Wikipedia:Peer review/Francis Walsingham/archive1

Francis Walsingham

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. Seeking independent review of an article recently expanded. Thanks, DrKay (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few initial points:

"Throughout his career, from 1571 onwards..." These two phrases are incompatible
(re Frances): "...and married well, to the Earl of Essex" Bearing in mind the earl's fate, I wonder if "married well" is appropriate wording?
It is not clear how Lady Walsingham lived "comfortably" in her widowhood, when the family apparently had no money.

I will post full review comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Edits on initial points. DrKay (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more detailed comments on the first half of the article. Nothing very significant:-

Lead

Second paragraph: replace "until" with before"
Remove comma after "Queen Mary I of England"

Early years

"Francis Walsingham was probably born in 1532..." Maybe a slight rewording to avoid the implication of "probably born"
"His father was William Walsingham, a successful, well-connected and wealthy London lawyer who died in 1534, and his mother was Joyce Denny, who was the daughter of courtier Sir Edmund Denny and the sister of Sir Anthony Denny, who was the principal gentleman of King Henry VIII's privy chamber". Too many clauses for a single sentence
"Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon, was enrolled in the same law faculty at Padua at the same time as Walsingham". I am not sure why this information is given. There are no other references to Courtenay in the article.

Rise to power

"He is credited with writing propaganda decrying a conspiratorial marriage between Mary, Queen of Scots, and Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk". What is meant by the term "conspiratorial marriage"? It might be worth explaining why a supposed marriage between Mary and Howard would have been a matter of Protestant concern.
Likewise, a few words explaining what the Ridolfi plot was would avoid readers having to leave the article to follow a link.
"A substitute match with the next youngest brother, Francis, Duke of Alençon, was discussed but Walsingham considered him ugly and void of a good humour. Elizabeth, who was 20 years older than Alençon, rejected the idea ostensibly because of the age difference". The Alençon/Elizabeth match was not merely "discussed"; a courtship was protracted over many years (at least ten), and I think there may have been reasons other than age difference that ended it. As the matter is discussed again later in the article, it may be advisable to revise the implication that Elizabeth rejected the idea at this point.
Did one "join" the Privy Council, or was one appointed to it?

Secretary of State

Another stray comma after "...a potential peace deal"
Why did the Queen object to the marriage of Frances and Sir Philip Sidney?
"The following year, Sidney was killed fighting the Spanish in the Netherlands, and Walsingham was faced with paying off Sidney's extensive debts." But had he not already agreed to do this, as part of the marriage settlement?

More to follow Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further changes, thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Espionage

Some reorganisation of material might be helpful. The Throckmorton and Babington plots are mentioned in the first line, but the rest of the paragraph is devoted to Campion and the Bartholomew's Day massacre. The Throckmorton plot is discussed in the second paragraph, but the Babington plot is not mentioned until the next section. In the present arrangement it might be assumed that Campion was implicated in one or other of these plots.

Entrapment of Mary, Queen of Scots

"the leader of the Dutch revolt" - no previous mention of this. Revolt by whom against whom?
I am slightly puzzled by this sentence: "Walsingham instructed Paulet to block all of Mary's correspondence, with the exception of letters that Paulet was to open, read and pass to Mary unsealed." If Paulet was to open, read and pass on letters to Mary, in what sense was her correspondence being "blocked"? Perhaps "intercepted" would seve better
"Walsingham deliberately arranged" - middle word redundant
Elizabeth "signed the warrant", yet later "claimed not to have sanctioned" the execution. Maybe a brief word to explain this apparent contradiction?

Spanish armada

The dispersal of the armada is briefly mentioned, but there is nothing about the events of the armada, which need at least a couple of sentences (when it sailed, when it was intercepted, what happened then, etc) to make sense of the narrative.

Legacy

The first two paragraphs, and parts of the third, need to be separated from the "Legacy" section, which by definition ought to deal with Walsingham's influence on events after his death, not things he did and offices he acquired in his lifetime. Perhaps a "Later years and death" section should be created?

In fiction

I wonder if this section has any real value? It doesn't tell us anything about Walsingham; in years to come, will these distant portrayals have any relevance? Or might the section grow and grow, to accommodate other characterisations? I would reconsider whether the article is improved by the retention of this section, or whether its effect is rather to trivialise the subject.

In general, a quality product skilfully put together, that with only a few nips and tucks will soon grace both FA and TFA. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Let us hope that the final section "In fiction" will wither and die. DrKay (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]