| Revision as of 20:32, 25 August 2010 editJoe Roe (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators41,994 edits →Jones 2007-2008← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:36, 25 August 2010 edit undoNev1 (talk | contribs)56,354 edits →Jones 2007-2008: cmcmNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| :Why? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | :Why? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::Because it's an essay by a student, not someone with expertise, and although it was published in an internal undergraduate journal it has not undergone peer-review. If the information is correct though it shouldn't be difficult to follow the essay's bibliography to things that can legitimately considered "reliable sources". —'']''<sup><small>]<font color="#999">•</font>]</small></sup>, 20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | ::Because it's an essay by a student, not someone with expertise, and although it was published in an internal undergraduate journal it has not undergone peer-review. If the information is correct though it shouldn't be difficult to follow the essay's bibliography to things that can legitimately considered "reliable sources". —'']''<sup><small>]<font color="#999">•</font>]</small></sup>, 20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::Undergraduate essays might not be the ideal source, but it very much depends on the quality of the individual essay. The foreword of ''Historical Discourses: The McGill Undergraduate Journal of History'' Volume XXII (in which the essay is published) says "After over two decades of publication, Historical Discourses has become a veritable institution at McGill University. It showcases the best history essays written by McGill students, provides students with an experience in publishing and helps support our vibrant, intellectual student community." So these are good essays that have been assessed by lecturers, and as such I think Maeve Jones passes ]. With 59 footnotes in what appear to be a 4,000-word essay, ostensibly it certainly seem to be of decent quality, although as I'm not familiar with the subject I would defer to the judgement of McGill University, quite a prestigious institution, and the compilers of the journal. ] (]) 20:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:36, 25 August 2010
 |
Hanged, drawn and quartered is currently a Law good article nominee. Nominated by Parrot of Doom at 19:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hanged, drawn and quartered article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | Death C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
Guy Fawkes
It is worth mentioning that Guy Fawkes was not actually hung, drawn and quartered, he was hung, but jumped from the scaffold and died of the hanging before the drawing and quartering could be properly carried out... thus technically he was just hung and the picture of the wax sculpture of his hanging is sort of redundant. Amphetachronism 04:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems this article does not jive with the one on Henry Garnet, which suggests that the king ordered his sentence to be a typical execution instead of hanged, drawn... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.248.55 (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
New version
I'm working on a new version of this article here. Its a long way from being finished and I'm waiting for more sources to arrive, but any comments would be welcome. Parrot of Doom 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Almost ready with this. There's still a bit of work but if nobody minds, I'll copy it across later this evening. Parrot of Doom 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well nobody replied so I'm presuming nobody objects. The old version is here. I've nominated this new version for GAN. Parrot of Doom 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
William Maurice
I'm having trouble corroborating the claim that Maurice was the first to be hanged, drawn and quartered. Also, while this book is certainly quite old, page 134 mentions that Dafydd ap Gruffydd was the first. Can anyone help? Parrot of Doom 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Jones 2007-2008
"According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason," - that sounds like a decidedly inappropriate source to me. —Joseph Roe, 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why? Parrot of Doom 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because it's an essay by a student, not someone with expertise, and although it was published in an internal undergraduate journal it has not undergone peer-review. If the information is correct though it shouldn't be difficult to follow the essay's bibliography to things that can legitimately considered "reliable sources". —Joseph Roe, 20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Undergraduate essays might not be the ideal source, but it very much depends on the quality of the individual essay. The foreword of Historical Discourses: The McGill Undergraduate Journal of History Volume XXII (in which the essay is published) says "After over two decades of publication, Historical Discourses has become a veritable institution at McGill University. It showcases the best history essays written by McGill students, provides students with an experience in publishing and helps support our vibrant, intellectual student community." So these are good essays that have been assessed by lecturers, and as such I think Maeve Jones passes WP:RS. With 59 footnotes in what appear to be a 4,000-word essay, ostensibly it certainly seem to be of decent quality, although as I'm not familiar with the subject I would defer to the judgement of McGill University, quite a prestigious institution, and the compilers of the journal. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because it's an essay by a student, not someone with expertise, and although it was published in an internal undergraduate journal it has not undergone peer-review. If the information is correct though it shouldn't be difficult to follow the essay's bibliography to things that can legitimately considered "reliable sources". —Joseph Roe, 20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)