# Talk:Three Brothers (jewel)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Three Brothers (jewel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 05:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I will review this nomination. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


### General
"Three Brothers" or "Brothers" should be in plain text, and not be in italics throughout the article.
Done.


### Lead
The Three Brothers (also known as the Three Brethren, German Drei Brüder or French Les Trois Frères) → The Three Brothers (also known as the Three Brethren; German: Drei Brüder; French: Les Trois Frères)
Done.
The lead does a decent job at summarizing the article. However, it is too short for an article of this size. Please expand the lead and add more details. A lead of two paragraphs should be ideal for an article of this size and detail.
Done.


### Description
"The jewel is known to have been reset at least once" — Can we mention the year or period in which this may have happened?
Done.
Unlink — "pendant" per MOS:OL.
Unlinked.
"its jeweller had likely merely squared off (described as "quarré" on the original invoice) its natural form." → "it is likely that the jeweller had merely squared off (described as "quarré" on the original invoice) its natural form.
Done.
Link — "Elizabeth I" in the image caption, and "Burgundy".
Done.


### Early history
"The Three Brothers jewel" — It is repetitive so either write "The Three Brothers" or "The jewel".
Done.
Unlink — "Burgundy" as it should be linked when first mentioned, "pawned", "seal" and "looted".
Unlinked.
"Parisian goldsmith Herman Ruissel" — Unlink "Parisian" and remove "goldsmith" (mentioning occupations should be generally avoided unless it provides unique or new information to the text or if they do not have an article of their own).
I'm okay with unlinking, but I think it provides added context here that we know he was not primarily a jeweller or other type of artisan.
"The jewel remained in Burgundy during Philip's reign, and on his death in 1467, was inherited by his son Charles the Bold." →The jewel remained in Burgundy during Philip's reign, and was inherited by his son Charles the Bold after his death in 1467."
Done.
"the enormous Sancy diamond" — remove "enormous".
Done.
"The pendant was eventually sold to the magistrates of the city of Basel, who had the piece assessed by a Venetian expert and commissioned a watercolour miniature of it, which provides the earliest visual record of the Brothers" — It is a little too long and I would suggest splitting this into two sentences. Something like "The pendant was eventually sold to the magistrates of the city of Basel. They had the piece assessed by a Venetian expert and commissioned a watercolour miniature of it, which provides the earliest visual record of the Brothers"
Done.
"(today in the Basel Historical Museum)." — use "as of YYYY instead of "today" as it is a historical record of what has happened, and not a live reporting.
Makes sense.
"the White Rose" — "White Rose" should not be in italics since its original name is in English.
Done.
Link — "florins", "guilders"
Done.
"enough to pay 3,300 common labourers for a year." — mention the year or period of this conversion.
Done.
"more than 2 million guilders at his death in 1525." — mention approximate conversions in today's currency using "in YYYY".
I was aware of that shortcoming. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have that inflation template, and I haven't been able to find a reliable source of conversion statistics online.
Fugger had already had Emperor" → "Fugger already had Emperor"
Done.
"but" — remove italics.
Done.
"the Three Brothers were still proudly mentioned as a "treasure known to all Christendom" that the Fuggers had owned." → "the Three Brothers were described as a "treasure known to all Christendom" that the Fuggers had owned."
Done.
"By the 1540s however, Jakob Fugger's nephew Anton Fugger—who was now running the family business—had decided to liquidate part of the family's possessions." → "However, Jakob Fugger's nephew Anton Fugger—who was now running the family business—had decided to liquidate part of the family's possessions by the 1540s."
Done.
"turned to King Henry VIII, 'Defender of the Faith' since 1521." → "turned to King Henry VIII, who was conferred the title of Defender of the Faith in 1521."
Done.
"was expected to appear magnificent" — It isn't very neutral to mention "magnificent". Perhaps write it in a more formal tone. Something like "was expected to maintain certain high standards of appearance".
The term comes directly from the linked source, but I've changed the wording.
"between 1529 and 1532 alone" — remove "alone".
Done.
"after which the Brothers became part of the Crown Jewels of England." — There should be a citation at the end here, covering this claim.
The citation was already in the sentence, but in the wrong spot. Corrected.
Mention the artist who did the painting in the second image.
You mean "Elizabeth holding an olive branch"? The painter is unknown.
"owed the Fuggers' bank £60,000." — mention conversion in today's currency.
Done.


### As an English crown jewel
It is "ffowlkers in fflaunders" or "fowlkers in flaunders"?
That is the precise quote from the original document.
"and iiij lardge perles" — I am not sure if I understand that "iiij" bit.
It represents the number 3 - again, this is how the document spells it.
Unlink — "under controversial circumstances" as her article is already linked previously.
Done.
"After a tumultuous reign of only five years, Mary died in 1558." — Needs a citation.
Removed "tumultuous".
"The jewel made a grand re-appearance" — remove "grand".
Done.
"in the famous" — remove "famous".
Done.
"less well-known" → "lesser known"
Done.
"the element was fully restored in 1975 and can be s.een on the tomb today." → "the element was fully restored in 1975 and was visible on the tomb from later on."
The sentence was very long already, so I just removed the last part.
"Mirror of Great Britain." — remove italics, and a citation for the sentence at the end.
Done.
"Towards the end of James' reign, the jewel was reset" — Is there a specific year or period in years that could be mentioned instead in addition here?
It's in 1623 as stated in the next sentence. Not sure if I should introduce that year earlier?
"in an attempt to dazzle Philip III of Spain" — Use a formal term instead of "dazzle". Perhaps "impress"?
The word is used in the academic source that's linked, but I've changed it anyway.
"convince him of giving up his daughter's hand in marriage." → "convince him to give his daughter's hand in marriage."
Done.
"worked four days and nights non-stop to reset the chosen pieces of jewellery" → "worked four days and nights to reset the chosen pieces of jewellery".
Done.


### Later history and loss
"It is at the end of Henrietta's trip in 1643 that the trail of the jewel begins to disappear." → "It is at the end of Henrietta's trip in 1643 that the trail of the jewel begun to disappear."
Done.
Unlink — "guilders" as it should be linked when mentioned first in the section above.
Unlinked.
"Mirror of Great Britain", "Three Sisters" — remove italics.
Done.
"The ultimate fate" → "The fate".
Done.


### References
Reference 2 — use "Publisher" for the museum's full name instead of the website name.
Corrected.
Reference 3 — "Publisher" for "Weldon's of Dublin".
Done.
Reference 5 — Remove "Translated from the original French by User:Arcaist."
I had added it to make clear this was a translation, but I can remove it.
Reference 6, 8, 10, 17, 20, 28 — Require page number(s).
6 (Norris) has page numbers given at each citation. 8 corrected. 10 (Steinmetz) has page numbers given at each citation. 17 (Ward/Starkey) does not have page numbers, just 'numbers' given in the citation. 20, 28 corrected.
Reference 9 — Should have "Brigham Young University" in "Publisher".
Done.
Reference 18 — "Royal Museums Greenwich" should be in "Publisher".
Done.
Reference 20 — "Westminster Abbey" should be in "Publisher".
Done.
Reference 30 — jewelrygemsabout.com does not seem like a reliable source and it should be replaced. Since the claims it covers are significant enough, you should not have trouble replacing this reference.
Removed and edited.
Reference 33 — "Harleian MS 7379: 2, cited in Humphrey 2014." — I do not understand what the source is here.
These are the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Library, and this is the standard notation for citing them. The text is given in Humphrey as cited.
Reference 37 — Should be replaced as it is not a reliable source.
Removed.
The article has minor issues with its prose and I believe I have pointed out most. Or at least enough for it to get to GA status. It is a very interesting topic and I thank you for your efforts in writing it. The audio file is clear and helpful as well. Regards. — The Most Comfortable Chair 07:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for this very detailed review, and thanks for your time and care in going though the article. I have done my best to address every point, but please do let me know if there's something I have forgotten. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 14:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


### Final
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
A lot of efforts went into writing this and it is a comprehensive article on a fascinating subject. You have done a fantastic job; thank you for your hard work! — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

A few issues to point out:
The transcription from the jewel inventory of September 1553 is correct as it is currently rendered in the article. The concern voiced by Most Comfortable Chair regarding the way in which Fowlkers and Flanders are transcribed is probably related to a lack of expertise in paleography (ancient handwriting). It was very common in early modern England for an upper case F to be written and represented by two conjoined lower case f's. It is therefore correct to transcribe the words as either ffowlker or Fowlker, and fflanders or Flanders. Both are correct, but the former more nearly reproduces the style of the original. If the transcription is meant to be "precise," however, it should written as "ffowlker." It would be transcribed as "Fowlker" only if similar changes/modern adaptations were made throughout the entire transcription. Which brings us to:
iiij, which is correctly understood to represent the number 4. Again, it was common for early modern writers, when using a string if i's to represent any number between 2 and 4, to render the terminal i as a j. "iiij" represents the number 4, not the number 3, just as "ij" represents the number 2 and "iij" represents the number 3.
But my main concern lies with the first few sentences of the section. The first sentence says that the jewel was left in the custody of Paulet in 1551 (True. As Lord High Treasurer, he was responsible for the safe keeping of the monarch's jewels, which were part of the Treasury owing to their monetary value.) But then the article jumps forward two years, to 1553, at which time it was supposedly decided to gift the jewel to Mary on the occasion of her marriage to Felipe of Spain in 1554. There are several issues with this sequence: 
First, the gap between 1551 and 1553 is unfilled. Where was the jewel during that time? (The answer: It was part of Edward's treasury and therefore almost certainly kept locked in the Royal Wardrobe at Westminster, which was overseen by Paulet.) 
Second, who decided to "gift" the jewel to Mary? (The answer: No one. In fact, Mary directly inherited the jewel following the death of Edward VI and her own accession as Queen in July 1553. No one "gifted" the jewel to her. She simply inherited it.) 
Then, "Edward died before Mary's marriage." Presumably whomever wrote that sentence is referring to Mary's marriage to Felipe. Yes, it is true that Edward died before the marriage. But as the paragraph is written, it is implied that the marriage was planned or arranged prior to Edward's death. That is factually incorrect. Mary did not begin actively planning for her marriage until September 1553, almost two months after she became Queen and almost two months after Edward had died. But the planning process took time, and the marriage treaty was not signed until early in 1554 and was not approved by Parliament until March 1554. 
It is therefore impossible for anyone to have "gifted" the jewel to Mary in 1553, as the section implies, and impossible for that "gift" to have been given in anticipation of a marriage that was not yet even contemplated.
Lastly, the source for the claim that Mary "seemed mostly to ignore the pendant in favor of gifts from her husband" is deeply problematic, and the claim itself is utterly baseless. The source cited is a 2013 reprint of a book written in 1938 by Norris Herbert, a costume designer with no training in history. He relied on paintings from the era for his evidence. Yet painted portraits of Mary represent only snapshots of a single moment in time. To use what she wore in her painted portraits as evidence of her daily attire at other times is an extremely poor scholarly research method. Instead, it makes perfect logical sense that a woman known to have been extremely passionate about her marriage would have chosen jewels given to her by him to wear in her portraits, rather than wearing jewels inherited from her half-brother and father, especially since some of those portraits were exported to Spain in an effort to encourage Felipe to return to England from his self-imposed estrangement. Norris was simply wrong, and his research methodology was unsound (NB: His publications are regarded by costume historians of today as amateurish and totally unreliable.) DesertSkies120 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Three Brothers jewel Basel.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 24, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-12-24. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 03:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC) 

The article includes several photos of paintings of the jewel, including one that is labeled a 1:1 depiction. But nowhere is the actual dimensions of that painting given. If that dimension was provided, a reader would know the actual size of the jewel. Wis2fan (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Great suggestion, will do that right away! — Arcaist (contr—talk) 16:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)