Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas Cranmer/archive1

Thomas Cranmer

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review in preparation for FAC. Any comments, suggestions, or criticisms are welcome. RelHistBuff (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

comments by karanacs

• I don't really like this sentence, but I'm not sure what to do about it. "After the first tentative steps under Henry's rule, where Cranmer introduced the first officially sanctioned worship service in the English language, major changes took hold under Edward's regency government. "

I agree. I don't like it either. I tried to rework it, but I'm still not happy with it. I will need to work on this some more. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what this means "were not the clients of any great noble family"

This is a direct quote from MacCulloch. There were several wealthy families in Nottinghamshire, but Cranmer's parents did not share in any of their largesse (i.e., his family was not wealthy). I rewrote it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• This sentence seems a bit clunky "Unlike in the case of his BA, he progressed with no special delay and received his Master of Arts degree in 1515 and shortly thereafter he was elected to a Fellowship of Jesus College"

I rewrote it to highlight the differences between his BA and MA progress. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Are you using ndashes where appropriate in the section headings and page number ranges in the references?

I usually check for this as a final step before submitting to FAC, but I believe I have been pretty careful to avoid hyphens. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the article needs to explain a bit more of the historical context (actions of Henry VIII) as some readers will likely not be familiar with the time period.
  • The article does a good job of explaining about Henry marrying Catherine, but it should likely include a date for the marriage and a date for Henry assuming the throne. That will let people know that they were married quite a while before the annulment proceedings began. It might also need to briefly mention Mary's existence at that point in the article - the annulment would essentially declare her illegitimate.

Added details on Henry's marriage and Mary's birth. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The article then needs to specify that Henry was trying to marry Anne. It mentions that Cranmer stayed with her family, and mentions that it was her family who secured his appointment as archbishop, but never mentioned before that why the Boleyns were important.

Added a clause on Henry courting Anne. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any information about why Cranmer suddenly changed sides from esteeming Anne to pronouncing the marriage void? Were there specific threats documented?

According to the sources (Ridley and MacCulloch) the surprise was not so much that he suddenly changed sides. The surprise was that he actually wrote a letter to Henry defending Anne. Ridley says that any other courtier would have immediately denounced Anne and tried to cover up that Anne had supported him in the past. MacCulloch said that after Cranmer sent the letter, Cromwell pushed through with his plan over the following fortnight and Cranmer became passive to the inevitable destruction of Anne. Both sources speculate that Cranmer sent the letter not so much to defend Anne but to save the reformation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Might need to specify that Jane Seymour died within days of giving birth - it is vague in the article now as to when Henry took an interest in the book.

OK, added details. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "5 May the House of Lords created a committee with the customary religious balance to examine and determine doctrine" - what is the "customary religious balance"?

I added "between conservatives and reformers". I used the word "customary" not only because MacCulloch used it, but also the definition of the type of "balance" is mentioned twice in the preceding section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what this sentence means "However, the speed of events overtook the committee."

Just that they were given little time and the Lords began to act on their own before the committee really got going. I changed the sentence. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "restricted the reading of the Bible in English" - does this mean that the Bible had to be read in English or that only certain people would be allowed to read it in English?

The latter. Only the nobility were allowed to read it. I added a clause to the sentence. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure what these have to do with each other: " As the king’s health ebbed, there was no chance for a conservative comeback."

All the political battles always involved the king. I would need to explain the king's role (and also some geo-political details) concerning the last plot. Rather than adding unnecessary, non-Cramer related details, I removed the sentence. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• " Others that accepted his invitations include the Polish reformer, Jan Laski, but he was unable to convince Osiander and Melanchthon to come to England" - is "he" Laski or Cranmer?

It was Cranmer. Changed it now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• There ought to be a citation right after this quotation "Cranmer acknowledged Calvin and replied stating, "Meanwhile we will reform the English Church to the utmost of our ability and give our labour that both its doctrines and laws will be improved after the model of holy scripture." "
• Need a citation right after this quote too "He then said, "And as for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ's enemy, and Antichrist with all his false doctrine." "

Concerning the two quotes above, the cites are at the end of the paragraphs. But I am sure there will be FAC comments about quotes not having cites right next to them so I will add additional cites for all quotes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• The article briefly mentions that he sent his wife and children away. Is there a way to make clearer how many children he had? Did he ever reunite with his family?

The number of children he had is not quite clear. MacCulloch mentions he had three children before Henry's death and I believe he had more afterwards. I didn't want to say anything unless there was a clear statement from a source somewhere. As for reuniting with his family, MacCulloch says that he revealed the existence of his family shortly after Edward was crowned king. Nothing is said of where they were in exile and when they returned. Later on, he mentions the family is based in England as he noted an incident where Margarete conversed in German with Bucer's wife. The details are nice, but it is difficult to put this into the text. I might try putting something in the Legacy section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the copy-edit! I will address each of your points. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• "Henry VIII took this as a sure sign of God’s anger": Is this the case, or this was just the pretext to divorce his wife for another woman? I think there is some ambiguity on the issue, although this is Cranmer's article and not Henry's.

Fortunately, MacCulloch provides a lot of details on this with footnotes to the latest research. But as this is relevant to Henry and not to Cranmer, I added a footnote. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "He passed through the Lutheran city of Nuremburg and saw for the first time the effects of the Reformation. He became acquainted with the leading architect of Nuremburg’s reforms, Andreas Osiander. He then took the". Maybe just a bit choppy.

I expanded it slightly and rewrote it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The appointment had been secured by the family of Anne Boleyn.". Boleyn enters "like a thunder" in the story without any previous explanation of her role. Who is she? Is her relationship with the king related with the annulments' plans? Obviously yes, but this is not clear in the article!

Added a clause on Henry courting Anne. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "For the next few months, the archbishop and the king worked on establishing procedures for the monarch to be tried by his most senior clergyman." Who decided the trial? You tell us about the synthesis of the court but not who took the initial decision. It looks like a man oeuvre, but was it proposed by the Pope or decided by the monarch itself to promote his interests? The monarch was tried or the marriage itself?

It was Henry who was driving this, not the pope. The decision was to be an ecclesiastical matter, but at the same time, Henry did not want the decision to be made in Rome. So somehow the decision-maker had to be transferred from pope to Cranmer, but at the same time, Henry could not risk losing the Royal Supremacy. But you are right to question on what is being judged; it was his marriage, not himself. I changed that in the text. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Two days later, Anne was executed." He expressed his doubts about Anne's guilt, but did he openly opposed her execution? I suppose that he did not.

No he didn't openly oppose it. Both Ridley and MacCulloch reprints the letter and gave their analyses. The details are in a response to Karanac's comments above. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Cromwell was delighted that the king decided to accept Cromwell's plan ...". I think it would be better "Cromwell was delighted that the king decided to accept his plan ...".

Karanacs changed that to name explicitly Cromwell because it wasn't clear if "his plan" meant Cromwell's plan or the king's plan. I restructured the sentence so that "his plan" is used and it is clearly Cromwell's. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The articles were delivered to the Council in London and were most likely read on 22 April 1543. The king most likely saw the articles against Cranmer that night.". Repetitive.

Changed one. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article says "An investigation was to be mounted and Cranmer was appointed chief investigator. Surprise raids were carried out, evidence was gathered, and ringleaders were identified", but in the plot's article I read: "Henry VIII's chaplain Richard Cox was charged with investigating and suppressing it, and his success (240 priests and 60 laypeople of both sexes were accused of involvement) led to his being made Cranmer's chancellor". Are they both correct?

According to Ridley and MacCullough, Cranmer was appointed as chief investigator and he delegated the task to Cox and Bellasis, a civil lawyer. So the text in Prebendaries' Plot is misleading. Or maybe they got the statement that Henry gave the task directly to Cox from another source? It doesn't have a cite so there is no way to find out. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent article! And I really enjoyed the narration in "Trials, recantations, and martyrdom (1553–1556)".--Yannismarou (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! I will address your points once I have finished working on Karanacs review. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to avoid automatic archiving of the peer review within the two week inactivity time frame, I just make a note here. User:Awadewit has agreed to do a peer review. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

I finally got around to reading the article! I am so sorry it took me this long. I'll just add my peer review in sections as I go.

It was worth the wait. A nice long critical one! Yes, that really does makes me happy! --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• You know I dislike infoboxes! This one is so garish. Just throwing that out there.

Yes, I also dislike them which is why Zwingli and Knox does not have them. But this one was created for all the Archbishop of Canterburys by Secisek and Ealdgyth, I believe. For the sake of uniformity, I kept it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I just edited the heck out of it. It was already there before I started editing. It's better than it was before, not nearly so magenta. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It still looks pretty magenta over here. A lighter tone would be nice. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Could we include the artist's names and the dates in the captions for the images?

I included the info where it is known. A lot of the metadata around the Commons images are incomplete unfortunately. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions and expansions

• Cranmer lodged in Durham Place, the house of Thomas Boleyn. - Why is this important? Right now the sentence is just kind of sitting there, lost.

This was the first mention of the Boleyn family in Cranmer's life. Eventually Anne's family's influence would make him archbishop, so it seemed important to mention it. But it does look out of place, so I will remove it. Related to this, other articles, such as Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, say that Cranmer was Anne Boleyn's chaplain. I believe that is from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. But both Ridley and MacCulloch explicitly deny he was Anne's chaplain. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could mention the Durham Place fact in the caption of Anne? It is interesting and that might be a good place for it. Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny, but it seemed important to put it in at the time I was working on that part. Now it seems out of place. I guess it is because the book provides a lot of context around Thomas Boleyn's estate, details that are unnecessary in the article, but fits nicely in the book. Just placing the fact there does make it seem lost and it doesn't really add anything. So it is probably best to keep it out. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• In 1530, he travelled to Rome to assist the team gathering opinions from the universities. - Does this mean that More and others adopted Cranmer's plan? If so, could that be made more explicit?

Looking at this in detail, there is no evidence that More and the king explicitly accepted Cranmer's plan, but the end result was that in 1530 he was working within a royal team in Rome implementing just that plan. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this shouldn't be made explicitly clear, then? Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To try it out, I just changed it saying that it is not known that More and the king approved it. But I am not really sure if it really adds anything. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do what you think is best. Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Has there been any suggestion that Cranmer changed his theological views opportunistically, in order to gain power?

In MacCulloch's preface he explains that Cranmer was very private concerning his inner thoughts. The end result is that most books on Cranmer's life are books on his public life. However, MacCulloch's research has revealed small tidbits on the evolution of his theological views and I tried to put that in the article (marginalia study, move toward denial of Real Presence, influence of Bucer and Martyr, etc.). But none of the sources suggested that he acted opportunistically for want of power. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• The trial took place on 23 May and Cranmer pronounced the judgement that the marriage with Catherine was against the law of God. - What trial? This is the first I hear of a trial! A bit more explanation here, perhaps?

"Trial" was the word used by MacCulloch. The procedure worked out by Cranmer and Henry is very complex (see my comments to Yannismarou). I removed the word "trial" because it seems to be confusing and state that Cranmer passed judgment after the procedures have been put in place. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good solution. Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of "Vice-generacy", Cranmer's shift regarding Anne's guilt in not fully explained.

It wasn't really a shift. I described this in a response to a similiar question from Karanacs. Since Yannismarou also mentioned this, I will cite this and add a footnote. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I took it out of the footnote, added a sentence, and kept the cite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearer now. Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The marriage was a disaster and Cromwell suffered the consequences. - Why was the marriage a disaster? Because Henry didn't like Anne? If so, that should be made a bit more explicit.

It should have said "ended in disaster". See below. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Following the annulment, Cromwell was executed on 28 July. - Wow! He was that much out of favor? That needs to be explained a bit more.

Unfortunately both Ridley and MacCulloch are not clear on exactly what Cromwell was charged. He was executed not because of the king but because of his enemies (the Duke of Norfolk and others). Both sources say that just when Cromwell appeared to be triumphant, Cromwell was suddenly arrested by his enemies in the council and all support fell away. When he was taken to the Tower, he was as good as dead. Since there is so little information and this is really part of the story on Cromwell, not much more could be said. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok - too bad! Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You got me curious and I found a old source on what he was charged. I added a footnote for information. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cranmer was left as a caretaker in London in his first major piece of responsibility outside the Church - I'm not really sure what "caretaker" means here.

Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why did the king wait so long to tell Cranmer of the plot against him? Are there any theories on this?

Nothing from Ridley, but there is speculation from MacCulloch. He said it was Henry's nature to brood over evidence against his archbishop. It might also have been Cranmer's support of the King's Book that made him reflect about the whether the charges were serious. And finally while letting the situation play itself out, Henry could observe the behaviour of the leading politicians until he was ready to intervene. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we include MacCulloch's speculation, mentioning it is speculation? Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I am bit uncomfortable about putting that in the text. But why not as a footnote? I'll put that in. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Within the text, Cranmer eliminated the possibility of using the litany for the veneration of saints - The significance of this needs to be explained.

Changed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cranmer also attacked monasticism and various liturgical recitations and ceremonies, hence redefining the concept of good works. - The logic doesn't come through very well here. Another sentence or two is probably required.

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think this could be explained better - how does attacking monasticism contribute to this project, for example? Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you would like to see. Monasticism is a series of personal actions like liturgical recitations (rosary) and ceremonies (bearing of palms, lighting candles, etc.). The Church had considered all these types of personal actions as "good works". Cranmer's homily said that they were not and in effect redefined "good works". --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I see monasticism as a very different kind of personal action, because not everyone can take part in it. It is exclusive. Nor was it recommended to everyone, as was the rosary. It just seemed like a different class of action. Ah well. Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I feel like the "Foreign divines" section could be better organized. It seems to jump back and forth between different topics in a choppy manner. Is it possible to group all of the information about the Book of Common Prayer together, for example?

Yes, I knew that but at the time, I was basically writing in chronological order. I ran into a really difficult case when I got to the "Final reform programme" where the three projects were occurring at the same time. In order to not make a jumble of text, I made three paragraphs for the three projects. I will have to do something similiar with the "Foreign divines" section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have completely restructured it separating the Continental reformers and the new doctrines from the Book of Common Prayer. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• While this effort to shore up the reformation was taking place, the council was working to convince several judges to put Lady Jane Grey instead of Mary, the daughter of Catherine and Henry, on the throne. - The religious implications should be explained, I think.

Added clauses on Jane and Mary's religious and familial relations. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Prose

• Capitalization questions: Are we capitalizing bible and continent (as in Europe)? I would at least capitalize "Continental" to indicate that we are referring to Europe and not any old continent.

OK. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• He helped build a favourable case for Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon which resulted in the breach of the Church in England from the Catholic Church. - Slightly confusing - "the Catholic Church in England from the Roman Catholic Church" or "the Protestant Church in England"?

I was trying to avoid anachronisms. There was only one Church and one provincial branch broke off from it. I guess there is no way to avoid the anachronistic naming. So I used "English Church from the Roman Catholic Church". --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Under Henry's rule, Cranmer did not make many radical changes in the Church due to power struggles between conservatives and reformers - "religious conservatives and reformers"? A little more precision here might be helpful.

Agree. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cranmer promulgated the new doctrines through the Prayer Book, the Homilies and other publications. - What do you think about linking "promulgated" to wiktionary? It is an unusual word.

Since wiktionary is external, how would it be linked? Via an external link? --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and linked it. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• His legacy is seen through modern editions of the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles, an Anglican statement of faith derived from his work. His structure of worship and liturgy has endured more than four centuries. - a bit wordy - I think this could be stated more eloquently.

Reduced to one sentence, more-or-less a simple statement. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• His parents, Thomas and Agnes (Hatfield) Cranmer, were of modest means and were not members of the nobility - Should this be "Agnes (née Hatfield) Cranmer"?

Yes, better. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I linked "Master of Arts" to Master of Arts (postgraduate) - should it be Master of Arts (Oxbridge and Dublin)?

As it is Cambridge, it should be the latter, but unlike what is stated in the Wiki article, the Cambridge MA did have a curriculum at the time. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find a source and add the correct information to the article? :) Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Where do I start? --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• A recent discovery of two of Cranmer’s letters has also revealed an early encounter between Cranmer and the king, Henry VIII of England. Cardinal Wolsey, the king's Lord Chancellor, had selected several Cambridge dons, including Edward Lee, Stephen Gardiner, and Richard Sampson, to be diplomats throughout Europe. Cranmer was chosen by Lee for a minor role in the English embassy in Spain. Upon his return from Spain in June 1527, Cranmer was given a personal half-hour long interview with the king. He described the king as "a man who is the kindest of princes" - I would reorder this, putting the information about the position first and then group all of the information about the letter together.

Restructured. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Archbishop of Canterbury" could be better arranged. It begins by talking about the appointment, moves in to talking about the king's marriage, and then returns to talking about the appointment. If this is a necessary chronological order, made the reasoning clearer. If the final appointment just happened to happen after the marriage, I wold rearrange the paragraph, but if there is a compelling reason, explain it more clearly.

Rearranged the sentences so that it is no longer chronological, but mentions the appointment first, then the marriage. I marginally prefer the original but perhaps that's just a personal preference. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• For the next few months, the archbishop and the king worked on establishing procedures for the monarch's marriage to be judged by his most senior clergyman. - What's going to be judged? The marriage or the procedures? I wasn't totally sure.

Clarified. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• There is evidence of continuity with humanism as he continued to support Erasmus by renewing the pension that was granted to him by Archibishop Warham. - awkward wording "evidence of continuity"

Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• He intervened in religious rows, supporting reformers to the disappointment of conservatives - Could we describe these conservatives a little more precisely?

I added "religious" as this is the first instance of the use of "conservatives" outside of the lead. Throughout the article, I used the word "conservatives" in the dichotomy between those who supported staying under Rome and those who supported the breach. MacCulloch defined the two in his preface; he used "conservatives" and "evangelicals". I didn't make such a definition at the beginning, but is the dichotomy clear enough from context? I used "reformers" and "conservatives". --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the first time "religious conservatives" and "reformers" introduced, we should make it explicitly clear that the conservatives wanted to stay with Rome while the reformers wanted to reform and/or break away. These words have such different meanings today! Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I put in the definition of conservatives in the first instance. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cranmer attempted a visitation of his province, but he carefully avoided locations where a resident conservative bishop could make an embarrassing personal challenge. - What does this mean exactly?

Added a sentence, wikilink, and a clause. Hope it is clearer. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better, yes! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• On 29 January 1536, when Anne miscarried a son, the king again had thoughts on the biblical prohibitions and condemnations. - vague - what prohibitions and condemnations?

Added clause on Henry's experience with Catherine. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• After it was clear that Henry's regime was safe, the government took the initiative to remedy the evident inadequacy of the Ten Articles. - wordy

• In 1538, the king and Cromwell arranged with Lutheran princes to have detailed discussions on forming an alliance. - Is this a political alliance, too? Since it is says "Lutheran princes", someone could read is as a religious alliance only.

It was both. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The king had total trust in him and in return, Cranmer could not conceal anything from the king. - Is "could" the right word here? What about "did" or "would"?

It is "could". Their relationship was that close. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• His reassertion of the doctrine of sola fide elicited a strong reaction from Gardiner. - best to translate "sola fide", not just link - it is crucial

Replaced with justification by faith (used sola fide and English translation in a previous reference). --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Royal injunctions that eliminated images suspected of attached devotion were also put in place in each parish - It is not totally clear to me what "attached devotion" is - a technical phrase?

I put a wikilink to Catholic devotions. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good solution. Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• However, their relationship became ever closer due to Charles V’s victory over the League at Mühlberg. - the "their" in this sentence is unclear

Clarified. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• The letter was a reply to a lost letter by Cranmer on eucharistic theology. - The letter is lost now or was lost then? This whole section on the letter could be clearer.

Restructured paragraph giving the story of the letter exchange chronologically and then finishing with Martyr and Ochino's arrival. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• In December he was put on trial and although the charges of treason were dropped, he was judged guilty of felony and hurriedly put to death on 22 January 1552. - What felony?

The English law definition of felony is any crime punishable by death or forfeiture of land or goods. MacCulloch does not give any more details on the specific crime. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I think a link would be good there. Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary only gives the US law definition (other dictionaries do have the English law definition). So I added a footnote with more details on what Seymour confessed.

I wouldn't link to wiktionary - i would link to the appropriate wikipedia page. The footnote is a good solution, too. Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The goal of the revision was to draw together all the reformed churches of Europe under England’s leadership to counter the Council of Trent. - Might want to briefly explain the Council of Trent.

Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• recognised the pope as head of the church and that he submitted himself to the authority of the king and queen - Who is the "he"? the pope or Cranmer?

Restructured the sentence. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• What is certain is that he was a committed scholar whose life showed the strengths and weaknesses of a very human and often under-appreciated reformer - Seems a bit fluffy and unnecessary.

The real Cranmer is somewhat elusive, so I thought this ending was quite good. We know he was scholar (better than most in England at that time, I can find a source for that statement somewhere), he was quite human (given the difficult situations with Henry, Cromwell, Gardiner, Hooper, etc., he seemed to know what to do or say to survive), and he is definitely under-appreciated (Heinze mentions that the Cranmer quincentenary in 1989 was relatively neglected compared to Luther's in 1983 and Zwingli's in 1984. He considers Cranmer as one of the major leaders of the reformation standing next Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, and yet the Church of England itself downplays his role in the Church). --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the article is just so careful and detailed. This sentence seemed a bit sweeping and overdone to me. I'll leave it up to you. Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• It does make me nervous to see one source used so much. You know I like the idea of giving multiple citations in a single note for information. It demonstrates that the article really does reflect the scholarly consensus. Something to aim for.

I will go through and add Ridley. I did read both and there was very little material that was not included in both. I just used MacCulloch more because it is more recent and more detailed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure - it is not required. I just think it is a best practice. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The sources are listed using two different formats - those need to match. Also, I would use only one "Bibliography" - it is easier for those readers coming to the article searching for sources. Any unreliable sources should be eliminated from such a joint list.

I removed the "Further reading" section which was from the old version of the article. The "References" section now contains only what was used in the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Slowly adding peer review comments. Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I did some copy editing as I was reading, but I think overall this article looks good. There are just a few places that need some clarification and explanation which I listed above. Awadewit (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Not that you're really worried, but the sources look good. I really didn't have time to dig into an indepth prose reading, but what I read looks good. I promise to try to look at it more in depth later, but don't be surprised if I can't get to it. 23:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it will take me some time to go through Awadewit's comments in any case. I assume you will give a thorough review on FAC if you don't get to it here. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I will. Us bishop writers need to support each other (even if support means ripping the prose to fine shreds). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will be merciful. It's already tough enough with Awadewit's peer review. ;-) --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)