Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Knox

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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

[edit] John Knox

This is a self-nomination. With assistance from Awadewit from her peer-review, this article reached A-class. Qp10qp provided an even deeper pre-FAC review and a copy-edit. I thank them both for sharing their time and expertise. I believe this is now ready for your consideration for FA status. RelHistBuff (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. First glance, this looks great. One thing: Why not use an infobox and place the first image on the right in the box? I'll be back after I have had a chance to look it over more closely. Pastordavid (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I did have an infobox originally. But I often wondered why it was necessary because it repeats the information in the lead. The clergy infobox is rather large and unsightly. In the end, it isn't required for FA, so I removed it. As for the placement of the image, it was also originally on the right. Qp10qp noted that as Knox is facing right, the image leads the reader away from the page. He suggested putting the image on the left. When I did move it, much to my surprise, it looked a lot better. The FA article Joseph Priestley uses the same reasoning. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How does an overly crowded, confusing, left side of the page that does not have the information where it is expected to be look better? The convention of page layout and the general aesthetics of the page put the image on the right. The problem of looking to the right (which is not a problem at all in my opinion) aesthetically is not fixed by making the page look worse. Medvedenko (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Overly crowded and confusing? Perhaps we could have a screenshot because it looks fine on the three separate computer setups I have over here. Also, according to WP:MOS#Images and all the principles of aesthetics I was taught as an undergraduate (for whatever that is worth), portraits should not lead the reader off of the page or, in this case, the screen. If Knox's portrait were placed on the right-hand side of the page, he would look lovingly down at my phone - is that what we want? :) I don't think there is any reason to have every wikipedia page look exactly the same. Infoboxes are not required and as RelHistBuff points out, they unnecessarily repeat information. This page looks better with the portrait placed according to conventional aesthetic principles - those used by art historians and the like when they publish books. Obviously we want the layout to look good on all computer setups, so if you could post a screenshot, perhaps we could see what the exact problem is that you are referring to. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 05:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support This article is well-researched, clear (not easy to achieve with religious topics), and comprehensive. My hat is off to RelHistBuff - this article took time and patience, especially with myself and Qp pestering him/her.

• A change of fortune occurred when on 29 May 1546, Cardinal Beaton was murdered within his residence, the Castle of St Andrews, by a gang of five persons in revenge for Wishart's execution. - a bit chipper sounding for a murder?

While thinking about a better way to phrase that part, I saw that the description during his time of hiding was still rather confusing. I reordered the sentences and I think it is better now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• However, their fathers sent word to bring them to the relative safety of the castle to continue their instruction in reformed doctrine. He arrived at the castle on 10 April 1547. - Who is the "he"?

Changed with the reordering of sentences. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Now the "they's" are mixed up. :) Awadewit | talk 13:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• A few days later, a debate was staged that allowed him to promote a thesis that would be his central theme throughout the rest of his life: that all ceremonies without express warrant from the Bible are idolatry. This included the sacrifice of the Mass. - Can a person have a theme? That word sounded odd to me. Also, "sacrifice of the Mass" - is this a common phrase?

I rewrote the sentence removing "central theme". The phrase "sacrifice of the Mass" is the phrase used by the source, Percy. I also found it in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I changed the phrase to "the celebration of Mass". I don't think the two are exactly the same, the former specifically referring to the Eucharistic sacrifice, while the latter is a popular description for the ceremony. But it is probably not worth going into technical details and it fits in the context of Knox's thesis. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds Catholic to me - not everyone thinks the Eucharist is an actual sacrifice. Protestants go with the symbolic interpretation, so I guess I wondered why in a Knox article we would use "sacrifice". I think it might be a tad confusing to the general reader, too. "Celebration" is more usual, I think. Awadewit | talk 13:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

These days, Protestants might be polite about it, but in those days, the reformers emphasized that the mass was sacrificial, because they wanted to make it seem pagan and superstitious. Even so, perhaps "celebration" is clearer to a modern reader (though it sounds rather cheery for Knox). qp10qp (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Knox's wife, Marjorie, died in December 1560, leaving Knox to care for their two sons, aged three and a half and two years old. John Calvin, who had lost his own wife in 1549, wrote a letter of condolence. - This sentence is just stuck in there (I know, I know, it's hard to work in).

I merged the paragraph into the previous one. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Could more be said about Knox's History in the article itself? The stub doesn't really elaborate...

I guess I ought to expand the stub. It's better there than in the article. I will do so. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Awadewit | talk 13:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and I look forward to more excellent articles from RHB! Awadewit | talk 06:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. As I said on the talk page after my review, I believe this article to be of featured standard. RelHistBuff writes well, and there's an attractive clarity and fluency to the prose, in my opinion. The information is comprehensively covered, and though some of the sources used are old, the information stands up to fact-checking. The article achieves a nice balance between Knox's good and bad points. Many congratulations to the nominator for his hard work and his determination to make this article as good as it can be. qp10qp (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Saying "Frankfurt, Germany" as the article does in the lead is problematic. Germany did not really exist until 1871. In the 16th century, Frankfurt was a Free Imperial City in the Holy Roman Empire. The same goes for the use of "Germany" in the rest of the article. --Carabinieri (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I dropped "Germany" when used with the name of the city and wikilinked Frankfurt to Free City of Frankfurt. However, I hesitate on "...refuge in Germany..." and "...fleeing to Germany...". The secondary sources for these sentences, Laing and MacGregor, used "Germany". I think there is good reason. I looked up the primary source, the History by Knox. He used the word "Germany". I could say something like "fleeing to Protestant parts of the Holy Roman Empire" but a historian or biographer should say that and I am somewhat reluctant to make that kind of interpolation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Take a look at this article: Albert I of Germany. If you read the writing on the picture, it seems to say that Albert was the Roman and German king. The picture postdates the period but probably doesn't postdate Knox by much, if at all. It is true that there was no German state, but there was a Germany in the sense of a shared language and culture that crossed state boundaries. It was the same with Italy; we can talk of Italy in the sixteenth century, even though it was divided into separate states. qp10qp (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you consider 16th century Frankfurt German, based on its language, then you also have to call Geneva part of France.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Geneva was not under the aegis of the French monarchy, whereas Frankfurt was part of the Holy Roman empire and therefore within the authority of the kings of the Germans ("King of the Germans" was a title that preceded that of emperor). The article shows how Knox was ousted at Frankfurt owing to his views about the emperor Charles V. The king of the Germans at this time was the emperor's brother, Ferdinand I, who became emperor himself the year after Knox was pushed out of Frankfurt. Ferdinand's son Maximilian was elected King of the Germans and crowned at Frankfurt in 1562, becoming emperor on Ferdinand's death in 1564.qp10qp (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Still, the HRE is not Germany. Or would you consider Medieval Genoa to be part of Germany?--Carabinieri (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Titles under the Holy Roman Empire included the kingships of the Romans, the Italians, and the Germans.qp10qp (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what outweighs the matter here is that at least two secondary sources and one primary source say "Germany" and it is in Wikipedia's interest to write what the sources say rather than trying to interpolate. It is clear that when Knox wrote "Germany" he did not have the Federal Republic in mind, but there must have been some concept of a "Germany" in the 16th century or he wouldn't have used it. The historians/biographers use the same term. As editors, we must accept their expertise in the use of that term. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to endorse RelHistBuff's contention that we should stick to the language of the sources. Good sources are the bedrock of wikipedia's featured articles. Let us not stray from what they say. That way lies madness. :) Awadewit | talk 11:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, ver nice, and ... not a fan of infoboxes, don't believe they must be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, with comments I think the WP:LEDE would be more effective if the first paragraph were a summary of his several accomplishments, similar perhaps to the very last paragraph of the article. I think the first thing readers want is to see at a glance who Knox was and why we should care about is life, rather than read through his early history. I know the first sentence mentions his notability, but it seems too little... The last sentence of the lede looks like something that should be moved up, in my opinion... If the Sommerville Knox portrait is dubious, should it be in the article? Plus "worked himself out" later in the article seems a bit informal. But none of these are deal-breakers. Good work! Ling.Nut (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The lead was written when the article was nearly finished which is why it follows the order of the article. I moved the last sentence up to the first. I debated about removing the Somerville Knox picture for some time. In the end I kept it because it is used as a cover page for one of the sources (Whitley) and since it may be seen by readers, I thought it should be included if only to note that it is dubious. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.