Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph 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 05:28, 12 May 2012.

Ralph Neville

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 11:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...after the usual copyedits, peer review, and research, we've gone from this in 2007 before I began editing to the current version. Obviously I'm responsible for most of the writing, but the polish has been supplied by Malleus, Brian, and a bunch of other editors who have polished my somewhat rough prose skills. Ralph was a medieval English Bishop of Chichester, as well as being one of the big henchmen of King John (of Robin Hood fame...) and after John's death went on to serve John's son. Although he got elected as Archbishop of Canterbury once, he didn't get confirmed by the papacy...Not really a "bad boy" but not a saint either ... Ralph was one of those very common administrator-bishops. He's been proofread, copyedited, and is ready for prime time... Ealdgyth - Talk 11:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with the prose, which details his life rather well, but I'm a bit concerned about the article's lack of images. I would recommend one from a related and linked article, such as this one from Llywelyn the Great, or this one from The National Archives (United Kingdom). Other than that, much improved! Inter  change  able  19:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of those supstantially improve our understanding of Neville nor do they illustrate things from his life, though. Especially the national archives one - which is almost misleading ... it could lead the reader to think that he had something to do with that building. I have hunted for images for him - when I was at Chichester I didn't see any memorials to him in the cathedral or in the town... (He wasn't exactly the type to merit statues!). Chancery Lane isn't much like what it would have looked like in his time period... no tomb extant so we're kinda stuck. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Support: "Not really a bad boy but not a saint either": that is the epitaph I seek for myself. Until that day I will continue to pick over Ealdgyth's bishops, as I did this one with a long peer review and some copyediting which was then topped and tailed by Malleus. Although I sympathise with the above comment on images, I don't think that featured articles require decorative pics for appearances's sake (though I confess I am personally inclined to do this). If aomething appropriate can be found, well and good, but otherwise I'd leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 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, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Compare formatting of FNs 3 and 8
 * England and its Rulers or Its Rulers?
 * Clanchy or Clancy? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Clearly meets the featured article standards, good work. I'm not familiar with the subject matter, but it reads very well. Although I had to read this in two sittings, I couldn't find much at all to nitpick. Just a few small comments:


 * I saw you use the serial comma a few times, missing one here: "supported students at schools in Lincoln, Oxford and Douai."
 * Is the first comma needed in these sentences? "In 1238, the cathedral chapter of the see of Winchester elected as Bishop of Winchester first William de Raley in opposition to the king's choice of William the Bishop of Valence, and when that election was quashed, they elected Neville." & "After the king's return in September 1243, Neville did seal a few documents with the Great Seal until his death a few months later." & "After Neville's death, Matthew Paris"
 * "Neville died between 1 and 4 February 1244 at the palace he had built in London in what was then New Street, but was renamed Chancery Lane because of the palace he built." Is there a good way around the repetition of "palace he had built... palace he built."? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth puts the commas in, and I take 'em out; I think all those issues have been addressed now. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks like it has. You know how excited we Americans get about our commas. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Support: A really well-written article which makes readable and interesting what could have been quite dry and dull. I have a few nit-picks which you may feel free to ignore completely if you don't agree. My one reservation, and one that I expand a little below, is that much of the article is about a pretty complicated position, that of Lord Chancellor. As this office was very much in development around this time, particularly as Neville reformed parts of it himself, there is a danger that the non-specialist may be a little baffled by some of what is going on here. I'm also not too sure that the article Lord Chancellor is an enormous help, so perhaps a little more explanation and help for the non-specialist may be of benefit here. But feel free to disagree, and this does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Although he was also briefly Archbishop-elect of Canterbury and Bishop-elect of Winchester, on both occasions the elections were set aside and he was not appointed to those offices.": Is "set aside" sufficiently clear for the lead? Maybe "quashed", as used in the main body, would be better. Also, a touch clunky; maybe "Although he was also briefly Archbishop-elect of Canterbury and Bishop-elect of Winchester, both elections were set aside [or quashed] and he held neither office."
 * Took your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Neville was deprived of the Great Seal in 1238…": Perhaps indicate why in the lead (i.e. disagreement with Henry)?
 * Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "[References to] the Ralph Neville who was the same Hugh de Neville's chaplain … may be to the future bishop … it is likely that early in his career Neville served as a chaplain to Hugh de Neville.": Possibly I'm missing something, but is this not a repetition of the same information?
 * Oh, yeah, excised. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Any indication or theories why he was given custody of the seal? I imagine not.
 * Probably lost in the missing records - we don't know why. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Would it be worth briefly mentioning why having the custody of the seal was a big thing?
 * Unfortunately, I don't have a good reference for WHY this was important - the gist is that it's controlling patronage and the sign of royal favour. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Similarly, perhaps make clear what was involved in the roles/duties/powers of vice-chancellor and Lord Chancellor (particularly as the article mentions "the power of that office). Possibly just a word or two to establish the role, to avoid confusion with any modern political positions of the same name; there are a few hints and mentions of the changing role of the chancery throughout, but nothing which really nails it down. If he was a big reformer/developer of the office, it would be useful to know what he was reforming.
 * He really wasn't a big reformer/developer of the office, however. He's mainly amazing for retaining favour with Henry III for so long and not losing everything when he did finally lose favour. The big reformer as chancellor during the Angevins was probably Huber Walter, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And, for the general reader, could it be made clear (if the sources permit) that the lack of knowledge of his career/whereabouts is not because he was a particularly mysterious figure but more due to the nature of the evidence used (which is touched on with "owing to the lack of royal records") and/or gaps in it.
 * I've noted where my sources note such gaps, otherwise I just don't have the secondary sources. If I did a survey myself of the primary records, it'd be OR, unfortunately! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "non-time limited grants": Should there be a hyphen in "time limited"?
 * I assume that if there should be, Malleus would have put one in... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With very few exceptions I hate those multiple hyphens, so I may have a blind spot. Sarastro1 is probably right, but I'd prefer to avoid the issue by rephrasing as "grants without a fixed time limit". Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "He also endowed a distribution of bread to the poor residents of Chichester, a gift that continued into the 20th century.": Has this actually stopped, or is it one of those things where the source is slightly out of date? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Source (which was revised in 2008, so it's not that out of date) states "For the poor of the city of Chichester he endowed an annual distribution of bread which continued until the twentieth century."... I'd have to guess that it no longer continues from that phrasing, but I have no source for that information. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sarastro, for the review. I will get to all of these shortly - Wed. and Thurs. are my hubby's days off so we're always really busy on these days... especially so with the wonderful spring weather we're having ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Everything looks to be in order for the most part—although I concur with Sarastro1 that the article could bear a bit more context about roles and importance of the positions mentioned. I'm not sure I agree that the lack of source material needs to be specifically mentioned though in places where we say something is unknown. I believe that should be evident without explicit statement. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delegate notes
 * Licensing for the solitary image looks okay.
 * Ealdgyth, can you just remind me of the last time you had a spotcheck of sources at FAC? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The last time Carcharoth reviewed one of my noms - not that long ago ... within the last six months? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I might've missed that one but I see Brian checked ODNB on Pain fitzJohn recently, so we'll give you a bye this round... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.