Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Neville (died 1460)/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) 5 June 2024 [1].

Thomas Neville (died 1460)

edit
Nominator(s): ——Serial Number 54129 19:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Sharon Penman, on 30 December 1460, '...Thomas Neville, devoured a heaping plateful of cold roast capon and pompron buried in butter [and] signalled to a page for a third refill of his ale tankard'. As they say, an army marches on its stomach. But dies on its feet. Almost to a man. In snow. Outnumbered three to one. The cry would have been Á sarum! Á Sarum! Á York!.
Lots of Nevilles in this one—a Hutton of Nevilles, is that?—both individually and collectively, hence Thomas. Any thoughts on this article's improvement will be gratefully received.
Let your cry be Á FAC! Á FAC! ——Serial Number 54129 19:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, for those of us old enough to recall Johnners' "And now it will be Afaq to Knight at the Nursery end". Tim riley talk 14:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Classic! Too young to remember his full glory of course, but what a wit! Spontaneous and right on the nose. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Of course. Thanks Nikkimaria, done. ——Serial Number 54129 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too minor for words

  • I don't know if it is just me but the caption and alt-text which currently read The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 2006 are causing me inappropriate hilarity which is unworthy of the dignity of the Nevilles. Can I respectfully request that you consider rewording it in order to stop me giggling like a helpless infant? The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge pictured in 2006 would do it, as would The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge, 2006 photo or The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge (2006 photo) or like whatevs. Indeed one could go for the big one and just say The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge because no sane person, or even an editor here, can or should care when that photo was taken, unless it was from 1454 which would certainly be interesting. I certainly don't care – I can see plenty of places on Wikipedia where the date of a photo matters a lot (here is the current petrol station when it was still a turkey farm) but I honestly do not think this is one of those places. It simply does not matter: it adds nothing that we need. Having said my bit I will now stfu as I understand the young people charmingly put it. I will almost certainly not resort to fisticuffs nor a three-year edit war over this matter. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DBAK Thanks! I think. Yes, I see what you mean... I've kept it simple in the caption but added your suggested , 2006 photo for the alt for the benefit of the screen reader. Apologies for triggering both the OCD and the funny bone in the space of a few hours!
Thinking about it, wasn't the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 2006 after all... when Chelsea entertained West Ham at home. Thanks for looking in, though; it's easy to get sloppy about Alt text, etc., which is a disservice to outer readers who need it. ——Serial Number 54129 18:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely brilliant, thank you very much. I feel a warm glow of post-OCD happiness now. Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

edit

Comments Support from Tim riley

edit

From a first canter-through looking for typos:

  • "combatative and landless" – combative?
I knew that if anyone was going to pick up on it...! But yes. It's verbatim and faithful to the source. Honest guv. A direct quote. I left it like that deliberately, for opinion (and in case it was an EngVar thing, although I believe Friedrichs is as English as Queen Victoria). Thoughts? Use {{sic}}?
Yes, I think a "sic" is in order. Neither Chambers nor the OED recognises "combatative". How sad that the beloved Brian Boulton is no longer with us: he loved "sic"s and would, I am sure, have applauded your suggestion. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honoured to have Brian mentioned at one of my FACs. Vale Royal Abbey will remain forever GA in his memory. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • saw Thomas"in the thick of the fighting" – space
  • Bourgchier or the more usual Bourchier? – we have both
  • ransonms
  • Released into te temporary
  • "shortlived" – the OED hyphenates the word
  • "Thomas' marriage" – and all possessives for names ending in s. This is what the current edition of Fowler has to say on the point:
Names ending in -s. Use 's for the possessive case in names and surnames whenever possible; in other words, whenever you would tend to pronounce the possessive form of the name with an extra iz sound, e.g. Charles's brother, St James's Square, Thomas's niece, Zacharias's car.

More later after a proper read-through. Tim riley talk 12:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although I thought s's was an AmEng and now I'm more confused than ever (says Baldrick).
It would not be altogether accurate of me to say that ess-apostrophe is standard American and ess-apostrophe-ess is standard English, but as a rule of thumb it will serve. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second and concluding batch
  • Lead
  • "became a significant player" – what did he signify? You mean "leading" or "important", I think.
Good one!
  • "alongside his father and uncle, his head was impaled" – presumably just their heads too, although this seems to say father and uncle were impaled in their entirety.
True.
  • Early career, knighthood and marriage
  • "earned himself the moniker "Kingmaker"" – Chambers marks "moniker" as slang. Nickname or sobriquet might be preferable.
Sobriety is a much more elegant word.
  • "of genuinely comital proportions" – a word new to me: an explanatory note or link to Wiktionary would be a kindness.
Explanatory note regarding the actual amount itself and wikt. link for the dicdef.
  • "They they both inscribed as marginalia" – too many "they".
Done.
  • Feud with the Percy family
  • "who were also responsible for its escalation" – not sure why "also".
removed.
  • "the Nevilles would have had a substantial retune with them" – a splendid image, but I imagine you mean retinue.
As opposed to an Old Blind Piano Retainer  :)
  • "the estates of Percy loyalist Sir William Plumpton" – clunky false title
Tweaked sentence.
  • "The crown tried to settle the feud" – but you capitalise Crown elsewhere (rightly, I think).
Done.
  • Final years
  • "whom Hicks speculates may have been involved in piracy" – who, not whom wanted here.
Of course, changed.
  • "Calais—which the latter was now captain of" – not wrong but a bit inelegant. Perhaps "Calais – of which the latter was now captain"?
Absolutely fair enough.
  • "gathered for an upcoming parliament" – "upcoming" makes me want to upthrow and outwalk. What's wrong with the normal English "forthcoming"?
Clever  :) itdone.
  • "probably the largest and bloodiest battle on English soil" – is that the largest etc to that date or at any time throughout English history?
Pretty much the GOAT as the yoot of today says. I've added a footnote with some quotes to show it's a generally accepted position.
Wow! Excellent note. Makes one shudder to read it. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remains of Thomas Neville and the other dead of Wakefield removed from the Micklegate Bar" – were removed, unless they toddled off of their own volition.
Done.
  • "the recent death and burial there of his mother Alice in December the previous year" – I'm not sure we need both "recent" and "in December.
Lost recent.
  • "In a chariot drawn by six horses" – "chariot" comes as a surprise. I associate the term with Ancient Egypt and Rome, but am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
Well, I wanted to keep the wording of the original source just to avoid confusion with the modern sense of a hearse. But what I've done is a add a (perhaps slightly massive?) quotebox showing how the procedure became codified in later royal household ordinances—chariots included—that OK?
I like it very much, and if other readers are not interested they don't have to read it and can stick with the main text. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was good fun doing, although, as usual, it took ages. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sir Robert Welles support" – Welles's?
Done, per your comment above.
  • Notes
  • "Not completely the same office as today" – that gives the reader all help short of actual assistance – either explain the difference or omit the note would be my advice
Apologies. Yes, it is a bit bizarre. I remember I was looking for a source on the history of the Mews, which would have been perfect, but couldn't find one. Which was annoying. Of course, I then forgot about this fag-end of a half-arsed footnote and left it hanging. Still, now gone for good.
  • "And replaced, entre-nous, by Lancastrian heads" – entre nous? This is an encyclopaedia article, not a confidential chat.
Done!
  • "The heraldist Anthony Wagner" – might be better to link to Heraldry rather than to Herald (although Sir AW was a herald, I know).
A personal friend of yours, perhaps also I hope?  :) So I've linked to heraldry but called him a heraldist.
I never met AW, though I worked for a short while alongside two of his staff, who clearly found him formidable. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are of use. Tim riley talk 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All fantastic stuff, Tim riley, as always, completely embarrassed about the schoolboy typos—believe it or not, I can generally spell, but perhaps, distance and concentration lapse first. I've replied more fully to a couple of your points, mostly in explanation or where I've changed stuff. Apologies for the delay in finishing up here—I would've been done a while ago, but someone got in the way. If you've got any further advice or suggestions, please do so. Thank you very much, again. ——Serial Number 54129 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have one last read-through and return to – I confidently hope – support. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, if you feel like getting a bit of your own back you can have a pop at me in another current FAC, here. Tim riley talk 12:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't decided whether the name is Bourchier or Bourgchier. Tim riley talk 12:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved as g-less. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of that point, after a last perusal I am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Tim riley talk 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated Tim. See you there. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
Inline quotes

*"in loans to Salisbury: "the price the Nevilles could extract was a measure of Cromwell's desperation"". Wikipedia:Quotations says that quotations should be attributed inline, not just in a citation.

  • "an estate "of genuinely comital proportions"" Ditto.
  • "Thomas has been called "combatative [sic] and landless" by one historian,[10] and "vigorous and youthful"[34] by another". Ditto.
  • "as part of a Neville "show of force" in January 1454" Ditto.
To be fair, didn't require a quote at all; rephrased.

*"To purvey the king's right prises of falcons, goshawks, sakers, sakerets, 'laners', lanerets and gyrfalcons for sale through the realm, paying 20s for a falcon, 10s for a tercel gentle, 13s. 1 d for a goshawk, and 6s 5d each for the tercel of a goshawk, saker, laners and laneret." Source should be inline.

  • "in what has been described as "probably the largest and bloodiest battle on English soil"" Inline citation.
  • "A "rich, pageant-filled affair"" Ditto.
  • Note 16. Ditto.
Couldn't see this... Nichols is already cited inline?

Thanks Dudley, all attended to except one, plus a comment. I hope you don't mind me dividing the review up like this—it was easier for my eyes to have the technical adjustments separate from the narrative concerns.

Narrative/contextual points
  • "the second son of Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury, a major nobleman and magnate in the north of England during the fifteenth-century Wars of the Roses, and a younger brother to the more famous Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the 'Kingmaker'". I was unsure at first whether Thomas or Father Richard was the brother of the Kingmaker. I suggest clarifying.
Tweaked.
  • "His wedding in August 1453 is said to have marked the beginning of the armed feud between both houses". This is not helpful without context, and I am not sure it belongs in the lead, as it is said below to be a suggestion from one historian.
Removed the hypothetical but clarified a bit more about the feud (which was probably understated in the lead, considering the importance it played in the last few years of his life!)
  • "He was probably born soon after his elder brother Richard in 1428, and certainly by 1431, by when his parents had had two more sons, John and George." By 1431 is odd if his parents had had two more sons by then. I suggest before. Also, ODNB on George says he was born 1432.
Tweaked to 1432, sourced to ODNB.
  • "In 1439, Maud, Countess of Cambridge, reported Thomas to the royal council for attacking her house" When he was ten years old?
Indeed! I wondered who'd notice first...
  • "he attended Cromwell's funeral. The complexity of his affairs led to many legal machinations". Thomas's affairs or Cromwell's?
Clarified Crumb's.
  • Who benefited from the revised will?
Added a chunk explaining in more detail; a bit complex as it wasn't so much the amounts involved but the loosening of the ties that bound his executors that altered the balance.
  • "Although Thomas's feud with the Percy sons was not directly connected to the Battle of St Albans in May 1455, it was considered part of the general disorder." You need a few words to explain the battle.
Tricky to reduce such a complicated period down to a few words! A small paragraph explaining the king;'s illness/recovery/battle is OK?
  • "Edward of March". You should explain who he was here, not at the second mention.
Done.
  • "According to P. A. Johnson, both York's eldest son, Edward of March, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bourchier". presumably "and the Archbishop".
Well caught, done.
"...at Wakefield", less so. ——Serial Number 54129 15:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your points Dudley Miles, always appreciated. I'm kicking myself over the inline cites, as I generally always followed that, and then recently, someone said it wasn't always necessary. So I stopped. Anyway, see what you think of my suggestions for your contextual concerns. Have a good Sunday. ——Serial Number 54129
  • Thanks Dudley Miles, that's appreciated. Just an FYI, but I've got something up my sleeve regarding his preteen assaults on Aunty Cambridge's deer park... just waiting for a source. I expected more questioning over it to be honest  :) as I know how bizarre it sounds, I did a double-take when I came across it, too. Anyway, I'll give you a ping in future if that's OK. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, thanks for that edit to the footnote; it reads much more easily now. I'd forgotten the unfalse title can be a collective one, of course. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

A bit of reference formatting to start with:

  • Some of the references are inconsistent in various ways:
  • Notes are formatted differently (these are examples only and they should all be consistent):
  • FN3: Griffiths 1981, p. 568 + n.33.
Material is referenced to both the source text and a specific footnote.
  • FN4: Griffiths 1981, p. 599 n.33.
Material is referenced to a page's specific footnote only.
  • FN55: Payling 2014, p. 599 n.33.
Yes, inserted space.
  • FN120: Nichols 1863, p. 252 n..
That extra dot? Bizarre. Removed. Not numbering sources was common for Victorians; they often used symbols (•♦■°☆ etc) when they had several.
Sorry, I don't think I was clear on these. All the footnotes are in a different format: "568 + n.33.", "599 n.33.", "599 n.33.": they should all be in the same format. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think it's particularly important, per V, to be consistent in how I direct the reader to the relevant material. It basically depends on whether what is being cited is found in the page prose, the footnote or both. (I must have a blind spot, but I can't see the difference between the latter two examples from Griffiths you use? The dots and gaps, etc., all seem the same?)
  • Page ranges are in two formats (these are examples only and they should all be consistent):
  • FN6: Pollard 1990, pp. 251–2.
Thanks; annoyingly I found four such.
  • FN26: Brooks 2018, pp. 115–116.
This seems OK?
  • FN 82: Boardman 2006, pp. 553–5355. Typo on the range?
Indeed!
Early career
  • "John,[1] and George": Is the comma needed?
No; lost the comma.
  • "Maud[note 2] Stanhope,": any chance we could move the note until after the comma?
Yep, done.
  • "also niece and joint-heiress": the niece
False title! Done.
  • "earl and countess of Salisbury parents": I'm not sure what this says: is it the E&C of Salisbury's parents?
It's GobbeldyDuke; now adjusted (cut 'parents')
  • "Neville aggrandisement anathema to": an anathema?
Check.
Death of Cromwell
  • "argues that husband and wife": Has a name disappeared from the start of this sentence?
Or was it—in the throws of drunkardness—omitted in the first place? I think we should be told  :) Inserted 'she' before. Or should that be 'Friedrichs'? But I used her name at the beginning of the previous sentence, too.
  • "Thomas was never "able to cut very grand figures": the grammar goes a little awry here, talking about an individual and then referring to him as "figures"
Absolutely; it wasn't a particularly important quote, so I reworked it completely.
Final years
  • "R.L. Storey": space between the initials
Spaced.
Civil war
  • I know it's a quote, but I think we're OK to make consistent the punctuation for "13s. 1 d" and "6s 5d" – spaces and full stops should be consistent
Check.
Battle of Wakefield
  • "Christmas Truce": capital T?
L/ced. Also delinked: it turns out we don't have an article on the overarching concept of truces that take place over a Christmas period; what we do have is an article on one particular Christmas truce over 500 years later, in which Capt. Blackadder was definitely not offside. A curious omission!

That's my lot. An interesting article on a messy time of English politics. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much SchroCat, always a pleasure you know. What ever happens, it's a better article after your input than before. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody hell. Thanks SchroCat, I mean it. And noted for the future. Greatly appreciated. Cheers! ——Serial Number 54129 18:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Why does Mercer 2010 not have page numbers?

What makes "Beckett, J. V. (1988). The East Midlands from 1000. Harlow: Longman. ISBN 978-0-58249-269-1.", " Wagner, A. (1993). Medieval Pageant: Writhe's Garter Book: the Ceremony of the Bath and the Earldom of Salisbury Roll. London: Roxburghe Club. ISBN 978-0-95011-994-6." and " Storey, R. L. (1999). The End of the House of Lancaster (rev. 2nd ed.). Stroud: Sutton Publishing. ISBN 978-0-75092-199-2." a reliable source? I'll see if @Ealdgyth: has anything to add about the sourcing since she's a better connoisseur of English history and sources than I am. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longman and Sutton are both quite good academic publishers. Beckett's in 207 libraries, mainly universities near me. Storey's in 804 libraries (I think I actually have a copy somewhere in a box....) Less sure of Roxburghe Club - but it's held by 46 libraries, including the Folger Shakespeare Library and a number of academic libraries. I'd call all three the usual specialized secondary sources we should use. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, anything else? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing much to add since SchroCat above commented on the source formatting already. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I am curious, however, as to what makes Cora Scofield's The Life and Reign of Edward the Fourth and Rosenthal's Nobles and the Noble Life RS? ——Serial Number 54129 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you questioning the reliability of the sources you have used? Usually the arrow of enquiry flies the other way. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Just so. I wondered what serendipitous luck made, e.g. Beckett come in for extra scrutiny when e.g. Scofield enjoyed no such special favour. Ah well. As playthings to the gods are we, etc  :) ——Serial Number 54129 17:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What made Beckett get extra scrutiny is that I couldn't find them being cited here while Scofield has a lot more hits and this review. Ditto for Rosenthal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi, some comments:

  • "a younger brother to": "a younger brother of" would be better?
Good point.
  • I'm not quite sure how this can be done, but would you consider splitting the 2 paragraph long lead into 4 paragraphs? The 2 paras rn seem to be too big.
Interesting, see what you think! I think that's a good idea, as you say, where is the main question. I think this works though?
  • Consider adding the current value of the 20 pounds using the inflation adjusted template? Also do this for note 4 and its preceding figure, and all the other historical amounts? I can't remember if there is an MOS for this, but in all FACRs I have read, current values seem to be required.
I'll look into this; I have no idea how to convert medieval pounds/shillings/pence with 20th-century decimalization but it might be possible.
  • Note 2: by invasion, I guess you mean the Anglo-Saxon one? If so, consider linking?
Apologies, the Norman one! But linked.
  • Lord Cromwell's feuds: Consider adding who the other parties were in a note? It might be obvious to British readers but not anyone else, including me. Also NOFORCELINK might apply here, wdyt?
Absolutely. I think it's relevant enough to keep in the body, and flows neatly into the next para. And I'd never read NOFORCEDLINK before! Thanks  :)
  • This might be irrelevant here, but consider adding the images of the 3 castles bequeathed as marrriage settlement? We only have 3 pictures here (excl infobox) but all of them showing castles might be odd, wdyt?
In a way, the problem is that so few images are available from this period, so we end up relying on photos on the things that are left... like castles, which are solid enough to have survived. But there's rarely portraits, seals etc. Tell you what: how about a colour scan of the actual contract made between him and his father and brother in 1459? (I'm not sure where the three bequeathed castles were, you see.)
  • Do we have any content on why Maud continued to carry the Willoughby surname? Was this a custom at the time?
Well, it was more that it was a title than a surname; she was known by her senior title, and her new husband was only a knight compared to her ex, who had been a baron. For example, Salisbury's sister Katherine eventually married four times. Her first was to the duke of Norfolk, so for the rest of her life she was referred to as "Katherine Norfolke", when she used a surname at all, because her three subsequent husbands were all of lower rank (two knights and a viscount, IIRC).
  • Consider linking to Wressle Castle?
Linked.
  • Medievalist is linked in the second section but not the first.
  • "manor of Stamford Bridge": "manor at Stamford Bridge"?
The manor was more of an area rather than one place, but I've linked it to Manorialism, which hopefully clarifies?
  • After the Friedrichs quote, we start off with "argues that". Wouldn't "Friedrich argues that" be better here, since the preceding quote ended in a full stop?
SchroCat noticed that too! A major typo  :)
  • Consider linking to jure uxoris?
  • Do we know what manors/castles were bequeathed to the Neville couple by the 1451 will? If so, consider listing, if there are too many, I believe an aggregate count would also work.
The sources aren't that specific, and forgive me for not going to Magdalen College, Oxford and transcribing Magd. Add. MS. 66.—approximately 1000 words of scribal Latin!—for this article  :)
  • Consider linking to West March (Scottish Marches)?
Well, they were on the English side, but I added 'towards Scotland' to clarify.
  • Consider linking to Royal Mews?
Done.
  • Since the defeat of an army outnumbering its opponents by 3 times is rare, could we have the brief details of what led to this outcome, whether in the body or in a note?
Good idea; I've added a substantial footnote, plus source, to gloss it?
  • What is your view on linking to the pages of authors and publishers? I believe you have not done so to avoid SEAOFBLUE in the biblio, no? In that case, Cambridge University Press shouldn't be linked too, would tou agree?
Absolutely true. It's also accuracy (I can't always guarantee that I'm linking to the right edition) and consistency (if I can't link all, should I link some?). Anyway, have delinked CUP.
  • Boardman 2006 is the only citation here whose ISBN format is inconsistent with the others, for it does not have the 978 prefix. I understand this may be so because some ISBNs do not have this prefix, and adding it leads to the ISBN breaking. Is this the case here?
That's a funny one—well spotted. There's no reason, really, for a book that recent to even need a 10-digit ISBN? So I've changed to to the 13-digits shown in Worldcat.
There's a useful ISBN converter here too. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Davies 2004, is "online" being repeated necessary? Is this due to autopopulated data?
I think it's because I so rarely use {{Cite ODNB}}, I don't realise what I need and don't need to enter myself  :) anther good spot!

This was a good article to read. That's all from me, cheers! Matarisvan (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matarisvan that was a really interesting review. You made me think and reassess what I'd written in a way that seldom happens. I hope I've taken full advantage of your suggestions; let me know if anything needs tweaking. Thanks for looking in! ——Serial Number 54129 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Serial Number 54129, thanks for your kind words. Could I just add 3 more comments here?
  • Now when I think of it, a note for what led to the outcome at Wakefield would be helpful, just like the one you have added for Blore Heath.
  • Good thought, added, in a couple of footnotes.
  • Maybe due to the idiosyncracies of the Cite ODNB template, the error you removed in Davies 2004 is still present in Hicks 2004, Horrox 2004 and Pollard 2004.
  • Check.
  • What is your policy on author's names? I see you've used only last names and initials for the first names. I'm not sure what the MOS here is, more experienced editors would be better qualified to comment on this.
  • Well, I don't really have a policy; I really just go by consistency(again!); sometimes we know first names, sometimes only initials so it seems easier to stick with the one thing we know (except groups, institutions and websites of course).
Matarisvan (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Matarisvanm all good points, and all addressed. See what you think. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 16:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to extend my support for promotion to FA class. Looking forward to your other works, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

edit
  • "Sir Thomas Neville (c. 1429 – 1460) was the second son of Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury, a major nobleman and magnate". It is not immediately clear which was the "major nobleman and magnate".
  • "On their return, however, the following year, he was released". Does "however" add anything?
  • "Taking part in the disastrous Battle of Wakefield, the Yorkists went down to a crushing defeat." It may be just me, but this sentence seems to start off referring to just Thomas and end with reference to an entire army. Maybe '... Lancastrian-inspired disorder, taking part in the disastrous Battle of Wakefield, where the Yorkists went down to a crushing defeat' or 'There he took part in the disastrous Battle of Wakefield, where the Yorkists went down to a crushing defeat' or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog, always a pleasure. I agree with these points; it's funny how one word (re. your first query) ended up with rewriting much of the opening lead; I was going to simply say, "who was a major northern etc". But that would expose a duplicate "was". So mini re-write! Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 11:42, 5 June 2024 (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/Thomas_Neville_(died_1460)/archive1&oldid=1227481564"