Talk:Loveday (1458)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 21:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Will start reviewing this. HaEr48 (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Generally a well-researched article with decent writing. Relevant facts presented here are cited, and I've spot checked some of the citations and they do check out. No original research or copyright violation detected. The coverage is broad and focused, including key events as well as background and context information. Written in neutral manner, stable and illustrated. Images has appropriate copyright status. I have some feedbacks below, some are minor style issues but there are also many instances where I feel more context/explanation is needed in order for certains statements to make sense for the general reader. Please see below. HaEr48 (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Specific feedback

• "the presence of large—and armed—noble retinues": is there a reason to not just use the simpler "large and armed noble retinues"?
• York and Lancaster were facing each other over a battlefield
  • prefer saying "facing each other in the Battle of Blore Heath" as per WP:EASTEREGG
  • Who "Lancaster" was hasn't been introduced here. Similarly it's unclear which side is "Lancastrian"
    • Added an extensive footnote explaining the dynastic nomenclature.
• money already owed the by the government: redundant the
  • Removed
• "cpousin": typo
  • Done
• and Mowbray did likewise to East Anglia: "Mowbray" hasn't been introduced at this point
  • Clarified it's the Duke of Norfolk mentioned just before.
• Somerset was poisoning the King's mind against the Duke: please use a more neutral/less judgemental wording to replace "poisoning the King's mind", or if it's a direct quote, use quotation marks
  • Replaced with "influencing".
• First Battle of St Albans mentioned that the king was captured at St Albans, is this mentioned by your source. If yes, please include this in the background as it's very relevant
  • Yes: added and sourced.
• The "Duke of Exeter" is introduced as "ducal hotheads" without clarifying his relevance/position in the dispute
  • Tweaked and expanded on slightly.
• Fleet street: wikilink, or at least capitalize Street?
  • Both!
• obviationem et insultationem: Add a translation (probably in parenthesis) for this Latin term?
  • Done.
• Like the arbitration awards the nobility themselves imposed on their tenants: has these awards been mentioned before?
  • Under "Lovedays as arbitration", but I've added a little to clarify that it was often the nobility handling them.
• the King's had a financial basis: probably you mean "a financial element"?
  • Nice one, done.
• I suggest "5000" marks and "1000" to have commas in order to be consistent with "12,000". However, this is optional according to MOS:DIGITS
  • Well spotted, done.
• "The obligations that had been imposed on a large number of the Percies' tenantry and followers": has these obligations been mentioned before?
  • Now linked to Percy-Neville feud.
• Because it comes up many times, maybe we should include one or two sentences introducing the Percy–Neville feud as context? Probably in the background section.
  • Agreed. I've addded a sentence and a footnote explaining the outcome in more detail.
• against the prison sheriffs whose negligence had allowed Egremont's escape: Egremont's escape from what? Was he imprisoned? The last time his name was mentioned was when he was visited by the king on 23 February
  • Added a reference to Egremont in the feud, and a footnote about the financial penalties he was under.
• If York's and Warwick's payments were to be made by renouncing debts, who ended up paying the injured parties?
  • No, they cashed in debts owed to them in order to pay; in other words, the crown effectively paid their sums for them. I added "received" which I hope clarifies the meaning.
• The Lancastrian lords, as the injured parties had to make: Comma between "parties" and "had to make"?
  • Done.
• an independent bond of 4000 marks: wikilink "bond" to clarify which sense of the word is used here?
  • Done.
• This was recognition by the crown: "this was a recognition"?
  • Rephrased.
• Is there any explanation why the Queen held York's hand? Were they friends, or related, or?
  • No, they were "bitter enemies"  :) clarified.
• the award ignored and sidelined the original complaints of the Yorkists that they argued had created the causes of the battle in the first place: Probably it's more informative to just name the original complaints here rather than saying it like this.
  • Ah!
    • You didn't change this part? Would it be better to name the original complaints here rather than cryptically saying "the original complaints of the Yorkists that they argued had created the causes of the battle in the first place"? HaEr48 (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• by undermining the Nevilles in Yorkshire, and, in doing so, the local balance of power: Which part of the Loveday decision undermined the Nevilles in Yorkshire? It doesn't seem explained
  • Re-awakening old rivalries; clarified.
• the Yorkist lords, at the Queen's instigation, were eventually indicted for treason the following year; armed conflict broke out again. Is there any wikilink for this treason case and the armed conflict?
  • Yep, linked the Coventry Parliament of 1459 and the Battle of Blore Heath which was mentioned in the lead and then never again!
• Some images are missing US copyright tags. For example, File:Richard of York Talbot Shrewsbury Book.jpeg. I believe their statuses are actually OK in the US, they just need the tags to be updated. Please update the tags, e.g. like this image
  • They seem OK on Commons? Although the one of HVI did have a broken parameter which I think I've fixed.
• Images: I don't mind the inclusion of the portraits of the protagonists spread throughout the article, but I suggest improving the captions to include their role in the event or in the section which includes their pictures. HaEr48 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

-- HaEr48 (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@HaEr48: all excellent points, at a casual glance over, and I'll be dealing with them tomorrow if that's alright. Thanks again for giving this your time! ——SerialNumber54129 18:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@HaEr48: sorry about the delay, I totally forgot about this—the danger of closing tabs! I'm starting back on it now though. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@HaEr48: I've addressed all your suggestions, which were all excellent. Thanks for the thorough review! ——SerialNumber54129 19:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: thanks for the response, and I'm very glad that you've found my feedback useful . I think you've clarified most of what I've asked, except for a minor point I marked with blue text above. Please do take a look, but I'll pass this article as a GA now. Good work on this article. HaEr48 (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)