Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Littlemore Priory scandals/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2019 [1].

Littlemore Priory scandals[edit]

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 19:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A pathological prioress, negligent nuns, a blundering bishop and unchaste chaplains; it rather says it all about Littlemore Priory that the only character that comes out the story looking even mildly positive was—in a career first and last—Cardinal Wolsey. Many thanks for looking in, please to comment. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 19:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • "the image of the Catholic Church in England" – there wasn't any other church in England in Wolsey's day surely?
    • "Pension" – a blue link really needed for this everyday word?
  • Atwater investigates, 1517
    • "intending for her daughter to make a good marriage" – the "for" seems unneeded here.
    • "rooves" – I boggled at this, but I find the OED admits it. All the same, "roofs" is the usual form.
    • "They also as protested their decrepit clothing" – should "as protested" be "protested about" or some such? Makes no sense as it is.
    • "the nuns lacked basic needs" – I don't think they lacked the needs: they probably lacked the necessities
    • "Wells to be distributed among Wells's relatives" – the duplication of the name could be avoided with a pronoun
    • " priory's silver plate" – you link to tableware. Is that right? Would the plate not have been for ecclesiastical purposes?
    • "Spear agrees with – on the irresponsibility of the prioress" – should there be a name or pronoun where the en-dash is? And if this Spear is the same person mentioned in the second para of the section she was plural then rather than singular, as here.
    • "Spear suggested" – past tense, as opposed to present elsewhere
  • Aftermath
    • What is "a humanism Cardinal College"?
    • "and for the building of which, therefore" – either the "and" or the "therefore" isn't wanted, I think.
    • "a pension of £6 £13 4d" – a year?
    • "It illustrates, she suggests ..." – the conclusion attributed to Power seems odd. If I correctly interpret the sentence it would be more accurate as "...that although the decadent institutions...", with the "but" later in the sentence omitted.
  • Notes
    • 2. – bishop' instructions – "bishop's instructions"?
    • 6. – omissions – I think you probably mean "emissions"

That’s all from me. Tim riley talk 17:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tim riley; I've addressed your points and thank you for them—mostly silly mistakes, apologies for putting you through them, I end up re-reading the thing so often I don't see wood for trees I think—but can I ask you to clarify your point#14 ("it illustrates, she suggests", etc)? I can't quite get the gist of what you're asking. More apologies if I'm missing the bleeding obvious! ~~
It's a matter of clarity. I think the sentence gets lost midway: "...but it clearly had" – what is it? There isn't a singular noun to which it could plausibly refer. Now I look again I think just deleting the "it" would do the trick, and restore both syntax and clarity. All the same, I think it would be clearer still if you turned it round: It illustrates, she suggests, that although Thomas Cromwell exaggerated the case there was clearly some basis in recent history for the allegations of decadent institutions and scurrilous behaviour that he used as justification for the wholesale dissolution of the monasteries of 1536–39. But I certainly don't press the point if you disagree. Tim riley talk 21:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean Tim, apologies for density. That wording's good enough for me, so I've 1/2"ed it. I'd welcome you checking that everything's to your satisfaction, of course. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 18:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. Tim riley talk 14:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by caeciliusinhorto[edit]

  • Do we know why Horde initially visited the priory?
    • Not really, but E. Power does hint at a sort of reason, which we ca draw out from; and I've done so.
  • "rooves" is, if not incorrect, then definitely an unusual spelling: I would use "roofs" simply because it is so much more familiar!
    • Absolutely. See Tim r. above; great minds think alike. I don't know what possessed me.
  • "Spear agrees with – on the irresponsibility of the prioress": from context, I guess Spear is agreeing with Logan?
    • Acrtually with Power, but my prose was poor enough to not make that crystal clear; hopefully now clarified.
  • "were apostatised as a result": apostatised is wikilinked towards the end of the article; the wikilink should be up here (and you might consider glossing it in text too)
    • Moved; can you suggest a gloss?
  • "Wells complained that even though it is two years since Juliana Wynter had had a baby". Tense problems: "even though it had been". And I would write "had given birth" in order to avoid "had had".
    • Check.
  • "his new humanism Cardinal College": "humanist"?
    • Corrected.
  • "and for the building of which, therefore, he needed funds": at least one of "and" or "therefore" is superfluous here; you might even cut both.
    • Both gone (one already gone due to T.r. again!)
  • "suppress several decayed monasteries": "decayed" implies to me that the physical structure of the monasteries was the problem; I assume that in fact Wolsey was concerned with moral decline?
    • You're dead right, and I'm not invested particularly in its use; bit it is the word used frequently in the sources for this particular application.
  • "its lands were given over new college": "over to the new college"?
    • D'oh.
  • "his efforts mirror and predate the attempted reforms": strange phrasing.
    • How about the miuch tighter "...Atwater's efforts in this direction anticipated..."?
  • Note 2 confuses me: "the rubric to the Littlemore visitation contains none of the references to modesty or shamefastness which usually appear when sexual transgression is at issue" appears to be used to support that there was anxiety about lesbian sex at Littlemore!?
    • Indeed! It is actually saying two things—"yes but no" kind of thing"—to make a single point, so I've clarified that Atwater might have thought there was funny business going on, but a historian thinks otherwise.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • All great points, Caeciliusinhorto; I think I've addressed them? (Exept the gloss, which is pending but not forgotten!) And of course, as ever, if you think of anything else—especially if you can find me another image  ;)  !—you'd be very welcome. Thanks again! ——SerialNumber54129 18:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definite improvements! A few more comments on a second read through:

  • "Other essential outbuildings": we weren't really talking about "essential outbuildings" previously, unless we are considering the priory an outbuilding! "Some essential outbuildings"?
  • "with no companion other than a young child from a nearby village": the "with a young child bit" is striking – are we to infer that it was her daughter?
  • "even at the elevation": I think that elevation (liturgy) is the target you are looking for?

(Re. images: there's probably room for an image of Wolsey in §Aftermath? As I know from my current effort at FAC, not all articles are naturally bountiful in images!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Caeciliusinhorto, appreciate the suggestions. Went with just "Essential outbuildings were..." most succinct? And of course, you're right about the elevation of the host (rather than "500 ft above sea-level"!). Bloody good idea about Wolsey, and as a bonus, that one of Sampson Strong's shows the college in the background which increases relevancy further.
Interesting point about the child, and that might be the implication, although the chronology is hazy. *WP:MEGA-OR alert* She told the bishop that her daughter had died a few years earlier so no, not her—although a great idea—but taking it a step further, could we surmise that she was suffering from a form of empty nest syndrome? Her daughter had died, and she was living through someone else's from the village? Completely hypothetical; but a sad possibility nevertheless, I think. What say you? Unfortunately [/WP:OR] there's nothing in any source that discusses her child. ——SerialNumber54129 10:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent image of Wolsey! Now there's a man who wasn't following the Benedictine prohibition on eating meat! (Or, indeed, as I recall, the priestly requirement for celibacy!)
About the child: if the sources don't discuss it, they don't discuss it. Now, if you were writing a scholarly article on the scandals I would be suggesting that you dig into that, because it is interesting. Was she lying about the death of her daughter? Was she trying to overcome the grief from her daughter's death? Was there some other reason the nuns were concerned about it? As you say, though, there's nowhere to go at present without tearing up WP:OR...
Sources used generally look reliable: there are a few pretty dated sources, especially King, Arrowsmith, and VCH, but these seem to be generally used to support relatively uncontroversial facts, and sometimes in articles like this you do need to go back to older sources. I did raise my eyebrows slightly at Flora Fraser (and the claim she is being used to support looks like a time to cite the primary source if I ever saw one!) but no serious concerns about the sources from my point of view.
I don't have enough knowledge of the scholarship to properly judge comprehensiveness, but there's nothing obviously missing from this layman's point of view. I haven't checked the image licensing thoroughly but the painting is obviously out of copyright and the photograph is CC licensed, so looks fine to me.
Overall, I'm willing to support promotion. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Caeciliusinhorto some very nuanced points indeed! You're probably right about Fraser, and I'll see if I can dig it out of the Visitations. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 20:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Sampson_Strong's_Wolsey_portrait_in_Christ_Church.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thakns for that Nikkimaria, much appreciated as ever. ——SerialNumber54129 20:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Is the pull quote in Background from the same source later given as Atwater? The titles are similar but not identical. Suggest footnoting the quote
    • Oddly, no, they're separate works.
      • Okay. Suggest adding a footnote to whatever the quoted work is. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having said that, on digging out the footnote per your suggestion, te reason they're so similar is because they're in the same series of records. So I've added the footnote and an entry to the biblio.
  • FN45 should use pages not page
    • Done.
  • The BBC ref is backwards - author is BBC staff, work is BBC News
    • Done.
  • Bowker 2004: don't use proxied URLs, either for the archive or the original. For ODNB refs you could really just use DOI, or the original URL if desired
    • Well I got rid of the proxy (didn't I?)!
      • No - the archive link goes to a proxy login page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I wouldhave found had I actually clicked on the link after pasting it. But I didn't change the archived page! Now done. No More Proxying.
  • Is there a reason Cook is not bulleted?
    • My dumbassery?
  • Cheney: can you verify the title? That ISBN seems to correspond with a book on English history, not British
    • Absolutely correct.
  • Elton: that ISBN appears to be a different edition. Same with Gilchrist and Thomson
    • Done.
  • Everett title should use endash. Same with Smith and Thomson
  • Done.
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
    • Caught MacCulloch and Marshall.
  • Kerr: don't overspecify publication dates for books
    • Done.
  • Think you've switched the ISBNs for the two Logan works?
    • Done.
  • Spear appears to be part of a series
    • Added.
  • Worldcat lists an actual author for both VCH works
    • Ah! See below.
  • The Williams source should likely be cited as a report rather than as a journal article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the reminder. I asked ages ago at WP:ARCHAEO, and very rudely forgot to look back in, wheer I see Joe Roe has very kindly provided me with some tenmplates: went with {{cite report}}; Joe, could you just check to see I've used it OK please? ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it a bit, but yes I think that's the right template. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria, for your eagle eye there. I've made all the adjustments, I think, excepting the VCH: all things being equal, I'd prefer to keep it simply VCH for consistency. You see, there are literally hundreds of volumes, with nearly as many authors / editors. Much easier for the readers search this way, and it's pretty consistently the academic treatment too. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Basically, I was v slow in etting your drift. Apologies! How do the refs look now? (See above for details as to what I've done.)
Better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat[edit]

Support Nice article. Just a couple of queries tho:

Atwater investigates, 1517
  • On 17 June 1517[14]: Now, refs are supposed to cover all the information that goes before. Here we have a citation supporting a date but nothing else. I'd move these to the end of the sentence.
Visit of the bishop
  • "On 2 September 1518,[35]" Same as above
Aftermath
  • a pension of "£6 £13 4d" seems odd.

That's it from me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers SchroCat, much appreciated as ever. Just the fyi, the cites were where they were because they literally were only referencing the dates, nothing else...but they looked bizarre I admit. In any case, I shifted them along a tad. Also sorted your LSD  :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson[edit]

I have taken the liberty of adding salient inflation figures and other minor changes, and overall I think this is a well-written and informative article. Nice job! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: Apologies indeed for the belated reply! Thanks for those figures, I'm not particularly au fait with the templates. One thing though—not a criticism, I've just never seen it done before—is that you've now got notes within notes, if you know what I mean; note #21 now contains notes 18, 19 and 20  :) like a snake eating its tail; was that intentional? I appreciate your support here in any case! ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done notes within notes before myself, and that is intentional. No worries if you want to change it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it reminds me of Castrovalva somewhat  :) thanks again for looking in! ——SerialNumber54129 19:15, 28 July 2019 (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/Littlemore_Priory_scandals/archive1&oldid=908477727"