Talk:Thomas Erpingham/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 20:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• More precise caption needed for the photograph in the infobox, as it doesn't show the gate but rather a statue on the gate. Y
• I'm having trouble understanding the last sentence of the first paragraph and it also seems a little irrelevant for the lede. Consider removing this sentence or making it more concise? Y
• Not sure if the part about Erpingham carrying the sword at the coronation is needed in the lede? Y
• Perhaps a mention of the fact that he was knighted could go in the lede. This could go early on as it appears he was knighted while he was still quite young. Y
• The spouses listed in the infobox shouldn't be listed like this. See Henry VIII for the correct formatting (no numbers, year of marriage if known). Y
• I'd recommend introducing Gaunt a little more e.g. "John of Gaunt, a prince and military leader". Y
• Is there anymore info on his trip to Lithuania? You effectively say he sailed there, fought, then sailed back. Not really much. Y
• Likewise for his trip to Prussia and the crusade? Y
• "Erpingham witnessed the secret treaty that was made between Henry and the Louis I, Duke of Orléans that year." More on this treaty? Y

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• "He was ambushed and made prisoner by the Earl of Northumberland and his men, led by Erpingham" you say they were the Earl's men but led by Erpingham. Clarification needed. Y
• "almost as soon as Henry had become king, Sir Thomas". Sir Thomas needs to be changed to Erpingham for consistency. Y
• "Erpingham was one of eleven men who petitioned Henry on their knees to have Richard killed." clarification needed, which men? (not their names just position e.g nobles, advisors, soldiers?) Y
• The sentence beginning "Despite the martial nature of his offices..." is way too long. Consider splitting into two or more sentences. Y
• Perhaps a brief explanation on what a Lollard is? Y
• You mention Henry Le Despenser in the article but only introduce him as bishop of Norwich later on so this should be fixed along with the placement of the wikilink so that he is introduced when first mentioned. Y
• "to every commissions of the peace in Norfolk during Henry's reign" perhaps needs to be rephrased. Y
• "Norwich showed its gratitude after the change in dynasty by showering Erpingham with lavish gifts "for bearing his word to the King for the honour of the city and for having his counsel", and it cooperated with him" here you talk about the city as a whole but you could be more specific with who gave the gifts if this information is available. Y

I've amended the paragraph, but it's quite acceptable to refer to the city as an entity in this context. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Erpingham's antipathy towards the 'fighting bishop' may have started in 1383, after Despenser's crusade to Flanders was favoured over John of Gaunt's intended expedition to Spain" Perhaps a little more on why this antipathy was felt (link back to earlier in the article?). Sorry I don't know how to use the word antipathy so what I just said mightn't make sense. Y

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• No mention of death of Henry IV's death and Henry V taking the throne? Y
• "In November 1414, Henry launched a campaign to recover lands in France lost by his ancestors" perhaps change ancestors to predecessors? Also be more specific e.g. who lost the lands and what lands (examples?) Y
• Wikilink for Siege of Harfleur should be added in where appropriate. Y
• Citation needed in 4th sentence of 'Participation at Harfleur and in the Battle of Agincourt' Y
• Sir Thomas -> Erpingham Y
• Perhaps provide a little more background on the Battle of Agincourt e.g. commanders, location and so on. Y
• "commanded "Now strike!", which French listeners heard as "Nestroque", most commonly interpreted as "Now strike!"" clarification needed here as I'm having a hard time understanding. Y
• "The French were then attacked by a storm of arrows" this sentence seems a little redundant considering the previous sentence. Y

I'll finish the rest tomorrow, kind regards Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• "He was well rewarded by Henry for the services he rendered during the war". A little more specific? What rewards did he receive, or was it just financial? (FYI: I edited this sentence to make it more concise). Y
• The whole 'Final years' section needs cleaning up. The first paragraph doesn't seem linked to the second; the events described are 12 years apart, perhaps this should have gone in the previous section? Also Sir Thomas should be changed to Erpingham. Y
• Note 5 says that there is a copy of his will in Rye's book. Perhaps details of the will could be interesting and added, perhaps to flesh out the paragraph? Y
• It appears in the 'Family' section there is a lot of use of 'Sir Thomas'. Please take a look at MOS:SURNAME, I think he should be referred to as Erpingham which is why I said this previously but let me know if you think otherwise. If you agree, please make the appropriate edits. Y
• Suggestion: the 'Family' section could be changed to 'Personal life' and could include the details of his death/will, but that's up to you. I've also just seen that the will is mentioned at the end of the section, so a merge might be good. Y
• "church of St Michael Conisford in Norwich" should 'church' have a capital letter? Also for "Erpingham church"? Y
• "this church of the friary of the order of St. Austin" perhaps a location of the friary pkus I'm not sure what you mean by 'this...', do you mean 'the...'? Y
• "considerable, affecting rôle" the o isn't meant to have an accent? Y
• "Harry replies" should this be Henry? Y

Looks good, I'll finish of the review once the points are addressed, regards Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Willbb234: comments addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The grammar, punctuation and spelling issues were addressed and a copyedit picked up any other issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Plenty of reliable sources and well verified. No OR or copyvio.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Any issues were addressed and sections expanded when needed. The article stays on topic and goes into depth in many areas.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Few edits, no or little chance of edit warring.

6. 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):

   Images checked for fair use, and captions are sufficient

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very interesting article and I especially enjoyed reading it as it is a local article. Very well deserved and happy editing.

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)