Talk:Thomas Bates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Thomas Bates 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.
Featured topic star Thomas Bates is part of the Gunpowder Plot series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 26, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
January 28, 2011 Featured topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Biography (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Bates/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC) The article is stable, neutral, well-written and well-referenced. There appears to be a copyright dispute in relation to the image. I don't know whether that dispute is stale or unresolved, but it does not appear to have prompted the foundation to remove the image(s) in question, so I am presuming that, on balance, the image is considered legitimate, at least for the moment.

Specific issues:

  • Why bother with a redlink for Martha Bates? Is she notable for any reason other than being Thomas's spouse?
  • Some comment should be made about where / what is Norbrook. There is no WP article on it (assuming they did not store their weapons in Jamaica!), so its significance to a lay reader is quite opaque.
  • "If he was with the latter, he was captured later the same day, and taken to London." And if not? This reads rather strangely (though i think i know what is meant). I don't really understand how we can be unsure who he was with and simultaneously be sure that if he was with one of them, then the time of his capture can be certain. Also, is it not true that, regardless of who he was with, he was taken to London? The sentence as currently constructed seems to imply that only if he was with Digby was he taken to London. Either way, I'm pretty sure there should be no comma between "day" and "and", but I'll let you finalise that.

I've made some other minor edits, but see nothing further that is an issue for GA. While I don't like this phrase: "(Catesby's servant was listed as Robert Ashfield, probably a mistake for Bates)" - because it can be read as though Bates made a mistake, I can't think of a better wording. I am surprised at the small number of references, and note that more have been used in articles relating to other plotters, but I am trusting that these are the most recent and authoritative sources, so nothing is to be gained by using other material. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I've removed the Martha Bates link.
  • Clarified Norbrook.
  • Because we know exactly where and when Digby was captured, and that he was with two other men. The identities of those two men aren't known, but it has been suggested that it may have been Bates and his son. Otherwise, we don't know when he was captured, and since none of the sources speculate beyond him being with Digby, I don't feel able to expand upon it. I agree about the comma, I've removed that.
  • Bates was a very minor player and only a servant, in the old sense he wasn't a very important person (ie no land or money or title). There isn't a great deal written about him. Parrot of Doom 08:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review :) Parrot of Doom 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)