[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Roose/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2023 [1].

Richard Roose

[edit]
Nominator(s): SN54129 20:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A King jealous. A bishop nearly poisoned. Servants dying. And one man―who may or may not have been guilty―was boiled alive for it. It took two hours. Meet Richard Roose, of whom almost nothing is known but his purported crime and grotesque end. Also meet a periphery of nasty characters ranging from the King who wanted another wife to a father who wanted a royal brother-in-law... and who both wanted a bishop dead.
FACers, feel free to have a look at R. Roose esq., who hopefully deserves a bronze star if nothing else. The article underwent a thorough GA review by CaroleHenson―thanking you, Carole, much appreciated as ever, a couple of years ago.
Many thanks to all who look in here! Cheers, SN54129 20:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall
  • There are a lot of "Anne Boleyn"s or just "Anne"s knocking around: as she's not a fictional character, this should be "Boleyn" (except where there may be confusion with the rest of her family)
Very important point, I've drastically reduced the Annes. SN54129 17:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "claimed it was intended to be a joke—believing he was incapacitating his fellow servants rather than killing anyone, he claimed": because of the first word, you don't need the last two.
  • "Fisher himself was already unpopular": you don't need "himself"
  • "annul his marriage to his wife, Katherine" -> "annul his marriage to Katherine" (he couldn't annual his marriage to anyone else!)
  • "Fisher himself was executed": again you don't need "himself"
  • "by many historians to": Don't think you need to link historians
  • "the great treason": Not sure you need "great"
Well, this is really to differentiate the "great" attainders of men like Cromwell, Gardiner, Cranmer, Thos More etc, from the hundreds of ordinary trials and executions (ordinary monks, abbots etc) during the reformation.
Background
  • Link Henry VIII on first mention
  • It may be worth a footnote to explain what praemunire is, given it is such an uncommon term
Done, hopefully not overly detailed?
  • "several suggestive incidents during these months": which months?
  • "angered both King Henry": just "Henry" will suffice
  • "defended [Queen Katherine] without": just "Katherine" will suffice
  • "Fisher's most recent biographer" – that could fall out of date without anyone noticing
Dated

Done to the start of poisoning – more later. – SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

Poisonings of 18 February
  • "Bishop Fisher": just "Fisher"
  • "mortally enfected": maybe a {{sic}} template before helpful hands come and correct the spelling?
Helpful hands, the bane of our lives!
Theories
  • "extant source being the crown's own Act" -> "extant source being the act of parliament" – gets rid of both the unnecessary "own" and the unneeded capital A
  • "Bernard also iterates": this pretty much repeats the previous couple of sentences – I'm not sure you need so much repetition
The King's plan
  • "it is not impossible": or "it is possible"?
  • "machiavellian": capitalise to "Machiavellian", according to the OED
  • "Queen,[12] by parties": comma shouldn't be used as an alternative for "and" or "or", which it is here.
Anne Boleyn or her father's plan
  • Title should be "Boleyn or her father's plan"
  • '"the king has done well to show...': you need to close off the quote
  • "Bellany argues that": who? (Later, in the Aftermath section, you introduce him as "the medievalist Alastair Bellany", so this should move up)
All good and done, hopefully.
Condemned by the King
  • The Agas map can be enlarged a bit – it's small and the article is thin on images
  • "Rather, while Roose remained imprisoned" You can use "he" here

Done to the end of Condemned by the King; more to come later. SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

Bill expanding
  • "Bishop Fisher": just Fisher
  • "Treason have led historians": "has led"
  • "his commitment to common law": need a link to common law
Execution
  • [Two hours?? Bloody hell!]
Absolutely grotesque. They must've taken him out a few times, surely...
Aftermath
  • "Hall[note 13]": it seems odd to have a note on Hall's historiography this far on in the article – it may be better at the first reference
  • "curious event taking place shortly": "curious event that took place shortly"
  • There's an ugly sandwiching between the imaging and the quotebox. On my desktop it's not too bad, but on my laptop the text squeezes to four words wide; on my iPad, it's one or two words only. It may be better to incorporate this as a blockquote, rather than a quotebox.
Done.
  • "Cardinal Fisher": just Fisher
  • "reverendity": you need to contact the OED to arrange for it to be included as a new word
Ah well! Holiness, perhaps?
  • "it was an unfortunate for Fisher": superfluous word in there
  • "with "hysteria" over poisoning continued for many years": 1. Do we need that in quote marks (if so, it needs to be attributed in the form "with what Bellamy describes as"); 2. There's a problem with the tenses
  • "Davy, died in the same way for": "Davy, was executed in the same way for"?

Done to the start of Perception. More tomorrow. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing off

Of contemporaries
  • "repealed, Bacon could still": who?
  • The sentence "Edward Coke, Chief Justice under King James I, said that Roose's punishment was "too severe to live long";[69] although, as Bellany notes, "this statute had long been repealed, Bacon could still describe poisoning as a kind of treason"[61] in 1615, on account of his view that it was an attack on the body politic" is a long and twisting one that seems to forget what it is doing. May be worth reframing it?
  • "He touched on": who? Bacon or Bellany
This entire para was so garbled I rewrote it, hopefully makes some sense now.
Historians
  • "pervade...the cultural" – needs to align with WP:ELLIPSES
  • "Tudor historian Geoffrey Elton": "The Tudor historian Geoffrey Elton"
  • "seen as"an age": needs a space
Cultural depiction
  • "if he ever speaks." Needs "about the incident" or similar at the end
Notes
  • 12 – "Rooses's was" -> Roose's
  • 17 – "disembowlment" -> disembowelment
Refs
  • Really, really anally retentive of me, but you have (in multiple places) p. 895 n.6 – with a space after "p.", but none after "n.". I can't see anything in the MOS that says to go for spaces or not, but I think spaces after all (or at least consistency) would be best.
  • 28, 39: Wilson 2014a, p. l n.3 – is that page l (L) or is it meant to be 1?
  • 32 Bridgett 1890, p. 213 n.. (Take out the full stop in the sfn)
  • 52: Bridgett 1890, p. 214 n.. Ditto

That's my lot – I hope they help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done, SchroCat, I hope as you like it. You wrote a better article :) much appreciated as ever! SN54129 18:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Feel free to point out of you think the title is erroneous since very little of it is biographical—unsurprisingly since we know next to nothing about the so-called subject!—and mostly about a series events and their contexts. For the record, I suspect a page move is in order. But am certainly willing to see what the consensus builds up to here, if anything: I'll be asking all, of course. SN54129 18:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Indeed a mouthful; I was thinking 1531 attacks on the Bishop of Rochester or something, but no worries! SN54129 12:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had searched for "Source review", clearly old age is catching up with me. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 19:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Buidhe, as ever. Any views on the page title? SN54129 12:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

You certainly know how to pick your tales of gruesome intrigue! What an appalling way to go! I do, however, have some concerns.

  • The title doesn't really match the scope of the article. I'm not sure what else you could call it that wasn't overly verbose but sufficiently descriptive. Perhaps Execution of Richard Roose?
  • Totally agree, 100%, with your assessment.
What about "The Boiling of Richard Roose". I can live with it given it was all so sensationalist at the time - it was what people were taling about- and he *was* boiled. Obvs the current article title indicating a straightforward bio isn't right. Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also it might be a more common search term than "Execution" of. Ceoil (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Execution of" probably complies better with policies and guidelines, but I could live with "boiling of", but not *the* boiling of per WP:THE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twenty-five footnotes in 5,000 words sees massively excessive and the vast majority of them (while interesting) are digressions away from Roose, the poisoning, and his execution. You're almost writing a separate article on poisoning and treason in 16th-century England in the footnotes. I'd read an article like that but this isn't the place for it.
  • Ahh  :) Right. I've reduced the number from 25 (1,316 words) to 8 (189 words), shortening those that remained, mostly directing the reader to the sources or clarifying them. Better?
  • You have references in the middle of sentences in quite a few places, which can be distracting. Can these be bundled at the end of sentences or paragraphs where they're not supporting anything controversial that needs to be immediately checkable?
  • Moved a few, was able to remove a couple absolutely. But to be honest, I shite it at the thought of moving cites too far from where the information is. Too many {{cn}}-heads around to sleep easy on that.
  • There are a lot of unattributed quotes in the prose, for example (there are more further down; this is only as far as the Aftermath section):
    • "in case [Fisher] caught some disease as he had before"
    • became "mortally enfected"
    • As a result, the "celebrated"
    • "which enabled the crown to strike down quickly individuals it perceived as particularly threatening and dangerous, and to do so without recourse to the common-law courts"
    • enacted a host of capital statutes"
    • "symbolic retribution"
    • "tyll he was dede". (This would be a prime candidate for rewriting in your own words)
  • Attributed quotes, removed a couple, rewritten and recast others. Reduced over all dependency.
  • The only place you mention that two people died is in two quotes, one rather lengthy and one written in the English of the day. Would be good to mention it in plain modern English in my opinion.
  • Named them in the lead now.
  • And a lot of quotes in general that might be better in your own words. The number of quotes rather hampers readability.
  • Reduced reliance on quotes by two-thirds, moved about 24 into wikivoice.
  • He was placed under examination sounds like a euphemism; also, I'm guessing the unreliability of confessions from torture was known even in the 16th century?
  • Removed euphemism; made it clear he was being tortured. But how/where to insert material re forced confessions? Have got a couple of sources for it, but it was still common...
  • Despite its cruelty, it was seen as politically useful to have a law[by whom?]
  • Cromwell, mainly  :) clarified.
  • Ditto In what has been suggested.
  • Removed as not particularly contentious.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again Harry, if you could take a look—in your own time of course—I think you'll find I've interpreted your suggestions pretty stringently. And thanks for em! By the way, what about paras 2 and three in the 'Perception: of contemporaries' section...? SN54129 18:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks much better now. Well done on making some quite big changes so rapidly! And let me know how the potential treason/poison article goes. I'm still not sure about the title but I don't know what other concise and accurate title you could give it, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Harrry,muchly appreciate your critiques; they made for a great improvement. And a great idea about the new article!
    I rather fancy your suggestion of Execution of Richard Roose, as it goes—it avoids any hint towards being a biography while focussing on what he's famous for—execution—and, indeed, what the legal shenanigans was also focussed on—the law and its repeal, which stem from the killings/his execution rather than him. With the @FAC coordinators: permission, though, I might leave the vexed question to the end and ask everyone who looks in. Thanks again! SN54129 17:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please: if there is to be a name change, could it happen after this nom is closed and the bot has done its thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi all, oddly enough I just happened to skim the article for the first time before looking in at how the FAC was going, and I admit that reading the lead alone I felt the current title didn't really match the content and was wondering whether any of the reviewers thought the same. Clearly they do! That said, it's simpler if the agreed re-titling takes place after the FAC is closed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "(including is real name)" => "(including his real name)"
  • "may have been been Fisher's household cook, or less likely, a friend of the cook—at Fisher's residence in Lambeth." => "may have been been Fisher's household cook, or less likely, a friend of the cook, at Fisher's residence in Lambeth."
  • Done.
  • "could have been either hers or her father's responsibility" => "could have been either her or her father's responsibility"
  • Done.
  • "These two attacks, and the Roose's execution" => "These two attacks, and Roose's execution"
  • Done.
  • "established the English monarchs as head of the Church of England" => "established the English monarch as head of the Church of England"
  • Done.
  • "Fisher's crime of poisoning did not long outlive him, as it was repealed almost immediately by his son Edward VI." - pretty sure Edward was not Fisher's son
  • Doh! Clarified that it was Henry's act, and merged the two sentences?
  • "Historians often consider his executionas a watershed" => "Historians often consider his execution a watershed"
  • Done.
  • Sentence ending " praemunire" does not have a full stop
  • Done.
  • "The ambassador from the Holy Roman Empire, Eustace Chapuys wrote" => "The ambassador from the Holy Roman Empire, Eustace Chapuys, wrote"
  • Done.
  • "The suspicion at court, and the passion with which Fisher defended Katherine of Aragon angered" => "The suspicion at court and the passion with which Fisher defended Katherine of Aragon angered"
  • Done.
  • "from where most detail of the crime is from" - repetition of "from" doesn't read brilliantly
  • Good point; changed to "...from where most detail of the crime" is drawn"?.
  • "and, and instructed his household" - ??
  • Clarified!
  • "In 1615, both Coke and Francis Bacon, during their prosecution of Robert Carr and Frances Howard for the poisoning of Thomas Overbury referred" => "In 1615, both Coke and Francis Bacon, during their prosecution of Robert Carr and Frances Howard for the poisoning of Thomas Overbury, referred"
  • Done.
  • Thanks very much, Chris, for these pointers, all of which I've actioned, hopefully to your satisfaction. While you're here, d'you have any views on the suggested page move? Thanks again—and let me know if you spot anything else! Cheers!, SN54129 13:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author?
  • Swapped my Eltons round.
  • Archive.today links won't work for links requiring subscription
  • But so complicated! And now something else for citation bot to edit-war over :)
  • The bot prefers cite ODNB, you'll be fine ;-)
  • In several instances material is attributed inline to Hall but cited to Bridgett - can you explain?
  • Hall was a contemporary of Fisher's and wrote his first Life of; Bridgett is citing him. Does that need a separate template or inline acknowledgement? "Bridgett, citing Hall..." etc?
  • Yes please.
  • The OCLC link provided for Burke appears to be a different edition from the one cited. Ditto Reynolds, check throughout. Also the publisher name for Burke has a typo.
  • Confirmed/adjusted where necessary all OCLCs; changed to Washbourne.
  • Re: Kesselring. While the merits of a PhD from Queen's University Ontario might be questioned (although not by me—they're clearly a respectable institution), K's supervisor is a clear subject expert and K. themself has gone on to publish in peer-reviewed journal in the field. In any case, the thesis is used on only one occasion. Ditto the Univ of Wisconsin-Madison, but I note that Stacy has published in respectable peer-reviewed journals both before and during/after publishing their doctorate.
  • Mantel formatting doesn't match other sources
  • Fixed ISBN
  • Published by a respectable theological publisher, later as Continuum then as Bloomsbury Academic; E. E. Reynolds was a leading expert on Sir Thomas More and founder of Moreana, today published by Univ Edinburgh Press.
  • @Nikkimaria: well, I thought it would get a bit repetitive if I had to say secondary source citing primary each time but if I cited the statement in both, but now I've added both sources, hopefully V is satisfied as the reader can look at either to find out what was said by whom. Helpful? Apologies for the repeated pings by the way. SN54129 17:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - do you consider your comments satisfactorily resolved? Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Richard_Roose/archive1&oldid=1144685590"