Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Francis Tresham/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:15, 20 October 2010.

Francis Tresham

 * Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 17:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Francis Tresham is often considered to be the dirty little sneak who wrote the Monteagle letter, a piece of evidence which allowed the government to find Guy Fawkes sitting in the dark, waiting to light the fuse which would have blown up the House of Lords, and killed the king and all those with him. That Fawkes was so dramatically caught at the last hour (how convenient!), and that the letter-writer's identity remains unknown, is all part of the mystery. Tresham is the likely suspect because of his relationship to Monteagle and his general untrustworthiness (the other plotters kept him at arm's length), but several other factors cast doubt on whether or not he did it. Hopefully, this article will explain some of those doubts. Parrot of Doom 17:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Captured and imprisoned, Tresham appealed to Katherine Howard" - "Katherine Howard" leads to Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk. Connormah (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...whose daughter was one Catherine Howard. It was the closest link I could find, I doubt one will ever be created for Katherine. Parrot of Doom 22:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Connormah (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose (changes made, so suspend until I reread the whole article) Not nearly ready, judging by the first few lines alone . Doesn't even say where "St John's College or Gloucester Hall" are. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A fair point, now corrected. I do hope however, that you've read the article in full. Parrot of Doom 21:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now, and the ODNB, which has plenty more detail that should be here - eg what he actually did in the Essex rebellion, and his opposite view to Fraser on why Tresham's confession doesn't mention the letter. On such a small subject one is entitled to expect a article to be fully ready for FAC, & this isn't. The fundamental, and obviously unknowable, question of what Tresham's attitude to the Gunpowder Plot was is not squarely set out. The misnamed section "Early life and family" covers everything except the last two months of his life, when he was in his late 30s. The Tresham ODNB reference, at the least, should be in the "bibliography" section. Is "converted" the appropriate word in "He openly converted to Catholicism in 1580", when he came from a solidly recusant background?  And recusant is a word the article does not contain and should.  And so on. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of his role in the Essex rebellion but didn't think it worth mentioning, its what happened subsequently that's important. If others disagree its a simple matter to insert it.
 * I'm presuming that you're suggesting the opposite reason to Fraser's view is his loyalty to his relatives? I'm quite happy that the article is written in a way for most people to understand that connection.  Not everything needs to be spelled out.
 * "Although he never admitted it—the fact would hardly have counted in his favour— ..." says Nicolls. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm content that this implication is covered with Fraser's quote of Tresham's confession being "highly partial ... not only for his own sake but for that of".
 * Tresham's views on the plot aren't set out because apart from his "highly partial" confession, and just like the views of most of the other plotters, they aren't known. All I can add is the views of his biographers, and I thought I'd done that adequately.  What do you think is missing exactly?
 * The sort of thing that Nicolls has in his third and fourth paras - all inevitably pretty speculative, but crucial. Doubtless the other sources have their own views. As it is what Tresham did, or may have done, in 1605 is covered, but why he might have done it is not.  There is also no reflection of Nicolls' "Again and again Tresham urged his friends to abandon their scheme. Guy Fawkes says that he was concerned for the safety of Catholic peers attending parliament, and Catesby's airy assurances that the lives of their noble friends would somehow be preserved failed to convince", which can hardly be called unimportant.  Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right of course, its all speculative. The problem I'm trying to avoid is including too much of that speculation.  What the various sources used do, is pick and pull apart the various confessions, stories, and published works, and try to get to the root of the matter.  Unfortunately Catesby never survived to "offer" his side of the story, so although we have names, places, and meetings, we only really have the opinions of others on what exactly people felt.  The unreliability of Tresham's confession (which is what authors use to base their opinions of his motives on) is compounded by his co-conspirators opinions of him, which generally seem to be "don't trust that bloke".  It doesn't appear as though any of them in London trusted him once the secret was out, as none of them appeared to have bothered to warn him (although again, this is speculation).
 * I'll have a look again and see what, specifically, Fraser and Haynes say about Tresham's motives, and see what I can add of that (including of course Nicholls' opinion). Parrot of Doom 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Nicholls places a lot more weight on the reliability of Tresham's confession than Fraser, and its Fraser to whom I tend to defer on the subject, simply because of the amount of research she appears to have done (her list of sources is extensive). I think its fair to make it clear that Tresham's assurances to his interrogators that he tried to postpone the plot could very well have been a tactic on his part, to assuage his guilt, and that they may not be true.
 * I'm a little puzzled that you seem to suggest that his supposed efforts aren't in the article, however, as they are - they're just not placed in one paragraph, as they are in Nicholls's biog. His fears for his relatives are also already mentioned, but none of the sources I have detail Catesby's reaction on Tresham's behalf here, just certain other Lords.  Nicholls may be generalising a little too much there for me to imply that Catesby had assured Tresham that his two brothers-in-law would be saved.


 * In short, I'm fairly confident that I've sucked as much out of the sources I have about Tresham's motives and fears, as is plausible. Parrot of Doom 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Early life and family" - what would you suggest calling it? It contains his early life, his family, and what they did for him.
 * How is about 99.5% of his life the "early" period? Or is this just me being "grumpy"? I would call it something like "Family, and life before 1605". Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That works just as well for me, so I've changed it. BTW I didn't call you grumpy, although I'd happily label myself as such :) Parrot of Doom 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the ODNB reference belongs in the bibliography, and won't be moving it there.
 * I agree that "converted" isn't the right word so I've changed that.
 * The article contains the word "recusancy" twice, but I've now linked the first instance. Parrot of Doom 12:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A final point: "Biographer Mark Nicholls mentions that no evidence exists to support this claim" is not true. Wood had possession of the university registers for 18 years, writing the book concerned, and his statement is certainly "evidence". What Nicolls actually says is "..there seems to be no corroborating evidence..". Whether one would expect any such to survive, & whether the original registers have, is not clear. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How does this sound? Parrot of Doom 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Tresham's repeated year of birth, his marriage and children do not belong in the first paragraph, as none of these matters contribute in any way to his notability. Leave them to the statment of his personal life, and just put the most significant facts in that first paragraph. The fact that historians think he may have written the letter that gave the plot away is first paragraph stuff and probably belongs in the second sentence.
 * I've restructured the first paragraph. I do not agree that Tresham's suspected responsibility for the letter belongs in the first paragraph, just as I wouldn't place Guy Fawkes's role in the plot in the first paragraph of his article.
 * The remaining one or two paragraphs of the intro show summarise the significant points.


 * He married Anne Tufton, daughter of Sir John Tufton of Hothfield in Kent, and had two daughters, Lucy (b. 1598) and Elizabeth; Lucy's twin brother, Thomas, died in 1599. Lucy became a nun, and Elizabeth married Sir George Heneage of Hainton, Lincolnshire.[1][3]
 * This is clumsy. Don't use sentences joined by semi-colons unless you are balancing something.
 * and had two daughters, Lucy (b. 1598) and Elizabeth, and a son, Lucy's twin, Thomas, who died in 1599.

Amandajm (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't agree. It reads fine to me as it is, in fact much better than your proposed version. Parrot of Doom 12:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of these reads easily. I would suggest (adding the date of his marriage, not currently given, but in Nicoll): "In 1593 he married Anne Tufton, daughter of Sir John Tufton of Hothfield in Kent, who gave birth to twins in 1598: Thomas, who died the following year, and Lucy who later became a nun. His only other child, Elizabeth, married Sir George Heneage of Hainton, Lincolnshire." or something.  Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Sir John Tufton gave birth to anything that wasn't brown :) Parrot of Doom 18:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well ok, but it can and should be improved from the present text. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this should be ok. Parrot of Doom 09:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comments, leaning support - concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "only his family's intervention and his father's money saved him from being attained" - is "attained" the best word in this context?
 * The word is used in a few sources but I agree that attainted is better, and have thus changed it.
 * "fellow plotter Thomas Wintour...fellow plotter Thomas Wintour" - repetitive
 * Done
 * "He was received into the Catholic church in 1580, and in the same year received" - repetitive, and does "received" mean "converted"?
 * No, its like a formal recognition of his Catholicism. Unfortunately I can't think of an adequate synonym for received that would work in Campion's instance.
 * Hmmm...welcomed? hosted? Or you could change the first instance and say something like "His faith was formally recognized", although that's more wordy
 * I think I've fixed this now - see here Parrot of Doom 12:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why was Campion captured?
 * For being a Catholic priest. I considered adding some backstory to this but its straying from the subject a little too much.  The link is more informative.
 * "in the words of the Jesuit Henry Garnet..." - either change to "according to" (or similar), or follow with quote
 * Better?
 * Yes, thanks
 * Don't link the same term multiple times, especially not in close proximity (example: Thomas Wintour)
 * Done
 * "before he received the earl's letter" - isn't Monteagle a baron?
 * Fixed, thanks.
 * "Foster apparently understand his case" - grammar
 * Changed to "apparently Foster"
 * Yes, but shouldn't it be past tense? "Tresham preferred the services of a Dr Richard Foster over those of the Tower's regular doctor, Dr Matthew Gwinne; apparently Foster understand his case, indicating that it was not the first occasion on which he had treated him"
 * Doh! Wood, trees, etc :) Fixed. Parrot of Doom 12:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Missing source details for Haynes 1999
 * Should have been 2005, fixed.
 * Why do all the ODNB citations have a double comma?
 * This has been a continual source of annoyance to me but it results from various criticisms of the way I formatted ODNB citations in previous FACs. Some wanted "title", others wanted "chapter", "work", etc.  Its all a load of nonsense so far as I'm concerned but in the interests of consistency I've kept that formatting across anything to do with the Gunpowder Plot. Parrot of Doom 08:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it to the way I've always done it, which avoids the double comma problem. Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Image review - no problems that I can see. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Well-rounded and informative. I think a few words explaining attainder (not even linked in the article) and recusancy are in order, though.  Magic ♪piano 14:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've linked attainted. Parrot of Doom 16:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick comment – This is barely worth reporting, but the second paragraph of the early life section has a link with some apparent formatting issues (to James I). That's about all I was able to find.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 03:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno how that got there but thanks for spotting it. Parrot of Doom 19:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I did some copyediting, removing extraneous wording, fixing tense uniformity, general minor improvements throughout, and tweaked one subsection header. Also, commas. -- Cirt (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the support but you may want to revisit that, as I've reverted a good many of your edits. In my opinion some of the changes you made reduced the article more to a list of facts, and that just doesn't suit my style of writing.  I like to try as best I can to engage the reader, and if that means joining sentences with "extraneous wording", then that's what I'll do.  I'll not be at all offended if you withdraw your support, the bronze star is just frippery, really. Parrot of Doom 16:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, it is okay. You retained a good many of my copyedits, so I thank you for that. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.