Talk:Charles I of England/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Initial comment

• I am very close to simple quickfailing this article; there are massive unreferenced chunks which should be easy to spot (if you need a more detailed list of examples, say so). At the moment this article wouldn't even pass muster as a B-class. If you can fix the referencing issues I'm prepared to give a more detailed review, otherwise it will simply be failed. Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah- point out the main areas and I'll have a go. What does it need? Roughly another 30 references? --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

..err, slightly more than that. A complete list of unreferenced statements:

• the Court of High Commission [...] The former could compel individuals to provide self-incriminating testimony, whilst the latter, essentially an extension of the Privy Council, could inflict any punishment whatsoever (including torture), with the sole exception of death.
• Under Charles's reign, defendants were regularly hauled before the Court without indictment, due process of the law, or right to confront witnesses, and their testimonies were routinely extracted by the Court through torture.
• Of the 493 MPs of the Commons, 399 were opposed to the king, and only 94 could be counted on, by Charles, for support.

• And that's up to less than halfway through the article. I'll give you a chance to try and fix those before pasting in more. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's well established as B class btw.--AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Established, absolutely. Deserving of or in line with the requirements? absolutely not. Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

By well established I mean that it is significantly better than it was when it received that class. It is infinitely better shape than it was when it was last a featured article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_I_of_England&diff=135326373&oldid=135323172).--AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You can paste in the rest whenever you like. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okie dokes:

• the New English settlers in Ireland were Protestant and could loosely be defined as aligned with the English Parliament and the Puritans; thereby fundamentally opposed to the crown due to unfolding events within England herself.
• many members of the House of Commons fearing that forces raised by Charles might later be used against Parliament itself.
• He put himself into the hands of the Scottish Presbyterian army at Newark, and was taken to nearby Southwell while his "hosts" decided what to do with him.
• The Presbyterians finally arrived at an agreement with Parliament and delivered Charles to them in 1647. He was imprisoned at Holdenby House in Northamptonshire, until cornet George Joyce took him by force to Newmarket in the name of the New Model Army. At this time mutual suspicion had developed between the New Model Army and Parliament, and Charles was eager to exploit it.

  I'll leave it there for now until you've dealt with a bit more. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you can stick in the last heap at this stage --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Just had a brief look at this, and noticed the following things:

• The short-form references need to be unambiguous. I noticed a few cases of "Smith" that could be one of two books.
• I see no reason why the "Ancestors" footer should be in the middle of the articles, footers normally go on the bottom.
• The "Legacy" section needs more references. More importantly though, it says little about one of the most important things: the development of the historical view of the king. There is a comment from the contemporary Laud, while Dutton gets to stand as the only voice of an historian. The article also needs to explain historiographical development. Lampman (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I also notice that the bibliography seems to have some obvious omissions: Morrill, Russell, Sharpe etc. I'm not an expert on the period though, ideally the article should be looked at by someone who is. Lampman (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand this is a long and complex topic, but can we get an ETA from either side on when this GA review will be finished? Looks like it's just been sitting here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

To me this article fails - as so many others - on the issue of "Legacy" and "Assessment": the idea that this is all about what's been named after the subject, and not about his historiographical assessment. This is the major problem, the rest are details, as Einstein said. The article's been on hold for over two months, which should be more than enough. I'll fail it if no-one else will. Lampman (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I am failing this nomination as little progress has been made. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)