Talk:John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk/Archive 1

sort errors

1. OK the first one might be hard to spot if you're not used to sorting things. It's the space (or lack thereof) between the R and the E. The first entry, Archer, R.E. (1984), is actually in the correct position. However, there's no space between the R and E. The sort algorithm ranks empty spaces higher up in any sort order, so (look carefully) the algorithm incorrectly thinks Archer, R. E. (2004a), Archer, R. E. (2004b), and Archer, R. E. (2004c) should all be ranked higher than Archer, R.E. (1984). So put a space between the R and E in the first entry. That one little edit will fix all of the first four sort errors.
2. As for the three instances of Hicks, they should be ranked in ascending chronological order, so they are actually wrong. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi Sorted both of them. No idea how I ended up with Hicks like that, but the Archer was V well spotted-dead eye! Also re. our convo (bringing it here) elsewhere, I think I've sorted the archive links; compare the earlier version with now? I found a plugin that archives pages. They OK? I mean, I had to put em in manually, and if you've got a bot that does it that would be grand...? But anyway, it looks a lot better now, not a bit or brown or red ink in sight... Thanks again for all your help! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• There are still several errors on "John de Mowbray". Forex, I just added a new warning to the script that checks for missing |ref=, and you've got one. You need to put a ref=harv on Archer, R. (1984b). You're also totally missing Squib 1997; Rose 2006 & Smith 1984. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Many thanks! -I know; work in progress, tweaks per the peer review below, minor expansion; refs always come last... is my excuse. Cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I had some MAJOR f***ing around from the visual editor. It delights in randomly moving chunks of text around and / or not showing {{ or [ etc. WTF! Take care, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Lingzhi: There's a bit of a PR going occuring here as we speak, so if you want to get involved and give the thing your critique, I'd be honoured. In not unrelated news—look at those refs  :) although there is one tiny abberation which I literally can't see...an annoying blind spot: see the second "Goven-Wilson et al" source. Take care! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• That "Warning: duplicate author/date" is the script's blind spot, not yours. I've been meaning to fix that... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Great news  :) cheers! It was making my eyes go funny, the number of times I kept staring at it...Hah! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

PR ...

lead:

• "and immediately performed important service to the crown" ... either it's "and immediately performed important serviceS to the crown" or it's "and immediately performed AN important service to the crown". And this sentence begs the question of what service/services were performed?
  • Does “and immediately undertook service to the crown in France, where Calais—an important English possession—was under attack” cover both points? And I’ve added a note regarding the role of the EM, and its somewhat ceremonial nature.
• "in the closing months of the decade" ... uh, which decade? Probably be clearer to specify.
  • “In early 1460.”

Background:

• "and namesake" - redundant - any real reason to include this since it's patently obvious?
  • It was originally intentional as an assurance that they did actually have the same name, rather than being a typo. But, gone.
• "and his wife and Lady Katherine Neville - two things here: "and his wife and ..." is gibberish. You probably meant "and his wife Lady..." but we really don't need to specify "Lady" in front ... I suggest "and his wife Katherine Neville".
  • Done.
• "Mowbray was thus able to see his new-born son and heir only two months after Katherine had given birth." why are we including this? It's trivial and obvious.
  • Well: it’s the sort of thing that nowadays is taken for granted, whereas (cf. the Pembroke curse?) it was not necessarily that common. But it can be got rid if you don’t think so.
• Suggest getting a conversion via the Template: Inflation for the sums.

Early career:

• "On this account, Rowena Archer.." odd phrasing .. suggest "Because of this," and also a quick explanation of who Archer is .. so we know that it's not just some randome passer-by
  • Mmm she should be blue-linked really. Utilised your words, and how bout “—who has made one of the few in-depth full length studies of the Mowbray family—"
• The jump from the lack of control of his inheritance to the feud with FitzAlan is jarring - is there some connection between the two events? Otherwise, it might make more sense to expand a bit on the dower issue and then put the feud into a new paragraph.
  • Well, I made them separate sections as there's enough material about both things; the crap inheritance is a work in progress atm. Thanks so far Ealdgyth. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Wouldn't " (and therefore the castle, honour and lordship of)" be part and parcel of the earldom? Seems redundant here.
  • Yes, gone.
• "Maltravers , though, had died by 1433 and so was never summoned to parliament as earl of Arundel." Okay, he was still alive in July 1433, or so it is implied - so ... did he die before the Parliament? Or did he die after the judgement in his favor but before being summoned?
  • I've clarified it hopefully: he was absent from the parlt. that found in his favour, but he died before the next one.
• " (as a result of their recent expedition together)," seems to be connected to the patronage bit above but ... the source for the patronage bit isn't used as a source for the expedition bit - is this WP:SYNTH, or just a mis-placement of a citation?
  • Good ole fashioned synth, I think: gone.
• "an embassy to a" okay - one, we don't need to link this term. Two - I prefer "a diplomatic mission" but "an embassy" works also. But the linking is silly.
  • I agree. After all; one is on a "diplomatic mission" to Alderan, not an embassy to it...
• link for "parliamentary representation"?
  • Done.
• "in his county" but ... East Anglia isn't a county. I assume you mean in Norfolk, but non-specialists aren't going to get that. Needs to be clearer.
  • No, iironically, Suffolk; I think the reason for using county was because "Suffolk" (i.e. the duke) gets mentioned in both the preceding and following sentences; shifted them around.
• "This was to prevent Mowbray returning to seek revenge on certain of Suffolk's affinity who had previously been in Norfolk's own retinue but whom had deserted him for Suffolk." any reason we can't just use non-jargon here? "This was to prevent Mowbray returning to seek revenge on some of his former supporters who had switched to Suffolk's side." would be clearer and easier for the non-specialist to understand.
  • Done.
• We do not describe the second occasion of him being bound over in 1448?
  • He wasn't; he was imprisoned twice but only bound-over on the first occasion.
• "a licence for him to do so had been granted three years earlier" probably need to explain why he needed a licence to go to Rome, most folks aren't going to know that one was required
  • Done: explanatory note added. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

More to follow as I have time. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Next bit:

Crime and disorder:

• link for "Mowbray's grandfather, the first Duke of Norfolk"
  • Since I used exactly the same phrase in the course of adding stuff about Arundel earlier, I've linked that instead (using my initiative!), and have rmvd the "duke of N" bit from the second mention.
• "committed to the Tower" ... for non-specialists - at least link Tower of London, but would be better to not use a euphemism and say "arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London." or similar.
  • Nicked your sentence :)
• Best practice is to attribute small quotes such as "influence "proved woefully inadequate" to protect" ...
  • Assume you mean mention the quotee in-line rather than with just a ref? -done.
• "that he was ("remarkably," according to Helen Castor) he too found himself lodged in the Tower of London" couple things wrong here - "He was he too found" is gibberish, needs fixing. And "lodged in the Tower of London" is a euphemism. Just say he was arrested or imprisoned. You might even get some real idiots who think it means that he was literally thrown into the walls of the Tower (never underestimate the idiots...)
  • Yep, got rid of the flouncy phrase; but also Tower rather than ToL? (Already used previous para)
• The quote box in the center is really annoying. We generally don't bracket off text like this for one sentence. Put it in the running text or better yet, paraphrase it.
  • The Castor one? That was more for the purposes of breaking up the text slightly—walls of text etc.
• "as J.P. for Suffolk" I assume you mean Justice of the Peace? I don't think we've run into this abbreviation before.
  • Extended to full phrase.
• "keep the King's Peace" ... going to hit the anti-capitalization crowd here and you should at the very least link "King's Peace"
  • Ha! -done.
• need a conversion template on "within seven miles of the duke"
  • Done
• "They, however, chose to reside at Letheringham (closer to Mowbray's seat at Framlingham than they were allowed)" let's just give the distance between Letheringham and Framlingham?
  • Right; I was going to, but wasnt sure if that drifted me into OR, as GMaps tells us it's ~five miles away, but hard to actually findthat written in a source...

Murder:

• "presentment" link please.
  • Linked.
• I would remove treasonable here "for his treasonable role"
  • Reworded.
• "Margaret Mowbray" ... related to the third duke how?
  • His aunt; explained in a footnote.
• conversion for "only five miles away"
  • Done
• "Indeed, Griffiths described" ... I don't believe we've been introduced to Griffiths ... in which case we use his full name and a quick descriptor as well as a link
  • Done
• link "Cade's rebellion"
  • Linked
• link for Paston family
  • We don't (curiously!) seem to have an article on the family unit, and Paston family is a redirect to Paston Letters-which I linked to earlier (in the "crime & disorder" section); thoughts?
• "positions at the expense of a lord" ... any lord or specifically Mowbray?
  • Yes, any lord  :) How about "They were equally eager to augment their positions at the expense of their neighbours, even if that neighbour was a lord" to show that they weren't picky...?

Still more to come. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• • @Ealdgyth: Well. That's some of the marathon done...time for rehydration! Let me know what you think, whether, in fact, I have actually made ay improvements for a start. Have a good Saturday! Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ll try to pick this back up tomorrow after the grocery store run I have planned for early in the morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Religious patronage...

I don't have anything easily to hand to address this - but what (if any) religious patronage did he do? Did he endow religious houses? Found any? This is an important aspect of the late medieval nobility - if there is coverage, it needs to be dealt with. I note that the Complete Peerage doesnt mention any but does mention he was a Knight of the Garter... do we have that in a more recent source? I'll double check the other offices/etc that the CP mentions later when I get home from watching Black Panther (film). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsolicited comment (Deb)

"Mowbray’s youth was troublesome" - sounds a bit POV to me. And I'd like to know more... :-) Deb (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• There's almost nothing on exactly what he had done, or who with, or to whom :) but I've expanded it slightly with what does seem to be known >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Solicited comment (Tim riley)

SerialNumber54129 asked for my comments. More to come (here, by the way, there being no PR page?) but a couple of preliminary thoughts. First, the lead struck me as on the long side. There's no rule of thumb that I know of but this one is more than 700 words, which seems quite hefty. I've done a random check of existing cognate FAs and Henry I weighs in at 507, Marlborough at 465 and Catherine de' Medici at 466. Of the current FACs the most recent four have leads of 353, 379, 275 and 314 words. Doesn't prove a thing, I admit, and the lead should be as long as it needs to be. All the same, if you can streamline it I'd have a shot if I were you.

Calais is linked twice before we get to the end of the lead, but the main text is reasonably free from duplicate links. There are a few – Jack Cade, faction, Richard of York, Edward Earl of March, Lancastrian, Battle of Towton, gentry, John 4th Duke – but they didn't leap out at me and don't bother me.

The article looks very fine at a first canter through. Detailed comments when I've given it close scrutiny. Tim riley talk 14:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim riley, looking forward to that—in the meantime, I've got the lead down to ~565 words—better? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think so. It's an easier read now, and you haven't lost any key info as far as I can see. More on the main text in the next day or two, I hope. Tim riley talk 20:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Detailed comments

I don't know how much detailed comment you are after on the prose, and so I'm reviewing it to a Featured Article standard. First lot, down to the end of "Inheritance, early career and royal service":

• Lead
  • Comments to follow after I've dealt with the main text.
• Background and youth
  • First para: I never know what "whilst" has that "while" hasn't apart from one more letter.
  • I'm not sure we need be told that £2,000 is even greater than £1,667.
  • Though I have little sympathy with people who have a superstitious fear of split infinitives, I think "to henceforth conduct himself" would be smoother as "to conduct himself henceforth".
  • "This even dictating" – you can't use an absolute construction like this on its own in a separate sentence. Best to make "dictating" "dictated".
• Limited inheritance
  • "Mowbray's father, In fact, had never been unable" – I think you mean the precise opposite of what this says. And the capital I is presumably a typo.
  • "full length"- I'd hyphenate this
• Claim to the earldom of Arundel
  • The positioning of the picture of the petition has mucked up the line break in the text.
  • "Philip Duke of Burgundy the Good" – weird word order. I think you want "Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy" or "the Duke of Burgundy, Philip the Good".
  • "one year term" – I'd hyphenate this too.
  • The intended link to the Gladman's Insurrection has gone mysteriously haywire.
• Crime and disorder in East Anglia
  • "stymied" – not only rather slangy for an encyclopedia, but decidedly outdated: the stymie was abolished the year I was born, many, many years ago.
  • "Mowbray was unable successfully protect" – missing a word, or alternatively too many words: "Mowbray could not protect" would say what needs saying.
  • "True, in 1440" – a touch of WP:EDITORIAL I feel.
  • "supporters misfortune" – supporters' (possessive)
  • "In 1443 Mowbray and Wingfield fell out…" – you've already told us this.
  • "Henry Howard, was murdered in XXXX" – drowned in a butt of lager?
  • "mens' feud" – I was taught to put the apostrophe before the s in men's.
  • "to not come within 7 miles (11 km) of the duke" – not clear which duke. If Mowbray then "him" would be clearer.
  • "affinity- using" – odd punctuation
  • "an nominating" – and nominating?

More to come in due course. Tim riley talk 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Done—thank you Tim riley; I'll by you a XXXX at some point  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Concluding batch

• Later career and political crisis
  • "attempted impeachment, exile and murder" – this reads as though all three nouns were attempted. Perhaps "attempted impeachment, and the exile and murder"?
  • "named as such" – I'd lose "as such"
  • "Norfolk arrived two weeks late" – or "Norfolk arrived two weeks later"?
  • "ironically he was" – skip the editorial "ironically"
  • "quell the remnants of any remaining taste for opposition" – I'd trim to "quell any remaining opposition"
  • "When the duke rebelled" – which duke?
  • "focussed" – "focused", please
• The Wars of the Roses
  • "Notwithstanding his absence from the field, contemporaries seem to have viewed him as generally sympathetic to York … Not only did he not attend the Duke of York's victory parliament after St Albans" – I don't follow this. If he was sympathetic to York why did he dodge the latter's victory parliament?
  • "his sea change in the duke's loyalty" – you mean "the sea change in the duke's loyalty", and anyway better leave "sea change" to Ariel. It's a cliché anywhere beyond Prospero's island.
  • "including the Lancastrian defeat" – why on earth is Lancastrian blue linked this far down the article?
• Under the Yorkists
  • "As Earl Marshals, previous Dukes of Norfolk" – I cannot detect a consistent rationale for capitalising or not capitalising "duke" etc. The MoS gives reasonably clear guidance.
• Marriage and issue
  • "Eleanor Bourgchier" – she was Eleanor Bourchier earlier in the article
• Cultural depictions
  • Earth calling! – "the Elizabethan dramatist William Shakespeare" is perhaps just a teeny touch too over-explanatory. There is not the smallest chance that anyone making it through to the end of this 5,000 word article needs to be told who the Bard was.
  • And if we're lugging Shakespeare and Mowbray's grandfather Thomas into it (footnote 9), the latter is name checked in Henry IV part 2: Shallow recalls that John Falstaff was Mowbray's page. I merely mention it, and don’t suggest you should.

That's my lot. Hope it helps. – Tim riley talk 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks very much Tim riley, I appreciate you taking the time out to attend. Much of what you say has already been lost in a minor re-write, the rest despatched per you. Have a good weekend, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Solicited comment (Iridescent)

This is all quite nitpicky; I'm reviewing it on the assumption you're planning to take it through FAC, rather than just looking for writing tips.

General comments

• Do any pictures of him exist?
• There are a lot of very long and tangled sentences (e.g. They were Mowbray's mother Katherine, and his sister-in-law, Constance Holland; the latter was to live until 1437, and the former until 1483, and who controlled the greater amount of the inheritance of the two.). As a general rule, work on the assumption that any sentence longer than fifteen words should be split unless there's a specific reason not to.
• There's an unhealthy reliance on the ODNB (coyly disguised as "Richmond 2004"). While it's sometimes necessary to cite the ODNB when you can't find anything else, be wary of it; it has a well-deserved reputation for being riddled with errors

Specific nitpicks

• This seems a bit long, both in terms of raw text, and in terms of paragraphs. There are certainly occasions where it's justifiable to disregard MOS:LEADLENGTH—I've done it often enough—but it exists for good reason. Readers seeing a lead scrolling off the end of their screen are much more likely to think that the article is going to be too lengthy and in-depth for their taste. Condensing the article into three paragraphs also has the useful function of forcing you to consider which of the aspects are genuinely important enough to include.
• In the subsequent dynastic struggles—known as the Wars of the Roses which engulfed his country he sided with the crown's adversaries, namely the House of York, and his support was instrumental to the eventual Yorkist victory. is both a very long sentence, and has some rather mangled grammar, and should probably be split.
  • Absolutely, done.
• I have two problems with Shortly after, he reached his majority, and immediately undertook service to the crown in France. What does "reached his majority" mean in this context, and why did it mean he went to France? Remember, the lead is the only thing most readers ever read.
  • Clarified.
• Can one even describe the Pale of Calais in this period as "France"? It had been ceded in perpetuity, and other than in some ecclesiastical matters was just as much an integral part of England as was Wales. To put it in modern terms, if you visited Gibraltar would you say that you'd been to Spain? (The same goes for "this was Mowbray's last expedition abroad" later on; we wouldn't describe a present-day Texan visiting California as "an expedition abroad".)
  • Yup, fair enough.
• Mowbray’s behaviour as a young man vexed his contemporaries, and eventually attracted the attention of the King himself, who placed strictures upon him in an attempt to reign Mowbray in—again, this is confusing. "Behaviour as a young man" could cover anything from drunkenness to necrophilia; you don't need to go into detail, but there needs to be at least some indication as to what the issue was. Remember, the lead is the only thing most readers ever read.
  • As I said to deb above, no grisly details, as all we know comes form the ordinances themselves, and they don't specify. But clarified now?
• Amidst the breakdown of law and order in the eastern region—no reader outside the British Isles—which is most of them—is going to be aware that Norfolk and Suffolk together are sometimes called "the eastern region". Since this comes shortly after a mention of "the east march in the Anglo-Scottish border", readers will quite reasonably assume we're talking about somewhere around Newcastle.
  • Agree—"eastern England"
• Mowbray's minority was relatively short—relative to what? He reached his majority at the age of 21 which is exactly when a typical reader would expect him to have done so.
  • Well, relative to the fact that it only lasted 4—5 years, wheras his father's—say—had lasted eight, and his son's was also to last 4. The King's had lasted 14 or so. On edit: I got rid of the line; his father's death has alrady been mentioned a few times, and it doesn't seem particularly relevant.
• …but the increasing local importance of the duke weakened his grasp—haven't we just spent the last few paragraphs establishing that Mowbray was the duke? The same problem occurs further on with When the duke rebelled again.
  • Yes; clarify of whom we are speaking.
• more than a few illegalities is weasel wording; either say "many" if we don't know the number, or be specific.
  • Many.
• Offences included damaging the property and tenants of rivals, assaults, false allegations of outlawry and confiscation of goods, and even murder is uncited—I appreciate it probably shares a citation with the next sentence, but a claim as extraordinary as describing a prominent government official as a murdered needs a specific citation.
  • Right.
• If he was bound over not to return to East Anglia in 1440, how did he then manage to sit on a commission in Norwich, also in 1440?
  • Well spotted. Think that's your good old ODNB failure. There were no major disturbances in NWC in 1440 (of any consequence) whereas those of 1443 are well known (and indeed should have an article).
• He, therefore, was unable, by his frequent and long absences, to ever establish a sizeable (or, for that matter, "particularly coherent") regional following in East Anglia needs decommafication.
  • "is frequent and long absences prevented him from ever establishing a sizeable (or, for that matter, "particularly coherent"—?
• a man charged with the murder of Alice Lowell—who's Alice Lowell? She isn't mentioned either prior to this point, or subsequently.
  • No idea, except she waz murdered. Removed as unnecessary detail.

Hope that helps. You probably want to get someone who's going to be ruthless when it comes to grammar (Eric Corbett I'm looking at you) to give it a top-to-bottom working over at some point. ‑ Iridescent 18:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I rather like being called "ruthless", at least in this context. At home I'm a pussy cat though. Eric Corbett 18:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@@Eric Corbett:—I know you recently did that GA of mine, but if you fancy giving this a once over...? ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 08:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Does it really need any more commentary? You've got masses of good advice here already. Eric Corbett 09:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed  :) I just don't know when I've had enough...OK, cheers! ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ruthless kittys are the best kind of kittys. My own are mean and moody little f%6rs. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for this Iridescent—hopefully utilised your suggestions to make positive changes—cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Solicited comment (SchroCat)

A bit late to the party, but here is my input, for what it's worth. I've made some tweaks, mostly for WP:LQ, but all fairly minor and in line with the MoS.

Lead

• Should be four paras max
• Date ranges should now be 1437–1438, rather than 1437–8
• "politically towards York (with whom he" – you need to close the bracket on this

Inheritance, early career

• I think you need to tweak "inherited the by the now-near hereditary"

earldom of Arundel

• "the case was found in his favour": it's not immediately clear which of the "his" was until later in the sentence, so probably best to clarify.
• "received livery of his inheritance" or "received the livery of his inheritance"?

Wars of the Roses

• As above, "1454-5" needs to have the full year

Hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Done—thanks very much SchroCat, the cheque's in the post  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And even later to the party...

With the wealth of comment with which you've been and are being supplied, I'm not going to offer much more at this stage. There's a danger of your being overwhelmed by advice, maybe at cross purposes. I will, however, mention a few cases of apparently unsupported text. Citations are required in each of these cases:

• Claim to the earldom of Arundel: "Mowbray clashed with increased frequency with Suffolk, and committed many illegalities doing so. These included damaging property of rivals, assaults, false allegations of outlawry (with confiscation of goods), and even murder."
• Crime and disorder in East Anglia:

• "Mowbray’s father was thus unable to ever establish a sizeable (or "particularly coherent") regional following there, and this was the situation Mowbray inherited."
• "Suffolk’s influence saw Mowbray bound over on 2 July 1440 for the "enormous" sum of 10,000 marks also having to reside in the King’s household, swearing no further harm to Heydon."

• Cultural depictions: "This is ahistorical, as Mowbray was still loyal to King Henry at this point. His second appearance in the play is at the Battle of Towton."
• Note 3: you say "according to Michael Hicks" but don't provide details.

I hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Cheers Brianboulton, that's all good—a lot of them had got "lost" when I was enthusiastically trimming. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Demands from Ceoil

• Re the quote box beginning "For the good rewle and governaunce of y lord of Northfolk", can you give a short few words on the gist and context, I got lost around "towcheth hem severally"
• The text becomes excitable and slips into 19th c novel like vernacular at a few stages, which is fun to read, but wont do at any level of review as it interferes with clarity. That said, the article is certainly engaging prose. Have left a few recommendations via edit summaries as was reading through (easier than having two windows open), but can gather them here if you wish.
• Overall the article is very good but needs serious copy-editing; impressed and still reading through.

  More later. Ceoil (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks very much Ceoil, great stuff. If you could copy your points here, I'd appreciate it (just so everything is in one place for my future ref). About the quotebox, I thought of that but didn't want to veer into OR...It'd be OK you think? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates}

  Just mention that it is about his "raucous and troublemaking" personality, which is already cited, and you'll be fine. Ceoil (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• murdered in XXXX
• contemporary chronicler - alliteration
• One of the bloodiest of the wars yet - relative to what period, geographic region, etc. Presumably in the protracted saga.
• friends and colleagues is probably a romantic view - "political alignments and military forces" may be closer to the truth.
• There is a lot of editorialising. Ceoil (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Right Ceoil, thanks for that—I've done stuff based on your suggestions: transliterated the quote box, murder location, sourced bloodiestness; couple of points regarding alliterative authors and friends and colleagues. On the former, I couldn't think of a better way of actually putting it ("fifteenth-century chronicler," maybe, but that seems rather obvious & unnec.?), and re the latter, the source says something similar, The death of some of his close relatives and courtier friends at the battle, and the infirm king's capture by the triumphant Yorkist lords no doubt steeled him to change his allegiance from Lancaster to York, so you can see where my choice of phrase came from.{pb}} Incidentally—an irrelevant aside!—why did you call your section "Demands"?
    Thanks for all your input here, and your copyediting there too! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yo, Ceoil Just fyi, but this isn't quite right—what I was trying to say, was that, EA had to be his powrrbase bacause the Lincs lands that were part of his inheritance were inaccessible to him because they were held by his mother as her dower lands. See what I mean? Thanks for your detailed notpick though  :) ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I was more concerned with the phrasing "large chunks" in that edit. BTY, one of the most absorbing articles I've read in a long time here. Ceoil (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thanks very much Ceoil!—I'm sure it's a one-off though; we can't have my reputation of producing walls of turgid text with sentences longer than the Kray twins' spoiled now can we  ;) seriously, thanks for the kind words. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Its been a pleasure so far. Ceoil (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: This is looking really good, much more polished thanks to yo. Check it: How—ahem—far do you think it has to go at this stage...? In your expert and / or jaundiced eye? ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 07:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll be finished my run through by Sunday, but its in pretty good order, so don't let me hold you back. Re the "demands" header was a sly jibe at myself, because a lot of it the above is just personal preferences. Ceoil (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Mowbray was bound over on 2 July 1440 for the "enormous" sum of 10,000 marks also having to reside in the King’s household, swearing no further  harm to Heydon. - has the punctuation gone astray here Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Throwing in a {{reflist-talk}} here just to keep the ref inside the section. --Xover (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Depicting the cultural depictions in a metacultural depictive... uhm... depiction

@Serial Number 54129: I had a stab at "Cultural depictions" (man oh man how I loathe that term) and did some copy editing, rejigging of cites, added some screen adaptations for 3 Henry VI, and corrected some small issues for The Merry Devil (the Falstaff bit was slightly serious). Nothing really very big, but enough that you'll probably want to have a look and make sure you like the changes. Do, of course, feel free to revert whatever you don't like!

I didn't find any cites worth mention from the Shakespeare side in the sources I had to hand (I don't have OUP access just now so there might be something there); the role is just too small to merit mention (which is kinda unusual for a Shakespeare character: most of them have been discussed to death no matter how miniscule the part). Sorry.

A couple of random minor suggestions:

For things like the ODNB I strongly recommend using a source-specific citation template like {{cite ODNB}} if one exists. It'll give you most of the fixed bibliographic data for free, and then you just add the bits that are specific to the entry you're citing. It'll also help avoid some of the pitfalls of using {{cite web}} for everything: |access-date= is meaningless for non-ephemeral sources (if the ODNB entry is updated its publication date will also change), and |archive-url= (etc.) doesn't work with paywalled sites (the archive just shows the paywall).

I also notice you use {{refn}} with |group=note for explanatory footnotes. That of course works fine, but refn is more made for nested references where limitations in MediaWiki necessitate workarounds (and is optimized for that use). I generally recommend using {{efn}}/{{notelist}} for this unless there is some particular reason to do otherwise. Easier to use, neater in wikicode, and generates less verbose note markers in the rendered article.

In any case, hope the tweaks helped with the "Cultural depictions" section. And do feel free to ping me if there's anything else I can help out with. --Xover (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Great title Xover. And if you've got a better way of putting "Cult depicts" I'd also be happy to use it!
  I saw your work on the Merry Devil earlier and I think that they're also great. What you've added regarding the productions of HVI—well thought of that, never occured to me to look at who played him!—is currently unsourced, which will probably get me the sack  :) I appreciate what you say about ODNB, and the reflist, etc., and probably agree; however, if you don't mind, I won't make any adjustments on this until after the FAC—if then, to be honest; I think it's the sort of thing that I'll utilise in the future, rather than retrospectively, if that's OK.
  As to anything else...You really shouldn't have said that!...I don't suppose Marlowe also happens to be up your dramaturgical alley, by any chance...? —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Serial Number 54129: Well, "Cultural depictions" seems to be de rigeur lately—probably following a CFD somewhere; it smacks of ontological angst—so I mostly just hold my nose and try to think of the benefit of the project.
    The screen adaptations contain no interpretative statements, so they don't need to be cited any more than a plot summary must be: they are implicitly cited to the work itself as a permissible primary source cite. Any need for a cite would be in terms of notability and due weight, but I don't really expect anyone would bother to challenge it on those grounds (that both the adaptations and the actors merit standalone articles imply sufficient notability for inclusion here). In fact, if anyone were to complain I would expect it to be only at FAC and on the prose criterium: its biggest issue is that it's slightly listy and non sequitur (because the text doesn't contain any interpretative statements). My suggestion would be to leave it in and see, and if anyone challenges it just delete it outright. But I have no horse in this race, so you need to make that call (and I promise I won't get offended if you want to just drop both this and my other changes!).
    Regarding {{cite ODNB}}/{{efn}}/{{notelist}}: please don't feel like you need to jump through any hoops on my account. I know one tends to get into that mode during FAC, naturally enough, but these are just suggestions for things you might find helpful. The only thing you might want to actually treat like a FAC type issue is to check whether the article has more web archives that are just of the paywall login page (would affect ODNB and other paywalled sources).
    As for Marlowe, I'm afraid my focus is pretty narrowly on Shakespeare. Shakespeare scholarship does somewhat overlap (they wrote for the same theatres, and Shakespeare cribbed from Marlowe's plays, etc.), and I have some familiarity with Elizajacobean theatre in general. So please feel free to ping me anywhere you think I might be able to help, but I'm afraid that for Marlowe that'll only be for more peripheral issues. --Xover (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick question

"not to recruit or welcome villains and wrong-doers into his affinity, nor to maintain them" - should part of this be in quotes. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Heh  :) Am I that quotable, Ceoil ? No, I'm afraid it's very much the shortened version of

It is advised, ordained and agreed that no lord, nor any other person of whatever estate, rank or condition that he be, shall knowingly receive, harbour, hold in household, nor maintain thieves, robbers, oppressers of the people, murderers, felons, outlaws, rapists of women contrary to the law, unlawful hunters of forests, parks or warrens, or any other manifest wrongdoers, or any person publicly named or known as such, until his innocence is declared. And that neither by pretext or occasion of feoffment, nor of gift of moveable goods given by deed or otherwise, shall any of the said lords, nor any other person, take up any other man's action or suit in favour, support or maintenance, as by word, by writing nor by message to the officer, judge, jury or to the party, or by gift of his clothing or livery, or by taking the party into his service; nor conceive indignation or displeasure against any judge or officer for carrying out his office in a lawful manner. And that they shall observe this not only personally but also ensure, as much as they can, that all other persons, their servants, and all others of lower estate who are under their authority in their areas do the same; and if they do the contrary, make them stop it without delay, or else take them away from them.

See what I mean?! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 22:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "into his affinity". Some of this is very precises, and I would actually quote bits (if you havnt already). Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe put it in a footnote? The gist of it though is that Mowbray et al. are not to give employment to, or otherwise have around them, wrongdoers, etc. Which of course is what Mowbray was later doing; that's why just a summary of the oath. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Naa, tis ok. Ceoil (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yo Ceoil, just to let you know I agree with 99% of your recent copyedits ("snips")  :-) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope I have not been *too* annoying, and re the 10% you disagree with, its 2006 arbcom's fault. Ceoil (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm done. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

What did Arbcom do in 2006? It's good to know they're still to blame for stuff 12 years later! :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You'd need to be a member of 2030 arbcom for me to tell you. Ceoil (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Points of detail

• Not keen on "descended," suggestion of inevitability.
• But a fourth dowager is mentioned below
• Description of ceremony relevant as coronation role mentioned later, also restore mention of dower
• Change to "As EM"
• A dower, not a dowry.
• Needs clarifying that S. won BH but lost Ludford
• Transcription suggested by Victoriaearle
  Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No problems from here. Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I wanted to wait for your express permission before fiddling. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 18:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

For goodness sake, work away man. But at the same time, we need to close out this FAC soonish. If you make these changes, I'll ping Brian as one of the earlier reviewers. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Right! THanks very much Ceoil, I've done that. Yes it has been a bit of a marathon hasn't it! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 09:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

New archived link to Richard, duke of York

I've come to possess an archived link to the "Richard of York" article on ODNB, which does not require the usual subscription and is free for anyone to access. Would it be a good idea to insert it in the corresponding bibliographical reference (Watts 2004), and replace the current one which is restricted? Nevlos (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)