Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Waldegrave

17x17px  The following is an archived discussion of Robert Waldegrave's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination's (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the DYK WikiProject's (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Robert Waldegrave

• ( Back to T:TDYK
• Article history )

• ... that Robert Waldegrave printed the first four Marprelate tracts on a secret press in 1588/9?

• Reviewed: Elaine Didier

Created by Nina Green (talk). Nominated by NinaGreen (talk) at 22:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• reviewing... Parrot of Doom 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ok, did a bit of copyediting, not too much but just enough to clarify certain problematic sentences. I haven't changed the article's structure. It seems to cover his life adequately. I think the article's main editor should consider splitting the career section with a couple of headings, just to break it up. I think the lede section is way too short and doesn't adequately summarise the article's body. Just 3-4 lines about where he started, who he upset, what he printed and when he died, that should be enough to get my ok.

• I checked a few citations (not all). The hook appears to be correctly cited (10) although I'm not certain I fully understood the context the source is presented in. Speaking of the source by the way, the references links should go to the front cover, not to pages 314 and 315. Use this url to do that. Cite 2, although only available to me in snippet mode, does indeed cite the article's sole quotation template. Cite 3 supports "The Castle for the Soule". Cite 16 supports "proflific" etc. By the way, it's probably simpler to format the ODNB citation as a weblink rather than a book. Cite 8 is supported by the weblink it accesses. So I'm fairly happy that everything is well cited. I randomly googled a few sentences from the article and there were no glaring instances of plagarism.

• To finish, in my opinion all this article needs is a more detailed lede section and a couple more headings (or sub headings) to break up the career section, and it's good to go.

• By the way, I had a look at the reviewing guidelines but I find the guidance on using ticks and crosses as clear as mud, so I'll just post a link on the nominator's page. Hopefully someone who understands how these templates work can tidy that aspect up. Parrot of Doom 00:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the comments. I've added to the lead paragraph, and have expanded the section on the printing of the Marprelate tracts. I'd initially hoped to avoid getting into detail about the tracts themselves, but I can see that without some additional explanation readers might be a bit lost. Re the reference link to pp. 314-15. I did that so as to provide an inline citation verifying Waldegrave's printing of the four Marprelate tracts, which would be difficult to find if they had to search in the book itself. Hope that's OK. NinaGreen (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with linking to specific pages is that it'll do it for all cites to that book. Better (IMO) to let people find the page themselves. But it isn't an issue here.

20pxY The article is good to go IMO. Parrot of Doom 11:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)