Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Gunpowder Plot/archive1

2c

Resolved 2c issues raised by Fifelfoo Fifelfoo (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please check your pps and you ps "Fraser 1999, p. xxv–xxvi"

Done Parrot of Doom 00:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please check your hypens, number hyphens, minus signs, ndashes and mdashes "^ Fraser 1999, pp. xxxv—xxxviii"

Done Parrot of Doom 00:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fix please: ^ Nelthorpe, Sutton, Twigmore and the Gunpowder Plot (n (1934-36) ed.), Lincolnshire Magazine, p. 229

I'm not quite certain what you want fixing here, but I've made these changes. Parrot of Doom 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Editions aren't called "n". Magazines are dated, often with issue numbers. 1934-6 isn't an acceptable year span for an article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Parrot of Doom 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fix please: ^ Guy Fawkes's Lantern, ashweb2.ashmus.ox.ac.uk, retrieved 2009-11-20

See above - what is it you'd like fixing? Is it the lack of any publisher name? Parrot of Doom 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Author. Publisher. Work published in. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who the author is, the source doesn't supply that level of detail. The publisher is already given. The date of publishing is similarly, not supplied. Parrot of Doom 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

On inspection this isn't a cite web. This is an exhibited item with a courtesy link. Guy Fawkes's Lantern [exhibit] (November 2002 object of the month). Tradescant Gallery, Gallery 27, First Floor, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford University, UK. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Parrot of Doom 09:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Citing primary sources like this is original research. You can simply cite Mark Nicholls to this effect, and we accept Nicholl's opinion as a historian that he got the fact right. "Declaration of Ambrose Rookewood, 2 December 1605 (TNA: PRO SP 14/216/136), cited in Mark Nicholls, 'Catesby, Robert', in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (OUP, 2004)"

Apologies, a paragraph got split and the citation was left behind. The Rookwood citation I think was inserted to make clearer their escape route from London. I've removed it and fixed the citation. Parrot of Doom 00:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Still not fixed. You cannot cite primary sources for points of fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I am citing a primary source. I'm citing Fraser. Parrot of Doom 01:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an archival source: "Declaration of Ambrose Rookewood, 2 December 1605 (TNA: PRO SP 14/216/136)" You are citing it. Archival work is Original Research in relation to historical articles. You can simply cite Mark Nicholls (2004) instead. Mark Nicholls' piece is a secondary source. You are citing this for fact. Citing primaries for fact isn't acceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

...but the source you're quoting is no longer in the article. Parrot of Doom 08:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: No longer in article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fix please, you're citing a quote "Nichols 1828, p. 584", try "Sir Edward Hoby (Gentleman of the Bedchamber) quoted in Nichols..." resolved, accepted inline citation of work

Is this better? I'd rather stick with the Harvnb template where possible. Parrot of Doom 01:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, its still not okay. You're quoting. Its foo quoted in bar that you're citing.

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to sound insulting, but could you please re-write that in plain English? Parrot of Doom 01:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The citation links directly to a quote from an individual. Your citation needs to reflect that the source is quoting another individual. Nichols 1828 is quoting Sir Edward Hoby (Gentleman of the Bedchamber). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the citation links to a letter from an individual. The text before the inline citation tells us that. It links to the book, year, and page number where it can be found. I see absolutely no problem with using this style, I've used it on hundreds of previous occasions in plenty of articles and nobody has raised an objection. I won't be changing this, its fine as it is. Parrot of Doom 08:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Accepting inline citation of the quoted work as decently full citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Try and find authorial or curatorial information please: "Aftermath: Commemoration, gunpowderplot.parliament.uk," ; "(PDF) Houses of Parliament factsheet on event, parliament.uk,"

Please cite in common style: (PDF) Houses of Parliament factsheet on event, parliament.uk,...

Again, I don't understand what you mean here. Parrot of Doom 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your other web citations don't begin with (PDF) or (HTML). The first item in a citation is where the author goes. (PDF) goes after the link name if anywhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the exact same citation template throughout. format = HTML is, I believe, not normally required, but format = PDF is acceptable where a link leads to a PDF document. Parrot of Doom 01:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

|author=House of Commons Information Office Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Parrot of Doom 09:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Provide a full citation: "Cressy, David (1989)..."

I do not have this source at hand. I can fill in the publisher, etc, but if you need a page number I'll have to try and replace it with another source. Parrot of Doom 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Start with the fullcite, then get page references. This is an essential part of 2c.

Found the publisher at least. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In your bibliography please supply locations for all works, especially self-published 19th century works.

Done Parrot of Doom 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also supply a publisher for: Scott, George Ryley (1940)

Done Parrot of Doom 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, a new one, Please supply full journal title: "^ Huntley, Frank L. (1964-09), Macbeth and the Background of Jesuitical Equivocation, 79, PMLA, pp. 390–400" 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the best I can do, there isn't any more information available. Parrot of Doom 17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bloody MLA uses the title PMLA... I think the solution we've both contributed to is the best. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Oxford Dictionary of National Biography citations are inconsistent.

Can you clarify please, I'm not certain what the inconsistency is? Parrot of Doom 00:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please compare "Mark Nicholls, 'Catesby, Robert', in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (OUP, 2004)" to "McCoog, Thomas M. (2004-09), Garnett, Henry (1555–1606), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/10389, retrieved 2009-11-16"

The entry should go in "Quotes" the ODNB in Italics

Ah I see, I'm unsure how to phrase the 'Ambrose Rookwood' part so I've simplified it Parrot of Doom 02:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" is not a publisher. Its a work. |chapter=Catesby, Robert (b. in or after 1572, d. 1605) |title=Oxford Dictionary of National Biography . Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Parrot of Doom 09:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There's an error in Citation (the template itself). "Nicholls, Mark (2004-09), Rookwood, Ambrose (c.1578–1606), , Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press), doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/24066, retrieved 16 November 2009" please note the very ugly ", ," after the title. Add | format = HTML and the correct (but ugly because (HTML) is implicit): "Nicholls, Mark (2004-09), Rookwood, Ambrose (c.1578–1606), (HTML), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press), doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/24066, retrieved 16 November 2009" I have reported this bug at The Citation Talk page Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

2c: Only remaining issue is the ", ," caused by bad template. Bug lodged. 10:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved by Malleus Faturoum at the bug report, fixed throughout article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

1c

original from Fifelfoo (talk)

I am not convinced of Icons' curatorial policy making it a High Quality reliable source. "^ Bonfire Night: A penny for the Guy, icons.org.uk, retrieved 2009-10-06"

I had the same concerns, but this page would suggest that it's contributors are proficient enough. Parrot of Doom 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I read it before I commented. I'm not convinced. They're journos not social historians or curators or sociologists of popular culture. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

At least three of the people on that page are professional writers, some of whom have authored books on history. I don't think that "It remains the custom in Britain, on or around 5 November, to let off fireworks. Traditionally, in the weeks running up to the 5th, children made "guys"—effigies supposedly of Fawkes—usually formed from old clothes stuffed with newspaper, and equipped with a grotesque mask, to be burnt on the 5 November bonfire. These effigies were exhibited in the street, to collect money for fireworks, although this practice has become less common", which is the text cited from this site, is particularly contentious, or that it would require more expert attention. Parrot of Doom 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Parrot of Doom. The source is fine for the information it's supporting. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The source is fine for the level of information it is supporting. It's not exactly a controversial point that on Guy Fawkes day the Brits set off fireworks. It probably doesn't even need a citation, quite honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept this as a reasonable difference, and retract my concern relating to it. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, speculation by a non Highest Quality RS. "England might have become a more "Puritan absolute monarchy", as "existed in Sweden, Denmark, Saxony, and Prussia in the seventeenth century", rather than following the path of parliamentary and civil reform that it did." Hutton, Ronald (2001-04-01)

Nudging the speculation issue in relation to 1c. Hutton can't sustain a counter-factual as a RS. Counter-factuals are FRINGE in the historical community, even when exercised explicitly by academics. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this one may have been resolved. I've been away for a few days so don't know who did it, but the text now reflects that this is Hutton's private opinion, and is not necessarily fact. Parrot of Doom 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's resolved ! Fifelfoo (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)