User:Seraphim System/GAreview

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is in fairly good shape, but its a bit rough in parts. It will take me a while to work through this, so I'll do it in several lots over a week or so. In general, I found it a bit hard to follow all the family connections and the overall narrative, which jumps around a fair bit. I have the following comments/queries:

Lead

 * Given that the lead should only summarise the body of the article, there should be no need for citations in the lead, everything in it should be cited down in the body
 * ✅ removed the citations; left the two footnotes in the lede for now


 * there seems to be inconsistency in the handling of titles. Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland, first earl of Westmorland etc, shouldn't it just be rendered as 1st Earl of Westmorland, 2nd Earl etc?


 * link Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland in the lead


 * I'll suggest a bit of a rework of the lead to make it flow better. Given that the feud started with the death of Ralph Neville (1st Earl), it would be best to immediately introduce the grandson Ralph Neville (2nd Earl) as his heir as earl, then explain his disinheritance of many of the family holdings in favour of Richard Neville, then talk about the disputation and its ultimate resolution. I'll have a play around with it once I've gone through the rest of the article and make a suggestion.
 * I read elsewhere that John (Ralph the elder's son) agreed to the disinheritance of his own son Ralph? Is that right?

Background and causes

 * is there a link for the Mountford family? Redlink the head of the family if they are likely to be notable?
 * I wasn't able to find a link, and learning more about the family is not really essential for understanding what is going on in the article. The source only mentions it as another example of a type of land dispute where property was transferred to issue from a second wife.


 * Who is Michael Hicks? When introducing an authority or attributing a quote in-text, introduce them by explaining why their views are relevant, such as "The historian Michael Hicks"; same for Anthony Tuck
 * I've added it for Tuck and Hicks, though I worry it becomes redundant introducting one historian after another, so I've left some as links - Charles Ross, G.L. Harriss, R.L. Storey, R.A. Griffiths, the links make it clear they are historians, so I think this is ok for wiki-style articles. I've introduced Lander as a historian because we've not linked to him in the article.


 * don't leave a space after a sentence and before a footnote, there are several examples of this
 * the first instance of fn 14 is not required


 * the final sentence of the first para of the section does not have a fn.
 * introducing Ralph Neville as 1st Earl before he actually became 1st Earl is a bit counterintuitive, as we soon learn that he did not become 1st Earl until after his second marriage. Perhaps introduce him just as Ralph Neville, 4th Baron Neville de Raby initially, which I understand he was until after he married Joan (still using the link).
 * link earl of Westmorland at first mention


 * "in tail male" has an extensive note which doesn't explain what "in tail male" means. I suggest a shorter note that explains what the term actually means


 * perhaps state explicitly that Ralph junior became 2nd Earl
 * drop the initial cap on Inns


 * link Ripon


 * did all the properties that stayed with Margaret's children go to Ralph?
 * I believe John died before his father, if so, this should be explained in terms of what effects that had on the inheritance of titles and properties. If the title then went to Ralph as John's eldest son, did any of the properties go to John's other children?
 * the sequencing really doesn't work here. We've earlier learnt that Ralph was created Earl, now we're being told this again. I suggest using a strict chronology here, explaining who Joan was when she is first mentioned as the second wife. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll hold off on more significant content revisions until you've completed the first read through. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 12:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * the more I read through, the more the lack of understandable sequencing detracts from the article. For example, we learn that Robert Neville became Bishop of Durham in 1437, but this is still in the Background and causes section, not the Course of the dispute section where one would expect it to appear. The Background and causes section should cover the period up to the death of Ralph senior, the Course of the dispute from that point on until the resolution
 * the final para of this section is really a summary of the course of the dispute, and properly belongs at the bottom of that section or even the Aftermath and consequences section, not the Background section

Course of the dispute

 * The first couple of paras are actually background, as the dispute did not occur until Ralph senior's death, there is also yet another restatement of Ralph senior becoming earl, something that far predated the dispute arising
 * The course of the dispute should flow chronologically, following the actions by both sides that related to the dispute, at present, it jumps backwards and forwards in parts
 * Cardinal should be cardinal unless in a title
 * there are mentions of violence (which I assume is why this article is in the Milhist project, but there isn't any detail of what violence occurred other than some tenants being assaulted at one point. Did either side raise a force to take back any lands? Did this actually occur? I was left wondering what about this relates to military history.
 * redlinking a term such as a third of a penny is unhelpful. It needs to be explained.
 * for clarity, please use the proper name and initial caps when using a title, ie William Neville, 1st Earl of Kent, & Edward Neville, 3rd Baron Bergavenny etc. It would also be useful to place where they received their titles in the chronology, as it builds the picture of the development of the power of the Salisbury and Beaufort families during the dispute
 * a similar observation could be made about Salisbury joining the King's council
 * we jump back to discuss Ralph junior's marriages, when they should be dealt with in chronological order, as it builds the picture of the power and influence he had, there are many more examples of the chronology problem, it makes it incredibly difficult to follow

Aftermath and consequences
Sorry to say that I'm failing this article in its current state. I strongly suggest the main editors go through it and fix the obvious MOS issues identified, and the chronology and division of information under the sensible section headings that already exist. Whilst the top level structure of the article is sound for a matter of this sort, the execution within each section, particularly of the development of the background and the dispute itself, really don't work due to the non-chronological approach to a subject that is by its nature best explained in a chronological way. I'd be happy to take another look at this article after my observations have been addressed, as it will need a lead rewrite once the article has been reorganised chronologically by sections. At present, I couldn't make a suggestion about the lead because the article is so hard to follow. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How did Ralph get Raby Castle and other lands?
 * a pension or a bond?
 * how is the conduct of the Neville family in failing to work together and the actions in the late 1450s relevant to the dispute?
 * again, there is a lack of thread in this section
 * Can you put it on hold instead, I will try to address the issues you just raised. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 12:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see it was already failed, I generally agree with the comments but I think they could have been addressed during a hold. I didn't want the article to keep changing mid-review but I think I indicated that I would work on the issues that were raised, none of which are major fixes for someone familiar with the article. I really don't think it should have been failed without my being given a chance to address the issues raised in the review. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 13:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)