Talk:John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland

Name

Err...shouldn't this be at "John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland"? The man was known by various titles over the course of his life - Viscount Lisle, Earl of Warwick, Duke of Northumberland. Presumably, the highest should be the one in the article title. john 06:33, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The supposed system actually is to use the title someone is best known by. There are currently a number of entries (mostly for more modern politicans who became peers after their political retirement) which illustrate this. However, in this case, I think Dudley is better known as Duke of Northumberland, and I've actually contemplated moving it myself. Loren Rosen 06:44, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, if somebody is very clearly best known by one title, that title should be used. Thus, I put John Carteret, Earl Granville, in as John Carteret, 2nd Lord Carteret, his title for the most important part of his political career. Or Benjamin Disraeli as that, rather than Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield. However, when it's unclear what title is the most commonly used, the default should be to use the highest. Shall we move it, then? john 06:47, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

why is there no mention of the false charges, biased juries, and evil intentions of those responsible for killing all these lords and ladies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.34.142 (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Error

"He was soon to gain prominence in the tournaments of the royal court and as a protégé of Thomas Cardinal Wolsey, and so joined the group whose task it was to amuse the king. In 1527, and again in 1532, he accompanied Wolsey to France."

Wolsey died in 1530. Does this refer to an earlier trip or was Dudley present when Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn travelled to France in 1532?86.47.42.32 (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Error corrected. I will attempt to dig up some references on this. Welham66 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I will be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should follow within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm placing this article on hold to allow time to address the below concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• Is his spouse's surname Guildford or Guilford?

fixed to Guildford

• Needs copy-editing - a number of typos, grammatical errors, and awkward passages.

Tried to find and fix them

Better, but there are still quite a few errors. Maybe get someone else to read it over for you?

• Use "until" instead of "till"

fixed

• Need a more encyclopedic tone

Changed some phrases; please consider also that there are different types of writing style in different fields (as is acknowledged at WP:TONE).

Yes, but read the rest of that sentence - use the tone employed by reliable sources (which in this case means a generally more formal tone) while remaining clear and understandable

• • • Of course I had read that sentence and meant exactly that. From your response I cannot but conclude that you are unfamiliar with the writing style of RS in the field of early modern political history (encyclopedias like the ODNB included). I would like to stress that I fully understand that WP is different from other encyclopedias for very good reasons, but then I assure you that my writing is already significantly more "toned down" than books, journal articles, and encyclopedia articles written by academic historians -- reliable sources in the above guideline's sense. Where is the "excellent" Lord Admiral, the "dashing commander at sea", the "ineffectual friend Suffolk"? Where are the "abject" or "moving" letters? Where the "Protestant propagandists" instead of mere writers? Where is the "Protector's" slavery law?- It's now the 1547 slavery law. For reasons entirely unfathomable to me, you seem to think this article is written in an informal tone, as follows from your "which in this case means a generally more formal tone". If you hold unspecified but different views of the style appropriate to historical-biographical GAs, than myself and others do, I respect this and would welcome and appreciate if you would fail this article (so that it can have a new chance). The manner of this particular review is too unhelpful and unpleasant, as well as much too demanding on my health and time, for me to be able to continue with it. Kind regards. Buchraeumer (talk)11:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Nikkimaria, please don't think I meant anything personally; I didn't, and I apologize in case you thought so.- Having already addressed the bulk of the points of the review, and you initially said on my talk page that the article was close to GA, I would like to make suggestions how we could proceed, so that this might not end in a months-long stalemate:

a) you could give examples, or point out which passages of the text you think should be changed; I could then perhaps try that, as long as I think it's reasonable.

b) if you still feel the prose is generally not o.k., you could fail, or

c) you could ask someone to take over the review from you at the GAN talk page.

d) I would suggest the same if you would like to retire from the the review.

Thanks. Regards. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • • In fairness, I may be reviewing based on a set of criteria not transferable to this field. I have chosen to pursue option e, by asking for a second opinion at GAN
• Avoid run-on sentences

Tried to find and fix them

• Ket's or Kett's Rebellion?

fixed to Kett's

• "via" is an English enough word to not require italicization

fixed

• "vice-admiral" or "Vice-Admiral"?

fixed to Vice-Admiral

• Avoid linking the same term more than once or twice

fixed. I systematically link terms in the lead and again in the main text, because some people may skip the lead.

• Measurements should be expressed in both imperial and metric, possibly using the convert template

fixed

• Be consistent in how you refer to the subject: having him called "Warwick" in one sentence and "Dudley" in the next may be confusing to some readers. This issue also applies to a lesser extent to other players whose titles change

I have removed all instances of Warwick in the text, but I stick to Northumberland, as by that title he is most commonly known. Other peers I have named by their titles, with the exception of Somerset, whom I had to mention before he became a duke. Please compare WP:LASTNAME.

• "became ineligible for rehabilitation in a world dominated by confessional thinking" - what does this mean?

changed to sectarian; I still think "confessional" would be more to the point, but I realize that it seems not really to exist in English (and the link to Confessionalization is only partly to the point). What is meant is that writers etc. judged everything and everyone along the lines of the "religious divide" between Catholics and Protestants.

• Why are some of his offices mentioned only in the infobox or the closing template?

I'd think that is the purpose of these boxes: to give further information that cannot be mentioned in the narrative for the sake of brevity and clarity. I mentioned his more important positions in the text.

Accuracy and verifiability

• Jane and Guilford were not executed together

changed to "with": this is meant in a broader sense: they were executed on the same day, for the same reason etc.

• As the two ODNB entries and Rathbone are cited multiple times, they could go under References

Done

Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation styles seems to mean typically print sources when talking of "shortened citations"; I have never come across shortened web-based cites before. It seems to be common usage to have details of books separated in a reference section and full website citations within the citations.

When a certain source is used multiple times, whether print or web-based, it is acceptable to use the shortened citation format (compare recently promoted FA John Lennon). Furthermore, isn't ODNB an online edition of a print source? If so, the citation format should be closer to print than web.

• • • The online version is more recent and differs from the print version, and it has no page numbers.
• Check citation format for 2 authors

I added OCLCs for Chapman; Jordan / Gleason has no ISBN, but gives the Library of Congress n.)

Great, but that wasn't what I meant: the correct format for a shortened citation with two authors does not use "/"

Done. I assume "Jordan and Gleason" is what you meant?

• Citations needed for:

• "who had mortgaged all of it to acquire ready cash"

fixed

• "became an intimate of the King, often playing cards with him as the royal health declined"

fixed

• "with a taste for personal combat"

fixed

• "The Protector's agrarian policy and proclamations were inspired by a group of intellectuals who called themselves "the commonwealth men", were highly critical of landlords, and left many commoners with the impression that enclosures were unlawful"

fixed

• "the Earl of Warwick blamed especially the Duchess of Somerset for the situation"

fixed

• "Both sides accused each other of misdemeanor and proclaimed to act in the King's interest. Having tried in vain to raise a popular force, Somerset entrenched himself with the King at the fortress Windsor Castle. Military force near Edward's presence was unthinkable, and apparently Dudley and Archbishop Cranmer brokered an inofficial deal with Somerset, who then surrendered."

fixed

• "For a moment there was hope of a conservative restoration in some quarters"

fixed

• "The English people, as is evident from contemporary broadsheet ballads and alehouse talk, were generally disaffected to the men who ruled in the name of their King."

fixed

• "So soon as he was in power, Dudley put pressure on her to stop the misuse of her privilege, as she allowed flocks of Catholic worshippers who had nothing to do with her household to attend."

fixed

• "This attitude was attractive to Dudley, as it conveniently allowed to fill up the Exchequer or distribute rewards using Church property"

fixed

• "At the time and since, the breakup and reorganization of the prince bishopric of Durham has been interpreted as Dudley's attempt to create himself a county palatine of his own. The Duke, in his original sketch for the enrichment of the King, misunderstood Durham's property structure"

fixed

• "It was impossible to continue in this way"

fixed

• "The Duke pursued a policy of neutrality that balanced between France and the Emperor, which made peace between the two warring great powers preferable"

fixed

• "Henry VIII had revolutionized the English navy, mainly in military terms"

fixed

• "Princess Mary was well-informed about Edward's illlness and well-prepared to claim her right"

fixed

• "due to a lucky chance, came into possession of powerful artillery from the royal navy"

fixed

• "A black legend about the Duke of Northumberland was already in the making when he was still in power, the more so after his fall"

fixed

• I would suggest reducing the enormous number of citations by using the "ref name" parameter more frequently. For example, citations 47 and 48 could be combined in this manner

Broad

No issues noted, although some points could use a brief explanation in the text (for example, the execution of Thomas Seymour, or the issue with Gardiner)

What little is known about Dudley punching Gardiner is mentioned in the article. Gardiner was imprisoned for almost the whole of Edward's reign, so he is not especially a victim of Northumberland; I mentioned deprived bishops otherwise, however.

Thomas Seymour is only of peripheral interest here (and difficult to add briefly, as I cannot write he was executed for high treason, because he wasn't, having never been tried): Academic historians are no longer of the opinion that Seymour's downfall was a prelude to Somerset's own and that the Seymour brothers needed Dudley's help to hate each other. Bernard (in his ODNB article about Th. Seymour) and Alford (in a 10-page analysis of Seymour's downfall) don't even mention Dudley.

Neutrality

• See WP:WTW - certain words introduce editorial bias and should be avoided

I don't think there are many; if they are there, they have a citation. WP:WTW especially refers to occurrences "without attribution".

Yes, but there's a difference between having a citation for the facts and having a citation that supports the specific editorial opinion expressed by the choice of certain words.

• • • Why imply this is not the case with respective citations? Anyway, WP:WTW says "these words may introduce bias", not that they do. A massive ongoing oil spill is a great disaster, not a small one.
• Article needs rewording in areas to adhere to NPOV

No examples given. But please consider that I have to express the sources' content, arguments, etc. in a summary style, which may require descriptive adjectives or words of all kinds.

Understood, but there's still a requirement to follow NPOV, even in summary style. Be very careful with tone and word choice.

• • • That's exactly what I did.

Stability

• No issues noted, although it might be helpful to have a few more eyes on the article

Images

• Use the same name for the ship in both the caption and the article text

fixed

Sorry, I forgot to sign, and thank you! Buchraeumer (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope concerns are now addressed—with the vital and generous help of User:Magicpiano and User:S Marshall. - Buchraeumer (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion

Since the request for a second opinion seems to concern the prose, I'll make some comments. In my opinion, the article should be copyedited (probably by someone uninvolved) before passing GA. I'll pull a few examples from the first two screens or so:

• "Dudley served as Vice-Admiral and Lord Admiral from 1537 until 1547, setting novel standards of navy organization and being an innovative commander at sea." - awkwardly phrased
• "conciliar" - this is not a widely-used word; link definition, use a less jargony word, or rephrase

Done

• "To what extent the Duke influenced this scheme is uncertain; the traditional view being that it was a plot to maintain his power after Edward's death, many historians see the project as genuinely Edward's, enforced by Dudley after the King's demise. " - I had to read this three times before I understood it; it should probably be two sentences, and rephrased

Done

• "Dudley was present at Henry VIII's meeting with Francis I of France at Calais in 1532; another member of the entourage being Anne Boleyn, soon to be Queen" - "another member of the entourage was the future Queen, Anne Boleyn"

Changed to "was" instead of "being". The point is not that she became queen any time in the future but just a few months later; otherwise she wouldn't be mentioned. It makes sense because Elizabeth's christening is mentioned in the next sentence.

• "As Lord Admiral, Dudley was responsible for the creation of the Council for Marine Causes, an office making English naval administration the most efficient in Europe." - is it a council or an office? its stated purpose was really "making English naval administration the most efficient in Europe"? (I suspect this was its effect, not its purpose; please clarify what its purpose was, how that was innovative compared to other practices of the time, and how it achieved the effect.)

Added a bit. I cannot be more specific without going beyond the source (which is the standard academic "life"); the author points to another book by himself about the Tudor Navy. There is rather more in the ODNB (also by Loades), but I have to summarize here. There is also the link to Navy Board.

I mentioned this because you put his record as an innovator in admiralty administration in the lead; it consequently deserves more than a one-sentence mention to explain his innovations. Your additions have addressed this concern. Magic♪piano 18:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Helped a lot. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I could go on, but it's clear to me that the prose needs work. Magic♪piano 02:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask one or two historians-cum-GAN veterans if they could have a look. Buchraeumer (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• One full copyediting pass complete. I think the main problem here is that Buchraeumer has worked so hard on this article, and made so many small amendments, that the whole has lost its sweep and vigour. Personally, I would pass this article as a GA on the strength of the post-copyedit prose. For A-class or FA standard, though, it would need further copyediting work.

  May I just say that I think John Dudley's a fairly important article for the study of English history and I'm very pleased to see it at GAN.—S Marshall T/C 13:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's now much improved. Pending resolution of the added tags, the writing is now GA-worthy. Magic♪piano 14:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed one of the tags that I added, since after I added it, I've seen where it's covered and cited. That leaves one: an ambiguous "he" that could mean John Dudley or Edward Seymour. No separate reference is necessary imo, just clarification about which is meant.—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Identity is clear now. May I thank you both for your input and hard work! Buchraeumer (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

GAR

John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep GA status. The consensus that the sources are adequate and not out of date has not been rebutted. As usual, editors are free to improve the article if new sources crop up. SnowFire (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The article was reviewed nearly 12 years ago, so I think it should be reassessed. It currently has the additional citations tag (since December 2021). Also there is no recent references with the most recent reference currently being a 2012 book. Sahaib (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - The "additional citations" tag makes no sense since it currently has over 200 citations (in fact, there are 239 in the article). I am not seeing any citation issues - it appears that all paragraphs are cited, thereby meeting WP:WIAGA criterion #2. The lead does lack citations per WP:CITELEAD, but it is supposed to be a summary of information that is cited in the article. That tag is so ridiculous that I will remove it right now.
  I also don't see why Sahaib is concerned that the most recent reference was published in 2012. That is very recent considering that the subject of the article died in 1553, which is... 470 years ago. I would be concerned if we were using many 16th-century sources but, in fact, many of the sources in the article appear to be from the 1990s or early 2000s. In summary, this would not fail the GA criterion based on sourcing. Epicgenius (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. The additional citations tag has now been removed, quite correctly in my view: everything in the article is cited inline to a plethora of reliable sources, so I fail to understand why that tag was added in the first place. I don't think the quality of the sourcing is an issue, either. Comprehensiveness isn't a GA criterion, and in any event no one has pointed out any more recent references that could be added even if we wanted to. Without a complaint that's more solidly rooted in the GA criteria, there's no basis for delisting the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)