Talk:Elizabethan Religious Settlement/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mathglot (talk · contribs) 19:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Opposed~~ Looking again... – Imho, there is no chance this article will pass GA currently, given its history, and its current state. This article has had two significant rollbacks due to large amounts of original research by an editor (Alexander Domanda (talk · contribs)) that I am virtually certain is a sock of a now indeffed editor (DuckeggAlex (talk · contribs)). To that extent, the earlier rollbacks were a good thing, and certainly improved the article. However, a possible third rollback was identified some time ago, potentially targeting removal of three years' worth of edits by the sock, interspersed with some probably good edits by other users. I think a GA review is probably a waste of time at this point, with one possible exception: to the extent that the review identifies specific problems in the article that need to be addressed and yields an assessment or To-do list for improvement, that may be helpful for future editors. Mathglot (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I virtually rewrote the entire article. I'm aware of the previous issues, but as the article in its current state is pretty much entirely all my work, I'm not sure why DuckeggAlex (talk · contribs) and his unscourced contributions and the rollbacks would stand in the way of the article achieving GA status. I have removed any unsourced material and added a ton of sourced material to the article. I would just ask that the article as it stands today be assessed according to the criteria. Thanks for your help. Ltwin (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, sorry; if you've rewritten it, that's different; I'll have another look. Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for comparison, this is what the article looked like before I began to rewrite it back in July: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabethan_Religious_Settlement&oldid=904147215. It really is a completely different article. Ltwin (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New review

Hi, I'll complete this :) Kingsif (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert on the topic, but it seems to cover everything.
Lead a good length

All sources are solid
Everything appears to be referenced in-line
Passes verifiability
No evidence of copyvio per check; unable to review offline sources that don't have an internet copy, but only few of those
appropriately licensed (mostly PD) images
passes copyright
History seems clean, so passes stability
Images seem appropriately used and are well-spread. Perhaps could align some to the left to make it more visually interesting but it's good anyway.
In the caption of the Tudor image, it says "From left to right: Mary I and her husband Philip II of Spain..." when it is Philip who is left-most - while I can see why this phrasing has been chosen, it could be seen as inaccurate. Perhaps reading the image right to left would also be more suited to the article, with Elizabeth being right-most.
question on Illustration
Neutrality is solid - passes
abundant wikilinks to names and terms
- "laity" needs a wikilink in its first instance
- some link for "12d" to indicate it as a form of currency
good grammar throughout
good form of writing - however, it reads just too much as a narrative story. Is it possible the introductions to sections in some parts could be rephrased so that each section works as a standalone and/or it doesn't sound like being told a story? Particularly Act of supremacy (subsection), Protestant bishops, Royal injunctions, and Puritanism (subsection).
Background section good at providing a suitable overview, however it does seem to contain a lot of information on protestant practices that I don't know (I'm asking) are actually background to the settlement? There is also no mention that Henry VIII separated the churches in order to marry Elizabeth's mother, which seems relevant.
The Reformation Bill defeated part also contains considerable background - only the third paragraph is about the bill, and only the last part about the defeat. Elizabeth's religious beliefs (first paragraph here) could easily be moved to Background. The subsection may be better if the 'defeated' is removed from the header.
Is the Legacy section about the legacy of the settlement? It seems to contain information on the future treatment of similar religious disputes, which I feel needs a more appropriate header.
- All other parts appear to contain appropriate content.
The Protestant bishops section does feel weak and kind of empty - it doesn't say why the bishops needed to implement it (may be obvious within the realm of Elizabethan religious policies, but I wouldn't say common knowledge). The second paragraph is also largely a list of new bishops. Is there anything else relevant that could go here? I would also suggest changing this header, too, if not - being that it's only about the appointment of protestant bishops, 'Appointment of protestant bishops' should be the header.
- Perhaps, if there is more information directly about getting the settlement implemented, this section could be expanded to that? Are the injunctions such a part of the Implementation? - is it that appointing bishops and the injunctions belong as subsections to this?
Is it suitable to have 'recusancy' in a header if the word is likely to be unknown?
Style and coverage need attention
On hold Looks good - a few questions mostly on headers and structure, but all comments above. Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Kingsif. I've addressed the following:

Changed caption for the Tudor image.
Linked to Laity.
Linked "12d" to Penny (English coin).
Moved material in "Reformation bill" section to "Background".
I changed the "Legacy" header to "Aftermath". Maybe that's better.
Changed "Protestant bishops" header to "Episcopal appointments".
Placed the "Episcopal appointments" and "Royal injunctions" sections under "Implementation" header.
Changed "Roman Catholic recusancy" header to "Roman Catholic resistance"

Questions/comments I have:

Is it possible the introductions to sections in some parts could be rephrased so that each section works as a standalone and/or it doesn't sound like being told a story? Can you give more feedback about what you mean here?
Background section good at providing a suitable overview, however it does seem to contain a lot of information on protestant practices that I don't know (I'm asking) are actually background to the settlement? I thought it was necessary to explain briefly at the start the changes made under Edward's reign since that was the starting point for Elizabeth's religious policy, even though it underwent some modifications. Also, I was trying to setup up the theological disputes between Catholics and Protestants so the reader had context as they read further. For example, the destruction of roods and images in Elizabeth's reign was a repeat of that under Edward's reign, so this was the second time in a relatively short period where you had a massive change in what religious practice looked like. And communion, obviously, was a big issue with the Book of Common Prayer and the Settlement.
it doesn't say why the bishops needed to implement it (may be obvious within the realm of Elizabethan religious policies, but I wouldn't say common knowledge)." I suppose because the bishops are actually in charge of the dioceses and are the one's in charge of the clergy. It would not be possible or theologically acceptable for the Queen (as a woman and layperson) to administer the church directly. Since she couldn't just appoint secular officials to run the church, it had to be through bishops that the reforms would take place. I'll have to look for a source that clarifies this.

I will work on these when I have the time:

There is also no mention that Henry VIII separated the churches in order to marry Elizabeth's mother, which seems relevant. Good point. I'll add that when I get a chance. Ltwin (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: re. the first - some of the section/subsections can't be read alone, I had to go back to get more context. The phrasing is like the continuation of a story. If a sort of mini-introduction to the topic could be added, that would be more like other Wikipedia articles. This isn't to repeat lots of information, perhaps look at some similar articles and see how they structure it? On the background, okay, that's fine. Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've tried to address this concern. Let me know what you think. Ltwin (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ltwin: I've made a few edits for this concern (please check for accuracy!), but everything else looked great! If you're happy with it, I this can be promoted. Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These look good to me Kingsif. I've added a mention of Henry's desire for an annulment to the background section. Ltwin (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, thanks for your help! Ltwin (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]