Talk:Erik Sparre/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Heidi Pusey BYU (talk · contribs) 20:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ThaesOfereode. My name is Heidi Pusey (BYU) and I am a student editor at the BYU library; I am paid hourly to edit Wikipedia. The review may take several days, as I am also dedicating time to classes and homework. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Heidi. Thank you for taking the time to review this article! During the reference check, it may be of use to you to see the talk page; a Swedish-speaking user was kind enough to double-check my translations and he left some comments there that may be of use to you, especially since much of this article relies on the Janbrink source. I'm looking forward to your comments in the coming days! ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll take a look at those comments. I had been wondering about the Janbrink source, so I'm hopeful they will clear up my questions. If I still have questions after reading them, I'll let you know. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1: Well-written

A. The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. ✅

“While in prison, he complained in letters that he had been unable to attend his father-in-law's funeral, that his brother had been imprisoned, and that he was not a heretic in spite of accusations to the contrary.” This is the first mention that the father-in-law died. As a reader, this took me by surprise. I think a word or two of context somewhere in the previous two sentences would help.

Soft pushback: I don't think saying "Per Brahe the Elder died in 1590" is any less jarring; Brahe's death isn't really telegraphed to the reader and his importance to Sparre is mostly sympathizing with the Catholic Church and Sparre's second major connection to the royal court. If you feel strongly about it, can you suggest a less jarring way to introduce Brahe's death?

No, I don't feel strongly about it. It can be left the way it is.

“In February and March 1592, Sparre avoided arrest twice.” Do we know how he avoided arrest?

Unfortunately not. Janbrink says the first time he just refused to accompany the court servant the king sent and the second time, John sent a servant to seize him and some documents, but Sparre "again managed to escape".

“When the judgement was read, Sparre tore up his speech in protest and attempted to console his fellow condemned with another speech.” Kinda a nit-picky suggestion: The reader has to infer from this that Sparre was condemned, but it should probably be made more clear. (Example: “When the judgment was read…” becomes “When the judgment condemning Sparre was read…”)

Fair enough. Fixed.

The lede mentions that Sparre was executed during the Linkoping Bloodbath, but this fact is not mentioned in the body of the article. The section on his execution mentions Linkoping and points to the Linkoping Bloodbath as the main article, but I’m wondering if it could also be mentioned in the body. Do you think that would be too redundant?

Good catch. No, I don't think it would be too redundant. I've added a source from the Nordic Museum and reused Lind 2021. I think that should fix it.

Overall, the writing is spectacular. It is clear, the vocabulary is simultaneously strong and accessible, and the flow of ideas is smooth.

Very kind words! Thank you very much.

B. It complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. ✅

The phrases “most notably” and “most famous” need to go, per MoS/Words to Watch. I’d suggest replacing “most famous” with “most well-known”.

Yep, fixed.

Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2: Verifiable with no original research

A. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. ✅

I noticed that a couple sources in the first part of the citation section are not consistent with the rest (I mean numbers 1 and 3).

Uh, yeah. Weird. I don't know why I did that. Fixed.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). ✅

I’m a little concerned about the Skibiński source. It is clearly stated as PhD dissertation in the source section. We have to be pretty careful about using these as sources. However, I noticed that you did not put it as a citation by itself but backed it up with other sources. That said, I’m wondering if it could be removed as a source because there are other sources with the same information. For reference, here is what WP: Reliable sources says:

“Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.”

Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was ultimately published as a monograph in 2020, but I don't have access to the monograph itself (and thus don't know if the page numbers will match up, etc.). Moreover, the piece isn't a primary source really; it serves as a secondary historical record for the purposes of this article. I can still remove this if you'd like, but this was the rationale for keeping it.

Okay, so I looked over the guidelines for monographs and I'll accept this as a source, especially since it is a secondary source and in conjunction with other sources.

Overall, great job with sources.

Thank you again!

C. It contains no original research. ✅

D. It contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. ✅

Note: Parts that need work are italicized.
“Despite the preparation, it was not until January 1588 that it became clear that Sigismund's accession was secure.” Similar sentence structure to the source used.

Yeah, definitely. Changed to "Despite the preparation, Sigismund's accession was not clearly secure until January 1588." Let me know if this needs more.

“John began seeking out a closer alliance with Charles and – in a desperate attempt to curtail such an alliance – Sparre, Sten Banér, and Ture Bielke [sv] all signed an apology, admitting wrong and promising the king that they would not oppose the cession of Estonia if it meant that Sigismund could abdicate the Polish Crown.” This is close paraphrasing of Roberts.

Think I've fixed this one up.

“In 1590, Sparre, Ture Bielke, Hogenskild Bielke, Gustav Banér, Sten Banér, and Erik Stenbock were displaced from the Privy Council, dismissed from their offices, deprived of their fiefs in the presence of the Estates, and imprisoned.” Italicized bits are almost identical to the Roberts source. I understand that some of this might be tricky to reword, but it is possible. Example: “removed from their offices” or “stripped of their fiefs”.

"Displaced" → "removed" and "deprived of their fiefs" → "had their fiefs revoked". Soft push to keep "dismissed from their offices" as-is because I think it has a semantic connotation that is useful here.

“When Sparre was late to the Uppsala Synod, arriving in February, it reignited suspicions of heresy, despite his signing of the declaration, which in part banned Catholicism.” Where did the part about banning Catholicism come from? I couldn’t find it in the source, but I may have overlooked it.

Must have been in my reading and I just failed to cite it. I've removed it for now but may return with an appropriate source if I find it.

“On 8 January 1593, they established an interim government whereby Charles was recognized as the ‘leading personage’ in Sweden.” Close paraphrasing of the Roberts source.

Fixed.

I’m noticing that most of the close paraphrasing is related to the Roberts source. Maybe take a look at the rest of the Roberts references and check for close paraphrasing. If you’re unsure, you can always ask me for a second opinion. And don’t feel bad—we all do this at some point. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I got them all. Must've just got swept up in Roberts's wonderful prose! ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! I'm going to go ahead and approve this as a Good Article. Well done. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you so much. Your review was very thorough and helpful! Hope to get you again as a reviewer at GAN (or FAC)! ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 3-6

Broad in its coverage

A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic ✅

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). ✅

Neutral

A. It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

Stable

A. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. ✅

Illustrated

A. Media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. ✅

B. Media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. ✅

Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have responded accordingly above. Looking forward to your comments. By the way, when citing policy/guidelines, you don't have to use the single brackets as you did above; you can always cite with the double brackets internally, like WP:RS or MOS:WTW (in Wiki markup: [[WP:RS]] instead of [WP:Reliable sources] and so on) for the reliable source policy. Figured this might make life a little easier for you. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comments above and have added a checkmark to the resolved criteria. Now I just have to check for a couple more things and then the review will be complete. Good work! P. S. Thank you so much for the tip—it really will make things much easier for me. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Happy to help. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]