Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Quiney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThomas Quiney has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 8, 2008Good article nomineeListed

GA?

[edit]

How close is this article to GA? I can see the lead needs help, as well as a few thing brought up on Judith's page. If that's all there is, we should bring it together and nominate it for GA status... Wrad 03:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prose, in places, is staccato, flows badly, and echoes the sources awkwardly. It also reflects the fact that the article was written in paralell with the Judith Quiney article, which makes the focus a little strange in some places. And a quick scan just now revealed that there are still bits that are not properly cited. I think coverage-wise the article is in fairly good shape; there isn't much more known about Thomas that's worth including here. So, in summary, it still needs some work, I think.--Xover 11:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Gelais

[edit]

“he decorated them with a couplet in French from a romance by Mellin de Saint-Gelais.”

Neither of the cited sources, however (Honan and Schoenbaum), refer to Mellin de Saint-Gelais specifically: they merely refer to “Saint-Gelais” and may therefore be referring to his uncle, Octavien. At any rate, through some original research, it appears that the source is currently unascertained: the earliest source says it's from Saint-Gelais the romance, as though it were a work rather than an author, and of the subsequent sources one (French) work from c.1930 says it was by Octavien, and another (English) work of the 1990s says it's by Mellin.

As to how this should be reflected in the article, I don't know, which is why I'm recording this concern here. It could simply be changed to say “Saint-Gelais”, but then that leaves people guessing and doesn't convey the full complexity of the matter. To remove it altogether would be bad too: Wikipedia oughtn't gloss over the difficulties of history, but present them as clearly as possible. What is the clearest possible exposition in this circumstance? Does anybody have any opinions?

--Sbp (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children

[edit]

Shouldn’t it say he had 4 children? How does someone approach documenting children who pass during birth? Is it a person-by-person case? Cool879 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]