Talk:John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont/GA1

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.

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am giving this article a Review for possible GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In general, well-written but there are some grammatical issues - I'll list those here after my next read-through.
There are some extraneous dashes (that are part of the Wikilinks): according to Ralph Griffiths[7]-, Boulogne was effectively lost to him[13]-.

I found the first paragraph in the main text confusing. Also this sentence "Indeed, in light of his later generous treatment, it is possible that he was brought up with the young king as much as being merely a ward;..." is this in the source, this particular opinion/conclusion? It sounds like it might be OR. (Plus, as a matter of sheer practicality, I am not sure how much one can say a 12 year old can brought up with someone who is 12 years younger...)

No; I don't do original research, Shearonink, but thanks for that. The source says: He may actually have been living at court in the later 1420s, since an act of the council in 1425 provided that wards of baronial rank should be permanently about the king. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that you did OR just that the wording made it sound like maybe you had. Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for misunderstanding. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thomas Erdington's estates, as he latter should be ...as the latter.

His allegiance to the crown was made plain enough for the Yorkists to proclaim him, in 1460, one of their most mortal enemies of the king's supporters,[1] and that along with the earls of Wiltshire and Shrewsbury, he orchestrated the insurgents' attainder at the 1459 Coventry parliament for their own benefit.[36]

This sentence as written doesn't quite make sense to me, I tried to follow the meaning and the clauses, I think it needs to be recrafted into some separate sentences.

I take its meaning to be that:
1)The Yorkists proclaimed him as one of their most mortal enemies.

2)The Yorkists proclaimed that he conspired with the earls of Wiltshire & Shrewsbury to steal the insurgents' land because the earls & Beaumont were greedy.

But it almost seems to be stating, by use of the clauses, that the the conspiracy benefited the insurgents, because the Yorkists are the subject of that clause - they proclaimed certain things to be true: Beaumont = enemy, Beaumont conspired in the attainder so therefore the "their own benefit" could describe the insurgents. I read it several times before I figured out what the intended meaning was.Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-worded wheer necessary. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Well-done. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This proclamation...is it available anywhere online or in a published source? It would be interesting to have a link to it, maybe in an External links section, to see how insurgents/traitors worded a document accusing other people of bad behavior... Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look- it would be intersting; one of those Victorian antiquarians might have published it. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:
The OxfordDDNB ref requires a subscription to access.
And should be marked as such. Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid that is probably beyond me though. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a minor matter, I have gone ahead and fixed it. If it is not what you want, feel free to adjust. Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's great, many thanks it was one of those technical things that tends to trip me up! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am troubled that so many of the references are to just 2 sources. This is not impugning their worth, just that it troubles me. Also, these particular volumes are beyond my reach at this time so there is no way for me to check the verifiability of any statement. Again, not casting aspersions, just stating a fact. I will have to see if I can get my hands on copies of these two volumes.
That's a fair point- there was probably a degree of laziness in, having the volume in front of me, no need to look for another! But there probably are further sources- other books certainly- I'll see if I can find some online ones that you can check too? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be OK now? Also some online sources availble. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix MundiMuch improved. Some of the references are now broken - take a look at the red Goodwin2011. I think that is because even though you've combined all of them into one, the individual refs were to specific pages. Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C. It contains no original research:
Passing this area as GA-worthy will have to wait until I can find one or both of the main references.
@Shearonink:- I've just found one of the two main sources you're after online- Grifith's Henry VI: see here- it's not the entire book, but it's searchable, and those are the results with 'Beaumont' as the search string. You should be able to compare most of citations that way- if you want to of course; up to you which way you do it. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that is wonderfull! At some later date the link could probably be added to External links or somesuch. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Am wondering if there are any public-domain, etc. images of
of what?! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry about that. I was thinking of him or of his many estates (assuming any construction from his era are still standing) etc. I see you have added an image of the Battle of Northampton, that takes care of that issue.Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also his birthplace- such as it is. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think images of people's homes or castles are always useful - nicely-done.Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi The only matter to be dealt with before finishing this Review is the issue with the broken Goodwin2011 ref/s.Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shearonink- I can't for the life of me get the bloomin' things to tie up- the only things different between them are the page numbers- but they would be wouldn't they! Is it 'ethical' to get advice at the help desk or somesuch fount of other arcane wisdom?! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi In my opinion this is a technical matter and not at all your fault. References can be tricky sometimes - I have fixed the issue since you altered the referencing per my Review. I would recommend you lift&paste what I did and use that for the other references - such as Griffiths - that have so many individual pages. Another way to accomplish would be to use Harvard referencing, which many consider the gold standard for referencing and is worthwhile learning. If you'd like to see an example of Harvard refs, take a look at George Washington for an example. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article fulfills all the parameters of being a Good Article. I would suggest to any interested editors that if on online version of or a link to a printed version of the Yorkists' 1460 proclamation could be found that would help flesh out some details of their antipathy towards Beaumont. Also, going forward the references should probably be brought in to agreement with each other - the style doesn't matter so much, so long as it is within agreement and follows the WP:MOS. Shearonink (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2017 (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.