Wikipedia:Featured article review/Edward VI of England/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [1].

Edward VI of England

Review commentary

Notified Wikiprojects England, Biography, Christianity, Anglicanism, and User:DrKiernan

This article needs a lot more inline citations to verify the content of the article, which is very lightly referenced at the moment. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may try to add some. DrKiernan (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cleaning the house out a bit prior to restoration—see the article's talk page. I have the books for this (Alford, Loach, MacCulloch, etc.) and am rolling up my sleeves. qp10qp (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proceeding, but I am very very slow, so please be patient. qp10qp (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone verify that Image:John Dudley.jpg is a picture of a portrait in Penshurst Place? Can anyone close the deletion debate on Image:Edward VI Scrots c1550.jpg [2]? DrKiernan (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly different versions of the Dudley portrait exist. In books it is only ever in black and white. I don't think the lack of a source is important in this case, because I can't think of a circumstance in which this wouldn't be public domain. However, I could scan one from a book and source it to the book if a source is thought essential. qp10qp (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% confident that the Scrots portrait will be kept. I think the delay is that Commons are negotiating a new policy, since Jimbo Wales and some other highups recently stated that old art shouldn't be deleted on the grounds proposed in that deletion discussion. As a precaution, PKM did upload a Wikipedia version, but I can't find it: perhaps someone has deleted it on grounds of duplication. qp10qp (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Image:Edward VI William Scrots c1550.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha—that's the one; cheers. I've replaced the Commons version with it for the present, adding a hidden note not to change it till the deletion case has closed with a keep. For reasons I don't really understand, images like this are OK on Wikipedia, but (until recently at least) assailable on Commons.qp10qp (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image has just been declared a keep at Commons, and so I have swapped the versions round again. The public domain policy on old art at Commons has just been freed up, I'm glad to say. qp10qp (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I hope no one votes yet. I am about a third of the way through so far, and will need three weeks to finish (am away for several days next week).~~ qp10qp (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove.~~ Article still has significant referencing issues as initially brought up by Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These issues apply to the lower parts of the article, which haven't been done yet. I am in the process of meeting the concerns, but I'm using a large number of books and it takes time. I have some more material in a good state of progress offline, which I will be adding quite soon and which should take us past half way in the article. Please be patient. qp10qp (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Qp. I'm ignoring the remove 'til we here back from you. Marskell (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed out my remove above pending further input from Qp10qp (talk · contribs) - though the article in its current state would have severe difficulties at passing through WP:FAC. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. qp10qp (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going away from tomorrow, 1 September, until Friday or Saturday, and won't be touching a computer in the meantime. This is not a loss of interest or momentum, and I will resume promptly on return. The task is about three quarters done now: the main sections that remain to be completed are on religious reform and on the succession crisis—complex matters that will take about another week. I will also need to develop the lead and carry out an overall tidy-up and copyedit. qp10qp (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back at it, progressing well. Won't be long now—all being well, Monday 8 September should be OK for voting to start (I will have met the concerns by then, I hope, though I'll go on refining and adding details after that and will improve the lead). qp10qp (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article is at last ready for reappraisal, in my opinion. I intend to add a small legacy section, improve the lead, deepen the references in places, and perform a copyedit. But as far as this FAR goes, I believe the article now meets FA criteria, and in particular the issues mentioned in this review. In other words, it is fully referenced, and the images have all been carefully vetted for sourcing, image descriptions, etc. Vote away, by all means. qp10qp (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done the jobs above. From here on, I may tinker, but I'm pretty much finished. qp10qp (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a keeper, but some things need to be fixed:

Inconsistent date formatting, sometimes US date formatting is used, sample ... Northumberland marched out of London with three thousand men, reaching Cambridge on 14 July; meanwhile, Mary rallied her forces at Framlingham Castle in Suffolk, gathering an army of nearly twenty thousand by July 19 ...

Dates are delinked in most of the text, but linked in the lead.

These two date issues have been fixed by DrKiernan. Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a hidden chart in Ancestors, that won't mirror, print and violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY, needs to be unhidden.

Does anyone know how to unhide it? I can't work it out. qp10qp (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, naturally. Another superlative effort by qp. I've unlinked the dates.
- In the lead, I've changed "to avert a Catholic succession" to "to avert a Catholic resurgence", in an attempt to avoid repetition of "succession". However, another interpretation is that the device was designed to secure Dudley's power base. So, you may wish to cast another look over that bit.

Yes, I've yet to really revise the lead. I did worry about that repetition, but I am not sure that "resurgence" is the precise word in the context, though they more broadly did want to prevent that. I think Dudley's aims coincided with those of the crown, because his power base depended on there not being a Catholic succession. I will see if I can come up with something that covers all angles. qp10qp (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've settled for: When Edward fell terminally ill in 1553, he and his Council drew up a "Devise for the Succession" in an attempt to prevent a Catholic backlash against the Protestant Reformation. qp10qp (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Dudley is also referred to as "Warwick" and "Northumberland". It would be easier to follow if the prose did not switch back and forth between them, but instead used only Warwick up to a certain point and then Northumberland only after it.

I thought that was what I had done. But I have now included both his titles in the lead, to cover a potential objection. The grey area is the early part of his presidency (1549 to 1551), when he was still earl of Warwick. Since he was Warwick during part of his administration, it is tricky knowing what to call him when talking of his administration as a whole. But I have tried to apply a certain logic, anyway. qp10qp (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I would prefer Image:John Dudley.jpg to have a source.

OK, I have removed that image and replaced it with a version I have just uploaded from a book—so the sourcing issue is now addressed. This version is murkier, but it is less problematic in that the previous one was dated 1545, whereas Dudley did not become duke of Northumberland, which he is called in the inscription, until 1551. My hunch is that the type is posthumous (the patterning in the surround certainly looks Elizabethan, even possibly Jacobean) and that this was drawn during the ascendancy of Dudley's son Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, particularly as he is posed and dressed very similarly to some portraits of Leicester and a few other Elizabethan types. It would be nice to have a contemporary portrait of John Dudley, but none seem to exist. qp10qp (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- "the Council" is used throughout rather than "the council", whereas "the king" is used often but not "the King".

As you know, consistency is hard to achieve in this sort of thing. Temperamentally (and off-wiki), I am a non capitaliser in these matters, but I have had to compromise on Wikipedia. Here the difficulty is caused by "Privy Council", which I'm not sure I could get away with not capitalising: so the capital for "Council" is a corollary of that. I think it is OK to say "the king" or "the duke" when the usage is generalised rather than being attached to a name. qp10qp (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are minor points; I don't intend to re-visit. DrKiernan (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.