Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugh de Neville/archive1
- 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 02:50, 27 May 2012 [1].
Hugh de Neville[edit]
Hugh de Neville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because after a rigourous GA review by Malleus and after searching throughout Google Scholar for anything I might have missed, I believe this is the most comprehensive, well written article on the subject available. I started the article last month, and it relies heavily on two sources - the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article and the book Making of the Neville Family ... supplemented by a few other sources. Hugh's an interesting character - he was one of Bad King John's favourites, and is mentioned in Magna Carta as one of the king's major councillors. Hugh got on the bad side of one of the chronicler's of John's reign, and got listed as one of "John's evil councillors" - a group I eventually hope to make into a featured topic. As I started the article, I'm responsible for the entire effort, minus the excellent copyedit that Malleus did during the GAN. Obviously, there are no images available of him - we don't have a location on his tomb in Waltham either. He's not exactly the longest article I've ever written, but he's a good example of the Angevin royal servant who served King John... and earned a nasty name in history for it. (Yes, this is the third FAC in a row on John's advisors - I'm in a rut, it appears!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no DAB links, no external links except a few "subscription needed"-references. As with most of Ealdgyth's nominations, there is little to criticize about the content, always a great read for history nerds :). However i think, the prose could use a little more polishing. There are several occurrences of repetitive phrasing, that hamper the article's flow. Specific comments following:
Early life - is it worth linking "royal chamberlain" (Chamberlain (office)) for the casual reader?does a source mention, who was the eldest brother or in which order they were born? Probably interesting as background information about their relation to each other."Hugh, Roger, and William were related to a number of other royal officials and ecclesiastics: Geoffrey de Neville, who was a royal chamberlain and Ralph Neville, who became Bishop of Chichester." ==> Were there more than 2 relations? Then maybe rephrase as "...: most notable among them Geoffrey de Neville, a royal chamberlain and Ralph [de?] Neville, Bishop of Chichester.""De Neville was a member ..." ==> After so many "de Neville" brothers it would be good to restart that paragraph with "Hugh De Neville ...", it's slightly repetitive but clearer that Hugh is referred to.Chief Forester - "De Neville held the office ..." 3 more "offic" as root following nearby. Some variety would keep the prose more engaging, sometimes it reads a bit like a listing of fact after fact, not like "telling a story"."The revenues could be considerable ..." ==> If high revenues were the norm in this period (?), that statement seems too weak. When the majority of years brought high revenues, "could be" isn't fitting."Roger of Wendover, a chronicler writing in 1211, listed de Neville as one of King John's "evil councillors"." ==> Why? Are any reasons for this characterization given in the source? (Oppression already mentioned briefly, any more details regarding his bad image?).John's later reign - "De Neville joined the rebel barons in 1216, ..." ==> First mention of rebels in the article should have a bit more background information here, especially for the average reader who may not be familiar with English history."He surrendered ..." + 2 more "surrender" nearby, also "overture of surrender" sounds a bit high-strung, i suggest a more common phrase, maybe just "proposal" or "offer" or "negotiation"."... lands ..." used 4 times here and 7 times in chapter "records and lands" ("ground", "possession", "title", "fief", "fiefdom", "holding", "area" could be used, depending on context)- I could use them, yes. But... "ground" and "possession" aren't strictly speaking correct... area's just weird, title isn't correct either (he held no title nor did he "own" the land - the king did...) ... generally we don't describe these types of holdings as "fiefs" either ... historians are getting away from the view of a strictly hierachical neat little feudal system... in this case, I have reduced somewhat the usage of "lands" where possible, and changed one lands to properties. Hopefully this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Death and legacy - "gave gifts" ==> "gave donations", avoid similar root.GermanJoe (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I think you're getting a bit picky here ... "gave gifts" is perfectly fine as we're not enumerating what he gave - he could have given rights to the churches ... or chickens, even! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "made gifts". Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
==> All above points Done. I agree, a brief summary of the rebellion is more than enough, nice work. Giving this another readthrough soon. GermanJoe (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support after another read. Comprehensive and well-written. Please check, if other history-specific terms may need wiki-linking (added 2). GermanJoe (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would suggest not using "De Neville" but merely "Neville". You see, "de", used in Portuguese (my mothet tongue), French, etc... is not a name. It's the same as the English "of" or "from". What happened was that in the English language the descendants of a "John of York" eventually dropped the "of" while in Latin languages we still use it. For example, Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias is called "Lima e Silva", not "de Lima e Silva". You should never use "de" as "De", just as you shouldn't use "of" as "Of" when using as part of a name (such as the aforementioned "John of York" who wouldn't be called "Of York"). Just a comment. --Lecen (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- However, this is English, and there is usage for this. It could go either way, honestly. And I don't want to use plain Neville here as it would then get folks wondering why it's not just at "Hugh Neville" ... I did not place the article there because the ODNB entry uses de Neville, not plain Neville. It is true that the family later dropped the "de" but Hugh did not. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with this at all. There's a good example of the difference in English with the de Trafford family, who at various times in their history either have or haven't used the "de" prefix, but currently do. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ealdgyth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
What does "de Neville first appears as a member of Prince Richard's household" mean? Is that the first instance where his activities are known? That's not entirely clear as things stand.Quotes are one of the few things that I'd expect to see cited in a lead section. What does everyone think about whether "evil councillors" needs a reference in the lead?Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I've changed the first bit to "de Nevill was a member of ..." which is just plain simpler. I've gone ahead and thrown a cite on the councillors bit in the lead - I obviously didn't think it was required for two words, but its not a big deal either way. Easier to throw the cite on than fuss. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – After the fixes, I think this meets all of the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the first bit to "de Nevill was a member of ..." which is just plain simpler. I've gone ahead and thrown a cite on the councillors bit in the lead - I obviously didn't think it was required for two words, but its not a big deal either way. Easier to throw the cite on than fuss. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and images are unproblematic, spotchecks weren't done. Did you see this source? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not available to me.. and it was used for the ODNB entry so presumably it's covered that way. It was also used in another source I consulted... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
"where de Neville was buried" - Is he still there? If so, wouldn't "is buried" be better?"refused to return it to de Neville" - "refused to return it"I think the last two paragraphs of the service under Henry III may warrant merging.
- That's it, not much to comment on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also gave a copyedit, feel free to revert edits you disagree with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions/comments fromLing
- Should there be a non-breaking space (& nbsp;) between "de" and "Neville"? I'm not hinting or suggesting; just asking. I saw at least one instance on my screen size/resolution where the line break cut the name. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly suggest that one or more of those monetary values e.g. £4,486 in the Chief Forester section might benefit from the template that converts the amount into modern figures.
- That's a truly appalling idea, and one that I hope Ealdgyth will treat with the contempt it deserves. Malleus Fatuorum 10:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Contemptible" is a bit hyperbolic. Composition in the English language is reader-centric: it is the writer's responsibility to make all points clear to the reader, rather than the reader's responsibility to fill in the gaps. One consequence of this is that comprehensibility always and everywhere trumps style. If you find these templates unattractive, then ignore them. They are crucial to the understanding of anyone who a) does not know how to convert British currency into their own, and b) does not know the relevant inflation rate to convert historical figures into modern ones. Now, the first problem is unsolvable for the writer. There are too many currencies, so the reader will have to Google it (and can very easily do so). The second problem is far more easily resolved for the writer, and far less so for the reader. We are not writing for ourselves and our colleagues and friends. We are writing for a general, even international audience. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This an issue I myself have fallen foul of in the past, so I'm no saint in this regard. The economic reality though is that until the Industrial Revolution there was no wage economy in England, and consequently to extrapolate RPI back to the 12th century is utterly meaningless. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus is correct - there is no good way to convert the figures into modern amounts since the economies were so different. No scholarly history of the time would do so, so there quite honestly is no reason to do so here. Template:inflation itself doesn't go back before 1264 for the UK (and quite honestly, that's such a stupid idea that it's meaningless anyway. Much before 1850 and youre looking at such different economies that the conversion is useless) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the data tat goes back to 1264 came from the National Archives.. I found a converter there, anyhow... I find it difficult to imagine that there is absolutely no way to put a perspective on these sums. For example, "There was also an increase in the amount of currency in circulation from around £125,000 in 1180 to £674,000 in 1278." I found other things revealing the income of King Henry II in a given year, etc. I do not think precision is the goal. Perspective is. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But that sort of figure (either the amount of money in circulation or the revenues of Henry II) don't really mean much to the average reader. And ... no modern historian of the medieval period does these conversions ... even most of the economic histories don't. In order to explain this .. we're looking at something so off topic that it'd be undue weight. Royal revenues compared to one barons would be like apples and oranges ... and the increase in total amount in circulation over 100 years doesn't give us much perspective on Hugh's revenue's either. Also keep in mind that that some of everyone's income would have been in goods rather than in coins. We just don't know enough to do comparisons, which is why most histories don't give conversions. Yes, they used to, but historians have gotten away from it for the medieval period. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the data tat goes back to 1264 came from the National Archives.. I found a converter there, anyhow... I find it difficult to imagine that there is absolutely no way to put a perspective on these sums. For example, "There was also an increase in the amount of currency in circulation from around £125,000 in 1180 to £674,000 in 1278." I found other things revealing the income of King Henry II in a given year, etc. I do not think precision is the goal. Perspective is. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Contemptible" is a bit hyperbolic. Composition in the English language is reader-centric: it is the writer's responsibility to make all points clear to the reader, rather than the reader's responsibility to fill in the gaps. One consequence of this is that comprehensibility always and everywhere trumps style. If you find these templates unattractive, then ignore them. They are crucial to the understanding of anyone who a) does not know how to convert British currency into their own, and b) does not know the relevant inflation rate to convert historical figures into modern ones. Now, the first problem is unsolvable for the writer. There are too many currencies, so the reader will have to Google it (and can very easily do so). The second problem is far more easily resolved for the writer, and far less so for the reader. We are not writing for ourselves and our colleagues and friends. We are writing for a general, even international audience. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a truly appalling idea, and one that I hope Ealdgyth will treat with the contempt it deserves. Malleus Fatuorum 10:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Oppose, but one or at most two paragraphs can fix the problem.Please forgive me for writing"Leaning Oppose", but I no longer know how long FACs run. Weren't there a couple quick-passed recently? I seriously wouldn't have written that if I felt confident that the FAC wouldn't be closed soon. So here is my concern: It's a matter of historical background. I want one paragraph explaining both the economic reasons why enforcing the forest law brought so much power to de Neville, and why the office (and Neville's administration of it, in particular) was so detested. To be honest, three or four sentences tops is all I'm asking for. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Support Much more clear, at least to me. Thank you. BTW, the reason I said "so much" power was this bit: ""a strong argument could be advanced for the thesis that the royal official who wielded the most actual power during John's reign was the chief forester, Hugh de Neville". That does sound like a lot of power. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. But much of his power came from his closeness to John, as well as from his office. This is in opposition to say Hubert Walter, who derived his power during John's reign almost exclusively from his office, not from his relationship to John. Anyway, thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.