Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Minsterworth/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2022 [1].

John Minsterworth

edit
Nominator(s): SN54129 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is another—although probably the last—about 14th-century failures, medieval madcaps or bizarre barons. This chap goes to France, gets roundly up his boss' nose, sneaks away while his comrades get roundly beaten by the French, tries to blame everyone else, then eventually deserts to the French and supports a Welsh invasion, is picked up by the English, and, not unsurprisingly, paid a high price for his escapades. Hopefully, you'll join me in getting Minsterworth the promotion that is most certainly not his by right of conquest! Cheers, SN54129 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

edit
  • Lead
  • "Sir Robert Knolles, who contemporaries praised" – whom, please.
  • Yus!
  • "Minsterworth may have despised Knolles on grounds of the latter's reputation and status, and with others, split away" – I think we have either one comma too many or one too few here – if you want one after "others" I think you want one after "and" as well
  • Add comma.
  • "despite regular ambushes" – unless they were e.g. every Tuesday and Friday at 11.00 o'clock I think you mean "frequent" rather than "regular"
  • A fascinating thought that!
  • Service in France and mutiny
  • "as a "shadowy... man" – I think, but don't take my word for it, the MoS would like a space before your elliptical dots.
  • Sorted all of them; I had a mixture.
  • Definitely articled.
  • "the army commenced a chevauchée" – I have bleated at you before about using a genteelism like "commence" when a good plain word like "start" or "begin" is available at no extra cost. (And you do realise that the word "chevauchée" is the exclusive property of Gog the Mild, who may impose a hire charge?)
  • In my defence, m'lud, these three articles were written a long time ago. Probably around the same time, when I was obviously more gentile...!
Usually I would just send the lads round for a full and frank discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Division of the English force
  • "continuous ambushes" – I think you probably mean "continual" rather than "continuous" here.
  • Check.
  • Renegade in France
  • "Minsterworth left England for France again in 1372, and it is possible that Minsterworth was communicating" – the repetition of the surname is infelicitous: a pronoun might be better the second time
  • Done.
  • "communicating treasonably with them by now" – "them" being the French, presumably, but there is no plural noun for "them" to refer back to
  • Tweaked.
  • "but he was serving Charles V's army by then" – is there an "in" missing before "Charles"?
  • Fixed, as part of the above tweak.
  • "Soon after, on 20 December 1373, that the escheator of the Duchy of Lancaster was ordered to confiscate all the lands" – the "that" seems to be surplus to requirements. (Afterthought, but perhaps you meant to put the "that" before the first comma, where it would be perfectly happy.)
  • Less being more, I removed it.
  • "the intended logistics of this campaign, or how it was to be implemented, are uncertain" – if you use "or" you need a singular verb – "is", rather than "are"
  • Done.
  • "and Charles' plan" – I haven't boggled at "Knolles'" rather than "Knolles's" (though I would write the latter) but Charles' really does need to be Charles's.
  • For consistency, I've double-s'd both. But I could have sworn that BrEng favored a single possessive s...? Must've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
  • It would be an oversimplification to say that Jones' is AmE and Jones's is BrE: most BrE style guides use the latter form but I know at least one that doesn't, and I know some AmE users prefer ess-apostrophe-ess; but as a rule of thumb it isn't too far wrong to think of the shorter form as AmE and the longer as BrE. (As for your "favored", that is unequivocally AmE, but we all know that, don't we, boys and girls?) Tim riley talk 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capture by the English
  • "Peasant#'s revolt" – the what?
  • The pedant's revolt  :)
  • Notes
  • "Under a royal charter issued him in 1365, Gaunt was authorized" – the z is not wrong, but looks a bit odd in modern BrE: "authorised" would be more usual.
  • Done.

Over to you. Tim riley talk 18:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Tim; apologies for the tardiness of my response, there aren't enough hours in the day at the moment. As if, ever. Your points addressed with ths edit, hopefully! SN54129 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good now. I'll be back after a final read-through. More anon. Tim riley talk 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 18:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Check that everything in the lead is cited in the body - for example "attempted to have Knolles tried for treason" is not explicitly claimed there
    Check.
  • How does Baker meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • Ah, well, we have two Bakers.
    Baker, G. P: It's a PhD from a reputable university, supervised by a respected expert in their field, by someone who was subsequently employed at equally respected institutions for their expertise on the same subject (UEA, Southampton and Exeter), and has published in his field. Some of his thesis is replicated in a subsequent piece (Baker 2018), although not completely, so now the one complements the other. For the record though: I would argue for the thesis being a high-quality source in the first place regardless of a later write up (as you'll be unsurprised to hear, most of his article is cited to...the thesis!).
    Baker, R: A RS for the fact that Minsterworth's "infamy" was still being discussed nearly 300 years later.
  • What makes Harrison a high-quality reliable source?
  • Well. J. J. Alexander, writing in 1937, discussed the use of antiquarian texts by modern historians. It is true, he said, that some of these writers often had access to now-lost sources, and, likewise, that many of them were researching with the scientific method, but on the whole, "the practice of quoting from eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century sources... is to be deprecated". in: J. J. Alexander, 'Tavistock in the Fifteenth Century', Report & Transactions of the Devonshire Association 69(1937), 252. But for our purposes, is 16 out of 59 an overuse of a source mostly backing simple, if rarely considered, facts, in an area where modern scholarship no longer deeply goes?
  • If there's reason to consider it reliable, perhaps not - but is there? Alexander was speaking in generalities rather than regarding this particular source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I have removed the number of references to Harrison. (Admittedly, only by one.) But he's OK for the local detail—not opinion, you see, just raw fact—that may no longer be available to modern scholars. All the stuff getting burned in 1867, etc.
  • Leland is missing language
    Excellent eyes, thanks.
  • Ormrod: verify location? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it looks odd  :) The US place of publication is, of course, New Haven, but I only have/had access to that printed on Yale's behalf in the UK, in Padstow. Can you see this copyright page? (Note same ISBN too.) Bloody limeys eh!  :) SN54129 18:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. Tim, apologies for taking a while to complete this Nikkimaria. See what you think now. Cheers! SN54129 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit

Placeholder. Will get to this over weekend; from the lead looks v interesting. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll edit trivial prose stuff directly rather than list demands here, if that's ok, and of course you can revert at will. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have made some edits
  • Convicted of conspiring – alliteration
    Went with "Convicted of intriguing with the enemy"?
    Convicted on conspiracy charges Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • whom contemporaries praised for his military prowess – "Whom" is old fashioned, and "military prowess" should be either tactical or strategic acumen or ability
  • Right, "military acumen"?
  • and, for reasons which are now obscure, - concerns historical method and accuracy; if covered below drop clarifier from lead
    When you get to it, you'll see that it's considered too hare-brained a scheme to make much sense at the time, let alone >600 years later  :)
  • However, in 1377, while still abroad, he was captured by the English and sent home. Unless missing something..."while still abroad" should be "in France", drop "however"
    Removed however. I went with "abroad" as the geography is a bit complex—he went from Eng > France > Castille > Navarre, where he was finally arrested. And the only place I've mentioned him being before that is France, so I'm kind of skating over the fact that he wasn't arrested there while not having to go into too much detail. Do you see what I mean?
  • socially superior - "superior" isn't quite right, maybe use the word higher or rank
    Tweaked the whole sentence.
  • The lead is quite sparse; if no image is available would add, gasp!, a brief IB, just to fill up the empty space
    I haven't had much experience with IBs ;) but am not averse. As you say, something to break the walls of text up would be great. This has to have the crappest selection of images ever! Not even a coat of arms. Any particular IB you recommend?
    If not an ib, what about a painting of a repetitively contemporary battel from the Hundred Years' War? Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC) - should have been "relatively" not "repetitively". Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "All you battles look the same to me, squire"  :) Have added an IB, sorry Cass  ;) what you think Ceoil?
    Looks good (and yes, no disrespect to cass or mr Cat). I like "Known for: Soldiering, treason" Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ceoil, all good points, and thanks for your copy editing through. SN54129 12:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe split "Capture by the English" and "Execution". Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget to say, I did this a while ago! Looks much better now.
  • This doesn't add up as stated: Minsterworth left England for France again in 1372,and it is possible that he was communicating treasonably with King Charles V of France by this point. Precisely whether he gave himself up to the French or was captured by them the following year is unknown, but he was serving in their army by then.. "Gave himself up and was communicating treasonably" are consistently (though 'communicating treasonably' should be made a deal?), but the "or was captured" doesn't logically flow, unless he was forced into service (unlikely) or was brainwashed. Maybe, precisely when he committed treason is unknow, it may have been before he returned to France, after was captured, etc....".
    Yes, I see: it's not chronological is it... I've tweaked the sentence to put the order of events into, some order!
  • A supposed likeness and the the story of Minsterworth's execution is recorded on a version of Ranulf Higden's c. 1377 chronicle Polychronicon, but was added by a 16th-century hand - My reworded version, but should it be that a "16th-century edition of Ranulf Higden's c. 1377 chronicle Polychronicon contained an illustration of Minsterworth and a description of his execution." Ceoil (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better, thanks. Nabbed!
  • @Ceoil: Thanks for these suggestions too—I've utilised all of 'em. And apologies for not doing so sooner! Just got bogged down elsewhere. Cheers though! SN54129 14:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi Gog, will have another look on Monday, and take it from there. Txs. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • and eventually—albeit seeing most of the remnant of his army massacred on the Breton shore—to England - his army? the preceding sentance indicates it was Knolles army.
    Knolles's army was bent out of shape at Pontvallain, but I've clarified that M. commanded a smaller one.
  • conspired with a rebel Welsh lord, Owen of Wales: as he is named - the rebel Welsh lord
    Done.
  • he was captured by the English and sent home - sent home seems to understate and make him sound like a naughty schoolboy. Presumably to face imprisonment or death.
    Couldn't think of a synonym for "sent home" w/out duplicating English/England. But see next!
  • Convicted on conspiracy charges - conspiracy to commit treason? And link to the then UK law
    Linked, and added to previous sentence^^^
  • Who is Andrew Ayton and when did he describe "him as a shadowy ... man of obscure origins - before or after The Fall
    Fall references are always welcome (mandatory!), but I didn't get this...have clarified who Ayton is though! (Hang on, "A Figure Walks"?)
  • the English "did not...burn anything for which a ransom was paid." - too coyly stated, would paraphrase and make plainer as it could be whitewashing otherwise. Given that, a modern source badly needed here.
    Made it very clear that "the English destroyed what they wanted, unless ransoms were paid". But the source is from 2000? Added a 2017 source r. the money that could be made from it.
  • I don't know what this means: Knolles's appointment had an "implied mark of distinction" about it, suggests Mark Ormrod.
    Entire section tweaked.
  • Similarly, most won't know the meaning of these antiquated and localised words in the quoted sentance "...Minsterworth called Knolles an "old brigand", a "tomb-robberand a "freebooter" before the troops." Also "In front of" rather than "before" the troops
    Linked where possible.
  • He may have hated Knolles, suggests Sumption, and this hatred may have been virulent. According to Sumption, he may have "hated"...also "virulent" is an odd choice here; meaning what in context exactly.
    It's Sumption's own word, but a quote now should contextualise it.
  • While he bore much culpability for the disaster - more old fashioned / primary source wording, better as - was widely blamed for?
    I agree culpability is clumsy, but I use "blame" later in the same sentence; gone with "bore responsibility"?
  • Overall there are two many (albeit cute) contemporary turns of phrase embedded in wiki voice or inserted as quotes (from the short "Renegade in France" sect contra fidem et ligeanciam, More intriguing still, .. more than coincidence, army of the sea, burn their way west, pretender to the throne, particular advantages. Although the scholarship seems up-to-date, the article could be more dethatched and less in contemporary (wag) voice. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    H'mm. Well, I've removed a couple of Latinisms, but bear in mind they are only accompanying translations, I think it's important to give the reader an opportunity to do their own trans. Those others are all, I think, direct quotes—replaced one with a direct quote for clarity—can you clarify what a wag voice?
  • Thanks Ceoil, some very thorough stuff there, thanks; all actioned except for a couple of queries. Cheers, SN54129 12:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great choice and nice work. Ceoil (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga

edit
  • Thanks for an interesting read! I just realised you wrote Coterel gang which I also enjoyed a while back. This article tells quite a confusing story and most of the time I could follow it easily. Here are some comments on prose, where I got stuck:
  • "The Historian James Sherborne has said Minsterworth caused "much trouble" on the campaign,[4] and Jonathan Sumption described him as an "ambitious hothead".[5] " - perhaps recently garbled, historian doesn't need capitalizing and would suggest introducing both commentators as medieval historians or similar
    Absolutely. Decapped, and have remodelled the sentence to show they are both historians.
  • "It was to be the first English army to France intended to be led by a commander below the rank of earl[6] or other peers.[7]" - seems like this could be trimmed to " It was the first English army to France led by a commander below the rank of earl[6] or other peers.[7] "
    Done.
  • "resulted in joint command of Knolles " suggest "resulted in joint command by Knolles" or "resulted in the joint command of Knolles "
    Went with "by".
  • "This system of shared leadership appears to have led to jealousies and rivalries arising among them" - suggest cutting "among them"
    Done.
  • "who had started at the bottom" - bottom of what?
    The ranks. But I've merged the two sentences together, which is hopefully clearer?
  • "Geographically his force was recruited from across the country, including locally to Minsterworth—such as Wales and Gloucester—but further afield;" - this reads awkwardly to me, i think the dashes don't help
    Have recast the sentence, hopefully, it reads better now?
  • I don't think note2 needs to start with "Although", especially since there's a "though" in the quote
    Good point, tweaked.
  • Marches - should this be linked? Welsh Marshes is linked below, which I suppose is currently second mention
    Swapped them over.
  • "probably to make enable foraging and increase profits" - extra word here
    I think it was meant to be "probably to make foraging easier and increase profits".
  • "escaped into Brittany" - escaped to?
    Done.
  • consider "Charles V of France" for heathens like me to keep up with the story
    Apologies, but I couldn't see what you meant; could you clarify where this is?
    • I meant in this sentence: "and it is possible that he was communicating treasonably with King Charles V by this point". It's Charles' first mention and I was wondering before clicking through if he was king of Spain and/or France Mujinga (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soon after, on 20 December 1373, the escheator of the Duchy of Lancaster was ordered to confiscate all the lands Minsterworth held of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, Minsterworth's feudal lord in Gloucestershire and the Welsh Marches.[44]" - bit confused by this sentence .. so the escheator was told to confiscate land Minsterworth possessed which was owned by John of Gaunt, who was the Duke of Lancaster? On a reread it's "held of" that's tripping me up
    Changed to "held from"?
  • so there's two quoteboxes in "Capture by the English", one has a book reference, one doesn't, which seems inconsistent
    Good spot, done.
  • in Pamplona,[46] Navarre - prob a comma after Navarre
    Done.
  • [observation] wow that's brutal to send bits of his body to different cities
    A deterrent for any like-minded lads  :)
  • link messuage to conveyancing (which it currently redirects to)?
    Done.
  • i'm not sure how the discussion in the "Estates" section relates to the earlier stuff about the escheator confiscated Minsterworth's holdings ultimately owned by John of Gaunt (although it does clarify my earlier comment for me). But does that mean the land had been confiscated in 1373 or it was spoken about then and only done after his execution?
    Yes, this is a bit confusing, you're right. I've tried to clarify that the outlawry and confiscation took place in '73, but the IPM (from which we get a list of lands) wasn't til '77. Better?
  • Does the Baker PhD need a location?
    I only ever use the university location to be honest—they're rarely different.

That's all I got.Mujinga (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking in, Mujinga, great to "see" you again (Kennedy Road seems ages ago now!) I've tried to address all your points, except one, which I'll do when you clarify. Now I see you've mentioned me elsewhere—are my dashes getting me into trouble!  ;) Cheers, SN54129 13:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Time flies when you are having fun! I've replied on Charles, see what you think, and in any case switching to support Mujinga (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've actioned on Charles, and thanks for noticing the typo which took him back 1,000 years  :) SN54129 15:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "John Minsterworth was under Knolles's captaincy." I don't think John is necessary here, as the reader will know that Minsterworth is referring to this person.
    Absolutely; done.
  • " while Jonathan Sumption describes him as an "ambitious hothead"." Who is Johnathan Sumption and why should I care about his opinion? Perhaps, "while medieval historian Jonathan Sumption describes him as an "ambitious hothead"."
    Done (but for the record, and wrt the same points you make below, remember that repetition is poor writing ecept for poets, so use synonyms when you have them; although cf. False title (Tim riley of this parish has some lighthearted examples I think?))
  • "had an "implied mark of distinction" about it, suggests Mark Ormrod." Who is this person, and why should I care about his opinion? Perhaps something like, "had an "implied mark of distinction" about it, suggests historian Mark Ormrod."
  • "He seems to have seen himself as socially outranking Knolles, who had first started, says the chronicler Thomas Walsingham as a "poor and lowly valet"." The arrangement of this sentence confuses me. Is "poor and lowly valet" Minsterworth's opinion of Knolles?
    Ah; recast the entire section!
  • "Anne Curry argues that by then," -> "Historian Anne Curry..."
  • " says Rosemary Horrox," -> "says historian Rosemary Horrox"
  • "Michael Prestwich has suggested" -> "Historian Michael Prestwich..."
  • "being, according to Baker, "as guilty as any man for the break up of the army"" Is this the same Gary Baker that is mentioned later in the article, and what is this person's credentials?
    Indeed!
  • "but it is unknown if this was after surrender or capture,[15][15][43]" is ref 15 supposed to be cited twice?
    Well spotted—removed.
  • ""More intriguing still", comments Gary Baker, is the fact that he appears to have been accompanied by his old comrade-in-arms, Thomas Fauconberg, who defected at the same time; "the fact that both these men took this huge step must be more than coincidence"." This sentence is implying some sort of relationship between these two men, but instead of being explicit about it, the article only hints at it. What kind of relationship did Baker think these two men had? Does Baker say how he thinks Fauconberg influenced Minsterworth to make this decision?
    Crudely, he suggests that F. might have been mentally unstable and "easily led" by M., which hopefully I've clarified.
  • "Sumption also, however, points out that" I don't think however is necessary here.
    Done.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind, Z1720, it's much appreciated! Have a good week  :) SN54129 14:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

edit
  • calling Knolles such names as Was Sumption or Minsterworth the speaker of the insults?
    Clarified it was Minsterworth, although Sumption is certainly not unknown to speak his mind :)
  • move the link to medievalist to the first mention
    Done.
  • Minsterworth again left for France in 1372 How easy was this for an outlaw to do?
    Thanks for the massive question! If you mean physically, then (OR, but probably sourceable) quite easily, I'd say. Those instructed to abjure the realm were usually given either Dover or, if the coroner was malicious, somewhere miles away that you only had a few days to walk to barefooted, and they also had licence (in the form of guards) to do so. But there was plenty of traffic between Eng and France, legal and otherwise, so I suspect someone like Minsterworth, probably with cash and contacts, wouldn't have much trouble finding a ride. And I think it would have to have been off the books, as it was illegal for anyone to leave the country without a royal licence. Merchants, soldiers, pilgrims, etc. Outlaws were automatically excluded from getting a licence, Now: I can probably find the sources to say this kind of thing, but it would be with very broad strokes (talking about the generalities rather than Minsterworth himself), and possibly contra FA? #4. What do you think?
  • If there's an illustration of him, can it be found and used?
    This is really heartbreaking! Until recently I didn't know of this manuscript, and ironically wouldn't necessarily have expected his likeness to ever have been taken down, let alone survived (I mean, there are earls, dukes, etc., from the same period that we don't have pictures of, let alone some obscure knight!). But finding it... that's another matter. There are numerous contemporary copies of this MS floating around, but of course only one has this illustration. I've asked around, so if I hunt it down, I'll do my best, but right now I don't quite know what it is I'm looking for, let alone where it is. It would be such an original addition, though *sigh*...

Not much to pick at really. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Harry, for looking in, and for asking some very interesting questions; I'm sorry if my answers haven't been as useful as I'd like them to be. But if you've got any advice, I'd appreciate it. Cheers! SN54129 16:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like to ask the questions, even though sometimes the answers aren't known or are out of scope for the article! I'm not sure there's much more that can be done here, but it was interesting anyway! Happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harry, I've got a book I can lend you on outlaws and exile of the period. It's colourful stuff  :) SN54129 17:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Minsterworth/archive1&oldid=1084175944"