Jump to content

Talk:Richard Roose/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 05:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, This seems like an interesting article. My approach is to read through the article and address any issues by section... and make minor edits (commas, links, etc.) that can be changed if you don't agree. And, then assess the GA criteria. I am American (but have worked on a lot of UK articles), so if I make any comments that go against British English, etc. - please let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]
  • This is a minor thing, but isn't porridge a general name for many breakfast cereals? In other words, is "(or similar foodstuff)" necessary?
Well, this wasn't so much a breakfast cereal as a cat-all term for gruel.
  • I don't understand the word "now" in "for a now unknown reason". Was there a reason that contemporary people or earlier historians thought was a reason why Fisher didn't eat, but now it is unknown?
I see this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link for the specific episcopal palace? Is it Lambeth Palace?
I see this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is edited without the link. I couldn't figure out if the episcopal palace was Lambeth Palace, so I am guessing further research led you to believe Lambeth Palace did not apply.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a link for cited in law?
Linked precedent.
  • It seems as "Fisher himself was executed by the King..." is a natural place for a new paragraph.
Done.
I see that the boldface was removed for the article title Richard Roose in the first sentence. I returned it, per MOS:BOLD.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
  • Regarding Parliament had been sitting since 3 November 1529 was still ongoing and had already passed a number of small, but significant acts, both against perceived social ills—such as vagabondage and the church—for example, restricting the right of sanctuary.[3][note 1]
  • It seems that a reference point is needed for "had been sitting since.." - perhaps starting out the paragraph "In early 1531, Parliament..." or whatever the proper month / year / date is applicable. (That will also clarify what "the previous June" means.)
Re-wrote this sentence, it was horrible  :)
  • It seems that the first part of the sentences is series of three points and that there should be a comma after 1529?
Ditto!
  • It would seem that the word that follows vagabondage would be another social ill. Perhaps the dash should be moved to follow vagabondage.
I see this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Fisher's unpopularity with the King and/or his continued his opposition relate to Henry's wish to divorce his wife? I know it is said in the intro and later on in the paragraph, but this is the first time to properly cite it in the body of the article. Perhaps some of the sentences just needed to be reordered a bit.
Absolutely it does: added an introductory paragraph on his annoying of the King.
I see this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few more edits to this section. Good catch re: suggest/suggests. This section looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Roose

[edit]
  • It seems as if this section, including the note, would be best incorporated into one note and follow by means of which two persons who happened to eat of the pottage made with such yeast died".[21] in the first paragraph of the 18 February 1531 section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoning

[edit]
  • The poisoning section seems like it would fit best following the discussion of the poisoning, as the second paragraph in the 8 February 1531 section... specifically as a new paragraph or a note following as a result, "they played the fatal role of food tasters".[5]–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out "or a note". Poison plays a predominant role in this article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My view was that part of the background should include the general perception of poisoning i England before getting down to the meat: in other words, make it clear why it was such a heinous offence from the start.
Okay. Like I said below, I think it would be good to have it where more relevant, but I understand your thinking.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18 February 1531

[edit]
  • I am assuming that "Benett (possibly Burnet)[2] Curwen" is one person. If so, please group the two citations for Curwen.
I see this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "aware" in by now possibly some distance aware be "away"?
I see this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Fisher's brother's name known?
I am guessing his name is not known.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was Robert: added.
  • What do you think of a heading that is a little clearer like "Poisoning on 18 February 1531"?
I see this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, done.
Good edits to this section!! It's better not to link within a quote, and I am glad you found examined/examination.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motives

[edit]
Edits here look great, too! Thanks for a follow-up re-reading of the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • The first 2/3ds of the first paragraph looks as it belongs under Motives, with the Legal proceedings section starting with Roose was never tried for the crime he was accused of, and had no opportunity to defend himself.[34]–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is  Done. Looks good, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]
  • This sentence Shortly after the poisonings, reports Hall,[note 14] describes a curious event when volleys of gunfire[5]—probably... is confusing at "describes a curious event..."
I see this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what is happening with Fisher in the third paragraph... was he nauseated out of stress? I was surprised that he was considered too ill to make a long journey. Do you know what the illness was?
I see this is  Done. I made a minor tweak to "since was by now 'nauseated'" to "and became 'nauseated'"–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is the Bishop of Durham?
I see this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look at Death by boiling, however, was used only once more as a method of execution, in March 1542—another case of poisoning, this time by a maidservant, Margaret Davy, who poisoned those she dwelt with., specifically "another case of poisoning Perhaps "for another case of poisoning". And, at ending the sentence with "with".
Re-written.
  • This sentences is a bit complicated Most of the more well-known attainders which followed that of Roose were matters of state, but two—introduced by Thomas Cromwell—were directly influenced by the precedent of the 1531 attainder: they both favoured a parliamentary attainder without prior judicial proceedings[35] —"an efficient means", says Molly Murray, "of confining and condemning his enemies without cumbersome and time-consuming judicial proceedings"[76]—and in neither case were the targets high-profile prisoners of state.[35] It becomes hard to follow after "judicial proceedings[35]"
It was rotten, wasnt it?! Have split the whole sentence into three.
This section looks good. Lots of interesting facts—like Fisher having to be carried to be executed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perception

[edit]

Of contemporaries

[edit]

No comments or suggestions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of historians

[edit]

Cultural depiction

[edit]

General comments

[edit]
  • There are some redundancy about the theories of what happened and I wonder if they could be grouped into a section called Theories.
    • Prank gone wrong
    • Buttery story / guy / Roose was more likely a pawn
    • Anne Boleyn / use of poison
    • Her father / cannon shot
    • Henry
I know this would take a bit of work and would be happy to help if you like. I think that if the theories were consolidated into one section, it would read better.
  • I seems that there may be a redundancy of the contemporaries and historian's viewpoints, but that may really be related to the multiple theories and will become clearer if that section is put together.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's a great idea, although it sounds blooming complicated to me  :) do you think the first couple of paragraphs from the "Motives" section could be grouped into a "Theories" section instead?
Serial Number 54129 It doesn't affect the article passing or not. If you think it would be nice to have, I would be happy to do it... I love this kind of editing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, CaroleHenson be my guest! I look forward to seeing what you do with it :) thanks for passing it anyway ——SN54129 18:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cool. I have started User:CaroleHenson/Richard Roose draft for theories so it keeps this version looking nice while the theories section is created.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  • I think that note four should be in the body of the article, particularly if a "Theories" section is created. Out of curiosity, is "In the event," a common way to say what we Americans call "In any event"?
Indeed it is  :) do you want it changed?
No, not all all, it's just the first time I have seen it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume JP = justice of the peace in note 11. Do you mind spelling it out?
Not at all, done.
  • Should the second dash follow the word conviction in Although Geoffrey Elton has argued that such attainders—without—conviction existed since 1459,?
Indeed!

GA criteria

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Comments

[edit]
Absolutely, Serial Number 54129! It is my pleasure. I have some comments, but you have a great writing style and it's an interesting article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, I am finished with my comments and will start on GA criteria. I hope you are doing well, too!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about GA criteria and overall summary:

  • The article is well-written. There are some suggested edits for clarity.
  • The sources are absolutely reliable, and theoretically verifiable, but difficult to check as there are few links to books, etc.
  • The article is good right now, but I think it would be more focused if the theories were put into their own section, as mentioned earlier.
  • No copyvio issues detected.
  • Images - I see why the image from The Tudors was used, but I wonder if it's an acceptable fair-use rationale. I also cannot tell how this depicts Roose boiling in water. Have you asked anyone about whether this is a viable fair-use image?
I see the fair-use rationale image has been removed, and is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, couldn't convince myself that it had a decent FUR, let alone anyone else! In any case, it's not particularly clear what it's depicting (the scene on TV is great (as in very well done, not nice!) as it shows Roose being lowered into the pot from above, but that doesn't really translate to a single shot).
Hello Serial Number 54129, I just thought I would check in with you to see if you anticipate responding to the comments.
  • I am happy to work on the edits, if you'd like me to jump in. I think it would be great to make this a "good article" and I like editing and particularly like reorganizing (like the suggestion I had for "Theories".
  • If you want to work on the article, but find the edits too much to tackle right now, I can fail the article and you can nominate it for GA later.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks, Serial Number 54129! I was mostly just trying to understand your intentions. That helps!–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent edits so far, Serial Number 54129. I know it was a lot to deal with... it is an article with a lot of juicy detail, so it seems to become the nature of the beast that detailed articles have more issues. Here, though, they are generally minor.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, CaroleHenson, much appreciated! However: it has shredded me, so no more tonight  :) back tomorrow for the (possibly final!) slog...! ——SN54129 18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I totally get it! You did a lot today.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CaroleHenson, hope you're well! I've finished your list, and there's only a couple of things on hold (re. the theories section and the poisoning bit of the background). Thanks very much for doing all that copyediting as you went along too, it was a great help! ——SN54129 15:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what it says of me that I really liked this article, but I have found it really interesting - all the theories, political/royal intrigue, etc. The theories section was something to consider, but is not necessary. I think it would be nice to move the poisoning info to where it is more relevant, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it. I will take a looks at your edits now, Serial Number 54129–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks really good. Thanks for your interesting additions and corrections. The article passes as a GA.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a nominee, this article was put into the Royalty, nobility, and heraldry subtopic... but there is not a subcategory that fits for Roose, so I put him in the Historical figures sections of the Good articles listing here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Roose/GA1&oldid=951953197"