Talk:John Dudley, 2nd Earl of Warwick

Untitled

I suspect this article is actually meant to be about John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland. Deb 17:00, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Have now moved the misleading paragraphs into the article where they belong (with some editing). Deb 19:05, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Wilson & Wilson

I am sorry for the trouble with Henry! I have taken the elder one out, as it's unnecessary to give his name. I simply didn't think of it yesterday, that there were two. I used another book by Derek Wilson than you, but I understand as far as regards this John Dudley here it is practically the same (I don't have a copy of the newer one). So I am asking you to forgive me if I replace your last footnote with my Wilson page number, as this would spare the article references one Wilson. Anyway, it only occured now to me you were perhaps planning to add more here; I didn't mean to "filch" the article from you in any way. I hope it's not too long now, not too detailed or "unencyclopedic". Please don't hesitate to add, remove or correct, especially as I am not a "native speaker", and sometimes I am a little doubtful about the right phrase. But that's one of the good things on WP, team work! Buchraeumer (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, we're fine. I made the changes because what was here before was just plain wrong, but I am delighted you fixed the rest of it.

Yes, it looks like the info in the newer Wilson is very much the same as the older one.

As far as two Wilsons, the canonical way to cover that is to cite them as "Wilson 1981, p. x" and "Wilson 2004, p. x". If I add anything else from the newer book, I'll make that change.

I like the way you've handled "Earl of Warwick" as a courtesy title in the opening paragraph.

- PKM (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Dudley, 2nd Earl of Warwick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• "The Dudleys were an affectionate family" - what is meant by affectionate in this context?

• All historians point out they were a "happy family" (to quote Adams, e.g.), the contrary of a "broken home". I've changed this now anyway because of the father's career and mentioned that he was "happily married"; tell me if you prefer the other.

What you have there now is good. A way around this problem can be to quote something illustrating the point, either from a contemporary writer or a respected historian, which can have the same effect but presented by a more respectable source than the average wikipedia writer (no offense meant). The issue of the letter below is another example where this is possible. I emphasise that both sections are now absolutely fine, but it is something to consider in future when faced with similar problems.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• "and had such excellent tutors and companions" - avoid passing judgement on the subjects of the article: either remove "such excellent", or if it is a quote then attribute it correctly.

• Fixed.

• "Walter Haddon and Thomas Wilson, eminent scholars" - eminent contemporary scholars?

• Fixed.

• "Still in 1570, John Dee" - Still is grammatically incorrect here, I recommend removing it or replacing it with "Even in" or "As late as".

• Fixed.

• "He had his own small library" - make it clear that this sentence is about Dudley (the last one was about Dee).

• Fixed.

• "After much plotting on both sides, in January 1552, Dudley's" - was the plotting in Jan 1552 or the execution? remove one of the commas or move the phrase to clarify this point.

• Fixed. Removed second comma.

• "In 1551 he had travelled" - you are changing tense here, remove the "had".

• Fixed.

• "Sometime he ran into financial difficulties" - does this mean "Sometimes", or "At one point"

• Fixed.

• "as a knowing but very kind" - see above as regards judgement. I think here all you need to do it remove the "very".

• Changed to "knowing and sympathetic". The letter is seen as quite remarkable by historians, as indeed it is.

• "All along, for several years, the Imperial ambassador" - Remove "All along" as redundant, link Imperial to Holy Roman Empire and name the ambassador if you are able.

• Fixed.

• "It was Warwick's younger brother" - either drop "It was" or write it as "In fact, it was", otherwise there is a disconnect in the thought.

• Fixed.

• "according to his "Devise for the Succession"" - whose? Northumberland's?

• Fixed.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Any information in the lead should appear in the article text as well, preferably in a more detailed form: his father needs to be mentioned in the same sentence as his mother with some description of who he was and his role in society at the time of his son's birth.

• To do this in any sensible way I had to mention some stations of the father's career. The problem is now with the two John Dudleys.

• I think you have coped well with this problem, good work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• The business regarding his title and where it comes from should appear in the article's main body as wel as (or instead of) in the lead.

• I have these things in the article now and more summarily in the lead.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

• I'd like the lead to be a little longer, with a bit more detail about his role in the Lady Jane Grey business.
  • I rewrote the lead, regarding his involvement with the Jane Grey thing there was not much on his (individual) part, I am afraid.
• You need to remove the punctuation marks from the KG and KB, following Wikipedia style, which does not punctuate acronyms. I recommend including the Sir in the link to a person e.g. Sir Edward Guildford - this is not essential, but given that this is the correct formal address I personally prefer that format.
  • Fixed.

I see a lot of work going on in this article, can the contributors let me know when they feel the article is ready to be reassessed? Putting a note on this page is fine, I have it watchlisted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to address your points indicating in which way above, so if you could check for newly arisen problems, I'd be grateful. Thank you for listing the problems very specifically in a bulleted form; that's quite helpful. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments

• "His splendid marriage" - be a little clearer on what "splendid" means in this context (I think I know, but it could be developed a bit further).
• "As John was born, his father was nothing more than a young knight" - when instead of "As" and remove "nothing more than" as it is redundant.
• "Henry had been killed in" - change "had been" to "was"

Extremely good work, once the minor issues above are addressed I'll be happy to support this. It is a real pleasure to work with someone so knowledgeable and so good at writing and I look forward to reading more of your articles in future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I am still a little uncertain about the use of "splendid" in the lead, I am satisified with the article enough to pass it as a GA. I think it is an excellent piece on what seems to be a fairly sparsely covered historical figure, and I look forward to reading and hopefully reviewing more articles by you in the future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hurra!! I needed a bit of reflection about that marriage thing. I have now added a bit in the lead using "magnificent"; so there is not more in the lead than in the article, I added some of things Edward mentions in his diary. Thank you for your encouragement and your kind observations. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA

Well done! - PKM (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)