Talk:Thomas Howard, 5th Duke of Norfolk/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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.

Before the article content

 * Optional. Your short description is very short. You might want to add a lifespan. WP:SDDATES says "Dates or date ranges are encouraged when they enhance the short description as an annotation or improve disambiguation." Your citations seem to follow the short footnote style. You might want to make this explicit by adding Use shortened footnotes. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All done. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Infobox. Discussion. I understand that in aristocratic biographies it looks nice to arrange the first two lines to give the style: "His Grace The Duke of Norfolk" and you are not the only one who uses it so. However, I think it is abusive. The name parameter should be "Thomas Howard" and his "title" parameter should be "Duke of Norfolk" (as you do). MOS:INFOBOX says the infobox "summarizes key facts about the page's subject". I would not call the style a key fact. His style should be given in the body, but usually we get quite well around without it. I would start the Infobox with name and title resulting in "Thomas Howard / Duke of Norfolk" and omit the "honorific prefix" parameter.

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.

Lead
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.
 * 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... grandfather ... – We all have two grandfathers. Which one was it?
 * Added.


 * 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... resulting in him having the mannerisms of a toddler. - Perhaps unneeded detail at the level of the leed.
 * Removed.


 * Optional. 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. ...Brother Henry ... - I would think Henry, instead of Henry Howard would be good enough.
 * I prefer to always introduce first with a full name, no matter the similarity, especially because it's not always the case that siblings would have the same surname (double barrels, for example).


 * Optional. 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ...restored ... - I would think the sentence could end after "restored"and "to the Howards" is needless.
 * Removed.


 * Optional. 3rd paragraph, last sentence. He died childless, with his family ensuring ... - Possibly: "His family ensured ...".
 * Done.

Early life and inheritance
where the neede URL with the right page is directly under my finders, saving a lot of time and nerves.
 * General remarks on citations. Checking citations can be quite involved and many reviewers do only spot checks. I believe that this is largely due to a lack of understanding on the side of the writers. Your first citation reads Robinson I clicked down to the source but there is not "url" parameter. So I am left wondering whether it is available online. I have to try Google books, Internet Archive, Hathi, etc. and make searches by title or author. Then I have to get to the right page. I would have hoped for:
 * Added in all cases.


 * 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... 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)?
 * It should be very similar. Let me know if you find any differences and I can provide quotes to back up the online version.

Greetings and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Early life and inheritance (continued)

 * 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... 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).
 * I misread the source slightly ("eighth" rather than "eight"). Reworded.


 * 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. ... 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.
 * The wording is as such because the Civil War is not generally thought to have actually begun until the following year. Reworded.


 * 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. ... 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.
 * Reworded.


 * 1st paragraph, last sentence. 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.
 * Reworded. He actually went to Italy and annoyed his whole family by joining the Dominicans.


 * 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... 4 October ... – On my computer "4" becomes separated from "October" by a carriage return. Perhaps change to 4 October.
 * Done.


 * 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Mowbray in 1640 ... – You talk about 1646 before 1640. Strict time order should be observed.
 * Disagree. I'm not going to cut up the chronology by inputting every time a relevant person received a title, but when they are next mentioned it is useful to identify any change in their title at that point because it may also assist in the reader identifying them as they will have gone by this new title.


 * 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... courtesy title ... – You should have said this at the first mention of Baron Maltravers.
 * Happy to hear suggestions, but don't see a way it can be introduced earlier without being very awkward.

Greetings and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Early life and inheritance (continued again)

 * 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... Howard was also still living ... – Why "also"?
 * No idea! Removed.


 * 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... debts ... – Perhaps you could find a way to move "debts" forward. I first thought he had inherite £200,000 cash.
 * The £200,000 is labelled as a debt on its first mention. I don't see what should be changed here

Insanity

 * 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. 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?
 * Done.


 * Last paragraph, 4th sentence. ... 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.
 * Complicated in the long run because Henry eventually messed all of that up and left the palace half-finished, although he still entertained royalty there in that state. Reworded.

Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Insanity (continued)

 * Last paragraph, last sentence, ...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.
 * Done.


 * Last paragraph, last sentence, citation 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:
 * I cite the most modern version of ODNB. This is widely accepted in articles.


 * https://archive.org/details/isbn_0198613784/page/374/


 * Citing the paper version would also allow you to give page number. I would guess the relevant passage is on page 374, right column, 3rd paragraph, last two sentences. You should give the page number (or range) whenever possible and appropriate (see WP:PAGENUM). I feel that is always, unless the relevant passage or passages extend over all the pages of the source.
 * Per previous comment.

Dukedom and death

 * 1st paragraph, last sentence, ... 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.
 * This was a petition, and the sentence demonstrates how large a proportion of the supporters were Howards.


 * 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence ... 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".
 * Reworded.


 * 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, citation ... 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.
 * Citation added for the Robinson section on the 4th duke.


 * 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence ...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.
 * Removed "parliament".


 * 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence 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.
 * The source describes it as the "original precedence". Page 121 does number him as 5th duke.


 * 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence ... Pope Clement X ... – At least on my machine "Clement" is separated from "X" by a carriage return.
 * Changed.


 * 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence ... From there he received permission from Henry via letter to take ... – Perhaps simpler: "Henry allowed him by letter to take ...".
 * Done.


 * 2nd paragraph, last sentence ... from the guardianship of Yerbury ... – Perhaps simpler: "from Yerbury, the guardian ...".
 * I think that would make the sentence more awkward with the amount of commas required.


 * 2nd paragraph, last sentence, citation 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.
 * Yes, changed.


 * 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence Parliament had unsuccessfully ordered Howard to return – When do you use Parlament and when House of Lords?
 * The source in this instance uses "Parliament". I'm not going to guess which house they are referring to.


 * 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence ... 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).
 * Done.


 * 4th paragraph, 1st sentence 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:
 * Because I couldn't find any other source at the time. Added.


 * – N to R
 * Besides, Cokayne numbers Howard as the twelfth duke.
 * More modern sources do not.


 * 4th paragraph, last sentence 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.
 * Per previous, added.

Thanks and best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the detailed review. I have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Dukedom and death (continued)

 * 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence ... Howard ... was received the restored dukedom ... – Why passive voice?
 * Not sure what you'd change it to, but have removed that out of place "was".


 * 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence ... decision ... – Does not seem precisely the right word; perhaps "modalities"?
 * Changed to "Act" per the source.


 * 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence ... Act ... – Why should act start with an uppercase?
 * Am following the source, which capitalises both Act and Bill.


 * 2nd paragraph, last sentence ... Cardinal Norfolk ... – The source says "Cardinal of Norfolk", not "Cardinal Norfolk".
 * Oops!


 * 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence 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.
 * Rejigged.


 * 3nd paragraph, 3rd sentence These were denied ... – The "These" seems to refer to "petitions", but you used "petitioned".
 * Reworded.


 * Last paragraph, 2nd sentence ... 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.
 * I think it's useful because if the reader is comparing to other sources they're also looking at then Howard might be referred to as "Lord Howard, "Baron Howard", etc, at this point, and I wanted to make it clear that this is the same person.


 * Last paragraph, 3rd sentence 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.
 * Removed.

Family tree
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.
 * Not my creation and happy to remove it.

Lead (revisited)

 * 1st paragraph, 5th sentence. 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.
 * I don't think the lede is promising any more detail than that which is provided. I also note that the "broad" criterion is explained as "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Getting side-tracked in a non-subject specific explanation of how somebody gets declared insane is not in my opinion in line with the requirement.

Early life and inheritance (revisited)

 * 2nd paragraph, last sentence. 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.
 * This sentence does not refer to her death, but to her decision regarding inheritance. Added a new sentence directly mentioning her death and his inheritance of the three baronies.


 * 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... 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)."
 * Done.

Insanity (revisited)

 * 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... "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".
 * Disagree per the later worries that he was not in fact insane. I think it's important to note that Robinson agrees he was insane, because some clearly didn't. Fixed the page number, thanks for catching that.


 * 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... "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.
 * Done.


 * 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... "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.
 * Added citation.

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)


 * No fear, I've been busy with work but will get to your comments as soon as I can. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have now replied above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No need to worry, this looks like quite a thorough review. :) -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 20 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)