citations must appear after punctuation. There is already the counter-example of citation before a closing parenthesis.

As you pointed out, the citations could have been presented with less detail and many could have been combined. My purpose was to make checking as quick and simple as possible for the reader and reviewer. I find that quite often it is not easy to identify which is the supported statement or fact in the text and then to look for a suitable citation on an entire page can be time consuming. Buidhe said "It's not easy and can take a lot of work to get the hang of verifiability. (for me, it really took this)." I looked up and found that this article had a first FA review in which User:Ealdgyth made a thourough source check and Buidhe then retracted the candidate version, put in a lot a lot of work before resubmitting and finally passing. Buidhe said "I have started a page for matching each citation to a quote from the source: Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia/Sources check. If you think this would be helpful". I feel that what I did with my pages, columns, lines, and footquotes is similar to what he did, only that he did not incorporate it into the final article. If the citations should be simplified as you suggest, then, I feel, this should be done only after the detailed final source check. Besides, WP:FOOTQUOTE explicitly allows footquotes. Best regards and thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think by incorporating what buidhe did in a article talk subpage into the article you went a step too far, and you will need to do what she did and retract the additional detail about where on a given page the info is located. As far as quotes in footnotes is concerned, just because WP:FOOTQUOTE says you can do it, doesn't mean you should, or even that it is necessary. It also says "In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source... readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article." Happy for it to happen after the source review though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put any additional things I find here:

Dear Peacemaker67. I noticed that the ISBNs in the source list wrap on their hyphens, resulting in an odd isolated single digit or X when the ISBN is wrapped on its last hyphen. I tried to prevent this by replacing that hyphen with a non-breaking hyphen but that breaks the built-in link to the Special:BookSources page, throwing an invalid-character error. I did not find a solution to the problem. Even the recent FA Charles Green (Australian soldier) shows that same defect. I could of course drop all the hyphens from the ISBNs, but hyphened ISBNs are more readable than unhyphened ones. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, different sized screens result in different wrapping, so I would leave it as is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. You are right to stress that WP:FOOTQUOTE states that "it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source". However, why should it be inappropriate to go beyond and help the reviewer with column, line and footquote? Admittedly, this results in a bloated reference section that almost all readers will ignore. But that is the fate of any reference section how bloated or minimalistic it might be. Wikipedia should present that section closed by default. Most source reviews, even at FA-level, are spot checks done by a single reviewer, whereas the prose is typically reviewed several times from A-Z. This is so because with page-only citations the supported fact and the corresponding passage in the source are both so time-consuming to identify that few reviewers are ready to make the effort. Besides, have you seen that Buidhe's FA Armenian genocide denial uses footquotes? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at that article, but there is a huge difference in the subject matter involved. The likelihood of someone challenging anything in this article in terms of it being controversial is extremely low (is there really anything that might be contested or considered controversial?), but the Armenian genocide is hugely controversial as a subject, and its denial is also highly controversial and contested. I completely understand why buidhe has used footquotes for material that might be challenged in that article, but there really is no justification for their use here. I consider this level of detail should be moved to a subpage. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One might argue that the persecution of Protestants during the Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the atrocities committed during the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland are controversial and not seen in the same manner by Catholics and Protestants. Both subjects are touched on in the article, notably in Muskerry's war crimes trial. It would be unwise for me to reveal whether I am Catholic or Protestant or what I voted in the last election (DUP? Sinn Fein?). Where I live a 500-pound car bomb exploded in Main Street in 1993. But whether controversial or not, I feel that page-only is just not good enough. It comes from the printed scientific journals. Wikipedia can do better than that. But perhaps let us see this at the FA-level if I ever get there.

I had a look at moving citations to the end of the sentence. The first sentence of the "Birth and origins" section is a good example. There are three citations: one for the date, two for possible places of birth, distributed in accordance through the sentence so that it is evident what is what. Do you feel it would be better to regroup at the end? Is there a rule about this in one of the guidelines? Do you feel I should use WP:CITEBUNDLE to reduce the number of citation marks in the text? I have tried this on citation 19. Please have a look. I am not convinced this will work well. I am imitating Buidhe who uses bundling on some of the citations in Armenian genocide denial. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is less important that the massive bloat. There is absolutely no comparison between this article and the Armenian genocide denial article in terms of controversial aspects. I am passingly acquainted with Irish history, and the aspects covered here are in no way controversial today. There is almost a universal academic consensus on what happened during this period of English and Irish history and the reasons why, and nothing that I can see that might remain controversial is touched on here. Even if a controversial incident was covered here, you would only provide this level of detail in the citation and a quote for that incident, not for utterly mundane things like the various spellings of his name (in the case of the bloated citations), or the quote in Ohlmeyer 2004, p. 107, right column, line 29: regarding the nuncio being welcomed at Macroom (regarding the unnecessary quotes). Apart from this, there are still a few unaddressed comments scattered above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. I hope I have addressed the outstanding issues you mentioned. I also have redlinked Dermod McCarthy (MP) and Andrew Barret (in the succession box) Are points deducted for redlinks? Redlinks seem to be very rare in your FAs (e.g. Uroš Drenović). I learned from you that notable persons should be linked (WP:REDLINKBIO). It seems all MPs are notable. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67, I have created a stub for Sir Charles Vavasour, 1st Baronet of Killingthorpe to get rid of the red. Since about three days I experience difficulties editing Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty needing to wait for minutes between changes. With many thanks and apologies, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good, Johannes. I am supporting here on prose. I have serious concerns about the bloated approach to citations (as I have explained above), and would oppose this on that alone at FAC were it to be nominated without it being addressed. It is massive and unnecessary overkill, like using a B-52 to carpet bomb a single foxhole. That said, well done on all the improvements that have been made to the article thus far, and for the considerable work put into it before nominating it here. All the best, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding source review

edit

I would do a source review, as one is needed and this article has been on the list for ten months, but frankly I would fail it as the article stands for the reasons I have identified in my prose and MOS review. Given my view might be a minority one, I suggest that the two other reviewers @Gog the Mild and AustralianRupert: give their opinions on the issues I have raised (specifically the citation bloat and unnecessary quotations in the citations). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little less concerned about the number and density of citations and their including quotations, given that this is ACR. If I examined the sourcing in detail these may be reason to fail at ACR, but on a skim they are not the swift fail they would be at FAC. I am however, as I said at the top of my review, concerned at the age, even antiquity, of many sources. Eg the first three are over a century old; two citations date to a work published in 1680; etc. Given all of this it seemed highly likely that I would be failing any source review I did and so, like Peacemaker67, was leaving it in the hope that you may find a reviewer more sympathetic to your approach. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog. Given AR is rather busy at present, perhaps one of the @WP:MILHIST coordinators: not yet involved might consider doing a source review? I must say that if this is really intended to go to FAC, dealing with an issue here at ACR that would clearly result in an oppose at FAC makes sense to me. FAC coords are far less forgiving of underprepared noms than the Milhist coords (what nom would be left on the list for ten months at FAC?). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it to me. Ping me if in four days I have materialized no review. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Steady on about FAC coords Peacemaker, I'll tell Hog Farm! Whom I was going to suggest, but Vami may be even better. Thanks Vami_IV Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to look at this if Vami becomes unable to, but like Gog I'd likely oppose this at FAC due to the very heavy use of older sources, including in places where they aren't necessary or shouldn't be used. For instance, in the royalists defeated the rebels under General Garret Barry in the ensuing Battle of Liscarroll why is the 1882 citation necessary? Surely a modern source somewhere includes a brief description of the battle that would support this. I'd also challenge sourcing Muskerry allegedly panicked, fled, and caused others to flee to an 1898 source, as surely there's a better, more modern source, for allegations of panicky flight. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Vami

edit

For starters, I have never seen sourcing like this. The vast majority of sources are older than even my grandparents, and most in the ballpark of a hundred years in age; when I was first examining the article, I thought the sources being used were being used because they had drifted out of copyright and could be quoted as they are now being quoted. Reading the review, though, I see that is not the case. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Schade: If you didn't already know, you probably qualify for the Wikipedia Library and its partners. If you do qualify, I recommend skimming through Oxford's available resources. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami_IV†♠. Thank you very much for untertaking a source revue. Admittedly, many sources are very old, but often they seem to be the best sources for the events described. As WP:OLDSOURCES says "older reports ... tend to have the most detail". I find this often true with regard to the present nomination. At the beginning of this review an effort was made in response to Gog's criticism to replace older with younger sources. At the end of this drive the sources older than 100 years were a minority. As Gog said what matters is that "latest scholarship" is included. This drive has not added any insight stemming from "latest scholarship". In the present case the more recent sources are those of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB; 2004) and the Dictionary of Irish Biography (DIB; 2009). I have used The Wikipedia Library but almost exclusively for JSTOR, which seems to exclude the most recent articles. It seems therefore practically impossible for Wikipedia editors to include the latest scholarship unless they have access to University libraries. Obviously not my case.
With regard to the organisation of the source list I had it subdivided into books and articles following a suggestion by Buidhe, but I wonder wether a single alphabetical list would not be more user-friendly.
I also wonder whether my way to cite the DIB is correct. I feel I should not have used SfnRef but cited them by year as done with other sources, of course it might result in 2009a, b, c etc. I have recently added some Citation Needed to remind me of places where citations are still missing. There are probably quite a few others, especially towards the end of the article as Gog remarked. I am working on this. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vami_IV†♠. I wondered what the requirement with regard to the age of the sources really is. The Featured Article Criteria (WP:FACR) say (1c) "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". That seems to be all. The term "latest scholarship" does not appear. The term "most recent scholarship" appears in the essay "Guidance on source reviewing at FAC" (WP:FASOURCE). This essay seems to derive its "most recent scholarship" requirement from the "high-quality" requirement of the FACR. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I'll review within the next week. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to have concerns about the age of the sources because of the possibility of WP:OR, but otherwise I am satisfied by their legitimacy. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami_IV†♠. I know there is a problem accessing that URL. Sometimes it fails and sometimes it works fine. I have not understood what is going on. The URL itself seems to be correct. Besides, the citation concerns an fold-out without page number in that source. I had it as "|pages=fold-out" in "Cite journal" but that does obviously not make sense. I discovered that "Cite journal" has a parameter called "at" which seems to be intended for such cases, so I changed it to "|at=fold-out". It is the first time I use the "at" parameter. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami_IV†♠. Coming back to the ages of the sources. I must admit that I am not sure that I understand your remark "concerns about the age of the sources because of the possibility of WP:OR" I would interpret you to mean that the risk of being outdated (is this WP:OR?) increases with source age, which surely is true, even if it is rare in history texts. For example, older sources give Donough's father's death as 1640, e.g. Cokayne (1913, p. 214). McGrath (1997) seems to be the first who corrects this to 1641. Besides, George Edward Cokayne (1825–1911) is a famous and normally trustworthy genealogist who wrote many books, surely a WP.RS source, whereas McGrath's work is a Ph.D. thesis. I cite the 1913-edition because this is the most recent available on the Internet. Obviously, even very recent WP:RS sources can be in error. For example, Ó Siuchrú (2009) in Dictionary of Irish Biography, article on Donough (https://www.dib.ie/biography/maccarthy-donough-a5129), states "Cormac was killed in June 1665 at the battle of Solebay", but it is well known that the Battle of Solebay was fought in 1672.

I came across the FA John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, very nice, well referenced and almost all references 20th and 21th century, mostly books. My sources indeed do look old compared to this. I do not know how they do this.

Early in this review I asked User:Gog the Mild about a rule for this and he wisely declined. I think we have to take this source by source and see whether they pass the "high-quality reliable" criterion of (WP:FACR) and what can be done in each case.

Something that needs to be fixed is how I referenced the Family tree. I used citations with huge page ranges, which are quite cetainly not acceptable (WP:FASOURCE makes a remark about excessive ranges). However, I feel the boxes or lines in the family tree shoulds not be encumbered with citation marks. This might be a case for citation bundling. What do you think?

With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami_IV†♠. Still thinking about the source age. Surely, our prime objective is WP:V. Should not an old verifiable source (Internet access) be preferred over a recent one that cannot be verified at all (neither on the Net nor at the local library)? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my counts: the article cites 176 sources, 85 of them are older than 100 years. The FA criteria say: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;" I expected a frontal attack from you a bit like User:Buidhe did at the beginning of this review (10 months ago). Do the 176 sources constitute a representative survey of the literature? Are all 176 sources of high quality? are all statements appropriately supported by the at present 525 inline citations? what of WP:SYNTH when more than one citation is given for a statement? What about WP:INTEGRITY, WP:CLOP, WP:PLAG? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting based on the above and my inspection of the sources and citations. JS has done the best he could with what he could access. The only other comment I could make now is that every reference with an author who has an article links them, when only one is necessary. Good hunting, JS. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Vami_IV. Thank you very much for your kind support. I did not really want to bother you any further, but I fail to understand your remark "The only other comment I could make now is that every reference with an author who has an article links them, when only one is necessary." After some thought I believe you mean that repeated links to the same author (e.g. Samuel Rawson Gardiner) in the "author-link" parameter of the "Cite book" (or similar) templates in the source list violate MOS:REPEATLINK. I beg to disagree. MOS:REPEATLINK explicitly excepts citations, stating "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g. |work=The Guardian." Dear Vami, do I understand you right? What do you think? With many thanks for all your effort and patience, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is indeed what I meant and the MOS supports you there. I just think it's unnecessary to have two to four links to the same person in quick succession. I won't retract my support on a nitpick, though, so feel free to leave the links as they are. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear Vami_IV. Thank you very much.

Drive-by comment (HF)

edit
  • "This seems to have led Ó Siochrú to call it the 'Battle of Solebay' in error" - This is WP:OR. The source for this is Ó Siochrú, and while that will support them calling it the "Battle of Solebay", it can't be established that that was an error just citing Ó Siochrú without diving into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Hog Farm Talk 14:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Hog Farm. You are of course right. I have tried to fix this. I decided to remove the statement about Ó Siochru's mistake. What I did was in fact quite rude. It is not necessary to do that here. I changed the Efn to just establish the link between the date (3 June 1665), the name of the commander (Duke of York), the name of the ship (Royal Charles), and the name of the battle (Lowestoft). I am not so sure that I have been successful. Please have a look. Ideally, I should find one modern source that does all that in one go. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serial, mostly on sourcing, more with an eye to the future than today

edit

A couple of points. And if anyone calls me "dear" I'll oppose on principle!

  • To clarify, newer scholarship is preferred over that of the 19th century, due in no small part to the widespread usage of the historical method/Scholarly method being in its infancy (or, depending on age, even extant). It's true that they may contain "more detail"; often that's romanticised almost-guesswork, so should be treated cautiously. Always ask: where did this 19th-century historian—or even antiquarian—get their sources from? How much of the detail they provide, for example, could they have gleaned elsewhere, and how much is colorization? If the latter, it's best ignored; if the former, what's the strength of it?
  • I saw online/offline sourcing queried above: please see WP:OFFLINE and remember—futon is a thing!
  • I understand Vami IV's concerns; by my own crude assessment only a ~third of the sources are post-1945, and with the best will in the world, I honestly wonder if that's sufficient (I am less knowledgeable of the stringencies of ACR of course). Remember, at FAC the onus is on the nominator to justify the inclusion of a particular source. This means that, potentially, a source reviewer could end up asking you...100 times? What makes X a high-quality source? You'll get plenty of advice on that between now and then, especially from this project, but it would be as well preparing to defend against it as soon as possible.
  • On the other hand Note use of colorful font to indicate self-awareness that preceding commentary is solely negative... Regarding this particular topic, I note that a scan of the major databases—our own at WP:TWL ([4],[5]), BBIH ([6],[7],[8]), Jstor ([9]) the British Library ([10],[11]), for example—demonstrates that there is almost nothing you could have used but didn't; the poor chap's had almost nothing written on him. So no-one can be in doubt you've used ~everything available to you, and you are to be congratulated on your work, achieving A-class is no mean feat in itself! SN54129 16:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serial, may I respectfully thank you for your interesting remarks without trying to endear myself to you. I am not a historian and a newby compared to your experience. I recounted my sources according to your criterion: 85 out of 176 are post-war. I feel you are perhaps a bit too severe with the 19th-century historians. Just like today some are trustworthy and others not. Samuel Rawson Gardiner can surely not be accused of having published "romanticised almost-guesswork" or having indulged in "colorization". Sometimes one finds contradictions like Ohlmeyer vs older sources about the date of Donough's father's 2nd marriage. It took me some time to realise it. Somebody must be wrong here. I hope I have handled this correctly. I expected that some reviewer would go through the citations with a level of detail similar to the one that has been applied to the prose. I thought I had made this feasable by providing footquotes. User:Buidhe had made a courageous start in this direction. Perhaps she could continue? Detailed source reviews appear to be rare even at FA level. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @Nikkimaria and Buidhe:, would either of you be willing to do an image review? This nom has been here forever and it would be good to get it promoted given it now appears to have a consensus to promote on prose and sources. Any help gratefully appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest increasing the size of the family tree text
Increased the font size from 80% to 90% in the chart and from 70% to 80% in the legend. Hope this is enough. Sorry, user:Nikkimaria, somehow, it seems I was not alerted for your edit.
No worries on the alert, but be aware that MOS:SMALL advises against anything smaller than 85%. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkimaria, thank for you patient explanations. I need them as this is my first image review. I increased the font size of the legend to 85% to comply with MOS:SMALL of which I had not been aware. Thanks for mentioning it. But, are not all our little superscript citation marks smaller than 85%? That seems to be an unavoidable exception to MOS:SMALL. So are the little lifespan numbers at the bottom of the frames of the family tree. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Second_Viscount_Muskerry.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Van_dyck_thomas_wentworth_earl_of_strafford_with_sir_philip_mainwaring_1639-40.jpg, File:Second_Viscount_Muskerry.jpg, File:Liscarroll_Castle_perspective.png, File:James_Butler,_1st_Duke_of_Ormonde_by_William_Wissing.jpg, File:Edmund_Ludlow.JPG
File (1) Second_Viscount_Muskerry.jpg – I added tags {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-Ireland-anon}}
What's the date when this was considered to have been "lawfully made available to the public"?
Dear Nikkimaria you talk far over my head. You said "needs a US tag". I was wildly trying to guess what that implies and did not and still do not understand. I thought I must throw in a tag starting with PD-US and did not understand that {{PD-US-expired}} is not the right one for the case because it requires a pre-1927 publication date and that is why you ask me for a publication date which confused me even further. The painting is poor quality and was probably first published with the opening of the Hunt Museum in Limerick, Ireland in 1997. I took this image from the museum's website and uploaded it using the upload wizard provided in Wikimedia Commons, choosing the option "Faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain because the author died more than 70 years ago". This option seems to be have resulted in the copyright tag {{PD-Art}}. How can this be wrong or insufficient? I still do not understand why a "US tag" is needed and what that could be. With apologies and thanks, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's a brief explanation and if anything's unclear please ask. Under US law copying a two-dimensional image - for example, taking a photograph of a painting - does not result in a new copyright. This is what PD-Art means - as long as the original painting is in the public domain in the US, then the photograph is also in the public domain in the US. However, we still need to have a tag reflecting why the original painting is in the public domain in the US. The PD-old-70 tag covers countries where works enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the author, but the US is not one of those countries, so this tag doesn't cover US status of the painting either. PD-US-expired is a US tag, but we need to determine whether that tag applies to this particular image by determining when this was published - that term has a technical meaning in US law that might not be what you expect with regards to paintings. If we can confirm that it was published by that definition before 1927 then this tag is fine. The same for below - if for example Ormond's portrait was not published until 1983, then PD-US-expired would not be a correct tag for that image. There is a list of US tag here that might help. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the publication date is after 1997 and the painting was published in the US by the website of the Hunt Museum, however how can I be sure of this there might be a book somewhere that shows the portrait, even if I have not found it. . In consequence {{Tl:PD-Art|PD-old-100}} applies as Muskerry's portrait was first published in the US after 1978 when the US joined the Berne Convention (List of countries' copyright lengths) and there is no need for a second US-specific tag. Dear Nikkimaria. Thank you very much for your patient explanation. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When there is uncertainty, we generally err on the side of caution and go with what can be proven. Also be aware that PD-old-100 at Commons is not a US tag - see the note on that tag that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the URL from which I downloaded the photo showing Muskerry's portrait painting:
- https://www.huntmuseum.com/collection/painting-the-second-viscount-muskerry/
This URL is now dead, but the page can still be found on the Wayback machine at:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20200825025103/https://www.huntmuseum.com/collection/painting-the-second-viscount-muskerry/
I now wonder whether {{PD-US-unpublished}} cannot be asserted. No copyright publication of the painting has been found despite the reasonable effort made. By its very nature {{PD-US-unpublished}} can never be proven. Display in the museum or on its website is no copyright publication as there is no sale. Many images on Wikimedia Commons are marked {{PD-US-unpublished}}. For example the portrait uploaded by User:Magicpiano that figures on Jonathan Belcher, a Good Article. If this is not acceptable, must the image be deleted? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File (2) Van_dyck_thomas_wentworth_earl_of_strafford_with_sir_philip_mainwaring_1639-40.jpg – I added the tags {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}. The painting was uploaded by user:Daverdis and is in private collection.
Er, there is an artist named in the description, why would this be considered UK-unknown? If this is in a private collection, when was it made available to the public? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course right. I did not really understand that I was in fact lying by adding these wrong copyright tags. This was not uploaded by me. But why should {{PD-Art}} not be good enough? The Source http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue15/vandyckbritish.htm gives error 404. I found a backup on the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20120218094955/http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue15/vandyckbritish.htm and added it on the metadata. National Trust Collections (https://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/500055.2) has an engraving of the painting done in 1739. I think this constitutes a publication and enables us to use {{PD-US-expired}} as it is before 1927.
File (3) Liscarroll_Castle_perspective.png – I added the tags {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}.
When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know when this was published, probably in the 17th century. It is an engraving and therefore made to be printed and distributed in bigger numbers. It might have been used in an 17th-century pamphlet or broadsheet about the war, but I have no proof. However, this makes it quite sure it was published "anywhere before 1927" and we can user {{PD-US-expired}}.
File (4) 1st_Duke_of_Ormonde_by_William_Wissing.jpg – I added the tags PD-US-expired and PD-UK-unknown. The latter is probably not the right one as the painter (Wissing) and the location (National Portrait Gallery) are known. What would be the right one?
What is the first known publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ormond's portrait was purchased by the National Portait Gallery, London, in 1983, but display in a museum is not publication. However, the British Museum (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_P-5-70) has an engraving done 1680–1688 of the central part of the painting; this is publication and allow us {{PS-US-expired}} because published before 1927. What do you think?
That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File (5) Edmund_Ludlow.JPG – I added the tags {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}.
As above, this has an author named, so why would it be UK-unknown? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was marked {{Tl:PD-Art|PD-old-100}} but you asked for a "US tag" so I added {{PD US-expired}}, I thought that was what you wanted. The I thought I also needed a copyright for the UK as the country of origin, so I added {{PD-UK-anon}}, the only UK copyright for PD that I knew of. I now wonder whether {{PD-Art}} {{PD-US-expired}} is not what you want here.
I propose to mark it {{Tl:PD-Art|PD-old-100}} and {{PD-US-expired}} because the engraving was published in Switzerland in 1698 as frontispiece of a book.
Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:MacCarthy.png needs a source and tag for the original design
I might be able to find an "original design". Just a second ...
Added the blazoning on which the graphic is based and cited Burke 1866. I added the all to the Description. I am not sure this is the right place. Perhaps it should have gone under Source (wich reads only |Source={{own}})? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does a dead source link mean the photo becomes unusable? I thought we put it into WikiCommons to protect against precisely this risk. Obviously I do not know much about these things, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make the photo unusable per se, but sourcing is part of both our WP:IUP and Commons' commons:COM:EI. Is an archived copy available? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkmaria, thanks for mentioning WP:IUP, I had never read this important guideline. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkimaria. I found a backup of the source on the waybackmachine at https://web.archive.org/web/20160304071143/http://pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=6126.
  • Dear Nikkimaria. Thank you so much for your patience with me. I found engravings of the Van Dyck and the Wissing, but not for Muskerry's portrait. As engravings were made with the purpose to produce copies, the sale of such engravings constitutes IMHO publication. If this is before 1927 we can use {{PD-US-expired}} "published anywhere before 1927". I edited the metafiles. I hope you agree with this interpretation. I learned a lot from you. With many, many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

edit
The Irish wars section
Mate, you must have a very small computer screen. On my smaller screen, there aren't any that are even close. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey mate long time no see? Not really to be honest it's the opposite. I recently bought a new monitor and it's way bigger than the last one. However, I did not know that Wikipedia isn't converting the standard 1070px format into bigger screens or some browsers. So this makes it much more annoying and kinda awkward than it already is so I've manually checked some articles on my laptop whether or not it is a sandwich by the majority of readers. I was already wondering why nobody is saying there is some sandwich going on. But currently, I am now kinda confused, MOS:SANDWICH doesn't say that this doesn't apply to bigger or smaller screen resolutions unless there is a discussion about this in the past I am not sure whether or not this guideline should apply here or not. I hope Wikipedia will solve this issue in the near future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought it must be a bigger screen, not a smaller screen. When checking for sandwiches, I would say, the width of the browser should be adjusted in a way that a full line has about 80 characters. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Donough_MacCarty,_1st_Earl_of_Clancarty&oldid=1070708248"