Talk:Bonville–Courtenay feud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Merge to Battle of Clyst Heath (1455)[edit]

Discussion is moved to talk page of Battle of Clyst Heath (1455) (the target of proposed merge) as per the guidelines of merge dicussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest the above merger would be beneficial. Comments please. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)) {{rfc|hist}} This article is a four-month old Good article nominee. When I just thought of reviewing the article, but I found proposed merge tag on its top. This tag has placed in March 2015 (a very long back), and the discussion done is too little. So I thought of requesting for comments because if the article is to be merged then a review would be a waste of time. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright[edit]

No copyright infringement as work quoted (Transactions of the Devonshire Association, Volume 44 (1912) pp. 252-265) published in 1912, thus prior to 1923 and now in the public domain under Wikipedia:Public domain as USA copyright term expired. Work quoted from now added to sources section, sorry for the oversight.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

More work has been done on this in the last century (Storey, Cherry) spring to mind, which would both update and expand the article. I might be able to do this tomorrow. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Proposed merge from Bonville–Courtenay feud dated March 2015[edit]

MERGE DONE
Clear consensus reached to merge Battle of Clyst Heath (1455) into Bonville–Courtenay feud.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest the above merger would be beneficial. Comments please. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  • Note: Bonville–Courtenay feud is a four-month old Good article nominee. When I just thought of reviewing the article, I found a proposed merge tag on its top. This tag has been placed in March 2015 (a very long back), and the discussion done is too little. So I thought of requesting for comments because if the article is to be merged then a review would be a waste of time. I have moved the discussion from the talk page of Bonville–Courtenay feud to the target article's talk page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • @Lobsterthermidor: Two months late, but I totally agree. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC), the Battle article is small and can be included in the Feud article.[reply]
  • Redirect this title to the in-depth article: Bonville–Courtenay feud. As FIM advises in the Point of order below, this article isn't about the battle anyway.  —SMALLJIM  23:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as Smalljim's and FIM's responses indicate, the article has no substantive information that is not already included in the Feud article. However, a redirect should be left in place to point to the better article. AlexEng(TALK) 05:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect this article ("Battle") into the Bonville–Courtenay feud article. The latter is MUCH more developed, sourced, and is very much more grammatically correct than the "Battle" article is (which was more at the level of a "fight" than battle anyway). Also, it is clear from the comments here to date that if a merge were to occur, the target article is the other one (much better developed and written), not here. This discussion should be re-placed at the "feud" article talk-page, not here. I can do the work and the merge if you want. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GenQuest: Thanks for your opinion. There is a clear consensus for the merge. Please complete the merge procedure as your a master at it. Also update the status after you're done, by striking out the present one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Comments other than votes may be discussed here.

  • Point of order If the consensus is to 'merge' then that is effectively deleting the article, as there is nothing here that is not already in the 'feud' article. Nothing to merge. Indeed, that's actually why I wrote the feud article in the first place, because most of this short article isn't even about the battle that took place, but, rather, a potted summary of the events surrounding it; in other words, the feud generally (see my 13 May 2016 comment, above). Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 11:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review[edit]

@BlueMoonset: I thought the GA review had already started? Thanks for tidying this though. Muffled Pocketed 14:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It had, but it was deleted, presumably at the request of the reviewer. I removed the mention of the merge, which has been completed, to avoid discouraging potential reviewers; hopefully the next reviewer will undertake and complete the review in short order. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bonville–Courtenay feud/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving this article a Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Please see "Response from government" section below.Shearonink (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are only a few more issues that I have found - please see 'Odds & ends' section below. Once these are responded to, I think I'll be able to finish up this GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All the prose issues have been dealt-with, adjusted. 1A is now good to go. Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Everything looks fine. Shearonink (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Please see "maintenance template" section below. Shearonink (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Ran the copyvio tool - absolutely no commonality was found with other sources. Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Dispassionately deals with all the aspects of the feud, doesn't favor one side or the other. Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Hurrah for no edit-wars! (Very stable.) Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All the images have the proper permissions - yay! Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Succinct and to the point. Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: There are just a few more issues I have found on my most recent readthrough which can be found in the Odds & ends section below. I am going to do one more proofing/readthrough (and pending any adjustments/discussions), I think I should be able to finish up this GA Review within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is now a GA. Congrats to the nominator/editor User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance template[edit]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:There is a "clarification needed" template in the article - The earl subsequently sent a sortie led by Thomas Carrew. The issue it raises must be corrected before I can do any further work on this Review. Shearonink (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done -in fact it was placed 'mistakenly' :) 18:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Response from government section[edit]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:Needs to be corrected:

  • to assist York, who however did not set out until new's was received of the should be to assist York, who however did not set out until news was received of the
 Done

This sentence needs to be adjusted for more clarity:

  • However decisive the earl of Devon's victory had been, it had also drawn the attention of the government, which was still under the control of Bonville's allies, York, Salisbury, and Warwick, but had up until that point failed to intervene in this local feud (as it had also failed to do at the beginning of the Percy–Neville feud in Yorkshire some years before).
 Done

I think I know what this sentence means but the meaning is a little unclear. The following sentence is also not as clear as it could be: When parliament reassembled on 12 November it was presented with (to some degree, exaggerated) reports that Devon was leading an army 4,000 strong, including 400 cavalry. I think this paragraph could do with some general copy-editing, with the number of commas and parentheses being somewhat confusing to the reader.Shearonink (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've addressed the concern here Shearonink- move full stops, less commas! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved. Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National context[edit]

This paragraph makes some very specific assertions that seem unsupported by sources:

  • The king, Henry VI, had been incapacitated by mental illness in August 1453. This led to the recall to court of the recalcitrant Richard, duke of York, his closest adult relative and a potential claimant to the throne whilst Henry remained childless. York had been banished to his estates after a failed rebellion in 1452. The following year, with the king still comatose, York was appointed Lord Protector and First Councillor of the realm, for the duration of the king's illness.

A couple of things:

  1. Are these all supported by Ref #5
    No, now individually sourced. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Was the king actually comatose, was he "deeply and medically unconscious for a prolonged period"? Shearonink (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well; we don't know, is the short answer! Medieval chroniclers were not so helpful as to leave us proper diagnoses conforming to WP:MEDRS; but, as an example, of how historians have interpreted his illness: 'mental illness', 'severe mental collapse, accompanied by crippling physical disablement, 'the king lost his mind', or 'catatonic schizophrenia... left the king utterly helpless... he had to be fed and supported by two men.' Etc! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC) .[reply]
I think it needs to be made clear that this was a period characterization of the king's then-condition and not the current understanding of the medical term. For instance, someone who is comatose couldn't be made to walk even between two men, etc. - someone who is in a coma, or is comatose, is unconscious. Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The murder of Nicholas Radford[edit]

he had enfeoffed

  • What is enfeoffed? Is there a definition that you could link to or maybe a Note you could add? I think a lot of readers might not know what it means.
 Done

Devon subsequently despatched a force.

Of course  :) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

I am a little confused by this phrase:

  • Devon's heir, the killer of Radford,

I was wondering why this person isn't named in this sentence. Shearonink (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I've tightened that Shearonink. Cheers! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sense of who the article is referring to is now much clearer but I have some concerns about the present sentence structure. Please see "Odds & ends" section. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:

  • All of the oxforddnb.com refs are subscription-required and need to be marked as such.
  • Ref #7 is a bare URL and needs to be filled-out with a 'cite web' reference.

Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odds & ends[edit]

Misspelling:

  • Courtney's heir should be Courtenay's heir

Phrasing - I think there are presently too many attendant phrases/too many commas. I'm not sure what the best way would be to correct it.

  • [Courtenay's] heir and namesake, the new earl of Devon, who had killed Radford, was a thorough supporter of the Lancastrian regime

could possibly be adjusted to something along the lines of

  • Courtenay's heir and namesake was [condition], [condition], [condition]. so
  • Thomas Courtenay's heir and namesake, Radford's killer, was a thorough supporter of the Lancastrian regime. or maybe
  • The new earl of Devon, who had killed Redford, was a thorough supporter of the Lancastrian regime.

Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Shearonink- I think I've dealt with those points- or incorporated your sentence re. the killer of Radford, etc, and went for the slightly vaguer- less loaded term- but still accurate 'incapacitated' instead of attempting a detailed description of Henry's illness (which in any case, it's prob more suited to his article than this?). Thanks a lot! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 09:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink:- I've just seen you do the ODNB tags- very sorry about that- I added the first one and (bizarrely, perhaps) thought the rest of them were automatically added! oops! Thanks for catching those though. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Glad to do it - a Reviewer is allowed to do a few minor edits (can't be a "major contributor") so I thought it would just be easier for me to lend a hand on this. Oh, the access-date is also missing from that one cite, if you would add it that'd be awesome. I need to do one more deep-readthrough to see if there's anything I've missed, but barring finding any new issues, I should be able to finish this review up within a day or two. Shearonink (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bonville–Courtenay_feud&oldid=1200257884"