Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ambrose Rookwood/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 Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [1].

Ambrose Rookwood[edit]

Ambrose Rookwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose Rookwood was one of the less important conspirators enlisted by Robert Catesby into the 1605 Gunpowder Plot, but his story deserves telling, if only to highlight how naive he was to have thought that it could ever have worked. A well-dressed, somewhat showy individual, his love of the Catholic faith was not the most important consideration for Catesby. Rather, it was his stable of fine horses, essential for the planned uprising, that proved essential to the plot. Despite declaring his love (nothing unusual) for Catesby at his arraignment in January 1606, he was regardless dragged to the scaffold, hanged, castrated, disembowelled and then chopped into bloody pieces on a freezing cold English winter morning.

So now you're feeling all warm and cozy about Stuart-era English justice, hopefully you won't subject me to the same fate... Parrot of Doom 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 10:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Are the dates New or Old Style?
they're all relative to 5 November 1605, whatever calendar that might be in.
    • Then you should probably specify that dates after 1 January are New Style, because the start of the year in England then was 25 March, not 1 January. See Old Style and New Style dates--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a point which is made in the Gunpowder Plot article as part of the story mentions how they celebrated the new year. I don't think its relevant here, however. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that nearly all English sources prior to 1752 are going to refer to the execution as happening in January 1605, not 1606, since 1606 had not yet officially begun. Catholic sources, of course, are going to follow the Gregorian calendar and its reform of the start of the year, but not Protestant ones. I haven't really done much reading on early modern period articles on Wiki, but I suspect that many editors have glossed over this issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still don't think its a problem. Not a single source I have seen (bar mention of celebrating the old new year in Gunpowder Plot) makes the distinction. The universally recognised date of the foiling of the plot is 5 November 1605, and all other dates in this article are relative to that, not 1752 or thereafter. Fair enough if I'd written "400 years ago on this date" anywhere in the article, but I haven't. Anyone wishing to research the topic from contemporary documents will have to work around the calendars themselves. For this article I don't think its necessary to mention the old/new calendars, since it has no impact on the reader's understanding of the topic. Parrot of Doom 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • This issue only comes up with dates between 1 January and 25 March.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I understand what you're saying but I don't think its an issue, and I don't think it has any effect on a reader's understanding of the topic. Neither, for that matter, do any of the sources used to create this article. For those reasons, I'll not be making any changes here. Parrot of Doom 21:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles in refs should conform to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles
you'll have to point out where you think a problem exists, but I don't normally change the titles of online sources.
    • The Anon citation as well as Questier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah I see. I've updated the Questier source. The trouble with the Anon source is, if you look at the front page of that pamphlet, it uses a range of fonts and styles. What would you suggest? Parrot of Doom 18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Simplest thing is to follow the MOS rule, regardless of the contemporary idiosyncrasies on capitalization.
          • I couldn't be bothered capitalising the entire book title so I shortened it and capitalised that. Parrot of Doom 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good enough.
  • Rookwood or Rokewood? I realize that spelling was a bit variable back then, but the other Gunpowder Plot articles that I looked at use Rokewood.
all sources in this article use the former.
I don't see that source, where is it? Parrot of Doom 11:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good ... well-written. Just:

  • Linking: are "Catholic" and "Protestant" obscure enough to link? Horse-breeder? Staffordshire, straight after the more specific Holbeche House? Hurdle?
  • Should "Papist" not have a small p?
  • Jesuits and Flanders linked twice? "Hanged, drawn and quartered" twice? Tony (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I can guarantee that if I don't link Catholic and Protestant, someone else will, and then they'll change it to Roman Catholic, or Catholic Church in England and Wales. Best to remove temptation as those links tend to attract argument :) I think its fine to link horse-breeder as its a fairly specialised activity. The source used for Papist (Fraser) capitalises the word, so I followed suit. I removed the extra links to jesuits and flanders, but I think that HD&Q is far enough away from the lead to warrant being linked twice. Parrot of Doom 09:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I missed Staffordshire, and have removed that also. I'll keep hurdle as I doubt many today will know what that is. Parrot of Doom 09:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm a bit surprised this one's languishing like this, as I can't see significant issues with it. The one minor thing I'd question is "Nevertheless he seems to have been left to hang for longer than the others, before being taken to the block to be castrated, disembowelled, and quartered". Unless the reader's familiar with executions, they probably won't understand that this was a mark of respect on the part of the executioner in making sure he was unconscious before his body was dismembered, rather than an additional punishment by leaving him hanging longer; it probably warrants some kind of note. – iridescent 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could certainly add that but several sources on HD&Q state that after hanging, unconscious malefactors were brought back from sleepyland with a good slap and a splash of water, so I'm not sure its appropriate to speculate. I'll see if any of the Gunpowder Plot sources mention this. Parrot of Doom 18:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it on Everard Digby, but I'm not too keen on the "biography" heading, as the whole thing is a bio, is it not? I'm not too sure on that one though so I'll leave it to someone more experienced.
    • No, you're quite right, and I've changed it accordingly.
  • I'm pretty dumb, I didn't know what a cutler was. I considered linking to cutlery, but that's a disambig.
    • In this instance its a person who makes swords. I considered linking it to Sword making but that's a horrific article, and not particularly relevant.
  • 'As such weapons were generally worn in public, it was "a potentially dangerous statement of faith"' - according to whom?
    • Haynes cites it as "PRO. Sp 14/16. ff. 27-27c", which frankly might as well be Martian to me. The quote is cited to Haynes' book, however, so if anyone needs to they can track it down.
      • Actually I should use my brain more often, its here. I'll add a note. Parrot of Doom 19:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conspiracy or plot? You've referred to it as both. I think it should be consistent.
    • They're used as synonyms in these articles, normally to avoid word repetition. Contemporary sources also used both words.
  • "The modified sword, which in total probably cost Rookwood more than £20..." If you're going to mention the price, it might be useful to say what today's equivalent is.
    • Unfortunately this is a point that's raised objections in the past on other FACs I've worked on, and so I'd rather leave it for readers to investigate the matter themselves. Parrot of Doom 19:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can come up with really. Aiken ♫ 23:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Nothing really to mention. You may want to link Franciscan in the lead. ceranthor 23:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I worked with Parrot of Doom on the core Gunpowder Plot article, but I've had nothing to do with this one. I think it's an engagingly written account of the plot from the point of view of one of the lesser known conspirators, and that it fully meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with some suggestions:
  • Don't use contractions in article text
This is a matter of taste and not policy, I'm happy to use contractions where I feel they improve the flow of the article.
  • I'm not sure it makes sense to say that his role was "Uprising"...maybe "Conspirator"? Similarly, "Conviction" implies that the person was found guilty, so that entry as written seems a bit redundant
He was a conspirator, but his role was in the uprising, just as Guy Fawkes was a conspirator whose role was lighting the fuse. I'll have a look at the conviction entry, however, as that clearly isn't right.
  • "made a serious dent in the family's finances" - revise this phrasing?
What don't you like about it?
It's more a matter of personal taste, but to me the phrasing seems a bit...colourful for an encyclopedia, more like something from a novel. If you like it, you can leave it as it is
  • "Robert had sired four children, but all predeceased their father" - your cited source (at least the Wikisource version) specifies four sons, and you later mention half-sisters
Unfortunately this is just about all the information I can glean from the sources used, who understandably tend to focus on the main figures in the plot, such as Catesby, Fawkes, etc.
Well, since your source specifies sons, I would argue that to say "children" is incorrect
Fair point, I've changed it to sons. Parrot of Doom 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the Coldham Hall image be moved to the start of the Enlisted section?
It was initially, I don't mind if anyone wants to move it. It's not a great image anyway.
  • Are "praying beads" the same as prayer beads? If so, perhaps a link for the non-Catholics?
Very likely, however, I don't feel qualified to make that link since the source describes them as "praying beads" in quotes.
I've tried but failed to find it. Parrot of Doom 09:33, 2 September 2010 (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/Ambrose_Rookwood/archive1&oldid=1138454346"