Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gabriel Pleydell/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2017 [1].

Gabriel Pleydell[edit]

Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Pleydell was a controversial politician from Wiltshire who served in the English Parliament throughout the 1550s and 60s. He is mostly remembered for his involvement in several court cases, ranging from illegal hunting to conspiring against "Bloody" Mary I. This article also describes his family's origins, rise to the House of Commons and information surrounding his death. I've worked hard on this article, having created it and responded to GA and PR feedback. My prose isn't the best, but I've benefited from a thorough copyedit by a user from the guild. I'm not expecting this article to be perfect as this is my first FAC nomination; I will say, however, I believe it to be comprehensive and reliably sourced. Your constructive feedback will be much appreciated. Yours, Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I reviewed this at PR, and it's in very good shape. I have copyedited -- please revert anything you disagree with. A handful of minor points:

  • What does "permissible" mean in "the acquisition of property in Chippenham and Preshute (a permissible distance from Marlborough)"?
    Detail added in a note, feel free to copyedit if necessary.
    That's a very helpful note, but I'm still not quite clear -- does "permissible" mean that Chippenham and Preshute were within the Marlborough constituency? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I now understand where you're coming from. Chippenham was a constituency in it's own right; Preshute, however, is a parish that lies immediately on the town of Marlborough's western boundary and thus fell into it's constituency. I've tweaked the sentence slightly. Curlymanjaro (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that makes sense. I think we might as well be more direct with the reader, though; how about replacing the parenthesis you have now with "(both of which were within the borough of Marlborough)"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That would usually be a good suggestion. However, by 'borough' I refer to Marlborough as a borough constituency, which does not include Chippenham but does Preshute. Indeed, at this time, Chippenham was it's own borough constituency. Curlymanjaro (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, OK. So it was only Pleydell's acquisition of the Preshute property that qualified him for Marlborough; the acquisition of Chippenham had nothing to do with his nomination? If so, how about "His position as ranger probably led to the acquisition of property in Chippenham and Preshute; the latter allowed him to qualify for Marlborough's seat in Parliament"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Curlymanjaro (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Direct quotations such as "Regarded as a ringleader" should have a citation immediately following.
Cited.
  • "Although the Star Chamber considered his comments slanderous, it took little judicial action against them": little, or none? If the source isn't specific it's fine as is. Also, I'd change it to either "action against him" or "action regarding them" as an action would have been against Pleydell, not against his comments.
    You were right to point this out, Bindoff suggests the "result is unknown" regarding the matter. Hopefully I've rectified.
    Much better. I tweaked it a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a kinsman of William Garrard, with whom Pleydell served as Member for Wootton Bassett": perhaps "a kinsman of the William Garrard with whom Pleydell served as Member for Wootton Bassett".
Added.
  • It looks like Alison Wall's description of Pleydell and Sharington as "scoundrels" is only cited to Hasler; I think it should be cited directly to the ODNB.
Citation added.
  • Are "corrupt" and "notorious" from Bindoff? If so, that's fine; otherwise I'd cite them directly following the quoted words.
They're from Wall; the citation is included in the note correcting her description. I've added another footnote for good measure.
  • How confident are we that Cordell is the gentleman depicted? Unless we're pretty sure I think the connection is too minor for a possibly unconnected picture.
    Most online references to the picture describe the painting as "Portrait of an Unknown Gentleman (sometimes called 'Sir William Cordell')". Given the obscurity of much of Tudor history, I feel it's acceptable. I trust your good judgement regardless.
    Johnbod, can you comment? I'm not knowledgeable about art history at all, so I'd like another opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, struck; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several Members of the Wiltshire gentry": should this be "members"? Or were they all MPs?
  • My mistake, just a typo. Duly corrected.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ever so much, Mike Christie. Once again, you've been incredibly helpful. Curlymanjaro (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Pleydell_coat_of_arms.png: what is the copyright status of the original design?
  • I've recreated the arms based on Burke and Burke's description in A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England, Ireland, and Scotland (1844). As for free use, the design outdates any possible copyright limitation currently in place. The design has been published at least twice outside of Wikimedia Commons - here and here. There is also a free use image on Commons that includes the arms; I'll leave the link here (see furthest left on the second row).
  • File:Westminster_16C.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Many thanks Nikkimaria for carrying out the review; please let me know if my response is insufficient. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the second, do we know the author's date of death? Assuming Brewer was contemporary to the 1884 publication, he could have survived well into the 20th century, which calls into question both a life+100 designation and a pre-1996 UK copyright expiration. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems I can't find anything online regarding Brewer. I will say, however, the modern incarnation of The Builder magazine must have given explicit permission for the website of the UK Parliament to republish the work. Despite this, licensing for images from Parliament's website has been a contentious issue among users in the past, especially in regard to the 'Open Parliament License' described on the site's copyright page. Being undoubtedly more experienced than myself in this field, I would be grateful if you could cast your eye over this. Curlymanjaro (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Open Parliament License site indicates it applies only to works which were/are under Crown copyright or are owned by Parliament; that doesn't appear to be the case here, absent evidence to the contrary.
  • We can solve the US copyright easily by using a {{PD-1923-abroad}} tag, but the UK will be more problematic. If we cannot find any further info on the author, or identify any other reason why it would be PD in the UK, we could always upload it locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the tag for American users. Done some digging into H.J. Brewer and could only find a San Fransisco-based artist active at a similar time to our draughtsman; I've no way of verifying a connection. Curlymanjaro (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given this, what do you think we should do from here, Nikkimaria? I could upload locally; although I would appreciate advice on the non-free guidelines. Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upload locally. This will eliminate the need to confirm that the image is free in the UK - if we later uncover information that it is, we can re-upload to Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. You're more than welcome to tweak the details of the upload; as I've mentioned, I'm no expert in the minutiae of non-free files! Curlymanjaro (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, now it isn't non-free. Commons requires that works be free/PD in both their country of origin and the US, but Wikipedia only requires that works be free/PD in the US - and this image is, it's only the UK status that is questionable. See intro to WP:NUSC. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • More fool me. Thanks once again for your insight. Curlymanjaro (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Coming of age by 1540, his entrance into politics in 1553 was secured by his residence at Midgehall, near Wootton Bassett, giving him a valid claim to the market town's seat in Parliament." This does not sound right. The first clause is superfluous as you have already said that he was born by 1519. In the rest of the sentence, "secured by his residence" and "valid claim" are far too strong. Many people living there would not have been thought to have a valid claim.
  • Deleted first clause. Replaced "secured" with "permitted"; removed "valid".
  • "permitted" is still too strong as it implies only residents could be MPs for the town. How about "assisted"? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended.
  • "His entrance into politics in 1553 was assisted by his residence at Midgehall, near Wootton Bassett, giving him a claim to the market town's seat in Parliament." Apologies I do not think my previous suggestion works as it still says that his residence gave him a claim, which is too strong. How about changing "Member" in the first line to "[[Member of Parliament#United Kingdom|Member of Parliament]] (MP)", and then "He entered politics as MP for Wootton Bassett, close to his family estate at Midgehall."? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I've only just seen this. Amended.
  • "confirm for Gabriel Pleydell a niche in parliamentary history", according to a contemporary biographer." Bindoff is modern, not contemporary, and "biographer" implies that Pleyfell has been the subject of a full scale biography. I would prefer "historian".
  • Amended.
  • "Pleydell was born by 1519 at his family's estate of Midgehall" In note 4 you imply that Midgehall was leased by Stanley Abbey until 1534.
  • Amended.
  • You still say that he was born at Midgehall in 1519 and imply below that it was acquired in 1534. You need to spell out that William held it by 1519. Is it known when? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing this one out. When I started the article, in my ignorance, I thought "of Midgehall" implied he was born there. No sources actually give a location of birth, so I've removed altogether. Cheers! Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 1545 record, ordering him to pay 26 shillings and 8 pence in benevolence to the crown under King Henry VIII, indicates that he was managing the financial affairs of the Midgehall estate." It would be helpful to explain before this sentence that his father had been granted a 95 year lease in 1534.
  • Sentence added.
  • The note explaining "benevolence" should be after the word, not at the end of the sentence.
  • Amended.
  • "In 1549, William Pleydell bequeathed Gabriel tenancy of the manor house at West Ilsley, Berkshire;" This implies that William died in 1549, but in the next sentence you say he died in 1555.
  • My mistake, "bequeathed" changed to "entrusted".
  • The description of the dispute over Midgehall is confusingly worded. Rather than saying Gabriel would inherit after his father's death in 1555 and then qualifying it, why not just explain how he left the estate, then his death and that of his wife and Virgil (when?), then that Virgil was a "wayward" and what that means.
  • Hopefully my changes have been satisfactory here. The last clause of your suggestion was a misinterpretation; I was implying that Gabriel had been described as "wayward", but I've removed the quote to avoid confusion.
  • "Gabriel received the remainder of Midgehall's 95-year lease after unsuccessfully challenging the former's will" This is again unclear. Whose will? His mother's?
  • Yes, I hope I've made this clearer.
  • Why did he challenge it and how did this result in him receiving the lease?
  • One would speculate for financial or material gain, but this would be conjecture. I believe this had little to do with Midgehall, circumstances meant that he would inherit the lease regardless.
  • "(an action that estranged his sibling John, who was never "involved in the misadventures of his brother")" Presumably his younger brother John, so it would be better to say so. Why was he concerned in the dispute and what misadventures?
  • Amended. The "misadventures" refer to his later legal affairs; I concede this was an inappropriate section to use the quotation.
  • "Tobias relinquished his inheritance, having been settled in Chipping Faringdon for 11 years." 1. This presumably explains why Gabriel inherited the lease as Tobias was the only person who had a superior claim, but you seem to have confused the issue by putting the apparently irrelevant court case in the middle of the explanation. 2. 11 years to when? You are giving no dates here. 3. The passive form implies that he lost his claim by his residence in Chipping Faringdon. It would be better to say " By [year] Tobias had been resident in Chipping Faringdon for 11 years, and he relinquished his inheritance."
  • 1. You'd be correct in that presumption; are you referring to the Chancery case mentioned under "Plaintiff and early defendant"? 2. Date given. 3. Adopted suggestion.
  • "He married Anne," "He" appears to refer to Tobias, the last person mentioned in the previous paragraph, but presumably you mean Gabriel.
  • Amended.
  • At present I am not inclined to support. The content looks OK, but the awkward style and elliptical references to matters which are not explained make the article unnecessarily difficult to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully I can change your mind. I've made an effort to address the issues listed, please let me know if the response is insufficient. Thanks so much for taking the time. Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "Victorian depiction of the 16th-century Palace of Westminster, where Parliament meets" I suggest "met" as the 16C palace no longer exists.
  • Amended.
  • "His position as ranger probably led to the acquisition of property in Chippenham and Preshute; the latter allowed him to qualify for Marlborough's seat in Parliament" A similar query to the one in the lead. "allowed him to qualify" implies a requirement that MPs must hold local property, but surely there has never been such a rule?
  • "allowed" changed to "incentivised".
  • "Described by P.W. Hasler as "a religious and political radical"" Obviously Protestant, but worth saying so.
  • Amended.
  • " ensure the succession of Queen Elizabeth I" Better "the future Queen Elizabeth I".
  • Amended.
  • "The Star Chamber considered his comments slanderous; it is unclear how much judicial action was taken regarding them" "unclear whether judicial action"?
  • Amended.
  • "In 1557 Pleydell was returned to the chamber by former accomplice John Berwick" "returned to the chamber" does not sound right. "charged in the chamber"?
  • Amended.
  • " former accomplice John Berwick" I doubt whether "accomplice" is the right word as they were found not guilty. Perhaps "associate".
  • Amended.
  • "assumed by Stanley Thomas Bindoff" I would say "the historian Stanley..."
  • Amended.
  • "Pleydell's efforts were seen as an attempt" Seen by who?
  • The court. Amended.
  • "Bindoff and Hasler disagree on the proximity of the Midgehall estate to the town of Wootton Bassett; the former placing it one mile north, the latter, one mile south". East according to the map in British History Online on a page you cite at [2].
  • Added.
  • "but became redundant for the House of Commons" It would be clearer to say that multi-member constituencies were abolished.
  • Amended.
  • "The House of Commons, before the passing of the 1832 Reform Act, represented 'pocket boroughs'." This was only one class. There were also county and university seats.
  • Added.
  • Sorry I should have said before. Not all boroughs were pocket boroughs. Maybe change "The House of Commons, before the passing of the 1832 Reform Act, represented 'pocket boroughs' (in addition to county and university constituencies)." to "Before the passing of the 1832 Reform Act, many MPs represented "pocket boroughs". Dudley Miles (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Suggestion added.
  • My computer is shoing url errors on refs 6, 8, 17, 21, 23, 27.
  • Can I ask what for? I'm not seeing anything.
  • See [[Category:CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown]].
  • I think I've sorted it.

Dudley Miles (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again for your highly constructive feedback, I feel we're getting there now. Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "Pleydell's father had once held the lands of Thomas Seymour in the nearby parish of Eastrop" Does "held" here mean "leased"? If so, I suggest changing for the more specific word as held could mean owned, and it is not clear why a status as a previous owner would create a relationship of trust.
  • Quite right. Amended.
  • "the latter incentivising him to qualify for Marlborough's seat in Parliament" I do not understand this.
  • Clarified?
  • "The Commons, dissatisfied with the ruling, took no further action on the matter" They were dissatisfied and took no action? That sounds like a non-sequitur.
  • Clarified.
  • "Sir Edward Baynton, now knighted 26 years after the family's litigation" Why are the knighthood and the litigation connected? This sounds like a non-sequitur. Also does it mean that Pleydell were eventually reconciled? if so, you should say so.
  • Unconnected; amended. There's no direct evidence to suggest this.

You have my gratitude, as always. Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very interesting article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • No DABs, external links OK
  • No duplicate links
  • Link Lydiard Tregoze in the caption of the first image and remove the link from the second image.
  • Done.
  • managing the abode Do you mean the abbey or the Midgehall estate?
  • Clarified.
  • as a Member for the market Is this common British usage? It's not a proper noun so ordinarily wouldn't be capitalized.
  • Very true; however, "Member of Parliament" is a title in the UK and is therefore capitalised. See Theresa May for instance.
  • I understand that, but I'm not sure about "Member" when you're not giving the full title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. Amended.
  • Umm, I didn't mean for you to go that far. Member for X is a proper name and should be capitalized. Just plain Member, as in the example above, is incorrect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, just a silly mistake on my part. Is everything now in order? Curlymanjaro (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • they were succeeded by Henry Knyvet and John Winchcombe. When?
  • Amended.
  • indictment by attorney-general Edward Griffin Should't Attorney-General be capitalized?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended.

Many thanks for your comments Sturmvogel 66. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Earwig's copyvio clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • References formatted consistently Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 6, used 5 times - material faithful to source.
  • FN 47, used once - material faithful to source.
  • FN 24, used once - material faithful to source.

Ok I am happy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look Cas Liber; I'm glad you're satisfied with everything. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gabriel_Pleydell/archive1&oldid=766051924"