Talk:Ralph Neville

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ralph Neville/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly of GA standard. Before I observe the formalities may I put forward a few quibbles and questions?

• Lead
  • I cannot work out the rationale for upper-casing "Chancellor" at some mentions and lower-casing it at others. (This, of course, may be mere dimness on my part.)
  • "Neville was noted for the care he took to be impartial and he also oversaw a number of changes in how the chancery operated" – the "and" seems to me to link two unconnected statements. A semicolon instead of the conjunction would do the trick, I think.
• Early life
  • "Ralph's activities for years after 1207 are not known, due to the lack of royal records" – if, as the spelling makes clear, the article is in UK English, "due to" should be "owing to" or even "because of". ("Due to" needs a verb to attach to in UK usage, as in "The train was late owing to snow/The lateness of the train was due to snow")
• Royal service and Bishop of Chichester
  • "Neville was also vice-chancellor of England, and with the retirement of Richard Marsh, the Chancellor, to Marsh's see of Durham to handle ecclesiastical affairs after his election as bishop in 1217, Neville in fact, if not in name, held the office of Chancellor itself." – two points here: it's one hell of a sentence, and cleverer people than I might well get lost in it; and "vice-chancellor" is in lower case but Chancellor is capped, for no readily obvious reason.
  • "Neville received a dispensation for illegitimacy on 25 January 1220" – It would help your readers, I think, if you added a few words at this point to explain the consequence of this dispensation.
  • "… to no longer use the great seal" – in UK English there is a (completely idiotic) taboo against splitting the infinitive. If you ignore this half-witted superstition I shall applaud loudly, but I thought I should mention it.
• Lord Chancellor
  • "a department of state, rather than just a royal department" – could you clarify the distinction, perhaps? Government as opposed to Royal Household, is that the idea? The lay reader would benefit from a few words of explanation, I think.
  • "chancellor, claiming that the chancellor" – perhaps "Neville" for the first "chancellor"? (And I'd be cautious about "claiming", which to some readers carries a suggestion of deceit. I use "asserting", "reporting" or even plain "saying" in such cases.)
  • "through its control who could see the king" – " through its control of who could see the king"?
  • "the rejection was based on Neville being…" – strictly, a gerund is wanted here: "the rejection was based on Neville's being"
  • "Literatus in this sense meant "learned" not "illiterate"" – am I misreading this, or should "illiterate" be "literate" here?
  • "was to meet with Llywelyn the Great and negotiated an agreement" – confusion of tenses here, I think. Perhaps "negotiate" rather than "negotiated"?
  • " urged that de Burgh not be dragged" – a "should" before "not" would be the usual UK usage I think.
  • "the king's choice of William of Valence, and when that election was quashed, they then selected Neville instead of William the Bishop of Valence." – the same chap, I assume, but the repetition, especially with the longer title at second mention, is nonplussing
  • "in order for Henry to better control" – another split infinitive, but only a maniac could possibly object to this one, IMO.
  • "although the regent also appears to have had some responsibility also." – too many alsos.
• Death and writings
  • "built in London on what was then New Street" – I know a losing battle when I see it, but the British idiom, though rapidly succumbing to American usage among the younger generation, is still "in New Street", not "on" it.
  • "… he left some jewelry…" – I believe the OED admits "jewelry", but "jewellery" is by far the most usual UK English spelling.
  • "National Archives of the United Kingdom, as part of the Public Record Office" – retired civil service librarian speaking: the PRO was merged with another body to form the National Archives; I think I'd drop "as part of the Public Record Office"

None of these quibbles is anything like important enough to stand in the way of immediate promotion to GA (with the possible exception of the Literatus/illiterate-v-literate" one), but you may like to ponder them and say yea or nay before I cut the tape. Meanwhile, permit me to say that I enjoyed every moment of reading this article. Tim riley (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I got all of these - thanks for the detailed review! Let me know if anything else needs fixing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A most interesting article. It was a pleasure to review it.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

If all GA nominated articles were as good as this, reviewing would be easy. Tim riley (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Testa

Congratulations on the GA promotion! I don't see this mentioned in the text, but isn't this the Neville after whom the Testa de Neville was named? Lampman (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing I have in any of the sources I used (including the ODNB) says so... so no clue. You know my normal time frame is more Anglo-Norman than Angevin... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it's the last thing I do, I'm gonna find the historiographical background for the Testa! Lampman (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2019

197.156.111.162 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Masum Reza^📞 21:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)