# Talk:Andrew Dudley

Article appears well cited, and reasonably well written and structured. However it fails MilHist B-Class criterion 2 (coverage) as it seems to lack a satisfactory introduction and conclusion to the subject's life and career. It also fails criterion 5 (supporting materials) as it lacks at least an infobox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Unoquha, thanks for creating this article! Andrew Dudley is described as a bachelor by most authors, although this can't be quite correct, as in 1539 his brother sold him and his wife some lands. So, maybe he was a widower by 1553, when de Scheyfye reported his expected betrothal. There seem to be some material traces to this, so there is more to it than the ambassador's other fanciful (divorce) rumours of that summer. Now we have the problem of what Andrew said at his trial, could you perhaps check again if it was really he who asked that his wife and children be spared, or perhaps rather Northumberland, of whom this is known from other sources? Thank you so much. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
(Interested in Broughty, mostly) CSP Spain, vol. 11, 185, 4 ambassadors to Emperor 27 August 1553, (French translated). No doubt that Scheyfve & co. are talking about Andrew Dudley. However the wife and kids bit attachs plausibly to Arthur Sturton co-keeper of the wardrobe, so I'll change it. (ie. Dudley said, "there was a man; [Sturton]... pity might be shown to his family").Unoquha (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It's fine now and very interesting. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andrew Dudley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   11:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Having read through the article, I'm satisfied that it meets the GA criteria and so I'm going to pass it. I would hope that you would take this further, perhaps to PR and, in time, to FAC. There is one point on MoS compliance that I noticed, which would hold you up later, namely that the article refers to the subject by his full name throughout the articles (MOS:BIO requires that we identify subjects by surname only after the first mention). Also, the prose gets a bit repetitive/formulaic in places—a lot of sentences, especially those starting paragraphs, start with "In [year]" or "Andrew Dudley". To show you what I mean, These are the openings of the last 6 paragraphs: 

Dudley's next military appointment
Under Edward VI,
In late 1552
In April 1553
Andrew Dudley assembled
In April 1555,
It's an excellent article and, with a little work to address the prose and MoS compliance, could be on its way to FA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   12:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your review! I'll see what can be done about the above points. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)