# Talk:John and Christopher Wright

137.140.197.148 - who are these authors? What books?  Which DNB? Please add at the bottom in the usual way? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't bite the newbies - its a pretty good first article. I think the numbers are page numbers (you know like paper .... printed .... in books and stuff) Victuallers (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A poisoned pommel laced with opium? Yeah, like that would be an effective murder weapon. LOL 192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

More than likely, if it had done anything to the good Queen Bess, it might have been some weird, umm, sexual feelings..... lol... I dunno. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there's enough information on John's brother, Christopher, to warrant a separate article.  I'm confident that with a little bit more work John's article will be ready for WP:GAN, but Christopher's would share so much information (family, upbringing, role, death) that there would surely be a few sentences difference.  The ODNB does this also, combines both brothers into one article, and I feel that's how we should do things here. Parrot of Doom 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Malleus Fatuorum 14:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems sensible. You won't be able to use the infobox if you do that though (therefore...I support). Yomanganitalk
I can create a combined image of the two, and do a similar thing as was done at Moors murders.  If nobody objects, what I'll probably do is write Christopher into this article, starting afresh, move it to something like John and Christopher Wright (order of birth), and then redirect Christopher Wright to here.  Would that be ok? Parrot of Doom 15:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Merging now.  Will be done by the end of today. Parrot of Doom 10:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
What's the naming convention for biography articles covering two people? Parrot of Doom 12:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:John and Christopher Wright/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Another excellent article which was very readable and enjoyable. Just a couple of points before I pass.

"According to Father John Gerard, John's involvement with Essex coincided with his conversion to Catholicism." Presumably John's conversion?
Yes, John Wright is the subject of the sentence.  Essex's religion hasn't been discussed.
Maybe I missed it, but is there a date for his conversion to Catholicism or any other details, such as why or where? Ditto for Christopher.
No, these kinds of things were generally kept hidden.
I know it's a pain, but should "the English antiquarian William Camden describing them as men "hunger-starved for innovation"." have a ref directly after the quote?
It's one of those things that annoys me about Wiki citing policy.  Really, all quotes should carry an inline citation, but as Wikipedia demands that just about every line of prose has a little number at the end, that just leads to a million little blue numbers littering the article.  In this case, there is only one citation after the quote so I'm happy its covered.  Trust me, there's nothing controversial in here that isn't backed up by the sources used at the bottom.
Spot check of refs showed no problems. DABlinks, external links and images all OK.
Great stuff again. It's more interesting than I realised, this Gunpowder Plot! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Parrot of Doom 22:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I probably should quibble about the quote, but to be honest, I agree! Other points fine with me, so I'm happy to pass.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.  This won't be going to FAC so its probably fine. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)