![]() | Thomas Howard, 5th Duke of Norfolk 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. Review: March 19, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there any record as to why the dukedom was recreated for him? Did he, or some member of his family do some service to the crown? Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 22:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Johannes Schade ( talk · contribs) 10:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Welcome Good day Pickersgill-Cunliffe. I propose to review your GA nomination “ Thomas Howard, 5th Duke of Norfolk”. Admittedly, I am only an apprentice-reviewer, whereas you are a widely respected experienced wikipedian. I must also warn you that my English is 2nd language and that I am no subject-matter expert. I will propose corrections and suggest optional improvements. The corrections rely on the GA criteria (WP:GACR). Some are tentative. Please tell me when you disagree with a correction. I am probably wrong. You can ignore my suggestions. They have no effect on the article's promotion. Should I lack in respect, do not hesitate to complain (see WP:CIVIL). I will start with the preliminaries and then go through the article’s sections, sometimes returning to previous sections when needed.
Besides, if I might ask you (mostly for my own education), why do you include empty parameters and how do you decide which ones to give? Do you want to encourage other editors to fill them in? Also how do you decide the number of spaces before the equal sign? I usually give only used parameters and provide spaces ony so that the widest parameter name fits. This sounds silly, but I have been corrected on both acounts.
The lead might be too long. The article has a prose size of 1413 characters. MOS:LEADLENGTH states that articles with with "Fewer than 15,000 characters" only need a single paragraph in the leed. You provide three.
... grandfather ...– We all have two grandfathers. Which one was it?
... resulting in him having the mannerisms of a toddler.- Perhaps unneeded detail at the level of the leed.
...Brother Henry ...- I would think Henry, instead of Henry Howard would be good enough.
...restored ...- I would think the sentence could end after "restored"and "to the Howards" is needless.
He died childless, with his family ensuring ...- Possibly: "His family ensured ...".
{{sfnp|Robinson|1982|p=[https://archive.org/details/dukesofnorfolkqu0000robi/page/117/ 117]}} where the neede URL with the right page is directly under my finders, saving a lot of time and nerves.
... Goodwin & Peacey (2006) ...– Despite living in the UK, I cannot read the online version of Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. At my local library here at Bangor, Northern Ireland, they tell me they have not subscripted. Are there important differences between the slightly older paper version (2004 available at Internet Archive) and the newer online version (2006)?
Greetings and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 16:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
... Howard, as with all eight brothers ...– I would have sad "Howard, like all his eight brothers ...", assuming that his father had 9 sons, but I count 10 on his father's article (including two slightly unusual ones: Talbot and Esme).
... In 1641, with the English Civil War beginning, he...– I would have sad "In 1641, when the English Civil War began, he ...". The word "with" is a preposition and not a conjunction. It typically preceeds a noun or pronoun.
... with his grandfather living in Antwerp.– Another example of using "with" as a conjunction. I would have said "while". Please check all your "with"s.
Another of his brothers who travelled with him ...– I am not sure I get what you mean. Who is the "him", Thomas or his grandfather? Where did Philip go? Probably to Antwerp, but I do not think this is clear enough.
... 4 October ...– On my computer "4" becomes separated from "October" by a carriage return. Perhaps change to 4 October.
... Mowbray in 1640 ...– You talk about 1646 before 1640. Strict time order should be observed.
... courtesy title ...– You should have said this at the first mention of Baron Maltravers.
Greetings and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 21:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
... Howard was also still living ...– Why "also"?
... debts ...– Perhaps you could find a way to move "debts" forward. I first thought he had inherite £200,000 cash.
When this situation first came about rumours were ...– I would have added a comma, thus "When this situation first came about, rumours were ..." Should the subordinate clause not be separated by a comma from the main one?
... including by restoring the Ducal palace in Norwich.– It is not clear whether this restoration made the financial situation worse, or whether it contributed to restore the family's power.
Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 10:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
...leading Henry to bemoan them ...– Possibly use pronoun "leading him to bemoan them ..." as Henry has just been used before as subject of the main sentence. I tend to prefer the pronoun as long as it is clear who is meant.
Miller (2004)– You cite the online ODNB. Just as probably most of the Wikipedia readers, I can only read the paper version. I feel you should cite the paper version instead (this probably pertains to all your citations from ODNB). Howard is found at:
... seven of them were members of the Howard family.– I do not see the interest of the information in this whole sentence. Perhaps it would be more meaningful if we would be told how many peers voted or how many opposed it.
... was created Duke of Norfolk ...– "created" should perhaps be avoided because his was not a new creation of the title. I propose "was made Duke of Norfolk".
... forfeited the title for treason in 1572.– This is supposed to be supported by the citation "Robinson (1982), p. 121" at the end of the 3rd sentence, but the year (1572) does not appear on page 121.
...was more precisely defined by parliament a year later ....– I do not see why you say "by parliament". I would think it was the House of Lords as in the first bill, or was it the Commons? I find this confusing. I wondered whether a private bill concerning a lord needs to pass through the commons.
The original precedence of the dukedom was re-established, making Howard the 5th Duke.– It is not obvious waht öriginal precedence"means the creation of 1397 or the creation of 1483. Nowhere on the cited page does it say that he is numbered the fifth.
... Pope Clement X ...– At least on my machine "Clement" is separated from "X" by a carriage return.
... From there he received permission from Henry via letter to take ...– Perhaps simpler: "Henry allowed him by letter to take ...".
... from the guardianship of Yerbury ...– Perhaps simpler: "from Yerbury, the guardian ...".
Robinson (1982), p. 126– Seems to be the wrong citation, perhaps p. 136 was intended. I will have to come back her once I now the cited page for sure.
Parliament had unsuccessfully ordered Howard to return– When do you use Parlament and when House of Lords?
... in 1659, and in 1674 and 1677 ...– Master says in "... petitioned the Commons in 1676 ...", ODNB says "Moves in 1674 and 1677 to bring the former back to England ... were unsuccessful ...", Jones says "Parliament had unsuccessfully ordered Norfolk ... to return to England in 1659 ...". Perhaps Jones could be moved to after the comma following 1659 (see WP:INTEGRITY).
Foljambe (1900), p. 67– I first thought this was an error. Why should one cite the description of a miniature bust for the full date of death of the subject? Why not Cokayne 1895, p. 55 URL- https://archive.org/details/completepeerage06cokahrish/page/n55/, which is authoritative? That is how I would cite Cokayne for Norfolk:
missing place of burial?– I would think it is customary to give the place of his burial, if known. Cokayne also give the date of his burial: 11 Dec 1678.
Thanks and best regards Johannes Schade ( talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
... Howard ... was received the restored dukedom ...– Why passive voice?
... decision ...– Does not seem precisely the right word; perhaps "modalities"?
... Act ...– Why should act start with an uppercase?
... Cardinal Norfolk ...– The source says "Cardinal of Norfolk", not "Cardinal Norfolk".
The original precedence ...– How should the reader understand what this means if you don't? Of course we need to be near the text in the source, but we must also think of the reader. Perhaps it is good enough to say he became the 5th duke; that shows that shows that records did not restart at 1.
These were denied ...– The "These" seems to refer to "petitions", but you used "petitioned".
... who had been created Baron Howard of Castle Rising in 1669 ...– What is the interest of his brother having been made a baron and an earl some years before? I feel this has nothing to do with the subject. I belongs into the article on the 6th Duke. There is already a lot of overlap between the two articles.
He entered the House of Lords for the first tim ...– Similarly, the entire sentence concerns what happened to his brover after the subjects death. It belongs into the article on his brother and should not need to be repeated here.
I find fault with this entire family tree. It is a boilerplate thrown in of which only a small part concerns the subject. There are no citations. This rightfully belongs to the article Duke of Norfolk where at least most of the people mentioned in the chart are also mentioned in the text, where the corresponding citation should appear. A family tree would certainly be beneficial in the article discussed here, but it should only show people directly concerned with the subject and probably mentioned in the text of the article discussed here. The people in the family tree would probably only be himself, his parents, some of his uncles and ants, and some of his siblings. I do not think you will want to make such a chart now, and it is not required for GA. I suggest to simply delete the present family tree for now.
I would prefer a structure that bundles the whole verification apparatus under "References", with three sections under it: "Notes", "Citations", and "Sources". According to this proposal what you call now "Refernces" would become "Sources". What do you think of this?
With thanks for your good collaboration and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 14:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear Pickersgill-Cunliffe, you are fast.
He was declared insane ...– Criterion 3a, "broad". The lead promises some more detail about "was declared insame", but the section Insanity does not give it. According to Paley there was a specific procedure to declare someone insane, which involved affidavids from people who knew the supposedly insane person. Could you please add some detail in that section.
Howard's grandmother chose ...– Criterion 3a, "broad". The year when his grandmother died (1654) needs to be mentioned in the main-text because it appears in the succession box. The right place to do this is probably around this place. – Should not this sentence be moved down according to chronological order, so that everything that is to be said about his father's death and inheritance (1652) appears before what is to be said about his grandmother's death and inheritance (1654)? MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL says "In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise." The text deviates here from chronological order without good reason.
... debt from his grandfather's time ...– Criterion 1a, "understanding". What I said above was indeed not well explained, as you said. I propose to change the last clause of this sentence to: "... but also debts from his grandfather's time amounting to £200,000 (equivalent to £32,800,000 in 2021)."
... "to sink into irredeemable lunacy" ...– Criterion 2b, "failed". The sentence is supported by two citations. None of them covers the given passage, which is a quotation. The 1st citation, Robinson p121, comes close because the passage occurs in Robinson at p119. Page 121 can probably be replaced with page 119 as the rest of the sentence seems to be covered by the 2nd citation, Darley p59. – There is no reason for citing here. MOS:QUOTE says "may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." Robinson here describes a fact. You might have been seduced by Robinson's nice phrase und stolen it. The content could have been paraphraside without losing anything. I therefore recommend: paraphrase to plain text and get rid of the "according to the biographer John Martin Robinson". I would simple shorten it to "leaving him insane".
... "functioning at the level of a toddler" ...– Not required for GA. This is another needless quotation that should be paraphrased, perhaps simple to: "... behaved like a toddler ...". The "described by the historian Ruth Paley as" should then be removed.
... "vistation of god" ...– Criterion 2b, "failed". This quotation is found in Paley where it is already is a quotation. It comes from some session of the House of Lords as she indicates in her footnote. This is as citing Shakepeare's Hamlet from Smith's 1999 book about suicide. It should be cited from where it comes.
Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear Pickersgill-Cunliffe, you seem to have stopped talking to me. Perhaps you are just busy with other work. As an unexperienced reviewer I am afraid to either underdo or overdo the task. If you find my remarks unreasonable, please tell me. I want to submit this for the Backlog Drive and am afraid coordinators might report me for letting pass shortcomings that should be corrected ander the GA criteria. – Or do you want me to fail this nomination so that you can get a better reviewer? Johannes Schade ( talk) 10:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear Pickersgill-Cunliffe, this does now comply with the GA criteria. Thanks for you patient collaboration, Johannes Schade ( talk) 21:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)