Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Cranmer

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 User:SandyGeorgia 15:26, 26 May 2008 [1].

Thomas Cranmer[edit]

previous FAC


Self-nominator. In reference to the previous FAC, I have completely rewritten and expanded the article and I believe all previously mentioned criticisms have been addressed. It is now based on modern secondary sources (no old sources, tertiary sources, or private websites). --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - in the notes you can delete the link to the book in a second time (ex. ^ Pinco pallino p 9 ^ Pinco pallino p 12), but the article seems ok :) --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically according to our MoS, that is correct. I use Template:Harvnb for formatting the citations and it is not clever enough to not provide a link after the first link. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. One can use the Ref=none parameter. However, the major problem with this is if the first cite is edited out for some reason, the next cite is not automatically linked and will probably remain missing. I would rather make certain that the cites are linked to the references. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my first set of comments; more later. Feel free to ignore them. Also feel free to reformat their presentation on this page, if it aids clarity. here we go: — Ling.Nut 15:56, 19 May 2008 — continues after insertion below
Thanks for your comments. I will address these individually. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, he succeeded in publishing the first officially authorised vernacular service, the Exhortation and Litany.
    I presume a vernacular service is one in English instead of Latin? That term is not particularly transparent. Plus the link to Exhortation and Litany is a link to a stub. Would a footnote be preferable? I really do not know.
I linked "vernacular" to wiktionary. The link is a stub, but it can either be expanded in the future or merged with another article with a new redirect. In either case, I think the link remains useful. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took him a surprisingly long eight years to reach his Bachelor of Arts degree during which he began to collect medieval scholastic books, which he preserved faithfully throughout his life.
    During a surprisingly long eight-year period spent reaching his Bachelor of Arts degree, Cranmer began to collect medieval scholastic books, which he preserved faithfully throughout his life.
  • Cranmer’s first contact with a Continental reformer was the humanist based in Basel, Switzerland, Simon Grynaeus, a follower of the Swiss reformers, Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius. In the summer of 1531, Grynaeus took an extended...
    Cranmer’s first contact with a Continental reformer was with the humanist Simon Grynaeus. A follower of the Swiss reformers Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius, Grynaeus was based in Basel, Switzerland. In the summer of 1531 [No comma!] Grynaeus took an extended...
  • This was all the more remarkable given that he set aside his priestly vow of celibacy.
    This was all the more remarkable given that the marriage required him to set aside his priestly vow of celibacy.
Changed to your formulation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did not take her as his mistress as was the prevailing custom with priests for whom celibacy was too rigorous.
    Priests usually took mistresses? Good place for a {{fact}} tag, unless that fact is verified in the cite in the sentence immediately below!
For those who found celibacy too difficult. This really was prevailing practice. Depending on how high in office, a priest, bishop, or cardinal would have one or more mistresses and of course the resulting illegitimate children. Depending on the location, this could be openly practised or kept hidden. The sentence can be verified in Basil Hall's article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholars note that Cranmer had moved, however moderately at this stage, into identifying with certain Lutheran principles.[18] This success in his personal life...
    Ambiguous. What was the success: the marriage or the move to Lutheranism? If it's the latter then I catch a faint whiff of POV.
I changed it to "progress". The point being made was that something was happening or moving at least in his private life, but he could not get Charles V to budge (the political life). --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cranmer opened his court on 10 May inviting Henry and Catherine to appear.
    This was a bit confusing, for a couple of reasons. First: we had been talking about Anne for a while; Catherine was lost in the murky mists of one or two paragraphs ago. [Note my lack of a short-term memory]. Then suddenly Catherine is the one invited to appear... I lost track. This whiplash (for me and my poor memory, at least) can be fixed simply by finding a nice term to describe Catherine and contrast with Anne. I dunno, "first wife" or "she whom henry desired to dump like yesterday's TV dinner" or something. Second, was Henry actually married to two women at the same time' for a brief period? If so, then i think you need to hit this point with a bigger hammer.
I put in Catherine of Aragon. That makes the name unique and should helpfully prod the recall mechanism of the brain. :) Henry was not married to two women because he got the first marriage annulled which retroactively defines the first marriage as never having occurred. Of course, that invites the obvious question of what would happen if he never got the annulment. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • with men who followed the new thinking such as Hugh Latimer.
    with men such as Hugh Latimer who followed the new thinking.
  • Under the vice-gerency (1535–1538)
    Vice-regency is a much more familiar synonym. I'm a little afraid you'll have to spend the rest of your life watching for well-meaning people changing "gerency" to "regency" every other month or so...
Unfortunately, they are not synonyms. The vice-regent is a deputy of a regent (to be facetious an example would be Edmund Blackadder) and the vice-gerent is a deputy of a top boss (in this case, the king). There is a hidden comment in that section which should reduce the WP:AGF changes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which created another set of institutions that gave a clear structure to the supremacy.
    Dude, I'm trying to sound smart here, but really, I'm totally lost. You've short-handed what seems to be a nontrivial political maneuver into a single, opaque phrase. Cheshire cat and all that.
I added "royal". The royal supremacy was rather ill-defined. Who was really at the head of the church, the king or the archbishop? What Cromwell did was to make sure that it was the king at the top and Cromwell created additional institutions in the name of the king. For example, the office of vice-gerent was clearly above the archbishops and Cromwell could also call his own synods. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • outfaced
    .. means what?
Meaning to make someone submit. In this case, to make his clerical opponents to submit. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A balance was instituted between the conservatives and the reformers and this was seen in the first attempt at defining what Henry’s Church now believed: the Ten Articles. It had a two-part structure.
    Competition between the conservatives and reformers reached a balance, as made clear in the first set of guidelines drawn up regarding the beliefs of the Church of England as it became independent from Rome: the Ten Articles. The document had a two-part structure.
  • Ling.Nut (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Okay, so Ayris & Selwyn is a collection of works by other authors? I can see how you did the referencing, but I think I would have listed each article in the references (using a format like this example Duggan, Charles (1965). "From the Conquest to the Death of John". In Lawrence, C. H. (ed.). The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages (Reprint edition 1999 ed.). Stroud: Sutton Publishing. pp. 63–116. ISBN 0-7509-1947-7..
Otherwise, sources look good. Links checked out fine. I'll be back later to review fully. (cackles). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use Template:Harvnb for formatting the cites along with Template:Citation for formatting the references. I like the fact that the two work together in wikilinking. The only problem is that Harvnb does not have many parameters to add article info, so the article info is placed after the cite template. I could make it work to the format you described by listing every article in the book separately in the References section and naming the article author in the Harvnb cite. But then someone might question why every article from one book is listed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I use cite, because it has the handy {{cite encyclopedia}} which covers this type of work. (I'm not a fan of the Harvnb system, it makes the whole ref section blue and that's annoying to read to me, but that's a editor choice). I'd just list the articles that you use, not all the articles in the book. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilinks in the Notes section can be removed while using Harvnb (Ref=none parameter). I find the links handy especially if there is a long list of references. I changed it to the format you described. The articles are now listed separately in the References section. I only listed the articles I used, although that turns out that to be nearly all of the articles in the book. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have recently peer reviewed this article and any issues I might have had with the article were dealt with there. Once again, I am delighted with RelHistBuff's attention to detail and care in putting together a biography of an important Reformation figure. The article is sourced to reliable biographies, appears to be comprehensive (I am no expert!), is well-written, and excellently illustrated. Thanks for your dedication to this project, RelHistBuff! Awadewit (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I also peer reviewed the article, and all issues that I borught up were fixed. This is an excellent article about an important topic. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Greatly improved since I commented on the first FAC. The flow and style are not always great. Some points:

— Johnbod 01:04, 21 May 2008 — continues after insertion below

  • "His parents, Thomas and Agnes (née Hatfield) Cranmer, were of modest means and were not members of the nobility. Their oldest son, John, inherited the family estate, while Thomas and his younger brother Edmund were placed on the path to a clerical career." Mixed signals here; no one said they were of the nobility, and people of "modest means" in the late C15th did not have a "family estate", or indeed usually the money to put 2-3 sons through a grammar school. Better before peer review perhaps!
There is not much that could be said about Cranmer's family, but everything written is from the source. They were certainly not members of the nobility, but they were not destitute either. Hence, I used the words "modest means". This is supported by a quote from the source, "Thomas's father, Thomas senior, styled himself esquire in his will, although his wealth was probably dangerously modest to claim such a status". However, in any case Thomas senior had enough possessions to make a will and the heir was John and he made provisions in his will to educate his remaining two sons. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably he farmed/owned land, as no trade or profession is given. Esquire gives context - minor gentry (I notice that is what the BBC external link calls them)? "Modest means" is really entirely in the eye of the beholder, and 'modest wealth' far from being the same - one is income, the other capital. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "modest wealth". Neither Ridley nor MacCulloch state what was Thomas senior's profession. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt because he didn't have one. What do they say exactly? Both the short BBC article & the EB agree on minor gentry, and I see web-links referring to a manor held. The later family need better coverage too, as others have said. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "Master’s degree, he took a different course of study..." - from what? Especially as you then say "He began studying theology..." only after becoming a fellow. Is this right?
I missed adding details on the BA curriculum. I added it now. Yes, he began studying theology only after his fellowship was reinstated. It is from the source. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although he was not yet a priest, he was forced to forfeit his fellowship, resulting in the loss of his residence at Jesus College. In order to support himself and his wife, he took a job as a reader at another college. When Joan died during her first childbirth, Jesus College showed its esteem of Cranmer by reinstating his fellowship..." Clunky. All fellows were required to be unmarried until the mid-C19. He lost his job as well as his residence, is it necessary to stipulate "In order to support himself and his wife..." when he takes another? "Regard" or "opinion" would be better than "esteem".
I am not sure if everyone knows that fellows were required to be unmarried at the time (at least I didn't). That is how both sources phrased it. What would you suggest to make it better? I changed "esteem" to "regard", although I believe "esteem" is supported by the source in the quote, "The College authorities seem to have extended an altogether exceptional indulgence to Cranmer, for there is no other record of a Fellowship having been given to a widower during the next two hundred years". --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "...he married a woman named Joan, forcing him to forfeit his fellowship, which meant he lost both his income and his lodgings at Jesus College. He was able to find a job as a reader at another college." Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "When Cardinal Wolsey, the king's Lord Chancellor, had selected several Cambridge dons...." "had" is not needed here, and OED gives the first use of "don", as in University don, in 1660 (though Wolsey has the first cite of the Spanish title usage in English in 1523), so I think this is anachronistic - "scholar/s" would do. "In a recent discovery of two of Cranmer’s letters.." - better: "In two recently discovered letters by Cranmer..." - or does that upset the anti-passive fetishists? "Upon Cranmer's return from Spain in June 1527, he was given a personal half-hour long interview with the king. He described the king as "a man who is the kindest of princes."" better: "Upon Cranmer's return from Spain in June 1527, he was given a personal half-hour long interview with the king, who he described as "the kindest of princes."" No?
Agree to your changes. But just to mention that the use of the word "don" is straight from the source: "Lee was a Cambridge don..." --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "He tasked Cardinal Wolsey with prosecuting his case..." not really encyclopedic style, certainly in UK English.
A copyeditor put that in; I thought "task" was only a noun, but I thought it was a minor issue, so I took no action. I have now returned it to the original text. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "Two fellow Cambridge associates, Stephen Gardiner and Edward Foxe, joined him..." fellow associates is redundancy.
Removed fellow. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was all the more remarkable given that he set aside his priestly vow of celibacy." I think we mean "broke", don't we?
Hall used "rejected"; MacCulloch used "set aside"; Ridley used "converted to the Lutheran view as regards to". I think "set aside" is best because it is neutral. Depending on one's point-of-view, Cranmer's action can be taken negatively or positively. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Set aside" seems less neutral, and vaguer, than "broke", which rightly or wrongly is certainly what he did. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate verb would depend on the context. A polemical account would certainly use "broke". An apologetic account would use "reject" (Hall for example said, "rejection of priestly celibacy as one of the tyrannous laws..."). Neither is appropriate here because the context is about what may have been his first step toward a reformed view. MacCulloch's chose the right verb. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "This progress in his personal life, however, could not be matched in his political life as he was unable to change the mind of Charles to support Henry's annulment." "Charles' mind" or just "pursuade Charles to" surely? You might mention Catherine was his aunt.
Agreed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE I find Cranmer's meteoric promotion to Archbishop of Canterbury is still underplayed (a big beef last time too); this was surely an extraordinary leap that deserves more emphasis. You also don't mention the minor livings that I think he already had, which you should.
Added sentence on the surprise of his promotion (from Ayris). --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pope Clement VII was furious at this defiance, but he could not take decisive action as he was pressured by other monarchs to avoid an irreparable breach with England." Hiding out in Orvieto (was it?) from the rampaging armies of Catherine's nephew, more like. Or was he back by then? Firmly under the Habsburg thumb anyway.
The source said that he could not take action because the King of France did not want England to break with Rome and the Emperor, Charles, was uncertain just what kind of drastic measures was needed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pope Clement VII was furious at this defiance, but he could not take decisive action as he was pressured by both the Emperor and French king, who could not agree on a course of action, with France wanting to avoid an irreparable breach with England." is clearer then. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "He intervened in religious rows..." disputes? controversies?
Changed to disputes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE, though expansion still desirable, imo. "Hence, in matters regarding the king's spirituality, the archbishop was eclipsed by the Vice-gerent Cromwell.[32" seems a bit imprecise - how either could have much impact on "the king's spirituality" seems unclear, and "eclipsed" seems odd. This is an important point, and an unprecedented move, and could do with expansion and clarification.
A copyeditor changed it "spirituality"; I changed it back to the original which was "spiritual jurisdiction". The verb "eclipse" was used twice by Ayris in this context and I think it is an appropriate one. There are no statements of an explicit hierarchy, but Cromwell had the power to inhibit and augment Cranmer's role. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE/OK "On 29 January 1536, when Anne miscarried a son, the king again had thoughts on the biblical prohibitions that haunted him during his marriage with Catherine" - "with a son" is normal usage I think. "that had haunted him" (although that should maybe be referenced anyway).
I am confused. What would you like changed? I believe "miscarried a son" is correct. I changed to "had haunted" and added a cite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "Behind the scenes at the Court, Cromwell had decided to bring an end to Anne." - "bring an end to" is a bit informal, & that it was TC's own idea needs a reference.
I changed it to "turn against" and added a cite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A balance was instituted between the conservatives and the reformers and this was seen in the first attempt at defining what Henry’s Church now believed: the Ten Articles" - awkward end, better rephrased. "by recognising only three sacraments: baptism, eucharist, and penance" add number before - 7. "The second five articles were about the ceremonies used in the Church and reflected the views of the traditionalists" - liturgy, rituals? Icon link in the next sentence is not really right - all about Eastern Orthodoxy. Next sentence "by" not "between".
Rewritten. Removed link to icon until a better one can be found. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Religious image or iconoclasm seem the best. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those points done, but an external link to the text of the Ten Articles would be useful both here and at 39 Articles - none at present. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put in an external link to the Thirty-Nine Articles as hosted by the Anglican Communion. Of course this is not the original Elizabethan version. I don't know what has changed between the original and modern versions. I can find online weblinks to other articles about the Ten Articles, but not to the text of the Ten Articles. The text can be found in books (it is a long document). If there is a site that hosts the text of the Ten Articles, then go ahead an put that in the External links section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got to stop now, I will try to return soon, but really the prose needs a good check-over. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many points cleared & marked DONE. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article! I am not an expert so I cannot comment on the discussion above, except to say I found no problems with the prose. Well done to all contributors. GrahamColmTalk 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I deleted the images. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hooper should be easy to find in the NPG online database, where it no doubt came from. It is certainly PD-old of whatever they are calling it these days. The Anne Boleyn should be easy enough to find (since Hever castle has a lot fewer paintings than Cook County Library has books). Likewise the Cromwell. The Pilgrimage of Grace is surely PD-old too, but a poor Victorian image & no loss. But a little work will restore the others. The article is light on pictures as it is. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not images that I uploaded, so if someone could tell me what to do to fix them to be legal, I would gladly do so. Otherwise, I will hunt for legal images. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up three of them - it was not hard to find sources for them. Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those 3 restored, thanks Awa! (my edit summary wrongly says Bucer for Cromwell btw). Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn is still problematic, as the source is a link to the image itself (i.e. there's no support for the 1525 date). Perhaps an alternative image? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not that one! 1525 is wrong, and I have updated it. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Awadewit for fixing these, but I guess I need something for my own edification, at least so I know what to do the next time. I can see what was done in Image:JohnHooperBpGloucester.jpg by looking at the diff from the history, but what was done with Martin Bucer (nothing seems to have changed), Thomas Cromwell, and Anne Boleyn (there is no history?)? --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bucer was just removed from the article. The other images are hosted at the Commons, so you just need to hit the "description page there" link to get to the page with the history. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Perhaps you forgot to click though to Commons for Boleyn and Cromwell? But indeed nothing has been done to Bucer - I'm not sure why he & the Pilgrimage were struck though above. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I struck because they've been removed from the article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still on images, I see here and here the shaky "Stephen Gardiner" is considered not be of him at all, which seems right to me. The NPG has 2 later prints, based on apparently the only portrait that might be authentic - not sure where that is. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the tip about clicking on description page of Commons. I think I understand what to do. Concerning Gardiner, if it is from 1510, then it is certainly not Gardiner. I took it down for now and will try to look for another one as well as a Martin Bucer engraving somewhere and upload them later. But at this stage does your oppose still stand, elcobbola? --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only because Boleyn hasn't been fixed. The new NPG source would support this, but not the version currently being used. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is Plate 1, and discussed on pp.42ff. of The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: 'the Most Happy' By Eric William Ives, here. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page says the date is 1525. Perhaps we should simply say "16th century" for the time being? Awadewit (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has never given a date, but comparison with the NPG info on their version and books I can't be faffed to cite here shows 1525 is certainly wrong for the actual painting, & probably too early for the lost original, whatever that was. Even "16th century" is not certain. See above. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the description on Commons for the other Boleyn picture and put the new image in the article. I also found another Bucer engraving which is used in MacCulloch. I used MacCulloch as the source of the metadata in an updated description. I have little experience in the handling of images on Commons so I hope I did this right. Is there some practical instructions on what kind of image metadata is required for FA? WP:IUP reads like legalese and in any case it is not very informative. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Boleyn looks fine (and Bucer, too); I've stricken the oppose. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I lean towards support, but have some prose concerns, and would like to at least get something about his family, which was left hanging in exile under Henry VIII. — Ealdgyth 19:26, 21 May 2008 — continues after insertion below

Ouf! Fortunately, I had advance warning of a big batch of comments coming from Ealdgyth. :) I will start on these tomorrow. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given how large the article is... I think this was rather a small batch myself (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead ... second sentence in the first paragraph, "...which resulted in the breach of the English Church from the Roman Catholic Church..." just reads awkward to me. Maybe division instead of breach? And shouldn't it be "Church of England" instead of "English Church"?
I changed "breach" to "separation". Concerning the use of "English Church", I was trying to avoid an anachronism. The Church of England is now a separate entity/communion, but at the time of Cranmer, the "English Church" or perhaps the "Church in England" (geographical or provincial definition, not ecclesiastically separate yet) was part of Roman Church but departed on a different path. Perhaps I am being too fussy, though. I don't mind using any of those three. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand the problem, maybe "English Church" is the best compromise here, although I remain open to other suggestions. Church IN England just seems clunky. Why couldn't Great Harry have been consistent???? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, third paragraph, first sentence '...expedite major reforms..." Ugh, sounds like a business meeting. Maybe "...quicken the pace of reform."? or "...hasten the pace of reforms."?
I changed "expedite" to "promote". Thank goodness I still have my Roget's! --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like promote better than my suggestions, done! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead, last paragraph, second sentence, when you say "He was imprisoned for over two years, after which he made..." the "after" implies he was let out of prison after two years THEN he made the recantations. Perhaps "Imprisoned for over two years, he then made ..." or something similar.
Agree. Changed to your formulation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early years ... first paragraph, next to last sentence, how long was a term then?
Used years instead of terms. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the service of Henry section, first paragraph, next to last sentence, should University be captitalised? I believe it was several universities that were consulted.
At first I thought that you must be right. But then when I took a look at MacCulloch, he used "University". This seems to imply that Wolsey relied on Cambridge experts. Looking at the context in the book, on the previous page he mentioned a Cambridge Hebraicist and on the next paragraph he discussed about Cranmer's role in the University. Since Lee, Gardiner, Sampson, and Foxe were all from Cambridge, I assume the "University" must refer to Cambridge specifically. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urf. I really don't like the University there. Think you feel safe going with Cambridge Unversity? Maybe something in all those articles I just dumped on you... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the articles on Wolsey, unfortunately. I am one of those contributors that try to do everything by the book (source) and keep my own interpolations at a minimum. But I think this one can be easily done. A small "u" doesn't exclude Cambridge! --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, third paragraph, first paragraph. I think I'd say "Cranmer's first contact with a Continetnal reformer was with Simon Crynaeus, who was based in Basel, Switzerland and was a follower of the Swiss reformers Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius." which puts the name up closer to the action, as it were.
Agree. Followed your formulation using a dependent clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appointed Archbishop section, second paragraph, fourth sentence, shouldn't the second phrase be "Catherine did not appear nor send a proxy."? I think I'd say "or" rather than "nor" but that's a personal preference.
Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, third paragraph, second sentence, the second phrase reads awkward to me. Perhaps "...he renewed Erasmus' pension that had previously been granted by Archbishop Warham."?
Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section and paragraph, sentence starting "John Frith was condemned to death due to his.. " I think I'd say "for his views" instead of due, but again, a personal preference.
Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the vice-gerency section, perhaps you need to explain what the vice-gerency is, since it's going to be very unfamiliar to most folks, and while you've linked it, it won't hurt to give a quickie explanation so folks don't have to leave the page to understand.
Added definition. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, second paragraph, first sentence is awkward to me. Not sure how to word it better though. I suppose saying Henry had a guilty conscience isn't supported by the sources... or that he was an idiot won't work either...
Changed slightly (used the verb "reflect"). --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably should explain what Convocation was, not just wikilink it.
Added clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reforms reversed section, first paragraph, might explain what auricular confession is to folks, who probably have no idea what it is.
Added clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from the king section, fifth paragraph, I think I'd drop "roles" from the sentence starting "However, powerful reform-minded nobles Edward Seymour and John Dudley returned to England during the summer from roles overseas and they were able to turn the tide against the conservatives."
Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foreign devines section, last sentence of the first paragraph, what exactly are you attempting to say with "images suspected of attached devotion"? do you mean "suspected of attracting devotion"?
MacCulloch said "suspicion of devotion attached to it". I understand this to mean an image that is suspected of being venerated. From here, I cannot read more into MacCulloch's analysis, but I would assume actions such as kissing, kneeling, lighting candles, etc.. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is a good point to use a direct quotation from the source, that way the awkward wording gets passed off to someone else, and you have someone to blame for it. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the most elegant of solutions, but it is one. I use quotes and cited it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, next paragraph, do we know if John Chrysostom did write the Ad aesarium Monachum?
Both Hall and MacCulloch just say that the epistle is by Chrysostom (no footnotes on whether modern scholars say that it is true or not). Gardiner, at the time, debated with Cranmer about the letter so I put in the word "allegedly". If I go strictly by the sources, I should remove that adverb. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to do some digging on this, after I get through the morning crap to-do list. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this, hope to be able to clarify it after some research tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added a cite based on the article you sent me. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book of Common Prayer section, was it still the Abbey of Chertsey? Or shouldn't it be the "former abbey of Chertsey"?
It should be former. It was already half-demolished at the time. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thought so. Granted, we are getting past my normal time period, but I was pretty sure all the monasteries and chantries had disappeared under Great Harry. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, first paragraph, next to last sentence "eucharistic encounter" is very awkward. Perhaps "..and believed that the eucharist's presence was only spiritual." Although this isn't the best formulation either, for something so freaking complex.
I saw "eucharistic encounter" in an book or source somewhere and I thought it was nice alternative. Anyway I changed it to "presence". --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final reform programme section, second paragraph, I know it's usual to refer to folks by their last name, but I really think, given Peter Martyr's last name, that it is best to use his full name at all times. (first sentence of this paragraph)
When I first started out, I thought I would avoid the problem by using "Vermigli". But all the sources (Hall, MacCulloch, Ridley) use "Martyr" and they do not seem to have a problem with using his last name after introducing his full name the first time. What I tried to do is a compromise. Instead of giving his full name every time which would look a little strange if his name appeared only a few sentences apart, I used his full name whenever he was not mentioned within a couple of paragraphs. I might have missed a few, so I will check it over again. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just hate using a last name like that alone, I think it can lead to confusion issues with some of the readers. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did add a few full names so that there are no isolated "Martyr" and the full name is always nearby within the context. But if you think it is a serious enough problem that they all should be the full name, then I would rather change it to Vermigli. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, third paragraph, I think there is some punctuation errors and something just awkward with the sentence starting "The new book removed any possiblity of prayers for the dead which, would imply support for the doctrine of purgatory." If they removed the prayers, wouldn't that imply that they no longer supported the doctrine of purgatory? And I believe the comma is misplaced anyway. Strongly suggest rewording this sentence.
Reworded. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much clearer now, at least to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section and paragraph, sentence starting "While traveling in the north of the country...", the phrase "when he was based in Newcastle." do you mean Dudley or Knox? If Knox, wouldn't it read better "John Knox, then based in Newcastle."?
Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention a couple of times in passing a canon law revision, but never really say what it was about, just that it didn't pass and that Cranmer was involved. Perhaps this needs to be explained better?
Expanded that paragraph. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I know that the real reason they tried to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne was that she was Protestant, but you probably should mention that she was indeed a blood relative of Edward and Mary's, not just that she was Dudley's daughter in law. Otherwise it really looks like she had no blood claim at all to the throne, which she did, just Mary's was much better.
Changed to mention Jane's relationship with Edward rather than her marriage relationship to Dudley.
  • Probably should mention his children by the second marriage and that he did bring back his wife to England after Edward took the throne. We kinda left her hanging back when he sent her into exile under Henry VIII.
I had mentioned to Karanacs in the peer review that I would put something in the Legacy section. I just added a paragraph on what happened to the whole family. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, an excellent article, just some quibbles and concerns about awkward prose or jargon. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to support. All look resolved! Another great article, now on to Jan Hus!

Generally Support. Because the sources are offline and out of hand I can't really do a proper review of the article, but it is a pleasure to read. The reviewers above are doing a good job finding points to fix, but these are really very small detractions and I see you're addressing them. Wnt (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellently well-written, well-referenced and well-organized article. In a few places, the density of inline citations felt a bit low, but nothing very troubling. The final few sentences depicting Cranmer's Catholic and Protestant biographers seemed out-of-place, seemingly subjective and sweepingly apodictic; so I softened the wording somewhat — please check that I didn't change your intended meaning! Willow (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can add citations for specific sentences on request; I try to make sure every paragraph is cited. Your wording definitely improved what I had originally. I just wanted to mention though that Ridley's paragraph on the subject of the various biographers was even harsher and I had to soften his phrasing! Null's description is more scholarly and very detailed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cranmer mourned Henry’s death and it was later said that he demonstrated his grief by growing a beard. I think this mentions only the least important part of what MacCulloch says about the beard, which was a statement of rejection of the Old Church. Jennifer Loach makes the the same point in her Edward VI. The reason I raise this obscure point is that I was going to add a nice line about the beard to the caption of the white-beard portrait (since the other images have neat descriptive comments), but I didn't want to seem to contradict the article's statement that he grew the beard in mourning. I think the beard is more significant than just that. qp10qp (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the point on the rejection of the old Church (both in the text and in the caption). --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2008 (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/Thomas_Cranmer&oldid=1138473739"