Jump to content

Talk:John and Christopher Wright

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJohn and Christopher Wright has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic starJohn and Christopher Wright is part of the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 15, 2010Good article nomineeListed
January 28, 2011Featured topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 18, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that John Wright (pictured), one of the Gunpowder Plotters, was considered the finest swordsman in Britain?
Current status: Good article

Untitled

[edit]

137.140.197.148 - who are these authors? What books? Which DNB? Please add at the bottom in the usual way? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newbies - its a pretty good first article. I think the numbers are page numbers (you know like paper .... printed .... in books and stuff) Victuallers (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A poisoned pommel laced with opium? Yeah, like that would be an effective murder weapon. LOL 192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely, if it had done anything to the good Queen Bess, it might have been some weird, umm, sexual feelings..... lol... I dunno. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's enough information on John's brother, Christopher, to warrant a separate article. I'm confident that with a little bit more work John's article will be ready for WP:GAN, but Christopher's would share so much information (family, upbringing, role, death) that there would surely be a few sentences difference. The ODNB does this also, combines both brothers into one article, and I feel that's how we should do things here. Parrot of Doom 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John and Christopher Wright/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another excellent article which was very readable and enjoyable. Just a couple of points before I pass.

  • "According to Father John Gerard, John's involvement with Essex coincided with his conversion to Catholicism." Presumably John's conversion?
    • Yes, John Wright is the subject of the sentence. Essex's religion hasn't been discussed.
  • Maybe I missed it, but is there a date for his conversion to Catholicism or any other details, such as why or where? Ditto for Christopher.
    • No, these kinds of things were generally kept hidden.
  • I know it's a pain, but should "the English antiquarian William Camden describing them as men "hunger-starved for innovation"." have a ref directly after the quote?
    • It's one of those things that annoys me about Wiki citing policy. Really, all quotes should carry an inline citation, but as Wikipedia demands that just about every line of prose has a little number at the end, that just leads to a million little blue numbers littering the article. In this case, there is only one citation after the quote so I'm happy its covered. Trust me, there's nothing controversial in here that isn't backed up by the sources used at the bottom.
  • Spot check of refs showed no problems. DABlinks, external links and images all OK.

Great stuff again. It's more interesting than I realised, this Gunpowder Plot! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should quibble about the quote, but to be honest, I agree! Other points fine with me, so I'm happy to pass.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This won't be going to FAC so its probably fine. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]