Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2019 [1].

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham[edit]

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article was my first major attempt at a historical "biography", in so far as they are actually possible with this passing of time; it went through the MILHIST A-class review slightly over a year ago. It fell off the radar, but has recently received further polishing and should be ready for promotion. I've no idea, now, and looking back on it, exactly why I chose Buckingham to beef up back then; he's an interesting character but I can't remember recognising that! He began his life fighting for Henry V in France, and died defending Henry VI in England. Between those points he fought, argued, married, and heired, and went from being the voice of reason and conciliation in government to calling for war on opponents and urging death on his enemies.
See what you think; get stuck in. ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belated: I don't suppose it's the done thing, and is probably completely precious, but if this FAC passes, it should be dedicated to the one like User:Cassianto who(I knew I had it somewhere but could find the bloody thing) originally pushed me to take Buckingham further, but who is no longer with us to see the day...a loss that efforts such as this will never replace. Anyway, carry on. ——SerialNumber54129 14:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Your references and bibliography are beautiful. Nicely done. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

I have very little to complain about here. Reviewers' work would be much easier if all candidates at FAC had this level of exhaustive research and preparation. A few quibbles, mostly with reference formatting (with a couple from prose). I will note that older material (such as Nicolas) and the two doctoral dissertations cited appear to be used in a responsible manner; authoritative modern sources carry most of the weight, as appropriate.

  • Davis (2004) appears to be missing a space in OxfordDictionary.
  • Dunham (1907): gGnealogy?
  • Griffiths (1981) has "Berkeley". Most of your US publisher locations have a state abbreviation (and you may want to make sure I didn't miss any others).
  • And actually, I see you have just New York for Zimbalist (2012). That one can go either way, generally speaking, but you do have "New York, NY" for Logan (1979).
  • There are two citations to doctoral theses: Ross (1952) and Stansfield (1987), but they're formatted slightly differently. If the Stansfield thesis is published (insofar as the other one is "unpublished"), then it would be better to find and cite the published version. But I suspect that's not the case, and they're both just being cited as theses (and you can probably drop "unpublished" from Ross for consistency).
  • Wiggins & Richardson appears out of alphabetical order.
  • Should the work authored by "The Greyfriars Research be alphabetized under "G" rather than "T"?
  • "The duke was buried shortly after at Grey Friars Abbey in the Northampton." I'm not always competent to judge British English, but should that last "the" be there?
  • The order of a few of the sections confuses me. We open with the bulk of his history, concluding with his death, then have a section dedicated to his "Character", then an "Aftermath" dealing with his estate after his death, then a discussion of "Family". As a result, in reading order, poor Humprhey is: alive, dead, alive, dead, then alive again. Perhaps it would be better to move §Aftermath between §Last years and §Character?
  • He left instructions for the foundation of a college. Were those carried out, and if so, was that college anything we can link to?
  • That lost play is interesting. Assuming it's the same Duke Humphrey attributed to Shakespeare, it's my understanding that most scholars think the titular character is Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (see its entry in the Folger Lost Plays Database – although the LPD is probably not actually a reliable source in and of itself).
  • And, my least favorite FAC quibble: you have at least a couple spots where multiple citations are used, but the reference numbers are not in numerical order ([26][1] in the bit about Joan of Arc; [114][110] in the Battle of St Albans).

I don't see anything that would preclude my eventual support, as I'm certain these are all minor issues that are easily resolved. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much Squeamish Ossifrage, for those suggestions: I've actioned all of them with this edit. The main thing, among all the typos and tweaks, is that I re-ordered that section—which reads much better in its new seat—and added a footnote about the college, which hopefully provides more background and detail; including the fact that his wife seems to have been more interested in remarrying than executoring!  :) I hope this is all OK for you; let me know what you think. Incidentally, your points about the out-of-order ref numbers was also attended to, in subsequent edits. Cheers!——SerialNumber54129 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Duke Humphrey, the Folger Shakespeare Library's Lost Plays Database is definitely a WP:RS reliable source, and the entry in question was written by David McInnis who is the Gerry Higgins Senior Lecturer in Shakespeare Studies at the University of Melbourne and has published books in this field. The LPD has an editorial board with similar experts: see their About us page. And Wiggins and Richardson are not in conflict with the LPD: they both think Gloucester the most obvious choice (especially if by Shakespeare: "Duke Humphrey" there is Gloucester), Buckingham a second choice, and a fictional "Duke Humphrey" a possibility. Both also say there is insufficient evidence this play even existed, what its actual title was (the Warburton list may well have contained descriptive "titles" bearing no resemblance to any published title page: e.g. "That one where Falstaff got drunk"), much less determine its subject. IOW, our article was simply off by two words: "May be", not "was probably". --Xover (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SC[edit]

Lead
  • "He acted as both King's bodyguard and chief negotiator Jack Cade's rebellion of 1450": missing "during" or similar after negotiator
Early
  • "wars"; and, like": the "and" isn't needed after a semi-colon
  • "whilst" - > "while" (~st is a little archaic/whimsical)
  • "made repeated claim to" - > "claims"
  • "travelled to France with the King for French coronation" – doesn't scan well. his French coronation; the French…, etc needed
  • "this time was carrying out defending Paris and its environs" - > "this time was carrying out the defence of Paris and its environs"?
Estates
  • "Marcher castle". Would a piped link to Marcher Lord assist those of us who had to go hunting round to find out what it was?
  • "with some debts still owed from 20 years early." -> earlier.
Affinity
  • "not only was Stafford unable to prevent" - > "not only was he unable to prevent"

Done to the start of Later career: more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks SC; coincidentally, many of your recommendations were also suggested below, and have already been done; those that weren't are in this edit. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 18:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds think alike then... - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick spot from further down - Note 12: "The American antiquarian, I. W. Dunham": does his nationality matter? - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Later
  • 'to "hand it over to the son of one of his own councillors"': not sure we need that quoted – can be rephrased well enough
Roses
  • "From 1451, the King's favourite, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, had become": doesn't quite work:
    • "From 1451 ... EB served as ..."; or
    • "In 1451 ... EB had become (or just "became")..."; or
  • "Griffiths has called this position": anything wrong with "Griffiths called this position"?
  • "appointed York Protector of the Realm": had to read this twice before I realised "York Protector of the Realm" wasn't a title! Perhaps "appointed York as Protector of the Realm"?
  • "the 'Stafford knot'". Is it worth moving the image of the knot down to this section?
  • I'd consider "co-ordination" to be preferable to "coordination", but Tim riley is the best to check if it's a clear cut BrEng/AmEng thing
    • Not a BrE-v-AmE thing, as far as I know, but a problem withal. You can become seriously unhinged trying to work out what to do with "co" words - "operate" as well as "ordinate". A diaeresis just looks silly. You can use a hyphen, but then you get into a spot with antonyms: "unco-operative" and "unco-ordinated", anyone? Gowers doesn't muck about and goes for "coordinate"; Fowler on the other hand goes for the hyphen. On the whole I'm with Gowers, but there really is no right or wrong here. Tim riley talk 21:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last
  • "in April 1456 the duke": Duke?
Northampton
  • "The duke was buried": Duke?

That's the lot. I'll pop back in a day or so for a final read through. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thanks very much! All actioned; all things considered, I've followed you with "co-ordinate"—and worry about the antonyms as they occur! Although I see Tim's point too; if someone chages it in future it'll be understandable. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 18:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; another read though and I'm happy to support this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good news, thanks again SchroCat. ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I missed this at PR, and I am sorry to raise at FAC points that would have been better dealt with there. A few drafting points down to the end of "Estates":

  • "then-king" – I don't think this construction is usually hyphenated
  • "as historian Carol Rawcliffe" – clunky false title: adding a definite article will remedy it.
  • "Henry V had verbally promised him" – I think you mean "orally". Verbal just means "in words", whether written or spoken.
  • "now that the Pope had promoted.[12]" – is there a word missing here? I can't make sense of it as it stands.
  • "the largest single chunk of the duchy that to be delegated among the nobility" – I couldn't work out what this means.
  • "Writtle particularly was especially favoured by the duke" – which duke? If it's Stafford this is the first we've heard of his being promoted in the peerage.

More to come, a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 13:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come on the text, but that will require close scrutiny, and I'm coasting with something easier for now, viz. the bibliography:

  • Does the ODNB really lower-case the first duke but upper-case the second Duke?
  • For the C. Davies ref: don't we usually indicate which online sites are subscription only? You do for others on the list. For the ODNB there is a dedicated template: {{ODNBsub}}
  • M. K. Jones – is the thesis available for consultation? Otherwise isn't there a problem with WP:V? Ross 1952 and Stansfield 1987 likewise.
  • New Haven CT or just New Haven – we have both.
  • New York NY seems a bit gratuitous when we have Stanford and Athens without a state. Tim riley talk 13:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Thanks very much for looking in, Tim, it's generous of you (as ever)...I've attended to those aspects in the first run, doing as you suggest when you suggest it and endowing comprehensibility where you find it lacking, hopefully. The PR was over a year ago, and I'm not sure we had even "met" at that point! Regarding the refs, the important thing is consistency, so I've addressed the examples (and more) of capitalisation that you found, although as you note, consistency can also lead to oddities such as New York, NY; but omitting the latter would rather stand out, I think. The oDNB use sentence case for their titles so was adjusted. Theses are used per WP:SCHOLARSHIP (accessed via the Bodleian). ——SerialNumber54129 15:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding comments on text

  • Affinity and problems in the localities
    • "Affinity" is blue linked in the sixth sentence. It has been explained earlier, and I don't think a link is wanted here, especially as the term occurs, unlinked, in the previous line.
      • Linked on first occurance.
    • "cost the duke over £900 a year" – is this still Stafford? Not a duke yet.
      • Stafforded.
    • "One of the most well-known disputes" – one of the best-known?
      • Done.
    • Stafford is prematurely duked throughout this section. If I may make a stylistic point, I'm not sure that what Fowler calls "elegant variation" is wanted in articles like this. I think "Stafford" and "he" (or other pronouns) will do very well and are much clearer. The reader doesn't then have to stop to think "which earl/duke? Don't be shy about repetition if repetition makes your meaning clearer.
I've stuck to Stafford; that piece of advice will come in useful in many other (hopefully!) future articles, as I'm always tripping myself up over what these chaps were called at various points in their careers. It's particularly difficult in thematic—rather than chronological—sections such as this. Thanks!
Please don't take my obiter dicta as authoritative! I'm sure your sources have a modus operandi that you can clock. Tim riley talk 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later career
    • "returned to France again" – am I forgetting a bit of the earlier narrative (old, Master Shallow!) or is this his first return to France?
      • Yes, it's the third trip: 1422 with HV who dies, 1430 for HVI's coronation and 1436 for the siege of Calais.
    • "Burgundian's" – why the possessive apostrophe?
      • Laphroaig, probably!
    • "Buckingham" – you call him this before we get to the point in the narrative when he was granted the title. You didn't oughter.
      • I now aint.
  • Family
    • I doubt if the books had twelve children.
      • Books of french letters, presumably "Buckingham and Anne"?
    • "the latter two twins" – well, two is the usual quota for twins.
      • "the latter twins"—done—is that OK when I've just listed three?
    • "However, sources conflict" – nothing wrong with the "however" here, but it's one of nine howevers in the article and one does begin to notice them. A bit of pruning wouldn't go amiss.
      • Reduced down to two.

Those are my few, and not very earth-shaking suggestions. As a Scouser one is of course biased to the Lancastrian side, and I have much enjoyed this thorough and lively article, and look forward to adding my support. – Tim riley talk 20:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, my lord of Lancastre  :) always appreciated, and, indeed, I'm happy—not to say surprised!—that it was a goodish read. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 21:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One last read through and then I'll report back here. Tim riley talk 22:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After another read-through I am happy to support promotion to FA. Well referenced, a good read, and all round meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

The images are all appropriately licenced. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, lead image shouldn't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Righto: I removed the pixel amount from the IB, but there isn't an |upright= parameter; it hasn't broken the template though so I guess that's OK? Thanks for this! ——SerialNumber54129 11:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • Is there some Wiki-rule requiring 'December' to be missing from his date of birth in the lead?
I'm not going to action this just now; I think it did mention it some time in the past, but has ben removed...if that's the case, it might have been another reviewer, so will need to dissect the history.
  • "Humphrey was not only related to the powerful Neville family but many of the leading aristocratic houses of the time" Query: to my eye an additional "to" is called for before "many".
  • "He acted as both King's bodyguard and chief negotiator Jack Cade's rebellion of 1450 and helped suppress it." This sentence seems to have lost a word or two.
  • "Stafford spent much of the last few years of his life" Optional: I am not sure what "few" adds. Is it not inherent in "last years of his life"?
  • "Stafford eventually declared for his King". "his"? There were other people's? Maybe 'the', or 'Henry VI'?
Changed to: To/during/few/King Henry.
Notes[edit]
  • Note 5. "less than 50 years earlier, the Richard, Bishop of Chichester, had used 50 pounds (23 kilograms) in 1406". 1) is "the Richard" a typo? 2) is one of "less than 50 years earlier" and "in 1406" redundant?
  • Note 6. "for which Edmond received $10 in wages" "$"?
  • Note 7. "and access to the south of the main street was easily accessible" Possibly "easily accessible" -> 'easy'?
  • Note 11. "and on his death it had been inherited by his daughter, Buckingham's mother, and eventually to the duke himself." Possibly "to" -> 'by'?
Changed: "less...earlier"/£/accessible/passed
Main body, part I[edit]
  • "he had been too upset at the time to be able to remember.[12] Stafford was himself still a minor at this time". "at the time" twice. Optional: delete the latter?
  • "They did so based on Stafford's claim that Henry V had orally promised him this before Henry died" Reads, to my eye, a little clumsily. Possibly replace "Henry" with 'he'?
Tweaked.
  • "who had made repeated claim to deserve the title of Protector" Seems an odd construction. Maybe delete "deserve"? Or 'who had repeatedly claimed that he deserved the title of Protector'?
Recast the entire sentence.
  • "the earl attempted to be a moderating influence." 'Earl'?
  • "and the following year travelled to France with the King for French coronation" 'the French coronation'?
  • "Stafford's primary military role at this time was carrying out defending Paris and its environs" Delete "carrying out"?
  • "as this was an area of almost constant warfare, in real terms "the amount of revenue that could be extracted ... must have been considerably lower".[27] Since Perche was a frontier region, in a state of almost constant conflict," "of almost constant warfare ... of almost constant conflict"
  • "much of the north Midlands and Derbyshire" A minor point, is Derbyshire not considered to be a part of the north Midlands then?
  • "the largest single chunk of the duchy to be delegated among the nobility" Optional: "chunk" may be considered unencyclopedic.
Odd, I thought that had gone aeons ago.
  • "and it was perfectly placed for recruiting retainers" "perfectly" seems a little PoV. Perhaps 'well', or even 'very well'?
  • "Writtle particularly was especially favoured by the earl" "particularly was especially" reads a little oddly, possibly drop "particularly"?
  • "and his mother's half of the de Bohun inheritance, which was worth another £1,200. The latter also included the earldom of Buckingham, itself worth £1,000" It is not clear to me whether you have already counted the £1,000 in the prior £1,200, or whether it is in addition, for a total of £2,200 (or possibly more?)
  • "Rents, for example, were often difficult to collect. Even a lord of the status of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, for example" "For example twice. Consider dropping the second one? Or reword?
  • "when rendering his accounts for the years 1452–1453, noted that the Stafford was owed £730 by his reckoning" Did you mean to write "the Stafford"? (Has an s slipped off Stafford?)
  • "with some debts still owed from 20 years early" "early" -> 'earlier'.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done, some even agreed with[FBDB]  ;) May thanks for this chunk swathe Gog the Mild (in this edit). Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 18:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better average than I usually manage. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Act 2, part i[edit]
  • Note 5 still refers to "the Richard". I will assume that you mean it, so no need to respond.
  • Note 6 still has $10. Likewise.
  • Note 7. "Access to the south of the main street was easily accessible" You changed this to 'easy' per my suggestion, then changed it back. I am not going to the (non-existent) barricades over it, so as above.
  • Note 11. Similarly, you inserted "passed", which I felt improved it, but have since removed it. Ditto.


  • "soldiering, as well as other duties, and often retained by indenture." Suggestion only: 'and were often'.
  • "One of the best-known disputes Stafford had with his local gentry was in his midlands heartlands" Earlier you refer to Midlands. Consistency...
  • "Around 1435, Stafford was granted the Honour of Tutbury" Wikilink "honour".
  • "In 1442, he had been on the committee that investigated and convicted Gloucester's wife, Eleanor Cobham, of witchcraft, and five years later he arrested the duke at Bury St Edmunds" "duke -> 'Duke'.
  • "This parliament also appointed York Protector of the Realm from 27 March 1454." Wikilink "Protector of the Realm" to Lord Protector.
  • "because the same year he ordered the purchase of 2,000 cognizances—the 'Stafford knot'—even though strictly the distribution of livery was illegal." I understand that, but I suspect that our average reader will understand neither the meaning nor the implication. Possibly reword a little less technically?
  • "Following the King's recovery, York was either dismissed from or resigned his Protectorship" Lower case P.
  • "Buckingham may have hoped that repeated negotiations would deplete the Yorkists' zest for battle, and likewise delay long enough for reinforcements to arrive" "likewise"?
  • " Buckingham may have hoped that repeated negotiations would deplete the Yorkists' zest for battle, and likewise delay long enough for reinforcements to arrive; his confidence in how reasonable the Yorkists would be[116] was misplaced. To achieve this, Buckingham made what John Gillingham described as an "insidiously tempting suggestion" that the Yorkists mull over the King's responses in Hatfield or Barnet overnight." It seems to me that "his confidence in how reasonable the Yorkists would be[116] was misplaced" would fit best at the end of this.
  • "A contemporary wrote that in April 1456 the duke returned to his Writtle manor, not looking "well plesid"." ' that the Duke returned"?
  • "Grey "welcomed the Yorkists over the barricades" on the Lancastrian left wing" The map shows Grey on the Lancastrian right.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Act 2, part ii[edit]
  • "They married into the Beaufort family, who were descended from the illegitimate children of John of Gaunt" -> 'which was descended'.
  • "Buckingham was depicted, during his son's lifetime, as "mounted in battle array" " "as" needs to go.
  • "in his Morte d'Arthur, based his character of Gawaine on Buckingham" "of" needs to go.
  • Having a last read through, can I suggest linking "caput", at the start of Estates, to Caput baroniae, and not Caput.

That's me done. You have written a magnificent piece of work. A thing of beauty is a joy for ever. [It is warranted that no butter was used in the production of this statement.] Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Gog, you're very (too!) kind. Just FYI, I liked most of your suggestions and have actioned (I think all of) them. The notes that you saw me change and then revert were a complete **** up by visual editor, it's scary sometimes how much it could change things without it even being noticeable ar the time. Thanks for both this and the image review, always a pleasure working with you! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 18:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cinderella157[edit]

Thank you, User:Cinderella157; I wasn't ignoring your talk page remarks, but I wanted to go back to the sources. Where they merely suggest something, this has now been attributed inline per WP:WTW, but in a couple of instances, I could have been more deliberate, and in those cases, they have been removed. Many thanks! ——SerialNumber54129 11:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re family section, there are errors in quoting Tait in footnote and too much repetition as well as dealing with the original issue. Please see suggestion here. You are welcome to edit there. It still requires tweaking for format and cross-checking references. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice job of work in the sandbox Cinderella157; you seem to have managed to lose a couple of hundred words too. For clarity,
  • I would tend to use Catherine as the preferred spelling as this is what I see most often, unless there is good reason otherwise. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeees...I favoured K as being more in keeping with the time Katherine Swynford, Katherine Neville being good examples of the time; but I'm not personally wedded to either, and perhaps the modern-day reader will prefer C.
It is a matter of what the sources say WRT this particular K|Catherine.
Your preference for Katherine for this particular K|Catherine does not appear consistent with the majority of sources referring to this particular K|Catherine. Your justification appears to be WP:OR.
It's not my preference, it's the preference of the most solid, modern scholarship (viz. Rawcliffe); I'm sorry if you'd prefer to wheel old bones out instead. In any case, since it's actually the same name no original research enters into the equation: the important thing is consistency backed by a source, and I have given you, dear Cinders, both. Meanwhile, if you could desist with your WP:ASPERSIONS and either make an actionable request or WP:DROPIT, that would be fine. This has, yet again, descended—rapidly—into an exercise in trivia. ——SerialNumber54129 07:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • She occupied these lands for the next twenty years.[7] Humphrey, therefore, received a reduced income of less than £1,260 a year until he was sixteen. Why "therefore", given the condition lasted for 20 years and not 16 years? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, "therefore" must be one of the most misused words. How about merging the sentences into next twenty years,[7] and Humphrey received a reduced income of less than £1,260 a year until he was sixteen. ——SerialNumber54129 18:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It still leaves unanswered, what did turning sixteen mark? It gives the reader the impression that something changed from after that time but does not say what that was. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SN, Cinderella, is this resolved now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Yes, I think so; the family section has been trimmed—and attributed—refs tidied and unused sources removed. 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:EC2E:73EE:6345:487C (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:, though it still needs some tweaking. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well quite. 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:EC2E:73EE:6345:487C (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Some tweaking" =/= an actionable request, of course. ——SerialNumber54129 07:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, Dunham also places Humphrey as dying 1455 at the battle of St. Albans, rather than dying in 1458 either from wounds sustained in the battle or of plague. <- Either something has been moved or removed because the transition from listing progeny to a dispute over how Humphrey died does not gel at all. There's also a couple points within the sentence itself: 1) However implies conflict with what has already been said, but the conflict is with a statement three sections prior and is likely forgotten to the reader; 2) "also"? I don't know what the function of "also" is here, it's not like he is listed as having died twice by Dunham; 3) "dying 1455" <- minor, but shouldn't it be "dying at the battle of St. Albans [in] 1455"? or at least "dying in 1455" (you put "in" elsewhere); 4) "either from wounds sustained in the battle or of plague" <- the plague is mentioned beforehand, but from whence cometh the suggestion that he died of old battle wounds?
and "suggests" <- what's up with the scare quotes?
Humphrey (died 1458) <- does it bear repetition that he died in 1458? since it's been mentioned twice up to this point.
Just a couple minor comments since this crossed my watchlist. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: This entire discussion has descended into WP:POINT and tendentiousness. The insistence on giving 100-year-old sources equal weight with 21st-century scholarship is bemusing, to say the least. 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:90E0:60B5:AD4F:C85C (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude, I was "asked" to rewrite this section and did so here, noting above that it is not a final draft. You will see that the text in question was part of a note, now moved to main text and further edited. As part of the note, However, Dunham also places Humphrey as dying 1455 ... was intended to show how Sources conflict over the precise details of the Staffords' progeny. Taking it out of that context creates the problems you have identified. Some of the issue rests with what is in the Aftermath section. The first part of that section goes to character. The second part goes to succession (family). It might be better to move the content to more appropriate sections. You raise the duplication per "Humphrey (died 1458)" But see also: Margaret and Humphrey's son was Buckingham's eventual heir. and As such, the Stafford titles, wealth and lands descended to his son—Buckingham's grandson—Henry Stafford. As to "suggests" (the scare quotes), it should not have made it to a final draft. It was a matter requiring confirmation and attribution. The earlier text (in a note) reads: Tait also suggests that Elizabeth and Margret never married. Confirming the details of Tait, the suggestion is by omission and that should be made explicit, ie: and suggests (by omission) that Elizabeth ... Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Can I just check with Mr rnddude and Cinderella157 where we stand with the above discussion now? Have the issues been resolved? And if someone could kindly spell out (for my benefit) what the actual issues (if there are any remaining) are in relation to the FA criteria. Sarastro (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, The issues probably fall to 1a,1b and 1c (in the first instance). I am confident of a resolution, with constructive dialouge having been initiated, though there are other issues impacting the availability of both myself and Serial Number 54129. I will be without internet through next week. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are minor relating to 1a (prose). These should be resolvable in short order. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: In which case, could you please spell out precisely how the article fails 1a, 1b and 1c; without explaining how it fails to meet those criteria, I'm afraid your comments are unactionable and can be disregarded. And I'm still not clear how far along we are, what has been done, what needs doing and where the issues might lie. Some clarity would help all of us, I think. Thanks, Sarastro (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, information is disjointed wrt to what appears in the aftermath, character and family sections and should be reorganised (1a). The vagueries of Buckingham's progeny are something of an aside but nonetheless should be reconciled. Presently, this is dealt with in the main text, with related information split between separate paragraphs (ie marriage to Dauphin) (1a). In dealing with the vagueries, authors are indirectly but inaccurately quoted. Note 14 is a superfluous statement. It reconciles a problem that does not exist (1a). Searches suggest that Robert Dinham should be identified as Robert Dunham. rather than dying in 1458 either from wounds sustained in the battle or of plague. is unsourced, though it was sourced in the son's article (1c). There is more but how these are addressed may make any further comment about this section redundant. SN is in dark atm and there are things they may wish to say on this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sarastro, I'll address Mr rnddude's queries in short order, but, just FYI, I won't be actioning anything else, so I suggest you consider it an oppose. Any fundamental issues would've been raised—and, indeed, addressed—by now. ——SerialNumber54129 08:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

  • Note 14: punctuate (cap and full-stop req).
  • Note 15: too many "Katherines"
  • Reference to Rawcliffe re "Katerine" per statement by SN above.
  • Margaret (1437–1476) - should be Katherine (or Catherine)
  • Who was Robert Dinham?

Further: At the A-class review, I observed: "Composition and style. The writing style relies heavily on complex sentence structures. This reduces readability and accessibility." This was not addressed then.

In the course of the review, I have edited "Background and youth" and part of "Early career". I have reviewed the latter fully and note several instances of "editorial" language in a relatively small sample.

Per WP:TONE, I also note the use of "technical jargon" (or argot), which is also a matter of accessibility and readability. See for example his own caput, was Stafford Castle.

I am disappointed that there is now a statement of no intent to address any of these concerns. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on the listed points, [t]he writing style relies heavily on complex sentence structures. This reduces readability and accessibility, respectfully, Simple Wikipedia is that way. Technical terms like "ward", "caput", "affinity" are going to appear in medieval subject articles. They are not argot, which is not a catch-all term for technical language, but refers to slang (literally). Caput baroniae – not caput, btw – is not slang language. BUMFISH is slang language (aviation slang). Moreover, each of these technical terms has been linked. There are circumstances where replacing a technical term, e.g. apotropaia, with a simple to understand alternative, e.g. protective magic, may be warranted. That doesn't mean all technical language needs to be removed though. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude on accessibility and readability, I would point to WP:AUDIENCE. See also Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. It makes many observations that are applicable to this article. It is often a simple matter to reduce the complexity of sentence structure without compromising accuracy. Optimising readability is not synonymous with writing in basic English for Simple Wikipedia. Per WP:SURPRISE: information is understood by the reader without struggle. On terminology, I have not advocated that they should be removed, but rather, better dealt with. A good writing style will introduce unfamiliar terms into prose in a way that the meaning is reasonably apparent. Whether or not you agree with my reference to "argot", you get my point. They are obscure terms related to a specific "discipline" - certainly similar to "technical jargon". You make a significant point re the "misuse" of "caput". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - I'm not really sure if all of my comments belong appropriately to this section. Should I move them to a separate one under my own username? Oh, and I've addressed the first point regarding note 14 (capital for the first letter, and replaced semi-colon with period at the end of the final sentence). Mr rnddude (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to keep them here so we can see what you are replying to. Sarastro (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Cinderella157 I'm leaning towards considering your concerns to be a matter of personal preference and not directly related to the FA criteria. Your personal style preference is not one of the criteria and other reviewers do not share your concerns. At the moment, unless you can convince me clearly and concisely that this article does not meet the FA criteria, I am inclined to put this down to a disagreement on a minor matter and regard these as unactionable with regards to WP:WIAFA. Sarastro (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the spirit of not being as didactic as I may have appeared, I have dealt with whatever specifics have been presented—mostly from Mr rnddude but also some of the others where possible—tightning prose, Humphrey's 1458 death, a cited explanatory note re. the Dinham family (not Dunham in my source, it's this family), scare quotes, etc. Obviously broader calls regarding general reorganisation and disjointedness are impossible to address and so profitless to attempt. The question of language appears to have been addressed by M. Random above, and, incidentally, regarding the significant point re the "misuse" of "caput"...the misuse was not by me  :) Have a good weekend all. ——SerialNumber54129 16:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, Thankyou for confirming the matter of Dinham and adding some needed context as to who they were. The article reads as caput but links to Caput baroniae, so perhaps we are all right (or all wrong).[FBDB] Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, The criteria 1a is somewhat subjective and the guidance not explicit but it does touch on the issues I raise per the links I have cited. Articles should be written in a way that they do not rely on links for clarity. Unnecessarily complex structures are a matter that affects readability and comprehension. How it is remedied may be a matter of personal preference but the issue itself is not. The matter of "editorialising" (and like) is a matter for which there is explicit guidance. That other reviewers have not identified such issues does not mean that they are not valid. While awaiting some responses from SN with respect to the family section, I commenced to review the article from the top down. I had not intended to do so initially. I have taken it upon myself to action many of the changes. You may wish to consider the significance and validity of these. I ceased upon this comment (above) by SN. I consider this unwarranted and unreasonable. While they have apologised elsewhere, the comments still stand here. As to the rationale for preferring Katherine, it was only with that statement that they identified their preference was based on Rawcliffe. The statement by SN here, is not in the spirit of collaboration and consensus building. There are some very clear issues that have needed to be addressed and I am pleased that SN has actioned at least some of these. You will note that I have/will be actioning some of these. I will not press the matter of language and style but do note the following:
  • On the matter of the Aftermath section and repetition, this was drawn to my attention by Mr rnddude. It is inappropriate to repeat essentially the same material (re Humphrey's death and Buckingham's ultimate heir) at multiple places in an article. This falls to 1a and 2b. It is not impossible to remedy this if there is a will to do so.
  • At first para Family section: Tait also notes that "about 1450 there was some talk of marrying one of Buckingham's daughters, probably the eldest, to the Dauphin, afterwards Louis XI". At second para: There was also, about 1450, "some talk"[171] of a proposal for one of Buckingham's daughters to marry the Dauphin of France (subsequently Louis XI). This repetition falls to 1a?
  • The main part of the first para in the Family section is intended to justify this statement: Sources conflict over the precise details of the Staffords' progeny. How this is achieved is a matter of personal preference. SN has chosen to present this in the main text. The text that follows is intended to highlight the inconsistencies between sources.
  • The point in referring to Humphrey's death is to highlight that Dunham is in conflict with other sources. Moving this to a note tends to conceal the point. 1a
  • The point here (this para) is to show inconsistencies between sources. Sources conflict as to Joan, Joanne or Joana? Standardising on "Katherine" at this point in the article is a false consistency. While I cannot comment on Dunham, it is not an accurate representation of Tait. 1c
  • The statement in the first para re the Dauphin is only relevant at that point if it shows how the sources diverge. It does not. That is done in Note 18 in the next para. That note; however, could be cross-reference. I could show how this might be done (see here). The statement is out of place here as it presently stands. There are, of course, other ways to remedy the matter. 1a
  • As previously stated, note 14 serves no apparent purpose. 1a
If you consider these minor and of no consequence, so be it. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sarastro1: What we have here is an object lesson in how to get things done. When one writes massive screeds of text but only make somewhat vague handwaves as to what needs to be done, little gets achieved except heightened frustration; when, on the other hand, one makes specific points suggestion that ABC should be changed to XYZ, there is clear room for progression. That is what is happening here  :) I agree about the duplications of Buck's heir/titles and the Dauphin: they have been erased and/or merged. The Dunham thing was moved to a footnote in response to the commentator above who observed—accurately, in my judgement—that it interrupted the sentence which otherwise wholly discusses progeny. K/Catherine—naming generally, in fact—is based on recent scholarship rather than Victorian. I suggest that note 14 is relevant in that it goes some way towards explaining why there is so much confusion as to seemingly—to the modern reader—basic stuff such as dates and even names.
    Obviously, I can't address comments such as not Standardising on "Katherine" at this point in the article (when, of course, neither name has even been mentioned up until that point!). Incidentally, I have struck my accidentally-logged-out ("Tis I, LeClerc") comment about pointy behaviour above as being a distraction, but I reiterate my general aversion to giving 100-year-old sources equal weight with 21st-century scholarship. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • Seems generally well-trampled by now. A few points:
  • "By 1424, the rivalry between him and the Bishop of Winchester, Henry Beaufort—as de facto head of council..." mention that Beaufort was Gloucester's uncle?
  • "In the late medieval period, all great lords created an affinity between themselves and groups of supporters, who often lived and travelled with them for purposes of mutual benefit and defence,.... In the late 1440s his immediate affinity was at least ten knights and twenty-seven esquires, mainly drawn from Cheshire. By the 1450s—a period beginning with political tension and ending with civil war—Stafford retained men specifically "to sojourn and ride" with him. His affinity was probably composed along the lines laid out by royal ordinance at the time which dictated the nobility should be accompanied by 240 men. - First affinity lk (actually the 2nd there) is to Affinity (medieval), second is to Bastard feudalism. Maybe link the 1st to BF, & not lk the 2nd?
  • "...royal ordinance at the time which dictated the nobility should be accompanied by 240 men" - "should" or "could"? At least later legislation was all about capping sizes.
    • Indeed! And I've inserted the pretty important words, "no more than", which now reflects the source itself. ——SerialNumber54129 15:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malory - a link to Thomas_Malory#Thomas_Malory_of_Newbold_Revel would be better, as he is certainly the same person. Mention "possibly the poet" or something?
  • Penshurst Place seems a better link than Penshurst.
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for looking in, Johnbod; those are all excellent points, and have been actioned here. The only thing I'd ask is if you'd be OK at pointing Affinity to Affinity (medieval) rather than to Bastard feudalism? I think the former is more precise than the latter, being the system of which affinities were a part. ——SerialNumber54129 15:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Affinity (medieval) is already linked above (re the king's I think). Though the term is under a cloud, I think there should be a link to Bastard feudalism somewhere, as this section is so much about it. Don't much mind where. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: True: it would probably be odd for any article on this period not to link to it somewhere. I'd want to avoid linking the same word to two different things—but how about linking like In the late medieval period, all great lords... ? ——SerialNumber54129 16:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok.

Coord notes by Ian[edit]

No activity for 10 days or so, so I think this review has pretty well exhausted itself. That said, having completed my usual light pre-promotion copyedit (and feel free to call me on anything you disagree with), I have to query some quotes that are either unattributed or else fairly nondescript in their wording, suggesting they might just as well be paraphrased...

  • "concealing their faces with long beards and charcoal-blackened faces, calling themselves servants of the queen of the fairies" -- not attributed inline, I assume it's contemporary but by who?
  • an investigatory commission designed to "placate" rebellious Kent -- quotes around a pretty common word like "placate" seem odd; how come?
  • "demonstration of official power" -- is this vital as a quote?
  • But Henry "gave no manner answer" -- according to who, but then why not just paraphrase?
  • The Lancastrians "strongly barred and arrayed for defence" -- ditto.
  • "armed to the teeth" -- great quote if contemporary (but then why not attribute?) or else perhaps best paraphrased...
  • There was also, about 1450, "some talk" of a proposal -- do we really need a (scare) quote here?
  • This marriage cost Buckingham 2,300 marks, and he "took a long even time to pay that" -- doesn't seem that memorable a quote, if hard to paraphrase I think you could afford to lose it entirely.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Yeah, fair enough. Most of them were pointless so have been subsumed or rewritten, with the relevant cites removed. I kept/attributed the "Queen of the fairies" thing because of its bizarreness, and St Alban's being "strongly barred" etc was a contemporary—although redlinked(Update: Now bluelinked)—chronicler. I removed the quote but kept the info about Buck not paying his (marriage) bills as, after all, non-payment of bills is a rather human touch that resonates today. For my adjustments, see [2]. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 13:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with all that, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I haven't finished reviewing, but all points so far cleared up - please don't wait for me. Looks good. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Johnbob, yes I think we should close it now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2019 (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/Humphrey_Stafford,_1st_Duke_of_Buckingham/archive1&oldid=887809447"