Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Clifford, 10th Baron Clifford/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [1].

---

Henry Clifford, 10th Baron Clifford

Nominator(s): ——SN54129 14:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Another in a series of bold bad barons—yes, I'm typecasting myself!—this time the son of "Butcher Clifford" of Shakespearean fame. This chap was less a butcher and more a shepherd, who went from disgraced son of a traitor to a clapper of cannons, an astrologer and a commander at the Battle of Flodden; in between all this came two wives, many mistresses, mutual accusations of adultery and a lawsuit accusing him of denying his wife her conjugal rights.

Oh yes, and he was a loyal servant of the King occasionally as well.

Any commentary and suggestions welcome for the article's improvement. Cheers. Festive greetings to all who look in! ——SN54129 14:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

There's a lot of this article, and I'll need two or three goes at it. These are my comments down to the end of "Patronage, alliances and local relations"

• Lead

• "the King's son, Prince Arthur" – not sure why the blue link takes us not to Arthur but to his younger brother.

Corrected.

• Background

• "The Clifford family, who were originally from Normandy …The family was elevated to the peerage" – singular or plural? Either is fine, but on the whole I'd stick to one or the other throughout.

Avoided the first use, with The Clifford family, originally from Normandy...he family was elevated.... Perhaps reads a little better, tightened?

Fine, I'd say. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "This title also held the minor baronies" – do titles hold things? Seems slightly awkward phrasing.

Changed to and also held the minor baronies...

• "never to receive an earldom" – a nice line, but I don't think the quotation marks are wanted here: nobody is going to accuse you of plagiarism as the authorship is clearly acknowledged.

Right, thanks. Unquoted.

• "Wars of the Roses——broke" – that's a helluva parenthetic dash

!!! Halved.

• "Clifford's father John, died" – needs a comma before John as well as after.

Done.

• Family and early life

• "Margaret, argues the medievalist A. G. Dickens, as sole heiress to her father Henry, brought Clifford's father a "questionable claim" to the title Lord Vescy, as well as extensive lands in the East Riding." – a rather tortuous sentence. Smoother if you move Dickens to the front: "In the view of the medievalist A. G. Dickens …."

Thanks for the suggestion; I've adopted it.

• "he was moved to either to Yorkshire, or Cumberland "about Threlkeld, where his father-in-law's estate was, and sometimes in the borders of Scotland"" – this seems an unhappy amalgam of unquoted and quoted. As it stands it seems to say that Threkeld was sometimes in Cumbria and sometimes in the borders of Scotland. (I know Threlkeld well and can (WP:OR) assert that it is on the A66 just before Keswick.)

How about a rewording: Whenever his mother believed him likely to be discovered he would be moved. Precisely where to is unknown, but Yorkshire or Cumberland are possible; for example, Clifford's father-in-law had estates in Threlkeld.

Continuing your WP:OR, do you know if the Shepherd Lord story is reflected there still? Pub, street names, for example?

That seems to me just what is wanted. Nothing leaps to mind from personal observation about pub or street names etc. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Clifford was alleged to have been monikered" – oh, come on! This is an encyclopedia article, not a Wodehouse novel.

Ho ho! Bloody tricky this one. How about cutting the reference to Bosworth etc (which is repeated later in more detail) and going with This supposedly gave Clifford the soubriquet "shepherd lord".?

Better, I think. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Other reviewers may disagree with me, but I gradually got the feeling during this section that you were throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the various takes on Clifford's supposed secret upbringing. This section amounts to more than 10% of the whole article. I wouldn't mind having it boiled down a bit, but am perfectly prepared to be voted down.

I see your point. Although I would phrase it just like that, to some extent, yes, I wanted to thoroughly present the breadth of scholarly argument, so avoiding WP:UNDUE. If you look at the article history prior to my November rewrite, the Shepherd Lord myth was almost the sole focus of other editors' contributions; this way, hopefully, I've not given anyone the chance to complain!

Oh, I see! We've all been there in one way or another when overhauling an old article for FA. It's difficult to judge how much to prune, and one doesn't want to tread on toes. All the same, if other reviewers express views similar to mine you'll have a sort of mandate to wield the pruning shears further. It's your call, in the end, and 10% of the article or not, it isn't something on which I'd oppose promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Inheritance and estates

• "centred around Cumberland" – there are those (of whom I am not one) who get in a right old state about "centred around". Foolishly over-literal, I think, but still it saves grief if one avoids provoking them and writes "centred on" instead.

I'll bear that one in mind for the future too!

• "both Nevilles were slain at the Battle of Barnet" – how splendidly Old Testament! Very picturesque, but I think a plain "killed" would be preferable.

Done.

• "at this time, as, on 16 March 1472 Edward granted him a royal pardon" – one comma too many or one too few.

Lost the second comma.

• "This was despite Clifford's brother Thomas attempting" – there are those (and this time I am one) who would insist on a traditional gerundive construction here – "Thomas's attempting", but I quite see that this could cause a pile-up of possessives. Perhaps "despite the attempt(s) by Clifford's brother Thomas…"

(More or less) done—what d'you think of This was despite an attempt by Clifford's brother Thomas to raise an—albeit unsuccessful—pro-Lancastrian rebellion in Hartlepool?

Ideal, me judice. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "She was buried in Londesborough Church, under what Dickens calls an "attractive brass setting forth her titles"." – I don't doubt it, but is it really relevant to this article?

Unfortunately, probably not; if she ever gets her own article, it can be recycled.

• Accession of Henry Tudor

• "the second city of the kingdom" – is that in the sources? I thought Norwich was the second city in those days, but I'm probably wrong.

Struck, "second city": the important point is its regional pre-eminence.

• Career in the North

• "This may well have been prescient, suggests Summerson, as in 1513 he attempted to lay claim to the city's troops for his own army." – nobody is really going to misunderstand you but the "he" here is Clifford, not Summerson, and it would be as well to use the name and not the pronoun.

Done.

• "The medievalist David Grummitt argues" and in the next para "argues Summerson" – a bit too argumentative? (Seven "argues" in the whole article.) Suggesting, commenting, remarking etc are all available.

Reduced to two argues, one of which is an impersonal use.

• "the Dean of York Minster" – is this the idiomatic form? Of course the Dean was in charge of the Minster, but I think "Dean of York" is the normal form.

Done.

That's all for now. More anon. Tim riley talk 18:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Concluding batch from Tim

• Later years

• "wherefrom most of his extant charters and letters are signed" – a touch of the antique about "wherefrom", don't you think? "from where" would do the job more normally.

It must be my inner-Wodehouse attempting to break out again. Done.

• Personal life

• "Anne's chaplain began negotiated this" – "negotiating", presumably.

Bloody silly mistake. Thanks!

• "numerable mistresses – "numerable" is a new one on me, and I suggest a less unexpected adjective such as "many".

I haven't made it up  :) but you're correct of course, to keep the language as non-technical as possible. Can we go with "a number of mistresses", as "many" suggests we know a lot of names, whereas actually we don't, if you see what I mean?

No, but let it pass. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Death

• "His widow Florence later remarried" – non-restrictive clause: needs commas round "Florence" (otherwise it's restrictive and he had more than one widow).

Excellent, thanks very much.

• "deliberately intended to be as extravagant as possible" – the adverb seems superfluous: can something be undeliberately intended?

Done.

• Cultural depictions

• "Wordsworth also envisions" – what a hideous verb! It is admittedly in the OED, but in my opinion should not be allowed out of it.

Ha, I agree. It was a real pain trying to express what Wordsworth thought, exactly; how about "imagines"?

That'll do me. Much less painful, thank you. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "suggests scholar Curtis Bradford" – clunky false title.

Done.

• "The life and career of Henry Clifford was fictionalised and set to a libretto by Isaac Albéniz for his opera Henry Clifford" – this reads as though Albéniz wrote the words. In fact the libretto was by Francis Burdett Money-Coutts; Albéniz wrote the music.

You can tell I'm out of my comfort zone with this. Does The life and career of Henry Clifford was fictionalised by Isaac Albéniz and Francis Money-Coutts—the former writing the music, the latter the libretto—in their opera Henry Clifford, which premiered in 1895, work? although it's now quite a long sentence, annoyingly.

The work sank without trace after its initial run. You can safely prune the sentence, if you prefer, on the lines of "Isaac Albéniz's opera Henry Clifford (1895) presents a fictionalised version of Clifford's life and career".

• Afterthought: I'm not sure about this, but should "the life and career" have a plural verb, rather than a singular, as here? (cf "fish and chips is a classic dish" –v– "fish and chips are a classic dish" - when does a double noun become singular?) Tim riley talk 22:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an excellent point; I'm afraid I have no idea. I considered "life and career" to be collective, but have no substantive reasoning behind.

With any luck some other reviewers may express a view. I'll be interested, if so. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Notes

• Note 3 – "Other examples from therein are" – perhaps just "from there"?
• Note 10 – "informing him that due to the patronage of a London merchant" – "due to" is accepted in AmE as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, just "because of" is safer
• Note 12 – "Lander describes the King's treatment of Clifford during this episode "brutal"" – missing an "as"?

All notes agreed and actioned per your suggestions.

That's all from me. I'll look in again when you've had time to consider these points. Tim riley talk 19:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanking you Tim riley, all excellent points, all actioned except a couple of points that might need a little further discussion, if that's OK with you. The bulk of my changes came with this edit, if you'd like to Compare And Contrast. Cheers! ——SN54129 13:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. The article seems comprehensive and balanced; it is well structured and in good readable prose, with admirable illustrations. I have suggested a bit of pruning to one section, but whether pruned or not the article seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:William_Larkin_Anne_Clifford,_Countess_of_Dorset.jpg: source/photographer link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Updated that source link, Nikkimaria, thanks very much! ——SN54129 13:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "Battle of Bosworth" Is it better termed the Battle of Bosworth Field?

Agreed, done.

Also in body under "Accession of Henry Tudor"

• "Henry's victory meant that he needed loyal men to control the North of England for him, and Clifford's career as a loyal Tudor servant began. " loyal/loyal. (with another loyal end of paragraph) Some variety?

I dropped the first "loyal", better? I don't think it's lost accuracy. third "loyal becomes "trustworthy".

• "Clifford was not always successful in this. Nor did his actions always make him popular. " I might merge these.

Good idea, done.

• You are inconsistent, even in the lede, as to capitalisation of king "the King"

Fixed one.

• "Although Clifford rarely attended the royal court himself, he sent his son to be raised with the King's son, Prince Arthur. However, Clifford later complained that young Henry not only lived above his station but consorted with men of bad influence; Clifford also accused his son of regularly beating up his father's servants on his return to Yorkshire." I'm not sure I see the justification for the "However," to say not9ing of the fact that having "Although" and "However" start successive sentences is something like watching a tennis match, back and forth.

right; how about "Clifford rarely attended the royal court himself, but sent..."?

• Shouldn't Henry VIII be linked on first use?

Linked in lead.

• I would rephrase the final lede paragraph to avoid the need to have consecutive sentences start with "Clifford"

Done.

• "Young Henry son inherited the title as 10th Baron Clifford as well as a large fortune and estate, " Awkward in the first few words.

Bizarre extra word removed! Cheers.

• "By this period, the King, Henry VI, was politically weak and was occasionally incapacitated and unable to rule effectively." Which period (or reign) was this? When he was a minor? I'd be more specific.

I've tied it to Clifford's birthdate (which, conveniently, it was).

• " a number of battles were fought over the next few years, in which both Lancastrians and Yorkists won victories.[6]" I don't see the point of the last part of the sentence ("in which" and after) unless it's just a coatrack for the links. Can something a bit more useful be said? In most wars with staying power, both sides win victories.

I found that tricky, as it goes—it was essential to mention the WotR, but too tempting to add lots of—frankly irrelevant—detail from well before Clifford's operative years. How about, By 1461 a number of battles had been fought between nobles loyal to the Lancastrian King and those of the Yorkists, led by Richard, Duke of York, who had claimed the throne in 1460?

• "and buried in a common burial pit." This makes it sound beneath his rank, or possibly dishonourable. Would the sources support an addition after "buried" of "with his men" or "with fellow soldiers" or similar?

I think you've got it with your first point—Cokayne indeed says "with some of his men", or something, so that can legitimately be clarified.

• "After what is now considered the biggest and possibly bloodiest battle ever to take place on English soil,[9][10]" what about "believed to be" for the "now considered"? Now considered implies a change and thus is a bit of a distraction.

Done.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your suggestions Wehwalt, all, I think, adopted in one way or another. Any other criticisms are welcome, in your own time. Have a good holiday! ——SN54129 13:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Anne clearly believed that Edward IV sought revenge for the murder of his younger brother the Edmund, Earl of Rutland at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460, which placed young Clifford's life in danger." Surplus "the" before "Edmund" .

Removed

• "and, says Malay, "recalls the romantic tale" of the shepherd's family. " Why of the shepherd's family in particular?

Removed unnecessary duplication and tightened the sentence.

• "Accession of Henry Tudor" Would it not be better (easier on the reader) to have "Accession of Henry VII"?

Absolutely, done.

• "As part of his efforts to secure the region, Clifford wrote under his own authority 24 October 1486 to the city of York—at the time, the capital of the north—ordering them not sell arms or armour to non-residents .[47]" Odd place to put the date, note also the rogue space before the full stop.

I've reworded the sentence, and in doind so caught the roge space (On 24 October 1486, Clifford wrote to the city of York)

• "He was knighted on 9 November the same year.[16]" I would change "the same year" to "1485" as "same" really refers to "during his first parliament" and it is not clear from the text if that was entirely in 1485.

Done.

• "Summerson suggests that Henry had little choice in restoring Clifford to his traditional regional position, as Northern England had been firmly Yorkist, first under the Nevilles and then under Gloucester, for over 20 years, the latter making Yorkshire his powerbase.[1]" I would move up "for over 20 years" to after "Yorkist" without a comma between them.

Good idea, actioned.

• "The former had been one Gloucester's most important headquarters.[50] " There's an "of" missing, I suspect. Also, you refer to Gloucester by title thrice in two sentences.

H'mmm, catch. How about he former had been one of Richard of Gloucester's most important headquarters. After Richard took the throne, he granted it...?

• " Clifford tailed it to Braham" a bit informal?

Perhaps! Plain old "followed", then?

• "they served "our ful gode and gracious lorde the duc of Gloucestre" under the previous regime.[62]" The Duke of Gloucester was Richard III, if I read my dramatic personae correctly, but he was also the immediately previous regime. I imagine the previous regime spoken of is Edward IV, and I would say so.

Reworded.

• "successfully besieging and capturing Norham Castle from the Scots.[36]" I would cut "successfully" as redundant. If they've captured it, they were successful.

Indeed! Done.

• "of the 14-year-old Prince Arthur, and managed by the Archbishop of York, Thomas Savage in the early years of the 16th century.[1]" Arthur did not stay 14, or even alive, through the "early years of the 16th century", other than 15 months of it.

Good point, which I've made now, and also added a short footnote explaining Arthur died soon after.

You didn't do the note properly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for that, fixed.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks again Wehwalt! Your comments hopefully addressed here. Cheers! ——SN54129 14:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• "and took the opportunity to rebuild and repair castles and other properties as he did so." It may be an Engvar thing, but I would omit "so".

I don't know about Engvar, tbh, but nothing wrong with shortening a sentence.

• "Quo Warranto" I would lower case.

Done.

• "Matrimony does not seem to have been peaceful," seems an odd way of putting it, I might say "The relationship" or "Their relationship" instead of "Matrimony".

Yes, good point, "relationship".

• "Lady Margaret" there are several Margarets mentioned, it is unclear who is being referred to.

Done (the King's ma).

• "Clifford had a number of illegitimate children by a number of mistresses," too many numbers. Several?

Done.

• "including at least two sons named Thomas and Anthony.[101]" multiple sons or multiple Thomases? I might cut out the "at least"

Right!

• "tythes" Should this be "tithes"?

Yes—I was taken in by the redirect!

• "the north". You are consistent on this phrase, except for one use as a section heading.

Lower-cased the section heading.

• " Charlotte Mary Yonge compared Clifford in his shepherd hut to the roaming of the deposed King Henry VI" Why is this past tense when you've generally made such descriptions be in the present tense?

Yes, I was deliberately trying to keep all commentary in the present tense! Sorted.

• Should note 12 end with a full stop?

Indeed it should.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again Wehwalt—your suggestions actioned here. (Incl. that refnote from yeserday). ——SN54129 13:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I apologies for the tardiness of my reply, Wehwalt—many thanks, again, for looking in, and a happy new year to you! Cheers, ——SN54129 14:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Booking a spot. Which I will get around to some time. Feel free to nag. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Nit-picking i: Arnold "pp. 116–138"; Bearne "11–16". Consistency would be preferred.

Indeed it would, but for some reason {{cite book|pages=}} calls pp= and {{cite journal|pages=}} does not.

Does it now? No doubt there is a sound reason for it.

Possibly; but for an alternative view of the citation templates' unofficial guardians, see this mother of all threads at a relatively recent WP:AN...

• Coleridge: "Or" → 'or'.

Done.

• Malay 2017, could NE be given in full.

Is this something new, then?

I was unaware that the US Postal Service's codes for states had ever been an acceptable disambiguator; but then, there are many things I am unaware of. Certainly, it seems a stretch to expect a non-US reader to guess what "NE" indicates.

Ah...I think I saw a discussion taking place on it recently, but can't find it now, if you know where I'm talking about. In any case, It's probably a good idea to fill out Nebraska, so I'll do that now.

• The Political Function of History: The Past and Future of Noble Familes I assume that should be 'Families'? (I realise that it is spelt "Familes" on page v, but see, eg, note 54, page 85; or Google Scholar.)

Shaun Tyas has really gone downhill! Bet he gone raimed on that one.

I have no doubt that he blamed his copy editor.

Touché!

Spot checks to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Why?

Because you can't write things like "Florence sued her husband in ... court for the restitution of conjugal rights" and not expect a source reviewer not to want to find out more! I mean, how did she expect the court to enforce a judgement? Was there a special class of bailiff? When source reviewing I usually, but not always, check some of the sourcing.

PS In the main article, could "fought at Flodden" be linked to Battle of Flodden? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I removed the hatnote as in fact only a section of the section discussed Flodeen, and now linked inline. Many thanks as ever Gog the Mild. Compliments of the season to ye and yours. ——SN54129 14:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them; and provided me with several chortles along the way. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go; and where not, to only be used judiciously to cite straight forward facts. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanking you, Gog the Mild, all the best. ——SN54129 15:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

This hasn't seen any activity in recent weeks and needs more review to push it over. I've added it to the Urgents list but otherwise it will be archived in the coming days. --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Hopefully some recent kind-hearted reviewers and/or commentators have assuaged your concerns :) ——SN54129 18:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

I'll add some comments here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. An excellent piece (on something I had no idea about before, so this is a review on prose rather than anything else). I made a couple of minor changes to caps and spelling, but this was all I would see to change to the article. An excellent article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for catching those typos, SchroCat, and for looking in. Always appreciated! ——SN54129 11:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

I surrender!  ;)

Just flagging up that I am part way through this and should be reporting back shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Despair ye not, I shall attempt to make my list of niggles and trivia shorter than the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing as I went. Revert at will.

• "believed that Edward IV sought revenge for the murder of his younger brother Edmund, Earl of Rutland at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460, which placed young Clifford's life in danger" Should Edmund's death not be discussed in the section on Clifford senior? Ie, next to the image depicting it? That would preserve the chronological flow and help explain the degree of danger Clifford junior was supposedly in when the shepherd lord tale is first trotted out, rather than part way through.
  • Excellent point. So I've moved it to his father's section, where I've also expanded—just a little—the circumstances of Rutland's death to indicate to the reader the supposed heinousness to the event.
• "may well have disappeared from his father's enemies" I am really not sure what this means. 'kept a low profile' or similar'?
  • Well, that's it. It's the kind of thing I was thinkng of, but is "low-profile" encyclopaedic? Anyway, have used it until told otherwise...
• "and retaining among, the local gentry" What this means could perhaps do with a word or two of explanation for the average reader.
  • Another footnote! Done, plus CGW quote.
• Note 6 is either incomplete or ungrammatical. (And Earl, not earl.)
  • True dat. Recast completely in an attempt to appear slightly competent.
• Note 23 doesn't work as it is. (Try reading it without the "priest-secretary to the Earl of Northumberland".)
  • See above!

Apart from this trivia it is in cracking shape. IMO it meets criteria 1, 2 and 4 well. It has a reasonable balance of breadth and focus, and the tale trips along well. Good stuff.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Grog, much appreciated—I'll be dealing with these tomorrow, touch wood. ——SN54129 19:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very for the review and the kind words Gog the Mild (not Grog—that must have been anticipation of the Friday night  :) apologies), and also thanks for your copyedits yesterday. Your suggestions all implemented fully (I think) here. Cheers! ——SN54129 13:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild you did not flag Wikicup participation for this review, unless I missed it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You are quite right. I forgot to add it. Thank you for picking it up. I have withdrawn this review from my WikiCup contributions. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Why do you have to withdraw it? It's not controversial, you added it here before the FAC closed, and I'm just checking so the Coords know that has been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Did I misunderstand? I am aware that the rule states "You must mention in your review that you are planning to claim WikiCup points for the review" which seems to make clear that the mention should be in advance of any claim and which I carelessly overlooked. If you feel that a points claim would be permissible in spite of this oversight then I would, obviously, be happy to reinstate the claim (and note that here) . Gog the Mild (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:, IMO (FWIW), the intent is that the Coords know about your WikiCup participation before making any decision to promote/archive, so they can account for that as needed. In the spirit of the thing, it seems to me that you should be able to claim your points. Especially since there is no controversy here. If the FAC had closed already, it would be a different thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I only have a couple minor issues:

• Popular belief later held that as a boy of seven, - Does the source say that this belief was a popular legend at the time? Genuine question.

My understanding is that the story of the shepherds, etc, itself didn't appear until the 16th C. with Edward Hall, although there was a definite fear of the Yorkst regime at the time. Do I need to tweak somehow? If you are the WP:READER, I need you to understand, not just me  :)

No, I understand it now, with your commentary. epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• There seem to be some quote inconsistencies: the 'shepherd lord' story vs. the story was "apocryphal"

That's two things: firstly, in Wikipedia's voice, saying that such a story existed, and secondly, that in spite of that, McFarlane calls the story "apocryphal"—hence it's in quotes rather than our voice. Make sense?

Oh, OK. That makes sense, but I was thinking some readers (like me) might not pick up something like that. epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I think this is an extremely good point if you don't mind me saying. I've tweaked the sentence slightly; how do you feel about More recently, the historian K. B. McFarlane has gone further, arguing that it was probably "apocryphal"...? Clearer, hopefully? ——SN54129 12:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Yes, that's much better. epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sunday, 10 June - I'm wondering about the use of the word "Sunday". Is the day of the week important to the story line?

No, not at all, and per consistency, I don't think I do it elsewhere in the article. Basically, Epicg., I have so little detail in articles like this that whenever I come across that level of detail I feel the need to put it in. Showing off that we actually know :) Anyway, removed per your suggestion.

• Brougham Castle became one of Clifford's favoured residences - I might be a clueless American, but aren't Brough Castle and Brougham Castle two different things? This appears to be the first location in the article where Brougham is mentioned.

H'mmm. Well, I'll see your clueless American and bid a clueless Brit, who can't tell the diference between two places though they're 20 miles apart! In my defence, Brougham is mentioned further up, where he encounters rebels; but Brough Castle is where the "great christmas" was held, mentioed in the "Patronage" section. Although to confuse the issue even further, there is also a Brougham Castle, and Clifford seems to have made it his main residence after 1521. I've added this bit to the footnote.

• I don't think "Personality and interests" belongs under "Death". Shouldn't it be under "Personal life"?

Good point, done.

These are all my comments for now. epicgenius (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking in, epicgenius your suggestions are greatly appreciated. I've queried a couple of them, but only for your second opinion? Cheers! ——SN54129 15:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: No problem. I don't have any other issues with this article. Support since everything above is now resolved, or answered. epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Notes from SandyGeorgia

• (c. 1454–23 April 1523) when the dates around the dash have spaces, the dash has spaces (MOS:DATERANGE)
• In her day, Awadewit (FA writer, RIP) would have pitched a fit that File:William Larkin Anne Clifford, Countess of Dorset.jpg has her eyes looking off the page instead of in to the text. I am unsure if we are still enforcing that, but Adrienne would have had you move that image to the right of the page rather than left.
• MOS:CAPTION full sentences in image captions should end with punctuation. (Sample: Brougham Castle became one of Clifford's favoured residence)

That's all I saw on a very quick glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia, I appreciate you bringing your experience to the table. Although it's always a shame to see an RIP  :( I never even knew about the spaced-dash-where-spaces-exist rule—so I've learned something there. I've implemented all your advice; Lady Anne now looks inwards (I admit I've seen that mentioned before but I suspect it's one of those things that many overlook!). I think, also, I've caught the captions that are sentences (one other anyway). Thanks again, ——SN54129

Looks good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops, one more I saw when I was looking at the new image placement: WP:ACCESSIBILITY says to never place images at the bottom of a section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops indeed, I think I just did that when I rearranged the images just now! But have put everything inside their sections; can't see any sandwiching problems, but if necessary I could always pull one of the castle images, although of course, I'd rather not have to. ——SN54129 12:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.