Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Catesby/archive1
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:54, 13 August 2010 [1].
Robert Catesby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 00:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The popular myth is that Guy Fawkes was responsible for the Gunpowder Plot, but Guido was just the man caught with the explosives. Although Catesby died before he was able to offer his version of events (the confessions of those conspirators unfortunate enough to end their days on the chopping block can hardly be treated as wholly reliable), he nevertheless is the person whom history records as devising the scheme, and who recruited the 12 other catholic men involved.
Not all the sources used agree exactly on the precise chronology of events, what was said to whom, etc, so on some points this article remains slightly ambiguous, but hopefully people will read this and see who was really behind the plot. Parrot of Doom 00:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. There is a blank line at the top of the article, perhaps produced by the infobox. Ucucha 06:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gone now. Parrot of Doom 08:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- When is Cateby released from prison? Without that info this whole section is confusing: He was probably among those "principal papists" imprisoned by the government as Elizabeth's health deteriorated,[14][15] along with John and Christopher Wright. As Elizabeth's end grew near, in March 1603 he may also have sent Christopher to Spain to see if Philip III would continue to support English Catholics after her death.[nb 5] Catesby funded the activities of some Jesuit priests,[17] and while visiting them made occasional use of the alias Mr Roberts.
- It isn't even known if he was ever sent to prison, its just likely, therefore his release date isn't known. The section above is mostly speculation, but not specific to a single author - most sources tend to agree that the above is likely. He may or may not have sent Christopher Wright, because Wright never appeared abroad, however a rather mysterious figure did once accompany Fawkes to the continent, never to appear again (Dutton IIRC). Since Wright and Fawkes attended the same school, it seems probable that Dutton was an alias of Wright. Parrot of Doom 20:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then make it clearer that he may or may not have been imprisoned and, if so, was likely released in time to possibly send Wright because it confused me. Maybe the sentences need to be reworded to say that somebody, possibly Catesby, may have sent Wright to Spain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a fan of using lots of words where few will suffice, hence "probably" and "may also". If this wasn't speculation then those words wouldn't be there. Parrot of Doom 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those words suffice for you as the author, since you already knew what they mean, but they didn't entirely work for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stating "He may or may not have done x" is utterly pointless: I might as well say "he may or may not have killed a bear with his bare hands." and just ignore citing. Personally, I find the above section sufficiently vague, if not too much so already. "Someone, possibly Catesby" is the logical equivalence of "[Catesby] may also have sent Christopher..." and I don't quite see how it is an improvement over the latter. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 20:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I could agree with that. Quite a few sources speculate that he may have sent Wright to the continent, and some sources state with certainty that he was locked up. I think its fair to mention these things, in a non-committal way. Parrot of Doom 20:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps "It is speculated that" is superior to "He may have". ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 20:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about a compromise? Parrot of Doom 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That works nicely, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about a compromise? Parrot of Doom 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps "It is speculated that" is superior to "He may have". ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 20:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I could agree with that. Quite a few sources speculate that he may have sent Wright to the continent, and some sources state with certainty that he was locked up. I think its fair to mention these things, in a non-committal way. Parrot of Doom 20:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stating "He may or may not have done x" is utterly pointless: I might as well say "he may or may not have killed a bear with his bare hands." and just ignore citing. Personally, I find the above section sufficiently vague, if not too much so already. "Someone, possibly Catesby" is the logical equivalence of "[Catesby] may also have sent Christopher..." and I don't quite see how it is an improvement over the latter. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 20:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those words suffice for you as the author, since you already knew what they mean, but they didn't entirely work for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a fan of using lots of words where few will suffice, hence "probably" and "may also". If this wasn't speculation then those words wouldn't be there. Parrot of Doom 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then make it clearer that he may or may not have been imprisoned and, if so, was likely released in time to possibly send Wright because it confused me. Maybe the sentences need to be reworded to say that somebody, possibly Catesby, may have sent Wright to Spain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't even known if he was ever sent to prison, its just likely, therefore his release date isn't known. The section above is mostly speculation, but not specific to a single author - most sources tend to agree that the above is likely. He may or may not have sent Christopher Wright, because Wright never appeared abroad, however a rather mysterious figure did once accompany Fawkes to the continent, never to appear again (Dutton IIRC). Since Wright and Fawkes attended the same school, it seems probable that Dutton was an alias of Wright. Parrot of Doom 20:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr needs a period/full stop if it's an abbreviation. Pope should be capitalized.
- Not in English for the former, and in the latter case since the pope's name isn't being used, lower case is fine.
- I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Mr is a actual word in some foreign language? And one that actually makes sense in conjunction with Roberts, an English proper name? I do believe that just about every instance of Pope that I've ever seen is capitalized, whether used with name of the Pope or not. It's a singular office and uses the exception mentioned in WP:MOS#Titles of people.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr is fine and requires no full stop. Pope is a common noun and unless followed by a name, doesn't need to be capitalised. This article is written in English, not American English. Parrot of Doom 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Manual of Style gives the specific example of "Mr" vs. "Mr.", and says explicitly that both are correct. If you look up "pope" in a dictionary, you will see that it is not capitalised, for precisely the reason explained by PoD. This view is also expressed in the MoS, which says "Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore start with a capital letter only when followed by a person's name".[2] Malleus Fatuorum 12:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough on Mr, but I don't agree on Pope. However I'm not pedantic enough to oppose over that minor issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Mr is a actual word in some foreign language? And one that actually makes sense in conjunction with Roberts, an English proper name? I do believe that just about every instance of Pope that I've ever seen is capitalized, whether used with name of the Pope or not. It's a singular office and uses the exception mentioned in WP:MOS#Titles of people.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in English for the former, and in the latter case since the pope's name isn't being used, lower case is fine.
- Needs a link to Princess Elizabeth.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I wasn't able to find any glaring errors at all.
Just one brief question for you: who is Father John Gerard to Catesby?ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 20:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- A Jesuit priest and friend of Catesby's. I'll mention that at the first 'mention'. Parrot of Doom 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Full support then. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 20:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Jesuit priest and friend of Catesby's. I'll mention that at the first 'mention'. Parrot of Doom 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Slightly biased support as GA reviewer (I'm on vacation, or else I might offer a few more nitpicks). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is a topic I do know something about, and I can't see any errors or omissions. Minor points:
- I'd suggest rewording "At Allhallowtide on 31 October"—Allhallowtide isn't a synonym for "the day before All Saints", but for "the period around the end of October/beginning of November". Since we know the exact day, it probably makes more sense to use that (or the more precise All Hallow's Eve, if you want to keep the "archaic religious terminology" flavour).
- This is one of those things on which I'm unqualified to comment, since I've not bothered to investigate the matter further, but perhaps there's scope for creating an Allhallowtide page?
- Was "White Webbs" definitely written as two words then? It may well have changed over the years, but I've never seen it written as anything other than "Whitewebbs", and the museum now occupying the site certainly uses the single-word form. – iridescent 22:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- White Webbs in the sources. Parrot of Doom 13:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has someone checked images? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images are out of copyright or licensed appropriately.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images are out of copyright or licensed appropriately.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be hard to stub Allhallowtide so readers don't have to guess from context? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.