Talk:Charles MacCarthy, 1st Viscount Muskerry/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 09:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for working on this interesting article. Although this world is alien to me I'm happy to review against the GA criteria. At first glance it seems likely to pass. I must admit at first I found it somewhat short but I guess I should see it the other way around: so much content for someone who died so long ago.

As far as prose goes, there are a few one-sentence paragraphs, try to avoid these. Not sure if we need a subsection Religion. The Tyrone's Rebellion section is entirely about his father so should go with the other stuff about his father, I think.

• I realised that I need to be far my stricty chronological (see MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL). I have moved the content of the religion paragraph to where it belongs chronologically. A problem is that it is not known when he became Catholic. His 1st wife seems to have been Protestant so it likely happen after her death, But that is guess work and probably OR.

• When he was called Cormac rather than Charles --> this is puzzling. Explain a bit more. Why would one call him Cormac if his name is Charles?
  • very good point. I added an explanation: Charles in English, Cormac in Irish.
• (see here) : I don't think we need that. Perhaps just give their names.
  • names alone will not be enough and then citations are needed. They are of course his father's children and all the required detail is found in his father's article, which exists; hence the reference hidden under "here". I agree: it would be nice to find a more elegnt way to do this.
• a bit odd that the sons are numbered but the daughters are not
  • His daughters'birth order is poorly known. I added a parenthesis to say so.
• married 1st --> married first
  • I thought 1st 2nd etc. were fine in tables and lists, see MOS:NOM, which comes close to saying this but is not entirely clear.
• married 2ndly --> can this just be remarried?
  • I feel 1st and 2nd is clearer
• After what is said above, --> I would just drop this
  • Dropped the "After what is said above,"
• 2nd wife --> second wife, and a comma in front of it perhaps
  • Inserted comma
• excluding Donough's elder brother, --> excluding Donough's elder brother Cormac,
  • Done
• Dublin's College Green --> help the reader understand how this relates to this House of Lords section (I'm guessing proximity to parliament). Given the year it should probably go in the Parliament of 1640–1649 section, right?
  • Moved the house building to the 2nd parliament.
• What happened between Parliament of 1634–1635 and Parliament of 1640–1649? No parliament? Or was he kicked out?
  • No parliament. This was the rule in these days. Parliaments were dissolved at their end and a new one with new elections called at the king's (or the viceroy's) pleasure, sometimes many years later. Added a last sentence about the parliament being dissolved.
• the lord lieutenant --> name?
  • Strafford; I substituted the name for the title.
• submitted the grievances to the King. --> source?
  • Added source Woolrych
• the grievances --> what were they about? Is it possible to summarise in a few words?

The Commons are not really our subject here.

• there isn't much of Muskerry in this House of Lords section, I guess nothing else is known, right?
  • Right
• Did not need to be invoked. --> source?
  • I have no source but it is logic as he died before.
• In the timeline table add in the last row who succeeded him
  • This is already in the text, the infobox and the succession box.

I'll look at the sources later. I assume there is no image available, right? Edwininlondon (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• • I could not find an image of him.

—Dear User:Edwininlondon. I have found a new source Alumni Oxonienses. See: it helps if somebody looks over my shoulder. The source documents a Charles Macarty matriculating at age 14 in 1602 at Oxford University. I was elated until I discovered that the resulting birth date fits neither his marriage date nor the birth date of his son Donough. Perhaps the Oxford student is a different person from some obscure cadet branch of the family. So no big jump forwards but rather more confusion. Anyway, I updated the article to add this new bit. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I have just given it a second viewing. Not much to comment on anymore, just these points:

• He had conformed to the established religion, in other words: become a Protestant, --> 3 things: 1) I'm not sure "in other words" is quite the right tone for an encyclopedia. 2) did he become a protestant or was he simply born one? 3) the sentence before is about his father and the sentence after is about his father, so perhaps they should go together first? Unless the "He" in "He had conformed" is also about his father .. is it?
  • This is indeed about his father. The source says "conformed to the established religion". This is an old-fashioned way to say he converted from Catholic to Protestant, used at a time when the Anglican church was state religion.
    • OK, I get it. But the "He" is too ambigious, since "his" in the previous sentence is Charles. How about "His father was the 16th Lord of Muskerry, who had conformed to the established religion, ..."?
      • Changed to call the subject's father MavDermot (or should it be "mac Dermot"?). YYY (1)
• More details about his siblings can be found in his father's article --> I still think you should include those details here. There is so little about each of them.
  • I think a reference is a much better solution. Repeating exposes us to the risk of contradictions between two articles when one is edited and not the other. Just like a database should avoid redundancy, so should an encyclopedia.
    • I don't think the database model is quite right for WP. Have a look at for instance WP:SUMMARY. I'd be surprised if you can find a Feature Article that has uses the concept you are using ("can be found in his father's article"), I've never seen it.
    • "My" article Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty has a similar "solution", which has been discussed in its A-Class review. This article originally included a list of brothers and a list of sisters, each wrapped in a collapsed table. These lists and tables were not well received by the reviewers, probably because of WP:DONTHIDE and MOS:USEPROSE, but they accepted a wikilink on "see here". One list of people (the children) seems to be accepted but not two. See FA Edward the Elder and GA Philip III of France. WP:SUMMARY seems to pertain to section headers referring to articles; our case is more in detail. I am looking for a general solution, independent of the number of siblings in each case. There are chains of fathers and sons in aristocratic biographies. Many articles are in this case. Duplications of lists of children between articles on the mother nad the father also become more and more frequent. Looking around, the most common "solution" is to discuss importants siblings in prose rather than to give a full list. I have now shortened "More details about his siblings can be found in his father's article" (12 words) to "Charles's siblings are listed in his father's article (here)" (9 words), using "here" as the anchor of a specific wikilink to the list. This statement can go without citation. I feel a bit of innovation might be called for. YYY (2)
      • OK, I have never looked at aristocratic biographies, so I guess it's ok then. However, links with the label "here" are not good, so may I propose at least something like "Charles's siblings are listed in his father's article)."
        • Done
• 1687 or 1688 --> 1587 or 1588
  • Oh oh what a mistake. Thank you very much.
• Donough (1594–1665), 1st earl of Clancarty and 2nd viscount of Muskerry --> needs a source
  • Done
• some of the daughters' sentences end with a full stop, the others don't. Only the last one should as per [MOS:LISTFORMAT]
  • Removed the full stops

—On my way. Dear User:Edwininlondon, thank you very much,Johannes Schade (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Elena description needs a source. I don't think you can just have the footnote doing the sourcing
  • I agree, a explanatory footnote (efn) is not really a citation supporting the text. I deleted the efn and moved the citations directly into the text.
• Most of MacCarthy's life fell into the peaceful times between Tyrone's Rebellion and the Irish Rebellion of 1641. --> needs a source. At the very least something that confirms the Irish Rebellion started in 1641 and that there was peace before it.
  • I am looking for the quote for the peaceful times 1604 to 1641, but it seems surprisingly difficult to find. I finally simply added one for the end of the war in 1603 and another for the start of the 1641 rebellion. I found better (took me a couple of days) and added a citatyion from "A Military History of Ireland" that actuallt talks about these forty years of peace. (1) XXX
• Muskerry, attended the Irish Parliament --> no comma
  • Done
• on 14 July 1634, the day of its opening. --> this was just mentioned in the previous sentence, so I would just say "on the day of its opening"
  • Done
• the title's special remainder did not need to be invoked. --> Still needs a source. In this case just repeat the source 65. I agree that logic suffices that it didn't need to be invoked, but the fact that there is a remainder needs the reference 65
  • Done. If I understand right this is Citation 76 by now: Cokayne (1893) p425
• Viceroy and chief governor of Ireland are general terms for the King's representative and head of the executive in Ireland, whose title was either lord deputy or lord lieutenant --> a mix of present tense and paste tense. I'm not sure I follow this exactly: there are 2 terms, each one of them a general term for 2 different people, whose title was either one thing or another?
  • Tried to make it clearer. Wentworth e.g. was viceroy and chief governor of Ireland initially with the title L.D. and later the title L.L.
    • Do we need the viceroy at all? Can the lead not just say "He opposed Strafford, the king's chief governor of Ireland" It is linked after all. Then we don't need the footnote at all.
      • Done. Deleted the explanatory footnote. YYY (3)
• Burke and Cokayne .. O'Hart --> like with the other footnotes and body text, add the years of publication
  • Done
• It is unlikely that his father should have procreated that young --> is that you saying this is unlikely? If so, more neutral is "O'Hart gives 1564,[4][5] but he also states that his father was born in 1552, which would mean his father was only 12 years older
  • Yes it is. O'Hart just gives (unlikely) dates without commenting on them and without giving his source. I changed to "These two dates seem too near to each other for father and son." Do I need a citation for when puberty usually happened in in the 16th century or is this WP:BLUESKY? (2) XXX
    • I think you should stay away from this and simply say "but he also states that his father was born in 1552, which would mean his father was only 12 years older" The reader will understand the unlikelihood of this.
      • Done YYY (4)
        • It is in fact worse than that. 1573 is her father's birth, 1599 her wedding. So his growing up as well as her growing up would need to fit into 12 years. That is well impossible. I replaced with "The earlier date is far too near (12 years) to her father's birth in 1573.Johannes Schade (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• to marry in 1790 --> 1590
  • Done. Thank you!!
• The form with the final e seems to be rarer: but --> that colon does not look right
  • Done (removed the colon).
• If he married at 20 and had her immediately, she would reach 15 in 1608, making 1599 as date of her 2nd marriage impossible. --> this looks like original research. I guess there is no source doing this kind of speculation. One could also speculate this way: "In order for 1599 to be the date of her 2nd marriage, assuming she was as young as 15, she must have been born in 1584, when her father would have been 11, if indeed born in 1573." I believe it is better to avoid "impossible". That feels less like OR.
  • What should one do in cases like this 2nd marriage date? A reasoning trying to demonstrate why a certain date must be wrong will alway be or look like OR even if mainly arithmetic which is allowed by WP:CALC. (3) XXX
    • I had not seen WP:CALC. That does suggest what you have here is ok to do. I would still simplify the logic a bit "In order for 1599 to be the date of her 2nd marriage, assuming she was as young as 15, she must have been born in 1584, when her father would have been 11, if indeed born in 1573."
      • I discovered that Cokayne 1936 also says that Muskerry married in or before 1599. Still 1599 is to near to 1573 but I will have to reformulate, which I will do a bit later.YYY (5)
        • Added this citation and said the date of his second marriage is disputed.
• link to Execution of Charles I
  • Done
• His father must therefore have died in February 1641 --> I don't get how Feb 1641 follows from March 1640. Plus: do the sources agree he died during the grievances mission? Do the sources agree when this mission was?
  • OK. Feb 1641 does not follow from March 1640, but it shows that Charles was alive in March and had not died in Feb 1640. The sources agree that he went to London on this grievance mission and that he died there. (4) XXX
    • It shows the son was alive. Or is there something obvious I'm missing?
      • Indeed you do. The son sitting at the Commons proves that both were alive in March. If the father had died, the son would have succeeded as viscount, lost his seat in the Commons to take his seat at the Lords. However, since this was not obvious to you, it will not be obvious to the common reader and I should explain it. YYY (6)
        • Added some short explanation.
• I get an error for Lodge 1789b: "Cite error: The named reference "FOOTNOTELodge1789b[httpsarchiveorgdetailspeerageofireland07lodgpage55 55, line 29]" was defined multiple times with different content"
  • Done
• I'll do sources later. We're getting there. Best wishes, Edwininlondon (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

— Dear User:Edwininlondon I have done most but there are 4 problematic cases left (marked with "XXX"): (1) the peaceful time 1603–1641; (2) O'Hart's wrong birth date; (3) Ohlmeyer's wrong 2nd marriage date; (4) date of his death. —With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

— Dear User:Edwininlondon One down: I have found a citation for the 40 years of peace: A "Military History of Ireland" mentions it. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

— Dear User:Edwininlondon Thanks for your clever discussion. Replies marked with YYY. YYY (5) and (6) still need further work. Greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

— Dear User:Edwininlondon Our text traverse may be done and we might be ready for the sources. Do you agree? Thanks for your patience and clever remarks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear Johannes: Apart from YYY (6), where I don't see a perfect explanation yet ("Muskerry must must have sitting at the Lords at that time") given the grammar issue and missing mention of instant promotion of son to Lords upon father's death, which source 109 confirms, you are right. Anyway, let's look at the sources now, using this version [1]:

• Sources look reliable to me
• Formatting is excellent. I especially appreciate how easy you have made it to check sources
• source 7 does not seem to cover the sentence "Living in a bilingual context, he had two names, Charles in English and Cormac in Irish." This needs a new source
• His wdow married Thomas, 4th son of Thomas Fitzmaurice, 18th Baron Kerry. --> needs a source

Other than that I don't see any issues. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

—Dear Edwininlondon. Thanks for your patience. So many problems popped up during the review, like when his studies at Oxford became unlikely due to the dates in Alumni oxonienses.—I am very pleased by your remark "how easy you have made it to check sources". Not everybody agrees. User: Robinvp11 deletes URLs and quotes from {{Sfn}}s. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Entzheim&type=revision&diff=965144856&oldid=964985603, the intervention of User:Robinvp11 on Battle of Entzheim, and more recently William St Leger, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_St_Leger&type=revision&diff=1092806711&oldid=1092805563. User:Peacemaker67 in the A-Class review of Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty said he would fail the article at FA for the "citation bloat and unnecessary quotations in the citations".—You find all the sources reliable. Again not everybody agrees. Users User:Serial Number 54129, User:Gog the Mild, and User:Vami IV are concerned about a predominance of 19th-century sources in the review of Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. Serial stated that old sources often contained "romanticised almost-guesswork" and that for each of the them question should be asked "What makes X a high-quality source?".

• YYYY (6) still seems obvious to me. When the father dies, the son succeeds to the title. If a parliament is in session at that time, he loses his seat at the Commons and takes his seat among the Lords. Nobody can simultaneously be a member of both houses. If it can be shown that at a certain time the son (Donough) sits at the Commons, then it follows that the father (Charles) is alive and sitting among the Lords.

• Bilingual context. I added a citation for the bilingual context prevalent in early modern Ireland.

• His widow married Thomas. I added a citation from Burke (1866), admittedly one of the 19th-century sources.

How is the FA of Betsy Bakker-Nort going? What keeps it from being promoted? Do you think I should make a contribution there? I saw you had support from three people, plus an image review from Boy, comments from Z1720. I suppose you need a source review. I have never done one, but if you feel I would be able to take this on, I will try. However, perhaps you want to wait for a more experienced reviewer. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• OK, I think we have arrived at the end and I believe this now meets the GA criteria. I can see the argument some use to be skeptical about the very old sources, but I am just not familar with this type of content, and for GA at least, we do not need high quality sources. It seems you may struggle at FAC. Betsy Bakker-Nort just slowly drops down the list of nominations, nothing unusual. It will probably get another review when it gets nearer to the bottom. Thanks for offering a source review but SusunW has already done that. But pick any other FAC that still needs one, perhaps a topic you like, and go for it. There is guidance for source reviews. And then just say that this is your 1st one. I'm sure you'll do well.

In any case, congratulations on the GA. It was a pleasure to work with you on it. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)