Talk:Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 4, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
February 13, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
March 7, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

Lockdown mode[edit]

This page is protected from editing. Where is the disagreement that has led to this? --Wetman 18:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some errors...[edit]

I believe that he has only 2 daughters and not 3. The third should be his sister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiailds (talkcontribs) 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


I just had a glance through certain sections, and some things strike me.

  • "... the Woodville connection would also help him build a power base independent of Warwick's influence."
This makes it seem that the Woodvilles are already powerful before the marriage. However, they were "nothing"s before Edward married Elizabeth and it was Edward's gift of titles and marriages that made them a factor.
Suggestion: "... he sought to build the Woodvilles into a power base independent of Warwick's influence."
I wouldn't quite agree that the Woodvilles were "nothings"; Richard Woodville's marriage to Jacquetta of Luxembourg had given him a central position at court, and secured good marriages for several of his children. I did try, however, to avoid the impression that the Woodvilles constituted a power base comparable to the Nevilles prior to the royal marriage. Maybe I could have been clearer on this though, so I rewrote it in the way you suggested.
  • "Edward, however, revealed the plot when Richard, Lord Welles, was routed at Losecote Field, and gave away the plan."
Did Lord Welles reveal the plan to Edward? I thought it was the chest of letters found in his possession by Edward that revealed it all.
Both, apparently. Hicks (1998), p. 285: "Once captured, [Welles] revealed the involvement of duke and earl, which, if the Lincolnshire Chronicle is to be believed, had already been revealed by cries of 'À Clarence! À Clarence! À Warrewik!', by the participation of men in Clarence's livery, and by the discovery of a casket of incriminating papers 'redy to be shewed'."
  • "... as Edward hurried south, Montagu's forces approached from the north, and the king found himself surrounded."
There is no telling of Montagu's defection (and the circumstances about it) before this.
Thanks, I've added a bit more.
  • "In the face of defeat Warwick attempted to escape the field, but was struck off his horse and killed."
Phillip Haigh (The Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses) and the English Heritage ( favour the version in which Warwick was killed while trying to get to his horse tethered near the woods; he and Montagu had fought on foot at the very start, leaving their horses way back at the rear, to improve the morale of the troops. This seems to be one of those portions with various tellings.
This is correct, but it seems he had already reached his horse by the time he was overtaken. I think too much has been made of the symbolic act of tethering the horses; it was quite common by this time to fight on foot, even for those of the highest rank.

That was it from a short reading. Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for very helpful comments, I hope I've addressed your issues! Lampman (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Finished copy edit[edit]

I just finished the copy edit, and have a few notes:

On the paragraph containing the date of Edward's secret marriage, I think it would be beneficial to include the year, instead of just 1 May. If it was the same year, then perhaps you could say: contracted on 1 May of the same year... Just to be clear...

Same thing goes for 4 May in the first paragraph of Aftermath. Since it is a new section, the year should be restated.

Also, I would watch the usage of endashes (or in this case, endashes uses as a stylistic alternative to emdashes per WP:DASH. They are nice, but should be used a bit more sparingly I think. I was able to convert some of them to commas, or restructure the sentence a bit for prose. Also, when I saw it, I replaced {{endash}} with an actual endash in order to save on load time, even if it is a small amount.

Finally, I always think that two sets of eyes are better than one, so you may want to think about getting another copy editor to come over. He/she may be able to catch things that I did not...

Thank you so much for inviting me over to this article. This was a fun one! I'll be sure to keep an eye on it. :)

Sorry for the delay, by the way. Alas, midterms decided to intervene as well... - Pax85 (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And when I nod my head, hit it[edit]

"as part of the agreement, Margaret and Henry's son, Edward, Prince of Wales, would marry Warwick's daughter Anne."

This looks like a man and a woman are marrying a woman. I head to read it three times to work out that it actually meant:

"as part of the agreement, Edward, Prince of Wales (the son of Margaret and Henry) would marry Warwick's daughter Anne." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"8th and 5th Baron Montacute"[edit]

This looks to me like vandalism and I have removed it. He was 5th Baron Montagu according to that article, but was only baron once. Richard75 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

As per WP:COMMONNAME is he really known so formerly as '16th Earl of Warwick', compared to- say- 'Warwick the Kingmaker'...? Cf. Hicks, 'Warwick is a household name'. Basket Feudalist 17:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)