Jump to content

Talk:Charles Reynolds (cleric)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles Reynolds (cleric)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 18:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Introduction and limitations

[edit]

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge about Christianity nor its history. I have once watched a Youtube video about the suppression of monasteries under Henry VIII, and discovered many similarities with the history of Buddhism.

No problem. Nmclough (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fluent on wikipedia MOS, etc, and some terminology, but will refer to Wikipedia help, or ask for clarification. First I will work through the items below sequentially. Having more eyes on the prose and style is good! This is my first GA nomination by the way. Nmclough (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on my part either :-) Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

[edit]

I have assessed the article at B now.

1. Prose:
  • According to this Earwig scan, there is no plagiarism.
  • The prose is interesting to read and follow. The article reads a bit technical at times, however, and some sentences are too complex and not in common usage. There are also several mistakes in interpunction.

Are there any "tags" you could insert to identify the complex sentences? Nmclough (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to that in a moment.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I addressed few instances. Maybe more todo. Nmclough (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Oh yeah, I addressed some interpunction too, using Grammerly (which malfunctions badly in wikipedia edit mode). Nmclough (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. MOS: Needs some fixing here and there. Honorifics are normally not allowed on Wikipedia, and the second infobox with the honorific is odd.The historical quotes should be separated as quote boxes as they are meant as illustrative.References should be alphabetized.

I have addressed some of this. Need time to consider what MOS fixes are needed Nmclough (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. References layout: There are two dead links that should be fixed or removed. The Bibliography section should be renamed as Further Reading, or if its is being referred to in the article, merged with the Sources section.

Fixed two broken links. Nmclough (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Reliable sources: The sources are reliable. However, there is one sentence that is not supported by sources in the article, but by other Wikipedia articles. This is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Please help identify this sentence. I understood one stated goal in Wikipedia was that, over time, inter-article wiki-linking would help alleviate some requirement on sources. For example if an FA article supported a sentence, and was wiki-linked, can this satisfy the concern? Nmclough (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, reliable sources should always be external to Wikipedia. But you could make use of a {{see also|example article}} template, to be used at the top of an article section, or below the article in the footer, in a separate section preceding notes and references.--12:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The sentence with no external source is in the Early Life section: The "Murianus Magranyll" recorded as Prior of Mohill in 1397 and 1412 was probably his great-grandfather.[d] To be fair, there is only one such instance, but it needs fixing anyway: please find an external source, possibly from the other Wiki article you are referring to.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is OR, to be removed. Nmclough (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, OR removed. Nmclough (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5. Original research: There are some notes presenting conclusions that are unsourced.

I have fixed two unsourced notes few days ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Reynolds_(cleric)&diff=825688757&oldid=825676117). Nmclough (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great.-Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed one unsourced, and unnecessary, note. This is fixed imho. Nmclough (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6. Broadness: It is unclear to me how huge the impact of Reynolds work was. Did his audience with the Pope affect the Pope's decision to excommunicate Henry VIII? To what extent? The article is listed as a vital biography, but this is not quite clear from the article.

Reynolds appears forgotten until recently. Only two sources (Manning 2010 paper, Byrne 2002 historical society talk) discuss his gravestone. Manning's 2010 paper marks the effective rediscovery of Reynolds. Ellis 1976 is only source for papal meeting. His impact might emerge over time, but I am cautious here. His biography is immature. Nmclough (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I have broken the related script into two sections. Might assist the reader in this respect. The privledge of burial at St John Latern in Rome suggests a big impact on Pope, but it's OR to suggest this. Nmclough (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Focus: The article is not too long, but there are a few interpolations in the text that are distracting.

Are there any "Tags" you could insert into the article for these?

Sure. hold on.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I have removed some obvious interpolations from "Revolt.." section. Nmclough (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed interpolations to keep article focus. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


8. Neutral: The article is neutral.
9. Stable: article is stable.
10-11. Pics: There are not many pictures in the article, and those that have been included are very similar. Please check if more can be found.

The only pictures available are of his grave-slab. His category on commons reflects same issue. :-( Nmclough (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any pictures you have found offline, in books or so? We could ask the publisher's permission to use them on Wikipedia.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took these photos in Rome. One B+W photo of his grave slab exists in http://sources.nli.ie/Record/PS_UR_096161/Holdings. Nothing else. Nmclough (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can also add pictures of other people in the article, or places relevant to Reynolds' life. To be honest, I use pictures from other Wiki articles all of the time, and I don't see any problem with that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used commons potraits of Pope, Henry, Charles, and an illustration of the rebellion. Nmclough (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing up pictures. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review per section

[edit]

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. * Though not a problem for GA, there are many duplicate wikilinks in the main body of article, that is Kildare, etc. Use this tool to identify them.

Done. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • despite being already dead. Bit confusing. Better rephrase as although he died in...

Fixed. thanks. Nmclough (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The inscription gives accurate dates for his birth in Ireland (1496 or 1497), his death in Rome (July 1535), and gives his father's name as Maurus, allowing us to establish the family background, and provides further evidence of his ability in revealing the pope was about to consecrate him a Bishop.: This sentence is very complex. First of all, allowing us is a form of editorializing not used much on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is not quite clear what ability in the next sentence refers to. Split the sentences and rewrite please.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed!! See my effort to simplify. Nmclough (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt against Henry VIII

[edit]

I added the excessive cite notice to this section. Also, on this talk page, for WP Catholicism I added the assessment criteria which is usually posted when an article reaches class=C status. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nmclough (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added the excessive cite notice to this section.: which section, JoeHebda? Never mind, I see it now. Thanks!
Thank you for the criteria. I'll leave these blank for now, until the review is done. Speaking of which, do you expect any response from the nominator any time soon?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)21:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]
  • Some biography sections have a specified period in the header, others not. Choose either one, although I prefer the time periods.
  • Reynolds was born and reared in ... Ardagh. Too long. Please split off.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite the Dictionary of Irish Biography as a citation, rather than only wikilinking it.
  • but no evidence is presented to support the claim.: I have not been able to trace this statement. If Manning or the dictionary doesn't specifically state this, it constitutes original research and must be removed. There is really no need for such evidence, since the dictionary is a reliable source by itself, judging from the editors and publisher. If necessary, you could say that "the dictionary only states..." to indicate it does not expand on this detail.

Manning states this, I remember that clearly. Will fix. Nmclough (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • You quote the name of Reynolds' family as Mâg Raghnaill, Mac Raghnaill and Mhég Raghnaill. Choose either one, or if being faithful to the sources is an issue, explain that they are alternative spellings of the same surname.

Fixed. I chose the variant in Manning 2010 over my preferred variant ;-) Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There still is both Mac and Mâg in the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Augustine! Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • A certain "Murianus Magranyll", recorded as Prior of Mohill in 1397 and 1412, was probably his great-grandfather. As stated above, you need to cite the original source, not the Wiki article.

This is OR, to be removed. Nmclough (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. OR removed. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact the Mâg Raghnaills were allied to the Kildare camp must have contributed to his being given preferment with the church. Reads more smoothly if you use more verbs.

Fixed. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You now have corrected this as The alliance the Mac Raghnaill were allied to the Kildare camp must have contributed to his being given preferment with the church. How about "Because the Mac Raghnaill were allied to the Kildare the church may have given them preferential treatment." Better? Or different meaning?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely better (Too tired). Fixed. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Master Charles Reynolds graduated around 1531, being described as "Bachelor of Laws" on securing a grant of English liberty which declared him a subject of English law entitled to acquire land and property. Too complex, split off.


Fixed. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It still is in there, but in retrospect, considering that you merely trying to say that he graduated, I am okay with it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archdeacon of Kells (1532-1535)

[edit]
  • Parochial and international politics interconnected in the shape...: An unusual sentence, please rephrase.

Fixed. removed. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am now noticing that you sometimes omit the page numbers in citations. In my interpretation of GA criteria, this is not required, but there are other editors who disagree.

I usually include page numbers in sfn block. But will check. Nmclough (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I think. This was likely 'Annals of Ulster|Connacht (celt edition)' and I pulled the page numbers for two citations. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article would be easier to understand if you describe from this section onwards, or earlier, how strong the position of the earls of Kildare was in the Irish hierarchy.

Attempted this. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt against Henry VIII

[edit]
  • The political situation in Ireland and England was fraught... This is an informal British expression. You need to write fraught with... to make it written language.

Changed to 'fraught with tension over the english reformation'. Nmclough (talk)

  • You are writing in British English. That is perfectly fine, but you should add the template {{British English}} to the top of the article's code to inform other editors.

You done this. Thanks. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Henry's doctrinal changes: not explained yet. Though wikilinked in the term English reformation, it should also be expanded inline.
  • At the first instance of Henry in the main body of the article (not including headings), give his full name instead.
  • ... of his aunt, Catherine of Aragon.: Specify whether she is Charles' or Henry's aunt, to improve readability.

Fixed. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thomas Cromwell, chief minister to the King, ... imprisoned the incumbent Gerald Fitzgerald.: Shortly explain why.

Actually I attempted to simplify whilst addressing the "focus" comment. Please check if okay. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So Gerald Fitzgerald was imprisoned because they wanted an Englishman as a deputy instead?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Charles V of Spain: First you just wrote " Charles V". To improve the accessibility of the article, I'd suggest you choose one name.


  • Most of the quotes in the article are not required for the main narrative, and just help to illustrate and improve the article's attractiveness. For that reason, I will format the quote boxes to separate them from the text.

Thanks. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not clear whether he did actually communicate anything through the channel of the cardinal of Ravenna, as recommended.

I speculate he travelled via Ravenna to Rome, or was taken into care by The cardinal in Rome. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His full name is Doctor Pedro Ortiz according to Ellis 1976. He's notable but has no wikipedia page. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Papal meeting

[edit]
  • My interpretation of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Popes is that, despite the prohibition on honorifics, the word pope should be included.
  • damnation of so many souls: strictly speaking is not encyclopedic tone, so better add quotes.
  • Irish cause: This has been implied in the text, but not explained very clearly yet. Please do.
  • in failing to prevent Archbishop Alen being murdered.: This event should be mentioned earlier in the article. Reynolds' suspicions should perhaps also be mentioned earlier.

Legacy

[edit]
  • Legacy per definition is what comes after death, so better swap the sections. Legacy is not part of a person's life, whereas death is, therefore Legacy is not a subsection of life, whereas Death is.
  • ... which had been suspended.: Please include reason, if known.

Death

[edit]
  • the week after Thomas More was executed: how is this relevant?

Fixed/Removed. Its was perhaps a footnote re. executions of English dissidents that summer. More and Fisher were the most notable. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • one day before the Pope was to appoint him Bishop ...: Strange coincidence. No scholar comments on this?

Hmm, I have not seen scholar comments on the interesting coincidence. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Treason

[edit]
  • This section should perhaps be merged with the section Legacy as a section on subsequent developments after Reynolds' death.
  • If the verdict of treason was part of a mass persecution of the Earls of Kildare, or of the rebels in general, this should be mentioned.
  • The note about Dominic Power raises more additional questions than it answers. Remove it or expand.
  • The citation {{sfn|Cotton|1848|p=225}} does not point to any reference.

Grave slab of Charles Reynolds in Rome

[edit]
  • What is "all'antica"?

Its an term used in Manning 2010. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/glossary/allantica Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The top of the slab is lost through the lower portions of two incised armorial shields retain the Saltire of the Fitzgeralds, and hind legs of a lion rampant, associated with the arms of the MacRannell or Reynolds family. Complex and long. Please split off or simplify.

Fixed. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It records that he was ... endowed in mind and body with many gifts: Implies a fact, rather than opinion. Rephrase.

Fixed. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Including the second translation is overly lengthy: perhaps just indicate some differences, being careful to avoid OR.

From an Irish perspective, the grave slab is unique and very notable by itself, especially considering the contexts. Would prefer to retain text. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
  • Remove See also entries already mentioned in the article.
  • The note about Reynolds changing his name is too important to include as a note. It should be integrated in the main text.
  • I have fixed a few reference errors. Feel free to revert if I was mistaken.

17 February

[edit]

I have now made a detailed assessment of the entire article. Most of the points can easily be fixed. If you can go through it this weekend, that would be best, but if not, then I will put the review on hold for another seven days. After that, I need to wrap it up.

I wanted to finish with two final points of improvement: 1. with regard to the quote boxes: these should also mention the historical sources, and not only the modern work in which those sources featured.

There is only one quote box left. I added indication of quotation origin. Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. There may be a few points not included in the article yet. This source, pages 85 and 86, explains why Reynolds and other Kildare developed a resistance to the English reformation ideas. I think you have been very extensive in your research efforts, and comprehensive, so the article is certainly broad enough.

Your discovery of this source is intriguing. I have incorporate an explanation into the article from page 86 (for now). Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the article! I am sure you will be finished in no time.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your dedication, interest, and time. It feels now a good article (to me) after your input!! Nmclough (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18 February

[edit]

There are still a few comments left, mostly pertaining to a better understanding of the article's text. There is also the Cotton reference, that cannot be traced to any source. Don't worry if you cannot fix it all today though, I'll prolong the review for another week.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot: the remaining points of improvement are in bold.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the article is good to go. Congratulations! Let me know if you have more interesting articles nominated. If you like, you can now nominate a Did You Know entry for the front page of Wikipedia. Presuming that I understand the article correctly, may I propose: Did you know that ... Charles Reynolds was posthumously charged for treason, after he successfully persuaded the Pope to excommunicate the King of England?
Good luck!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
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=Talk:Charles_Reynolds_(cleric)&oldid=1193712199"