Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/John Knox

John Knox[edit]

I originally found this as a B-class article and I completely rewrote it. It is now in the GA nomination queue, but as they have a long backlog, I assume I won't get feedback very soon. So I ask for your advice now. I intend to take this to FA. --RelHistBuff 12:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the lead section to 4 paragraphs and I believe it is a summary of the article. There was only one date wikilink in the text which I removed. --RelHistBuff 09:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the GA queue, I can see that it will probably take another month(!) before this article gets examined. So I am thinking of skipping GA altogether. I would like your advice on whether instead to go ahead with an Biography A-class assessment or maybe even directly to FA candidacy. --RelHistBuff 21:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-class review is very slow. DrKiernan 12:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the archives, the review speeds seem to vary. But at least someone responds and I am happy just getting feedback from "humans". The worst thing is if it sits there and no one comments except for an automated script. That happened to me twice on the general peer review page. --RelHistBuff 13:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to the comments on the talk page. However, I still have this page on my watch list. So if anyone in addition to Awadewit have comments, please put them here below. Thanks! --RelHistBuff 11:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Awadewit[edit]

Hello, fellow researcher and writer. I have only briefly glanced at John Knox so far, but the first thing I noticed was that many of your sources are a tad on the old side (the notes rely on those from the 1850s, 1950s, and 1960s). Is this because there are few to no modern biographies of Knox that are as reliable as these older ones? I checked the DNB and it seems that they use older sources as well (that entry might be useful to you, by the way). Awadewit | talk 23:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used those biographies only because those are what I had easily available. All of them use Knox's History as the starting basis. McCrie's biography is the oldest, but MacGregor says that it is the standard. The style of writing is old, but it is very comprehensive. I also have access to one more major biography, although I have not used it yet, Peter Hume Brown (1895), which is equal to McCrie as a comprehensive standard reference. I noticed McCrie's impact by looking at all the biographies together. There are biases in all the biographies I used, which is why I tried to use as many as possible. To avoid any biases, I would like to try to place multiple footnotes for each potentially contentious point. There are two more recent biographies that I am aware of which are Douglas Wilson (2000) and W. Stanford Reid (1974). The first one also looks like it has biases; I don't know much about the second. --RelHistBuff 07:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your idea of using multiple citations is excellent. That is what I tried to do at Joseph Priestley. I tried to include only the information that all the biographies agreed upon. Other information I identified as being the opinion of a single scholar. (Of course, all books have their points of view and limitations - that is why it is such a good idea to use multiple sources, as you have.) I will read the article over more carefully today and post my comments later. Awadewit | talk 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you might have noticed that the first two sections did have multiple citations. I got a little bit lazy as the article evolved, but I did consult all the books I have. I will start adding additional citations now. --RelHistBuff 19:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good article. You have done an excellent job of identifying sources in the prose when necessary and explaining when particular theories are only theories and not facts, a rare skill on wikipedia. I have carefully combed over the article, as you indicated that you would like to take it to FA eventually.

The Wishart incident needs to be more fully explained. Why was Wishart arrested? Why was Knox prepared to die with him?

He was still in charge of three boys, the sons of Douglas and Cockburn who wearied of moving from place to place while being pursued. - This is the first readers hear of the three boys, so the "still" is awkward. More explanation is needed, I think, if this is an important part of Knox's life. If it is not important, a rewording is in order.

The section entitled "Conversion to Protestantism" is not focused on Knox's conversion. Do we know more about the conversion itself? If not, I would suggest a new heading, one that reflects the material in that section.

The paragraph divisions in "Conversion to Protestantism" could be better - think of each paragraph as being about a single topic.

The beginning of the "Confinement to French galleys" section does not focus much on Knox. Is there a way to make it seem less like a general history and more like a biography at this point? (More like the "From Geneva to Frankfurt and Scotland" section)

On his release Knox found that he could be of little use in Scotland in its existing state. - Perhaps explain a bit why?

However, Knox found that England to be a very congenial place and felt sympathy for the English in their troubles. - Perhaps hint at what the troubles were?

He found much work that needed to be done and the English were receptive to his ideas. - A few details, perhaps?

In the pulpit he preached Protestant doctrines with great effect. - Explain the effect perhaps?

When Mary Tudor ascended the throne, England was no longer a safe place for Protestants. - This needs to be explained to readers who don't know the history.

Prose: While the article is, in general, well-written, I think that it could be improved even more by a good copy editor. Having someone else look at the sentences, someone who hasn't stared at them for hours, is generally a good idea. I did a quick copy edit of the lead; here are some additional prose issues from that section:

he was caught up in the ecclesiastical and political maelstrom of that period - Could you be more specific here? (I love "maelstrom", by the way.)
He was licenced to work in the Church of England where he quickly rose in the ranks until he became a royal chaplain serving the King of England, Edward VI. - You have put the most important thing at the end of the sentence where readers are less likely to pay attention to it.
After gaining the trust of English Protestants, he was able to influence the text of the Book of Common Prayer. - This sounds slightly sinister.
He also made an attempt to return to Scotland where he was able to meet and to support the Scottish Protestants. - It is not clear from this sentence whether he succeeded in the attempt, which makes the second half of the sentence confusing.
On his definitive return to Scotland - "final" perhaps?
He continued to serve as a religious leader during the reign of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots. - Unclear - "religious leader" of what and for whom?

Recommendations to consider:

Many biographies have "Legacy" sections. If, after reading your sources, you think Knox has a legacy worth a section, you might include one.

Infoboxes are optional; you might think about removing this one. I don't think it aids the reader in any particular way and it is a bit unaesthetic.

It is always difficult to know how much information to assume readers have or how much they should be expected to gather from wikilinks. My overall impression from the article, however, was that perhaps a few phrases or sentences could be added in various places early on to explain the Reformation. I say this as someone who has a familiarity with the Reformation because I fear most readers will not know its history in any detail. Doing so will add some historical context to the biography. Later in the article, however, I felt that the historical context overwhelemed the details of Knox's own life. I wondered if this was because we know little about his life.

You may want to cite some more claims before FAC. This is up to you. Technically, the WP:V policy states that only "controversial" claims or claims "likely to be challenged" need to be cited, but I have found that at FAC, nearly everything needs to be cited. Perusing some recently promoted FA biographies would give you a good sense of this. I once heard that a rule of thumb was a minimum of one citation per paragraph but most FA articles have more. Also, all direct quotations need inline citations directly after them (I noticed some in this article were missing citations).

You have used many images of buildings - what about also including images of Knox's works? I noticed that the title page from "Monstrous Regiment" is available.

Before nominating for FAC, I would suggest that you spend a day or two perusing the manual of style and making sure that the article conforms to it as closely as possible. That way the nomination can be a discussion of content rather than dashes or quotation marks. I noticed, for example, that the article had a lot of unlinked dates.

The nit-picky nature of these comments demonstrates the already high quality that this article has reached. I look forward to seeing it refined. I don't know how familiar you are with the FAC process, but I have run the gauntlet quite a few times now and can offer advice on that front, if you would like. Awadewit | talk 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments! This will certainly keep me busy for awhile. I think I will take this step-by-step, working on GA and A-class before moving on to FA. I will probably take up on your offer on FAC advice when I get closer to nominating the article. Again, thanks a lot for taking the time. --RelHistBuff 07:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have the right attitude - takin' it slow and steady. Lettin' it stew. I look forward to seeing the article at FAC in the future. Feel free to drop me a line if you want any advice. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]