Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk/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 via FACBot (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2018.

John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk

 * Nominator(s):  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 20:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm nominating Mowbray for Featured Article status; originally little more than a stub, I expanded it and gave it a thorough re-write, and it has most recently undergone an extremely thorough (if informal) peer review on the article talk page, as well as a thorough copyediting by some of the best brains in the business, as it were. This is my first attempt at the FAR process, so please don't be gentle!John de Mowbray is one of those medieval characters of whom—while we know very little, if anything, of their personal or private lives—reveals a lot about themselves by their reaction to events and treatment (including mistreatment!) of political rivals. Mowbray has much that personifies the "overmighty subject" of the Wars of the Roses, private feuds and killings, imprisonment in the Tower of London, roadside trysts with his wife, and finally, in the last months of his, literally changing the course of history by being late. What he was late to, though, was the biggest and bloodiest battle in English history, with decisive results. All round, an interesting if not always pleasant man—but no less the product of his age than anyone else. That, however, is another question. All comments and commentators are extremely welcome. Thank you.  ...SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 20:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment and image review
 * Advise against having both father/son and predecessor/successor in the lead template
 * Suggest scaling up the Towton map
 * File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Sir_John_Mowbray,_3rd_Duke_of_Norfolk,_KG.png should include an explicit copyright tag for the original design
 * File:Vigiles_de_Charles_VII,_fol._90v,_Siège_de_Calais_(1436).jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for kickstarting this. Right—I think I've addressed the image issues. Towton now 500px; pd-old and us-pd for the coat of arms (was originally published in 1901, author died in 1919, note left to that effect); also us-pd on the Calais siege. I edited the Commons page by the way—that's right?
 * Regarding your first point— could you clarify slightly? I'm not sure what the lead template is, and specifically what father/son, heir/successor means?! Sorry! Thanks again,  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 10:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * She means, she feels it's unnecessary duplication for the infobox to include his father and son, and his predecessor and successor, since they're one and the same. I disagree in this particular case; while in this instance they're identical because he succeeded his father on the latter's death rather than by means of attainder etc, and he only had one child, I think it's important the infobox make this clear. &#8209; Iridescent 11:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see; yes, actually I can see their point (ironically—re. your point below, of course I couldn't see that...because the box is collapsed! Somewhat QED eh). Right: I'm easy on this. What's the strategy? Perhaps wait for a consensus of more editors to emerge?  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 11:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is to look at similar articles and be consistent with what they do—most people reading an article this niche will likely be surfing through a whole batch of Wars of the Roses articles, and consequently it's a service for everything to be where they expect to find it. Take this with a pinch of salt, as I'm fairly hardline "box unless there's a specific reason not to" when it comes to the Infobox Wars. &#8209; Iridescent 12:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, editing the Commons pages is correct. The one issue with what you've done is the scaling - per WP:IMGSIZE that should generally be done using upright rather than a fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, this is all most interesting: I've changed to the |upright parameter. Is that so he imaget stays in proportion to the rest of the page regardless of screen resolution? I think 1.8 was a sufficient increase to easily see the details without overtaking the section; but please say if you don't agree.  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 13:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's so the image stays in proportion to what you've set as your default image size. If you've never set one (or are not logged in), that will be 220px, so times 1.8 would give a display size of 396px - someone who'd set a smaller default would see a display smaller than that, and someone who'd set larger a larger display. The scaling you've used seems fine, at least with my settings. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks a lot. I went by the mobile view, and it fits quite snuggly next to the whole paragraph. Cheers!  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 14:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent
A brief support from me. To save going over everything again, I already nitpicked this one to pieces on the talkpage and everything was addressed. (I'd lose the collapsible infobox—it screws things up for anyone with poor motor skills or trying to print a hard copy of the article, and this page doesn't suffer from clutter to such a degree that the box needs to be minimized—but that's just me.) The usual disclaimed that I haven't performed any kind of source review. &#8209; Iridescent 11:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK: Thought it was getting in the way of the quote box beneath. Many thanks, also for the picking of nits out of him.  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 11:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim
Very comprehensive and readable, and reviewed elsewhere by better editors than I. The following are more to show I've read it than serious criticisms Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 *  the William de la Pole, Earl (later Duke) of Suffolk?
 * Lost the def. article.
 *  felt increasingly excluded from government became increasingly belligerent.—over-increased
 * How about, "Richard, Duke of York, who by the 1450s was feeling excluded from government, became increasingly belligerent"?
 *  a Paston letters reports —singular "letter", surely, even if linked to the Paston Letters?
 * Absolutely.
 * Please check whether all uses of "however" and leading "although" are necessary
 * Only one however and two althoughs now-how's that? Thanks very much for your comments and support here, !  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 14:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil
Read, copy-edited and reviewed this closely in the last few weeks. What a strange man and wonderful article. Happy to Support. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wonderful comment! Thanks for everything you have done to get it here   ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 14:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dweller
First glance is a support from me. Anything that appears below is trivial - unless I strike this! More maybe. Or maybe not. I am semi-retired y'know, grumble grumble. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * opening parag jumps around chronologically, which affects the reader's response to his 'treacherous' switch to York. Drop the first mention of the Wars of the Roses, move the wikilink and it'll all flow better methinks.
 * "short career" bit in Lead is at best PEACOCK and at worst POV. Either way, kill it with fire.
 * Thanks very much —starting from the bottom, would "who, despite having a relatively short political career, played a significant role in the early years of the Wars of the Roses" be better?
 * I've broken up that first para and moved the relevant elements to their respective chronological positions.
 * Any suggestions are always welcome, even if it does mean dragging you from the comfort of the "Sunshine Home for the Wiki-aged" ;)  Sorry!  Thanks very much for your involvement, it's greatly apprecited as ever.   ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 19:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
I fear I too often overlook things during PR that I only spot at FAC, which is annoying, and I apologise. A few quick and rather random points for now; I'll give the text a properly close scrutiny a.s.a.p and report back here.
 * Date ranges
 * It looks to me as though in the first line of the lead you have an unspaced em dash rather than the prescribed spaced en-dash.
 * Indeed; I've been proactive and gone through the article inserting ' – ' where necessary. Don't think I missed m/any?


 * Quote boxes
 * You are inconsistent in whether to include the ornamental large quotation marks. The first has them, the second doesn't, the third and fourth do, and the fifth doesn't. I rather like them, though some editors whom I greatly respect can't be having with them at any price. But either way, I think you should be consistent.
 * Well spotted; I've inserted quotes where necessary—although that last one is quoting a poem. Not sure of that makes a difference?


 * False title
 * There is a clunky one in the second para of Cultural depictions.
 * (comment below)


 * Under the Yorkists
 * "(theoretically, at east)" – at best or at least?
 * Least, changed.


 * WP:OVERLINK
 * Always a matter of judgment, admittedly, but to my mind nobody reading this article is going to want a link to gentry, favourite, estate, court, royal favourite, factional (second link, at least) and gentry (again).
 * I bow to your better judgement; I have a bad habit of automatically linking and thus eventually overlinking. I obviously don't trust my own ability to explain things. (Actually, I probably would have kept Royal court.)


 * Battle of Towton
 * You write "rear-guard", but link to "rearguard". The dictionaries favour the latter.
 * Absolutely, cheers.

More anon.  Tim riley  talk    20:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"Shakesperian scholar" discussion

 * On the false title, on this particular occasion I'd consider Shakespearian scholar W. W. Greg suggests… is actually preferable to The Shakespearian scholar W. W. Greg suggests…; to me, the latter suggests that he's the only one, or at least the pre-eminent one. Something like It has been suggested by W. W. Greg, one of the leading bibliographers and Shakespeare scholars of the 20th century… might work; this would also make it clear to the reader that Greg is someone worth listening to on this point and not a junior lecturer at a community college in the middle of nowhere, who happens to have a pet theory. &#8209; Iridescent 20:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be a bit cautious about this. I doubt if avoiding a journalese false title by the simple addition of a definite article would mislead anyone. "The actor Boris Karloff" or "the singer Peter Pears" for instance, would, I think, be unlikely to be taken as implying that either was the only or the preeminent actor/singer, and the same seems to me to apply to Mr Greg; and waxing eloquent about Greg's qualifications would itself call for citations to justify it.  Tim riley  talk    21:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Would using 's proposed wording be acceptable,, if I could find sourcing for the claims to be waxed lyrical over...? On the assumption that I could find them of course. Just a word to explain my own reasoning for titling him so; throughout the article I referred to "Historian X" (or some such form of words) as a means of verifying the credentials for those giving the opinion, and I thought—consitency again—that I should clarify (not only as Iridescent says that he is qualified to comment) that he is specifically not a historian unlike everyone else previously mentioned. I think it likely that without some sort of qualifier, the reader will (understandably if incorrectly) assume that he too is an historian. But, what say you?  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't for me to lay down the law about your drafting. Having given my comments I leave them to you to act on or not as you think best. More comments, as promised, in the next few days, I hope.  Tim riley  talk    16:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't take my word for it on his qualifications; I've never heard of him and am taking my proposed wording verbatim from W. W. Greg, which if accurate implies that his opinions are particularly important when it comes to Shakespeare. The sourcing on his WP biography is dreadful, but his ODNB entry does appear to back this up, albeit reading like something written by the man himself or a family friend, rather than an impartial analysis. (In youth Greg was unusually handsome and in old age he remained an impressive figure. Redoubtable in print, he was sometimes so in person, if angered by pretence or arrogance or slipshod writing. But he was friendly and accessible to younger scholars, and always a punctual correspondent.) &#8209; Iridescent 18:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Idea—would depersonalisation remove the fake title? Something like, "one scholar of Shakespeare's plays, W. W. Greg, has suggested that..."? Yeah nice advert that  :) G11-worthy stuff from ODNB.   —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 18:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just tweaked the wording per my comment above—what say you to how it reads now?  —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I can confirm that W. W. Greg is a Big Deal™ in Shakespeare studies (anybody familiar with the field will instantly recognize the name), and that "Shakespeare scholar" is, presumably due to the more than usually multi-disciplinary nature of it, a common way to refer to people like Greg. It's not an actual title anywhere so far as I'm aware, but it is commonly used where one in neighbouring fields might use historian, historiographer, lexicographer, paleographer, professor of Shakespeare studies, etc. That is, the original phrasing was correct, and the current phrasing suggests that Greg just read a lot of plays (he did a lot of work on bibliography, textual provenance, and Early Modern English theatre in general; as well as other playwrights than Shakespeare). 's slightly peacocky suggestion above might also work, since the plaudits are actually merited in Greg's case.And Greg's ODNB entry is written by F. P. Wilson and Henry Woudhuysen, both themselves familiar names in the field. And if it reads kinda chummy it's presumably an artefact of Shakespeare studies in general being a bit like the cliché of old Oxbridge academia: I'm guessing Wilson originally wrote it and treated it essentially like a Festschrift, and Woudhuysen has only minimally updated it. --Xover (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, a "Support" from there  ;) the "current phrasing" you refer to is as of my latest edit, I take it? Thanks very uch for talking the time to comment, Xover, greatly appreciated.   —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, sorry for not being specific. previous and current in my comment are the edits either side of your edit.BTW, Bromley 2011 doesn't attribute the identification of Mowbray with the "Duke of Norfolk" character in The Merry Devil of Edmonton to Greg. It only says Greg argued the play was set during the reign of Henry VI of England (rather than Henry VII of England), and then draws the conclusions about Mowbray itself. I don't currently have access to Fiehler 1949, which might make this attribution, but Bromley cites Greg in this journal article and David Kathman's article on Peter Fabell in the ODNB. If you have OUP access you might want to check these for a direct attribution of this identification to Greg.And while you're futzing around with this section, it could stand a bit more context: what does it mean if Mowbray is that Duke of Norfolk? Bromley provides a good overview that can be briefly summarised (I'm thinking specifically on the contemporary associations of the title, and the poaching theme).And you're very welcome, and I hope my comments may be of some use. Feel free to ping me if something Shakespeare-y pops up. I'm by no means an expert, but I have some superficial familiarity with the area and would be happy to help when I'm able. --Xover (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice one, that's reallly useful. I've ODNB up so I'll look into your suggestions: this is a Good Thing, because I was slightly ashamed of the "Cultral depictions" section, which is a testimony to my ignorance of all things Shakespeare/ean. It looks a little throw-away at the moment, so what you've suggested should allow for a little expansion. Some good I mean to do, as the feller said ;)  cheers!   —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 16:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It occured to me, do have any good sources regarding Norfolk in Shakespeare? It seems ironic that now, the paragraph about his possible characterization in an incomplete anonymous play is twice the size of the one about his definite, etc., appearance in Shakespeare-! Any suggestions gratefuly received. Cheers!  —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 18:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look and see what I can find. But I wouldn't expect too much since Norfolk has all of three lines in 3 Henry VI: "Such hope have all the line of John of Gaunt!", "We’ll all assist you. He that flies shall die.", and "And I to Norfolk with my followers." Other characters refer to him only twice, as I recall, and only incidentally. If I find anything I'll drop it on the talk page, since I'm starting to feel I'm blundering around making a mess of Tim's section of comments here (sorry about that Tim!). --Xover (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's most courteous! But apologies are really not needed.  Tim riley  talk    12:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Having given the article one last read-through I'm now happy to support its promotion to FA. Two final points, neither of them terribly important. First "archenemy" should be hyphenated according to the OED (though if you counter with archbishop and archfiend I shall not fight to the death in defence of the OED's version). Secondly, as we round into the home straight I can't find any way of seeing this as a sequitur: "Mowbray did not live long enough to benefit from the Yorkist victory. On 2 November 1461, Howard was arrested by the new Yorkist regime. Mowbray died four days later on 6 November 1461." Mowbray was presumably not so attached to Howard that the latter's arrest caused the former to suffer an apoplexy? Glancing below, I see you ask BB about how to convert 10-digit ISBNs: this link is all you need: https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter –  Tim riley  talk    12:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting here Tim, I really appreciate it, as, I hope, I always do your input.  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That was a laugh-out-loud moment! I see, it does rather imply cause and effect doesn't it (incidentally, I agree about "Arch- and have adjusted accordingly, thank you). As you say, they might have been close, but not that close :)  the reason I meantioned it was because it tied in with not getting the support of the new govt. But since that was in the previous section, I've moved Howard's arrest there. Although, thinking about it, if you questioned its entire relevance, I'm beginning to wonder myself...  Thank you very much for the support though !   —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review
Just a few small presentational points: The sources themselves appear to be of excellent quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The 13-digit ISBN formats ought to be standardised. The form normally employed is 978-x-xxxxx-xxx-x. There are also a few 10-digit versions which ought to be converted.
 * Done all the 13s; any means of converting the 10s? and converted all the 10s Many thanks to for the help with that
 * Page range formats: Ref 16 differs from your standard (see e.g. 58, 86, 92 etc}
 * I think I've rumbled it—you meant 100-10 rather than 100-110, for example? Ah ha! I've changed to three-digit ranges throughout the refs in the body too. If so, ignore this---> Err: sorry about this—but I've gone and added a few more sources which of course has screwed up the numbering—would you be able to re-identify the one you meant please? I'm afraid I can't see it (cf., blind spot, of course)
 * Boardman 1996 and 1998: Are the respective publishers "Alan Sutton" and "Sutton" one and the same?
 * Indeed, certainly the same firm, but I think they must have changed their imprint in that two-year gap, as those are the actual publishers given in the front?
 * Goodman: is it possible to specify location more precisely than "US"?
 * Ah!—New York, acc. Worldcat; but, honestly, the actual bok is that vague. Bizarre.
 * Grummitt: som eextra words appear to have crept in.
 * What ones? The "short histor of..."? Changed to just "Short history"—it's the name of the series. Or is it something else I've missed?
 * Thanks for this forensic touch, —I have got a couple of queries I'm afraid, and it's not that I'm not going to address your remaining points, ust need a touch of (re-)clarifyication first :) Cheers,   ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat

 * Support from me on prose. I'm not an expert in the field, or even remotely well-read on the subject, so my review caveat applies. – SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood, and thanks very much for coming in !  —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 19:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Prose comments
I've started a careful readthrough, and found the following issues in the lead:
 * "Mowbray command the defence of England's possessions..."


 * -ed, of course.
 * "and in 1438 he again led a force to Calais". Again? When was the first time?


 * "He also fought in Calais in 1436, and from1437 to 1438 he served a year's term as warden of the east march on the Anglo-Scottish border. That year he then returned to the fighting in Calais again"—any good?
 * "often taking the law into his own hands—and often breaking it". Surely, taking the law into your own hands is breaking it?


 * Well; in the fifteenth century they weren't necessarilly synonymous; a magnate could quite easily take the law into his own hands without necessarilly breaking the King's peace (crushing rebellions, etc., spring to mind: pardons after the fact were a fact of politics, as, indeed, were applying for pardons in advance!), so I thought it ought to be emphasised that this was not such and occasion. However: "often violently taking the law into his own hands" if you think better?
 * "Such tactics were also employed by his enemies..." It's not clear what you mean by "such tactics"; the preceding sentence reads: "He was bound over for massive sums and imprisoned twice in the Tower of London".


 * Becomes "Violent tactics were also employed by his enemies"?
 * "but often Mowbray was was..."


 * Was not was!
 * "Mowbray was instrumental in helping Edward win the Battle of Towton by his late arrival with reinforcements in April 1461." I'd be inclined to reconstruct this, by bringing the date to the start of the sentence, and adding a comma: "In April 1461 Mowbray was instrumental in helping Edward win the Battle of Towton, by his late arrival with reinforcements".


 * Thanks for that —I've ½"-d your construction. Many thanks for picking up on those details.  —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 10:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of these glitches appear to have entered the article after this FAC began. It may be useful to check the rest of the prose, to see if other minor errors have inadvertently been introduced. Meantime I'm reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Another slice of prose review:
 * Background and youth


 * I think it's contrary to MoS to include birth–death year ranges for blue-linked individuals. I can't lay my hands on the specific guideline but perhaps someone else can.
 * Believe you, and removed from his mother and father accordingly.
 * The phrase "being placed upon him" seems redundant as you say "personal" restrictions.
 * I removed "personal" so as to keep who had imposed them ("council-imposed restrictions being placed upon him").
 * Inheritance


 * "but not the rest of his inheritance" – somwhat vague: wahat was this "rest"?
 * Changed to "inherited the office of Earl Marshal, but not yet his father's lands or titles."
 * Suggest remove non-encyclopaedic interpolation "in fact".
 * Done.
 * Pipe link encumbered
 * Done.
 * link dowager
 * Done.
 * "Constance died in 1437, but his mother survived until 1483" – "his" needs defining. Also, in the previous section you give the mother's death year as 1484.
 * Specified "but Mowbray's mother survived"; also adjusted the earlier erroneous mention of her death in 1484 (it was the prevoius year, just after RIII's coronation.
 * Claim to the earldom of Arundel


 * Inappropriate section heading. The claim is not referred to after the first short paragraph.
 * Mmmm fair point; changed to "Claim to the earldom of Arundel, royal service and local rivalries." Is this still too bulky? Can't really think of an all inclusive short phrase that covers things as diverse as the section covers...?
 * Crime and disorder in East Anglia


 * I think "ancestors" would be a better term than "predecessors".
 * Agree.
 * "was thus unable to ever establish" is clumsy. "was thus never able to establish"
 * Thank you; stolen.
 * "East Anglia was forced upon him..." Slightly confusing phrase. I think it means he had no choice for his power base other than East Anglia, but I'm not sure. It needs to be more clearly stated.
 * Right: How bout "The choice of making East Anglia the locus of his landed authority was somewhat forced upon him by the fact that this was where the bulk of his estates were."
 * OK, but I'd replace "by the fact that" with "since" or "because". Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * -OK, "since."


 * "Their feud was often violent, and encouraged their retainers to fight". I'd word this slightly differently: "Their feud was often violent, and their retainers were encouraged to fight". Also you have "retainers ... retainers" in the line.
 * "Their feud was often violent, and this encouraged clashes between their respective followers. In 1435, some Mowbray retainers..."
 * "In 1435, some Mowbray retainers (led by Robert Wingfield, Mowbray's steward of Framlingham Castle) murdered one of de la Pole 's (James Andrew)". Again, somewhat clumsy and over-bracketed. Perhaps "In 1435, Robert Wingfield, Mowbray's steward of Framlingham, led a group of Mowbray retainers who murdered James Andrew, one of de la Pole's  men" – or some such.
 * Thanks for that; used your phrasing, also turned the next sentence about the aldermen into a separate sentence to shorten it overall.
 * Robert Wingfield should be linked on first, not second mention.
 * Thus linked.
 * What's a "Paston letter"? Ah, I see it linked at a later mention. That link needs to be transferred to first mention, here.
 * Done.
 * Who is "Helen Castor"?
 * A very nice lady :) but also one whom I didn't realise we already had an article on. Linked.
 * "Mowbray’s situation did improvement..." Assuming you mean "improve", how is this improvement evident in what follows - a catalogue of imprisonments, fights, bindings-over for vast sums, lost arbitrations and law cases, and assaults and murder of his followers? Improvement is hard to find!
 * Heh :) Indeed, I think I missed out a pretty fundamental word there. How's "Mowbray’s personal and political situation did not improve over the following decade"—?
 * What was the reason for Wingfield's defection?
 * Clarify, "Wingfield deserted Mowbray over the latter's continuing attacks on him over Hoo"
 * "In June 1446 one of his father’s retainers..." First mention of a person in a paragraph should be by name not pronoun.
 * Done.
 * "5" should be "five"
 * Done; what about "8.0 km" though?
 * I'd be inclined to leave that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll try and finish it next pass. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Scrope had petitioned King Henry that Mowbray's proceedings were "inaccurate and inherently malicious," who ordered the cessation of proceedings against Scrope's men". Grammatically dodgy, needs recasting.
 * Perhaps, "Scrope had petitioned King Henry that Mowbray's proceedings were "inaccurate and inherently malicious," and as a result, the King ordered that proceedings against Scrope's men cease"?
 * "requested a commission of" → "requested that a commission of"
 * Yes.
 * The Earl of Oxford should be linked at first mention.
 * Swapped around. Name & title linked first time, title alone unlinked the second.
 * "The Duke himself fell from power in 1450" – The Duke of Suffolk, presumably.
 * Clarified and sourced.
 * "that defeated him against de la Pole" → " that had defeated him against de la Pole"?
 * Of course—thanks.
 * Thanks, have a look at a couple of these points if you would, just for clarification. Thanks again!  —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Continuing: I'm finding a worrying number of prose points which I think should have been spotted by the several supporting editors who claim to have copy-edited or read through the article. They should have gone to Specsavers. Some of these issues might be considered as matters of style, but some are downright errors. I've got as as far as the end of the "Wars of the Roses" section, and that's all I can do today.
 * ''Later career and political crisis'

The first paragraph is cluttered with names (Mowbray is mentioned over and over again) and you might try a little rephrasing to reduce this. For example, the sentence "York canvassed Mowbray for support against Somerset, as Mowbray was one of the few nobles willing to outrightly criticise the court" could be "York canvassed Mowbray for support, as  one of the few nobles willing to outrightly criticise the court". I also think "openly" is a little more elegant than "outrightly".
 * OK (I was trying to avoid my perennial problem of too many "he"s), I think I've reduced them, also taken that suggestion on board.
 * "where John Paston was ordered to meet him" – who ordered Paston? Should it be "having ordered John Paston to meet him there"?
 * Xactly.
 * "for the duration": for the duration of what?
 * The parliament—clarified.
 * "Their alliance could have also been abandoned by York, perhaps embarrassed by Mowbray's violent behaviour in East Anglia. York was, after all, presenting himself as the candidate of law and order." Slightly confused wording: I suggest "York may have abandoned the alliance because of his objection to Mowbray's violent behaviour in East Anglia, as York was, after all, presenting himself as the candidate of law and order."
 * Thank you; used.
 * The parenthetical insertion ("the loss of two so noble Duchies as Normandy and Guyenne") disturbs the flow somewhat. I'd say " attacking his failure to prevent the loss of the duchies of Normandy and Guyenne in France".
 * Well, it's quoting a contemporary description (hence why their loss was so keenly felt), but I've kept a small bit of the quote and made it part of the sentence rather than bracketed—how's that?
 * "Somerset's" → "Somerset"
 * Done.
 * Who is "Ralph Griffiths"
 * Historian, and linked to our article too.
 * The Wars of the Roses


 * "Civil war erupted in May 1455, when York and his allies ambushed the King at the first Battle of St Albans." This wasn't a case of civil war "erupting", but a planned attack. We need to know, briefly, why York laid the ambush.
 * Provided some background: less of an eruption than a slow descent into.
 * "Mowbray either arrived after the skirmish or was in the area while the battle took place". Well, yes, that's rather like saying he was either there or he wasn't. Besides which, was it a "skirmish" or a battle? The OED definition of skirmish suggests it was a battle.
 * Well, no: some people were absolutely not there (the Earl of Westmorland, for example, never left Penrith!)—What I was trying to say here is that Mowbray is known to have been in the area, but it is uncertain whether he was close enough to actually take part, or did he hang back? Anyway,, I thikn I've clarified that per your criticism—better?  Also, I removed mention  of "ambush" as being misleading (although to clarify, historians really label it a battle for convenience; compared to the—for example—Battle of Towton it was certainly no such thing. Michael Hicks has described it as less of a battle and more a quick series of assassinations (Somerset & Northumberland), after which the battle such as it was immediately stopped.) Anyway: got rid of it.
 * There's a lot of uncertainty here: "may have", "more than likely that", "probably", "may have gone", "It is also possible" – it's like trying to catch snowflakes. Could we have a few "Sources suggest that" or similar constructions to vary the tone?
 * Rephrased.
 * "civil war again broke out between September and October" That sounds as though the two months were fighting each other. Maybe replace "between" with "in"?
 * Classic :D adjusted, thanks.
 * "York and their supporters" → "York and his supporters"? Either way, comma required after "supporters"
 * Okay—I'd already mentioned Salisbury as being with York, so assumed the 3rd pers. plural applied.
 * "for Coventry" → "at Coventry"
 * Done.
 * "He was received a number of royal commissions" – delete "was"
 * Deleted.
 * Pipe-link Lancastrian
 * Linked. Odd it hasn't come up before actually.
 * Beginning a paragraph with "Yet" is somewhat non-neutral, so I'd delete it.
 * I've tweaked the whole section quite heavilly, incl. moving chunks from one para to another.
 * Who is "Rutland"?
 * York's second son: clarified & linked.
 * "Norfolk remained in London" – that's Mowbray, I assume, but changing the nme mid-sentence doesn't help readers
 * Bizarre; it's the only time in the entire thing that I don't call him Mowbray! Changed, thanks.
 * I found the last paragraph, beginning "The precise cause of Mowbray's change of loyalties..." muddled and hard to follow. No context is given for the Battle of Northampton, and what follows is a very confusing account. This paragraph needs to be rewritten for clarity.
 * Yes, I agree: this was (hopefully) re-written as part of that section juggling I mentioned just up^^^there —a litle clearer?

Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, I realise you're probably a bit pressed for time so if you could just let us know at your earliest how things look now, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ian, I have no wish to hold up the promotion of this article, which in general is in excellent shape. I have, however, been concerned by the rather large number of small prose errors or malformations that I've discovered, long after many editors have registered their supports saying that they've copyedited etc., which is a fault of the reviewers as much as of the nominator. I have the final sections still to read through, but I am quite happy to do this after promotion, should you feel inclined to do that, rather than your having to wait on me. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mind waiting at all personally, as I would rather the ship was launched with all its paddles in the water. But, most importantly—I think—have I addressed your previous concerns satisfactorily? Cheers, —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 20:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I think half the time pings don't seem to work nowadays: there were a few recently where I only know I was pinged because I saw the email alert—seems hit and miss, bizarre. I'm not sure of the etiquette here, but is there anything you think I should be looking at / getting on with? —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 10:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Does this get archived then? —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 08:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The review has not yet been open a month, so given the depth of the article I don't think the duration is excessive. Per my recent edit/summary on the article page, I had a look at the text changes over the last couple of weeks and could see some obvious typos and a few places I felt other improvements were called for, and edited accordingly. Given the calibre of the reviewers who've looked at this, I think it'd be worth someone just going over the prose as it stands and polishing where possible. I'm no expert on this subject but as the heavy lifting re. sourcing and comprehensiveness appears to have been done I'd be happy to recuse as coord and do it myself if no-one has any objections. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, before we get to a final polish, I know that was involved with editing the article prior to FAC but hasn't stopped by here -- would you like the opportunity to comment on the current state of the article? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, anything you see ft to do is OK by me; unfortunately I did not receive feedback on my alterations so minor qualifications were probably inevitable. Incidentally, I wasn't trying to rush the thing—I just assumed that would fail at that point. I'm kind of glad now I didn't provoke you into doing so! ;) Cheers, —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 10:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re-ping, fancy this? —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 13:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It'd be Wednesday before I could possibly comment... I'm swamped in non-Wiki world. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well; things certainly seem to have quietened down—what's the SP? —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 13:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I hadn't got back to this sooner --, did you want to take a look? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, do you still want another set of eyes here? If so, I'll take a read through, but it'll take a few days if that's ok? Victoriaearle (tk) 23:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Victoria, I'd be more than happy for you to go through it if you have time. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, will do. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have started to give this one another look over. I do think its in good shape and am encouraged to see the watchful eye below. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Update, have done a top to bottom copy edit, but am not finished. I take Brianboulton's observations to heart, this was slack, there should be learnings, and will resume over the weekend, weather permitting (ie if it finally stops bloody raining I will head for the coast and delayed until the weekend after). Will update anyhow. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Victoria
Hi, if I disappear for a few days please ping me back. In the meantime, I'm working my way through, will make small copyedits as I go, and post comments as I go. Stopping here. I think the article could do with some re-organization and even renaming of sections. If you don't mind, I could have a go at it. I think it would help straighten the chronology and help with the flow. More later. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Background and youth
 * I think there are some organization issues and maybe a few issues of context. First, Henry VI was only a boy in 1432, had spent the better part of the late 1420/early 1430s with Bedford in Burgundy and France in hopes of securing the French crown (per agreement Isabeau of Bavaria made with his father, Henry V), none of which is necessarily relevant here, but I'm wondering whether the sources mention whether the granting of estates during his minority was at Bedford's behest (he was married to Philip the Good's sister; Humphrey married to Philip's cousin Jacqueline, to confuse things more. In the least, the regency & Bedford should be mentioned. (Sorry, I know a little about this period).
 * I had to wonder the same about the behavioral issues; the boy king, who spent quite a lot of time in France in an attempt to secure the crown there, I have to assume would have followed Bedford's advice. Not sure how important this is, but I'm curious whether the sources mention Bedford or say Henry was making decisions himself? If Bedford, a sentence to clarify might be in order.
 * Inheritance, early career and royal service
 * The section is quite stuffed (quite long) and it might work better to shove some of the text up to the "Background and youth" section, i.,e the issue of encumbrance seems to belong to background, and then consider starting that section with "Claim to the earldom ..."
 * Claim to the earldom ...
 * 2nd paragraph >> "On 13 September ... " without comma, next sentence is "In 1437, " with comma. These constructions need to be consistent throughout.
 * It might be useful to sneak in a sentence somewhere explaining that Calais was under British control, not French, for the uninitiated who might wonder why Mowbray was strengthening defenses in France
 * Crime and disorder
 * First paragraph seems to me to either belong to the "Background" or to the "Inheritance" section
 * The next two paragraphs seem to repeat the de la Pole feud from the previous section. Somehow all these issues need to be woven together.
 * I've tried some text shoving/re-organization, only experimented, and reverted. Something like this version might flow better. Skimming through the rest of the article, I see fewer issues to address. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your review Victoria (apologies for the outrageous informality though). I like the structural changes you made—I can wear that, so I have restored your version with a (hopefully!) amusing edit-summary :) regarding your other points: I deliberately tried to avoid getting too bogged down in the adminstrative details of Henry's minority and the regency, on the grounds that he had come of age (or at least, begun his personal rule) by 1437, and Mowbray's father had only died five years earlier so there wasn't a particularly long period when Mowbray was under the minority. And Mowbray's coming of age coincides, more or less, with Henry's personal rule. The rules of behaviour, for example, must have been imposed on M. between the ages of 17 and 21 (1432x1436); true that for the the earlier end of the range the regency council was firmly in control, but by the end of it, far less so; and something like immoral behaviour has (someone else rather than me!) pointed out, very much the kind of thing that a young—and very religious—Henry might insist on dealing with himself. But perhaps a couple of sentences clarifying the division of labour between Bedford, Gloucester and the regency council in the early 1430s might be in order. (I think, since Mowbray didn't attend Henry's Paris coronation, a degree of background detail can probably be ommitted?).          —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 06:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Big changes that I do quickly, in minutes, I'll always revert and let the nominator decide. I've not really looked again, but if you (and others) think it works, then my sense is that it straightens out the organization. As for Henry & Bedford, yes, I agree with you. I almost struck my comments last night, because it's all waaay too complicated. I hope to get back here to continue reading this evening. One quick comment while I'm here: how do you feel about having a single color for all of the text boxes? Some are a little bright (migraine sufferer here, sensitive to some screen colors) and it might be slightly less distracting. Only a preference though, not actionable, so it's your call. Back later. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, that's appreciated. I like your changes; can't imagine anyone finding particular umbrage with them. The only thing I would ask (I meant to ^^^earlier, but totally forgot) is whether you think its possible to sub-section or in another way slightly break up the "Feud" section at all, possibly around the Storey quote? It might just be me, but does it now look slightly solid, if you know what i mean? As for the quotebox colours—it's funny you should mention that. It came up at something else I've got on the boil, and I have to say, as I did there, I totally agree—perhaps the yellow?(See here) More understated, less garish, but still effectively adds colour to the text?   —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 18:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it's stuffed. I'll put back the section header called "Crime and disorder" just above the paragraph that begins with, "Mowbray's personal and political situation did not improve over the following decade ... ", if that works?? Re text boxes - very nice! I'm not one to talk, having littered the project with articles filled with text boxes, some quite bright. It does look better with a single color though - at least to me. I've been sidetracked, so will get back to this tomorrow. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much,, I appreciate your work. If it's OK with you, I made that section a sub-header of the feud section—based on how close they are as subjects? That OK? —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 15:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better. I snuck it in quickly so as not to interrupt the copyediting, and then thought I should have made it a level three instead of level two header. Do you think it should go down another paragraph? Victoriaearle (tk) 21:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's see; I've moved it down a paragraph—an improvement?

Back later this evening. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Crime and disorder in East Anglia
 * Storey quote: not a big deal, but it's not only two lines, the block quote interferes a bit with the image below (on my monitor) and I wondered if has to be a block quote?
 * As you say, no big deal; I got rid of the block quote and made it a sentence. That then made the whole sentence v long and unwieldy, so I split it up—I think it works?
 * This sentence confused me: "Wingfield had received Hoo from the second duke, but the third duke wanted it returned to his possession" >> does it refer to Mowbray (3rd duke) & his father (2nd duke)?
 * Yep, replace with "Mowbray's dad" & Mowbray himself.
 * "This may have been the only occasion on which Mowbray personally sat on a local King's Bench commission as the hearing J.P." >> tiny brain here - I couldn't make out what J.P stood for. Did figure it out, but suggest linking it.
 * Linked.
 * "princypall rewle and governance throw all this schir" >> not at all actionable, but maybe put a translation in parenthesis after?
 * In brackets; this did occur to me, but I wondered whether it verged on OR (being my interpretation).
 * "John de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, another enemy of de la Pole, sought Mowbray's "good Lordship",[62] and in 1451 they collaborated in Suffolk investigating participation in Jack Cade's Rebellion.[63]" >> I tried to recast this sentence & might give it another shot, but there's a lot in it. De Vere is also de la Pole's enemy, seeks an alliance with Mowbray, the two collaborate in Suffolk (assuming the American reader understand Suffolk is in East Anglia) trying to decide whether to participate in Jack Cade's rebellion - with or against Cade??
 * Split it into two sentences, which then allows (hopefully!) to clarify that they weren't participating at all—they were bringing the previous year's rebels to justice for the King :)
 * "Mowbray spent much of the early 1450s hunting down de la Pole's affinity.[62]" >> don't know what affinity means?
 * I can't link that, because it's mentioned in the previous para, but did link that one (Affinity (medieval))
 * Hopefully addressed these points, —see what you think. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 09:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

That's all from me. Most are minor quibbles, nothing terribly important. It's a nicely researched article and, I think, does a good job of summarizing what seems to be a complicated person during a complicated period. Nice work! Victoriaearle (tk) 23:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Later career
 * I made a few copyedits. Feel free to revert. No quibbles.
 * The Wars of the Roses
 * Still complicated, no matter how many times I read about it! You've handled it well. I made a few minor copyedits
 * Battle of Towton
 * Nicely done! No quibbles.
 * Under the Yorkists
 * Looks good. No quibbles
 * Character and legacy
 * No quibbles; made a few minor copyedits
 * Cultural depictions
 * No quibbles.
 * Thank you for the kind words —and, thank you too, for the copyediting, which I see no problems with whaaatsover :) Let me know if there's anything else you can think of, of course. Cheers!  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 09:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not able to do much today. Your fixes look good and I've moved to support. I might have another minor comment or two when I'm feeling better, but doubt it. I see that Ceoil's on the job copyediting, so that's good. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's great news, nice one. Very sorry to hear you haven't been well—not SerialNumberAndMowbrayItis, I hope?! ;) seriously, hope you are better soon.  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 22:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not MowbrayItis. It's looking good. I've struck everything, so the coords know I've seen it all. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers Victoriaearle :) time to awaken the Kraken  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 06:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I did end up making a few edits, but not enough I think to require recusing from closing this -- thanks all for your participation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, it was epic :)  Barnstars all round! (If that's not against etiquette) And thanks for your last run through. Cheers,  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 19:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.