More information Associated task forces: ...
|
| This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles | | Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
| This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles | | Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
|
| This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles | | |
|
| This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles | | Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
| This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles | | Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
| This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles | |
|
|
Close
Err...shouldn't this be at "John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland"? The man was known by various titles over the course of his life - Viscount Lisle, Earl of Warwick, Duke of Northumberland. Presumably, the highest should be the one in the article title. john 06:33, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- The supposed system actually is to use the title someone is best known by. There are currently a number of entries (mostly for more modern politicans who became peers after their political retirement) which illustrate this. However, in this case, I think Dudley is better known as Duke of Northumberland, and I've actually contemplated moving it myself. Loren Rosen 06:44, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, if somebody is very clearly best known by one title, that title should be used. Thus, I put John Carteret, Earl Granville, in as John Carteret, 2nd Lord Carteret, his title for the most important part of his political career. Or Benjamin Disraeli as that, rather than Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield. However, when it's unclear what title is the most commonly used, the default should be to use the highest. Shall we move it, then? john 06:47, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- why is there no mention of the false charges, biased juries, and evil intentions of those responsible for killing all these lords and ladies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.34.142 (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"He was soon to gain prominence in the tournaments of the royal court and as a protégé of Thomas Cardinal Wolsey, and so joined the group whose task it was to amuse the king. In 1527, and again in 1532, he accompanied Wolsey to France."
Wolsey died in 1530. Does this refer to an earlier trip or was Dudley present when Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn travelled to France in 1532?86.47.42.32 (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Error corrected. I will attempt to dig up some references on this. Welham66 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Is his spouse's surname Guildford or Guilford?
- fixed to Guildford
- Needs copy-editing - a number of typos, grammatical errors, and awkward passages.
- Tried to find and fix them
- Better, but there are still quite a few errors. Maybe get someone else to read it over for you?
- Use "until" instead of "till"
- fixed
- Need a more encyclopedic tone
- Changed some phrases; please consider also that there are different types of writing style in different fields (as is acknowledged at WP:TONE).
- Yes, but read the rest of that sentence - use the tone employed by reliable sources (which in this case means a generally more formal tone) while remaining clear and understandable
- Of course I had read that sentence and meant exactly that. From your response I cannot but conclude that you are unfamiliar with the writing style of RS in the field of early modern political history (encyclopedias like the ODNB included). I would like to stress that I fully understand that WP is different from other encyclopedias for very good reasons, but then I assure you that my writing is already significantly more "toned down" than books, journal articles, and encyclopedia articles written by academic historians -- reliable sources in the above guideline's sense. Where is the "excellent" Lord Admiral, the "dashing commander at sea", the "ineffectual friend Suffolk"? Where are the "abject" or "moving" letters? Where the "Protestant propagandists" instead of mere writers? Where is the "Protector's" slavery law?- It's now the 1547 slavery law. For reasons entirely unfathomable to me, you seem to think this article is written in an informal tone, as follows from your "which in this case means a generally more formal tone". If you hold unspecified but different views of the style appropriate to historical-biographical GAs, than myself and others do, I respect this and would welcome and appreciate if you would fail this article (so that it can have a new chance). The manner of this particular review is too unhelpful and unpleasant, as well as much too demanding on my health and time, for me to be able to continue with it. Kind regards. Buchraeumer (talk)11:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, please don't think I meant anything personally; I didn't, and I apologize in case you thought so.- Having already addressed the bulk of the points of the review, and you initially said on my talk page that the article was close to GA, I would like to make suggestions how we could proceed, so that this might not end in a months-long stalemate:
- a) you could give examples, or point out which passages of the text you think should be changed; I could then perhaps try that, as long as I think it's reasonable.
- b) if you still feel the prose is generally not o.k., you could fail, or
- c) you could ask someone to take over the review from you at the GAN talk page.
- d) I would suggest the same if you would like to retire from the the review.
- Thanks. Regards. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- In fairness, I may be reviewing based on a set of criteria not transferable to this field. I have chosen to pursue option e, by asking for a second opinion at GAN
- Avoid run-on sentences
- Tried to find and fix them
- Ket's or Kett's Rebellion?
- fixed to Kett's
- "via" is an English enough word to not require italicization
- fixed
- "vice-admiral" or "Vice-Admiral"?
- fixed to Vice-Admiral
- Avoid linking the same term more than once or twice
- fixed. I systematically link terms in the lead and again in the main text, because some people may skip the lead.
- Measurements should be expressed in both imperial and metric, possibly using the convert template
- fixed
- Be consistent in how you refer to the subject: having him called "Warwick" in one sentence and "Dudley" in the next may be confusing to some readers. This issue also applies to a lesser extent to other players whose titles change
- I have removed all instances of Warwick in the text, but I stick to Northumberland, as by that title he is most commonly known. Other peers I have named by their titles, with the exception of Somerset, whom I had to mention before he became a duke. Please compare WP:LASTNAME.
- "became ineligible for rehabilitation in a world dominated by confessional thinking" - what does this mean?
- changed to sectarian; I still think "confessional" would be more to the point, but I realize that it seems not really to exist in English (and the link to Confessionalization is only partly to the point). What is meant is that writers etc. judged everything and everyone along the lines of the "religious divide" between Catholics and Protestants.
- Why are some of his offices mentioned only in the infobox or the closing template?
- I'd think that is the purpose of these boxes: to give further information that cannot be mentioned in the narrative for the sake of brevity and clarity. I mentioned his more important positions in the text.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result: Keep GA status. The consensus that the sources are adequate and not out of date has not been rebutted. As usual, editors are free to improve the article if new sources crop up. SnowFire (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The article was reviewed nearly 12 years ago, so I think it should be reassessed. It currently has the additional citations tag (since December 2021). Also there is no recent references with the most recent reference currently being a 2012 book. Sahaib (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - The "additional citations" tag makes no sense since it currently has over 200 citations (in fact, there are 239 in the article). I am not seeing any citation issues - it appears that all paragraphs are cited, thereby meeting WP:WIAGA criterion #2. The lead does lack citations per WP:CITELEAD, but it is supposed to be a summary of information that is cited in the article. That tag is so ridiculous that I will remove it right now.I also don't see why Sahaib is concerned that the most recent reference was published in 2012. That is very recent considering that the subject of the article died in 1553, which is... 470 years ago. I would be concerned if we were using many 16th-century sources but, in fact, many of the sources in the article appear to be from the 1990s or early 2000s. In summary, this would not fail the GA criterion based on sourcing. Epicgenius (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The additional citations tag has now been removed, quite correctly in my view: everything in the article is cited inline to a plethora of reliable sources, so I fail to understand why that tag was added in the first place. I don't think the quality of the sourcing is an issue, either. Comprehensiveness isn't a GA criterion, and in any event no one has pointed out any more recent references that could be added even if we wanted to. Without a complaint that's more solidly rooted in the GA criteria, there's no basis for delisting the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)