Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore

[edit]

Self-nomination - The article's had a lot of work up from a stub, a couple copy-edits, a peer review, made GA, and seems to be pretty stable. It's a little shorter than I'd like, but I think it covers the topic pretty thoroughly. - Mocko13 23:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The article is very well written, and well cited. Probably one of the best historical biography articles I've seen. Good work. Jay32183 02:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well cited and easy to read with an excellent lead. All image copyrights appear to be in order. Caknuck 04:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that almost all of your footnotes come from an 1890 biography. As I am sure you know, the standards for writing history in the nineteenth century were quite different than they are now. Is there a way that you could find another source that verifies this information? I know that sometimes one is stuck with nineteenth-century biographies, but it is never ideal. If there is no other source, I feel that the article should make it clear (some sort of disclaimer?) that the bulk of the information is from such a source just in case the reader does not bother to look at the notes. Awadewit 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your concerns, and had them myself. There are two more recent sources (ISBN 0938420240 and ISBN 0801879639) that could be used in referencing, but I do not have access to either of them (at least without expending a moderate amount of money) and so of course felt uncomfortable mentioning them in the references. I'm not sure how I'd go about putting in a disclaimer, though. What did you have in mind? - Mocko13 13:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth checking to see if your local library participates in interlibrary loan. Failing that, perhaps you could begin the article with a small section discussing the state of the evidence--"George Calvert biographical sources" or something like that. You could inform the reader that "Little has been written on George Calvert since the 1890s, therefore one must be cautious..." Do you happen to know why there is not more written on him? If so, that should be included as well. "Little has been written on George Calvert since the 1890s [because...], therefore one must be cautious...". I hope this helps. Awadewit 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you've got the idea but the clause is a litle awkward. The "although" does not seem to logically follow from the rest of the sentence. Perhaps the idea should be its own sentence beginning with "unfortunately"? I know that is a POV word, but from the POV of an encyclopedia, it IS unfortuante that there is not more reliable information. Also, perhaps you could be more specific in that sentence. Are the 1890s biographies the first ones? The sentence could read "Unfortunately, little recent scholarship has been added to the work of the first Calvert biographies written at the end the nineteenth century..." or something like that. Also, in the footnote I would mention the date of the Brugger book (and italicize the title of the book).
  • Support I support this article for FA, but I think that it can easily improve its prose before it becomes FA. For example, there are some commas missing. In the sentence "Calvert's father Leonard was a country gentleman...", Leonard should be offset. In general, I found the article short on commas. Also, there are several sentences that have clauses which seem to hang uncomfortably such as "George Calvert was born around 1580 at Kiplin and was later educated as a commoner at Trinity College, Oxford, receiving his bachelor's degree in 1597." Finally, for the Ark and the Dove, see WP:NC-SHIP. These are all very tiny things. Overall, I thought the article was extremely well-done and a pleasure to read. Awadewit 00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Reason for striking opposition is that I now feel the article meets my objections and is of FA standard. Since I have been editing it so much myself recently, I feel I shouldn't vote "support", as such, as I'm probably now biased in its favour. See my waffling comments much lower down.) qp10qp 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC) It's a valuable article, in my opinion, but not a featured one, though hats off to Mocko for the work he has done here. I have two objections: the first is that there are other sources that could be used to vary this article—if the article was totally reliable that wouldn't matter, but the narrative here seems a little shaky, with opaque motivations ascribed on the basis of only one source. Secondly, the prose style seems to me vague and even odd ("Sir Cecil" for "Sir Robert Cecil"?) in places. Here are a few examples which, for me, raise more questions than they answer:[reply]

By 1612, Calvert's star had risen enough in the King's eye that the death of Sir Cecil did no harm to his political career, and he was made a Clerk of the Privy Council in 1613. (Odd way of puttting it.)

In his new position, Calvert was assigned by the King to go to Ireland and review the results of English policies there, the failures of which Calvert blamed on the Jesuits.[7] Calvert was knighted in 1617 for his service to the King and only two years later completed his remarkable rise to power when he was appointed one of two Secretaries of State, a position similar to the modern role of Prime Minister. (What happened in Ireland? What was remarkable about his rise? In what way similar to the role of Prime Minister?)

Whether as a way to save face upon exiting the political arena or due to a true turn of faith, in 1624 or 1625 Calvert claimed to be a convert to Catholicism and resigned from his Secretaryship. (Archaic phrasing. It wouldn't be a claim if it was genuine.)

Just a few weeks later, King James died, but the newly crowned King Charles maintained Calvert's Baronet and his honored place on the Privy Council. (Baronetcy?)

The land he saw there was not the paradise that had been described by some early settlers, but was a marginally productive rocky island that had, unknown to Baltimore or his contemporaries, been too difficult for even Viking settlers from Greenland to stay. (Is this true? My understanding is that the Vikings only set up hunting bases in that area, before returning to Greenland. I don't think they were settlers.)

qp10qp 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Altered the 'Sir Cecil' sentence, not sure if the alteration deals with all of your concerns. Fixed the 'baronetcy' reference. Eliminated any reference to vikings, which is off topic anyway. Will expand on Ireland and the Secretary of State. But I don't fully understand your overall objections. The main source is reliable enough that modern historians like Brugger have used it as one of their main sources as well, which makes it very difficult to check the veracity source without doing original research. The other two sources I mentioned earlier are related but partially tangential and not necessarily likely to address the same basic biographical information as Browne. But could you clarify what you mean when you say the narrative is shaky, or what is meant by 'opaque motivations'. I'm happy to fix any specific problems with the prose being 'odd' beyond those you listed above. - Mocko13 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By shaky narrative, I mean that here we have a guy doing one seemingly unconnected thing after another (there are hints of motivation, but they aren't followed up). There is a suggestion that he had pinned his hope on a Spanish wife for Charles. Why? Because he was leaning towards Catholicism? When and why did he fall out of favour? What was the timescale of that, as he seems to still be a secretary of state in 1624 or 5 when he resigns (yet you say he reached the apex of his power in 1621, so how did he hang on to this prime-ministerlike job for three or four more years)? Did he fall out of favour because he was leaning towards Catholicism? Did he lean towards Catholicism because he was falling out of favour? If Calvert was falling out of favour, why did the king "suddenly" appoint him Baron Baltimore? The article merely says that James suddenly remembered his fondness for him, which seems a bit thin. And if Calvert was falling out of favour, why did Charles confirm him in powerful posts when coming to power? Because he sympathised with Catholics himself? This all seems very jumpy and unclear. And then, just as this business of falling out of favour and yet being given titles and posts is starting to intrigue me, the subject of Calvert's position in government is abandoned and all we read about from then on is his venture in Newfoundland, though he didn't go there till 1627.

Those are the sorts of things I mean by the narrative being shaky and the motivations opaque. qp10qp 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do another search tomorrow and see if I can find further secondary sources to fill in the narrative gaps you mention. But there has not been a tremendous amount of scholarship on him, which is why the article doesn't get more detailed on some of these topics. - Mocko13 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I felt a little mean for just criticising, and so I've looked into the section I drew attention to above and have made edits which I believe fill out the narrative and motivations with referenced information. I only want articles to become FAs, even if that means some work, and did not intend to seem destructive. I do have further concerns about the article, which I believe would be easy enough to meet, but I'll hold fire for the moment. qp10qp 02:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a section on his childhood, which shows how his family were forced to conform to Protestantism (noted from Krugler). The article makes more overall sense, I believe, with that covered. Now that the article shows he came from a Catholic family which was forced to conform, his conversion to Catholicism in later life makes more sense, I think. I still have more concerns, but I'm addressing them one by one and am now two thirds of the way towards supporting. qp10qp 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For info: I'm still reading up on this FAC and making notes. I'm quite sure now that I can get the text to the point of meeting my own objections. A few days, at the most, and I should be there. qp10qp 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some referenced material to the Avalon section now. Just mentioning it here in case anyone thinks nothing's happening.qp10qp 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was improperly passed as a GA, no explanation for passing was given on the talk page, and it was not even listed on the main GA page. (The limit of visible review seems to of been an edit summary to the effect of "This is good") I've send it back to the GA candidates page, but I just thought y'all should know here since its an FAC too. Homestarmy 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that matters too much here, because GA isn't a qualification towards FA. But thanks for notifying this page. qp10qp 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the article has been quickly re-passed as a GA: see Talk:George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore#GAC. --qp10qp 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous and self-indulgent comment: I feel the article is worthy of FA status now, though it awaits a merge in about four days' time.

I sometimes wish I had never opposed this article, as without my objection, it might well have passed by now, with its three or four support votes and no other objectors. I don't believe in just criticising and running, and so I've been working for the last fortnight to meet my own objections. Since one of them was that the article wasn't sourced to enough books, that has landed me with a mother-and-father of a load of reading and editing. But as a result, the article now has at least double the number of references and much extra material, as well as considerable corroboration of the original information.

At first I was reluctant to get involved, thinking this guy was a minor figure in history (he hardly gets a mention in my three James I biographies—only a single entry in one of them, which is inaccurate, even then). But as I read through Krugler and Codignola, among others, he emerged for me as something of a quiet hero. In the age of James, when murders, plots, affairs, and corruption infested the royal court, here was a man behaving in a civilised, honourable way at all times, and for five years pretty much holding the government and foreign policy together singlehandedly. In his belief in freedom of worship, he is also a crucial figure in the history of the early American states, which might otherwise have gone too far down the Puritan road. In treating Calvert in this much detail, I believe Wikipedia has a unique article here (kudos to user:Mocko)—and it amuses me that quiet George for the moment sports a better article (in my opinion) than do the incompetent monsters who messed up England (and George's life) at this time in history and excresce the history books with their oozing odiousness—such as Sir Thomas Lake, Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, and, dare I say it (since his article purports to be a featured one), James I himself. If only that cartload of popinjays had listened to sensible George, maybe Charlie would have lived. qp10qp 09:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still support I decided to reread the article since it has altered so much. Nice work qp10qp - you have added a lot of detail and context to the page. I just want to mention a few little things.
(Thanks so much for coming back! It's become very lonely here.)
You're welcome. I get that feeling all of the time on my pages.
  • Working at the centre of court politics, Calvert exploited his influence there and with Cecil to grant paid favours, an accepted practice for the times. - this sentence seems incomplete
It seems complete to me, but then it would do (one of my faults, though, is becoming over-concise in trying to keep length down). It just means that Calvert was taking money from people in return for putting a word in for them at court. I'll try to think of a better wording.
So maybe "Working at the centre of court politics, Calvert exploited his position and his connections with Cecil, who paid for the favours (an accepted practice at the time), in order to influence the king and his advisors on others' behalf." - or something like that (although Cecil's role is still not that clear to me)
  • left him the single father of ten children, the oldest of whom, Cæcilius, was only sixteen years old - I would delete the "only" since sixteen was not really considered young in the seventeenth century.
I see what you mean. I expect the intention was to show how young the rest must have been if the oldest was sixteen. I've removed "only".
I thought that's what you meant. Would something like "He was left the single father of ten children, ranging in age between ? and sixteen" work better? (Of course, there were servants...)
  • The degree of his disfavour was made clear to him when he was carpeted for supposedly delaying diplomatic letters. - what does "carpeted" mean?
It means being in trouble and having to stand on the carpet in front of the desk. It's a familiar term to me and I adopted it from the source, but I have changed it to "reprimanded" to make it clear to anyone who doesn't know the expression.
  • had taken both Protestant and Catholic settlers with him, as well as two secular priests, Thomas Longville and Anthony Pole (also known as Smith), the latter remaining behind in the colony when Baltimore departed for England - what are "secular priests"?
The sources all use this term without explaining it, and so I thought I should follow suit. But they don't have the facility of wikilinks, so I've now wikilinked secular priests in the article. I think books describe them this way because Baltimore had been asking for Discalced Carmelite priests from Simon Stock and later used Jesuit priests.
  • In early 1630, he procured a ship to fetch them, but it foundered off the Irish coast, and his wife was drowned and all his possessions lost. - it almost sounds like you are putting his wife and his possessions on the same level here - I know women were bought and sold in marriage in seventeenth century England, but was she? Do you want to imply that she and his possessions were of equal value?
I've dropped the mention of the possessions, as I agree that it might make a bad impression. Since Calvert was broke after this, I wanted to imply the material as well as human cost. When he had left for Newfoundland, he had to all intents and purposes been emigrating, so I suspect a good deal of expensive clobber paid a visit to the fishes. There are actually some annoying gaps and contradictions where the information on this wife is concerned, which I've mentioned on the article talk page.
I agree; but I felt that, since this is a nicety as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it would be polite to stick with the style already used in the article.

Thanks again for your comments. (I haven't forgotten that I was going to drop you a note about my "essay style" remark re Anna Laetitia Barbauld: I will get round to that before long.) qp10qp 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/George_Calvert,_1st_Baron_Baltimore&oldid=127757067"