Talk:Jane Dudley, Duchess of Northumberland

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jane Dudley, Duchess of Northumberland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article for GA status. My review should be posted within the next few days. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to promote this article to GA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll try to fix wording issues. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• "she was successful in working the release" - "working" is not really the best word here  Done > "achieving"
• "who was her father's ward since 1512" - grammar  Done > "from 1512"
• "when London surgeons already considered an amputation" - wording  Done? > "were already considering"?
• "he passed a week that saw no action" - wording  Done > "he passed a tranquil week"

Accuracy and verifiability

• Missing bibliographic details for Adams 1995  Done
• Page numbers for Christmas? Online version, has no page numbers (not a very long article)

Broad

No issues noted

Neutrality

• "In October 1549 he lost his princely powers in a show-down with the Privy Council" - wording  Done got rid of "princely" (although correct); show-down > "trial of strentgh"
• Maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times

Stability

No issues noted

Images

No issues noted

Birth year

According to her epitaph in London she was 46 years old at the time of her death and this is the year usually given (I've never seen anything else). 1504 was the likely date of birth of her husband, so might this be an error? Also, as we now have an ahnentafel, we certainly don't need to disrupt the text with her maternal grandmother etc. (her paternal grandmother isn't mentioned there either, and neither is of interest there). Additionally, these can be looked up by clicking on her grandfathers' articles. (If adding sources, please adhere to the citation style already in use in the article, WP:MOS). Buchraeumer (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have the epitaph? I've added an external link to her monument at Chelsea Old Church, which states that it is 'mutilated'. The data on her maternal grandmother isn't well known, and thus adds useful information to the article, and since the name of her maternal grandfather was already in the text, why not the name of her maternal grandmother? Re the citation style used in the article; it's very hard on an editor's eyes. NinaGreen (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you've eliminated the note indicating that there is disagreement as to her birthdate, and in your edit note you state that the ODNB date is based on her monument. However in fact the ODNB article doesn't state that the birthdate of 1508/9 is based on her monument. It appears the date of her birth is not definitely known, and where there is disagreement among RS as to an alleged fact, a note indicating that disagreement for the benefit of Wikipedia users should not be deleted by an editor. NinaGreen (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Her paternal grandma isn't mentioned in the article, and doesn't need to be, as little as the other one. Also, there is the ahnentafel and links. Even if it doesn't say it directly, the ODNB and CP are based on the epitaph, as there is no other contemporary source of her birth year. However, her marriage date and the birth of her children support this also. Richardson is hardly a RS of that calibre (and what does he base it upon?). Buchraeumer (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You're engaging in original research WP:OR in speculating that the ODNB date of birth is based on the epitaph (since the ODNB article says nothing about the epitaph), and in speculating as to how the ODNB date of birth compares to the date of her marriage and birth of her children. You're also engaging in OR in both deleting a note which indicates that there are discrepancies among RS as to her date of birth, and deleting the source which provides that alternate date. Richardson states that she was 'aged 50 in 1554', and it seems there may well be a document from 1554 which indicates that that was her age at that date. As for deleting the name of her maternal grandmother while retaining the name of her maternal grandfather, isn't that sexism on your part? Why is the name of her maternal grandfather important, but the name of her maternal grandmother unimportant? Re the ahnetafel you just added to the article, I suspect that there are substantial factual errors in most of the ahnentafels which have proliferated on Wikipedia; for the most part they are entirely unsourced. NinaGreen (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pefectly entitled to engage in OR on a talk page; be reminded that you hid the date supported by RS as ODNB and CP in a footnote, preferring for no given reason the Richardson date in the article body. Richardson can be ignored in this context as he hasn't a source, and there certainly isn't a document indicating she was 50 in 1554, as that would be known to experts in the field. You can find photos of her epitaph on the web, if you like. The ahnentafel in this article is consistent with what you yourself put in other articles. Also, I'm not engaging in sexism but, as her mother is not worthy of an article, the link to her grandfather gives a lead to her ancestry, and it is her grandfather who was the more important person in the context of, for example, her father's own marriage. It is normal usage to mirror the inherent sexism of the era. You might also have a look at WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that someone is not worthy of an independent article doesn't preclude mention of that person in an article; thus, the inclusion of her maternal grandfather while deleting mention of her maternal grandmother does appear to be sexism. And you're not merely engaging in OR on the Talk page; you're using OR as a basis for deleting material and reliable sources from the article, even including a book digitized on the Tufts University website. It's obvious there's something amiss with the epitaph, as the ODNB cites a different date for her death (15 September) from the date in the epitaph (22 September), as you can see from the two sources I cited in the article, as well as from Emerson's observation (which you deleted). I've added new material from reliable sources to the article, while you've deleted new material and reliable sources from the article, and have added nothing other than an unsourced ahnentafel. On that basis, I leave it to others to judge the relative merits of our contributions.NinaGreen (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR to learn understand what original research constitutes in WP. I simply replaced sources giving a primary source (the epitaph) with a secondary one, Loades, who gives her two death dates. I also put both in the article body instead of chosing the latter (as you did). The reason there are two is that the first is from her Inquisition Post Mortem, while the second is from her epitaph. As you know such discrepancies are not uncommon. I am perfectly happy to leave it to others to judge, as you say. Buchraeumer (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, are you confused. You didn't replace a primary source (the epitaph) with a secondary source. I cited two sources for the epitaph, both of which are secondary sources, and one of which is a book digitized by Tufts University, and you deleted both secondary sources, replacing them with a secondary source of your own. What you're doing amounts to a vandalism of sorts. You're deleting material and sources which are perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia policy, and imposing your own preferences. NinaGreen (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I e-mailed Douglas Richardson and, contrary to your assertion above, there is indeed a document which gives Jane Guildford's age as 50 in 1554. She was co-heiress in 1554 to her uncle, Thomas West, 9th Baron De La Warr. His inquisition post mortem taken in 1554 states Jane was then aged 50, or born about 1504. An abstract of the IPM is in Attree Sussex IPM (Sussex Rec. Soc. 14) (1912): 236 [1]. The same source has an abstract of Jane Guildford's own IPM, which states she died 15 Jan. 1554/5, not 22 Jan. 1554/5 as given in the epitaph; see Attree Sussex IPM (Sussex Rec. Soc. 14) (1912): 170 [2]. Thus, the epitaph is in conflict with both IPMs, and in this instance, Richardson provides information from reliable sources not found in the ODNB. I've e-mailed the ODNB to advise them of the IPM which indicates Jane Guildford was born in 1504, and the ODNB article will likely eventually be revised to include that information. NinaGreen (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Cokayne also states that Jane Guildford was 50 in 1554; see [3]. NinaGreen (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now had time to follow up on your deletion of Emerson's website from the External Links section of the article, which you twice deleted, in the first instance terming it a 'blog', which is not, and in the second instance adding the edit comment 'Emerson's original book ws self published'. On her website at [4] Emerson writes:

A Who's Who of Tudor Women grew out of my 1984 book, Wives and Daughters: The Women of Sixteenth Century England. That book, originally published by a small, scholarly press, came about because I couldn't sell the first few historical novels I wrote back in 1975-1979....Professionally, I write both fiction and nonfiction and have had more than forty books published by a variety of publishers in a variety of genres since 1984.

If Wives and Daughters was originally published by a 'small scholarly press', it was not 'self-published'. It appears that your edit comment was inaccurate, and that you should not have deleted the mention of Emerson's website in the External Links section. NinaGreen (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That Richardson and the old, and possibly outdated, CP disagree with the current ODNB (and other books written before the ODNB's edition) is no reason to relegate the 1508/09 date to a footnote, as you did here. Among Tudor scholars there seems to be a consensus to give her birth year as 1508/09, and that'ds the important point in the this article. Re Emerson, everyone can claim to have published in a scholarly press, why not simply mention it. Anyway, her website is not at all accurate or scholarly, she even lists people who may never have existed, as Agnes of Eltham. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And I didn't call emerson's site a blog [5]. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't seen your first comment of last night: Actually, the ODNB has the death date given in her IMP, and the source wherewith I replaced yours has both dates, explaining both. Oddly enough, it was you who relegated the ODNB death date (from her IMP) to a footnote. Quite apart from this, IMPs are not necessarily correct, as a medievalist friend of mine could tell you; so, her uncle's IMP is not necessarily more correct than her epitaph, which would have been commissioned by her children. (As a matter of fact, she couldn't inherit anything in 1554, as she was under attainder, and she did indeed not inherit from her uncle). David Loades, in his biography of her husband, published by Oxford University Press and a relevant source in the context of this article, also implies she was born c.1509. It will perhaps amuse you that Emerson likewise gives her birth year as 1509, and as I already said, this seems to be consensus among scholars and biographers of the family. And the latter is the important thing for editors in a WP biographical article. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to discuss matters with you as you engage in so much original research, contrary to Wikipedia policy. You make authoritative statements such as 'there certainly isn't a document indicating she was 50 in 1554, as that would be known to experts in the field', and when I demonstrate that you are dead wrong about that, you then try to discount the document, saying that IPMs aren't necessarily accurate, as your 'medievalist friend' could tell me. You then state authoritatively that Jane Guildford Dudley 'couldn't inherit anything', when the IPM clearly shows her as a coheir, as does Cokayne. It seems you've taken ownership of this article, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and that you are imposing your own errors on the article by reverting anything which is added to it which contradicts your personal opinions. NinaGreen (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)