Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:09, 7 March 2009.

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick

 * Nominator(s): Lampman (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because – after passing as a GA and getting a helpful peer review – I think it should be ready for FAC. Lampman (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE.
 * Need to note that the JSTOR links need a subscription.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've had some problems with which template to use to cite the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but I guess "cite encyclopedia" is the best option. I've included (subscription required) in the JSTOR links, as well as the ODNB ones. Thanks! Lampman (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I use cite encyclopedia for that myself, and I use it for all the collected conference works also. I don't think cite conference gives isbn numbers... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a fan of the capitalisation e.g. "earl of Salisbury" instead of Earl. user:SE7User_talk:SE7/Special:Contributions/SE7 17:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right, I've always had problems understanding exactly what MOS says on that, but I've changed it now in titles, and also where it says "the earl" to "the Earl" etc. Lampman (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the ahnentafels: two strings of redundant info, all of which should have been converted into prose (if relevant). The ahnentafel is a waste of space, and encourages editors to create colorful (and terribly annoying) sections of large templates instead of good old plain prose. It is also not a standard presence in any encyclopedia, so it is arguably irrelevant here as well. And just who decides which generations of ancestors are the more important? And just who decides that the same can't be done for regular people? We've had this discussion in respect to other articles, and it turned out that the ahnentafels are singularly endorsed by a group of editors who contribute very little other than that, and who make little or no distinction between wikipedia and genealogical sites. If we have to feed into that preference, could you at least make the template collapsible? Dahn (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the table titled "Ancestors of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick", I didn't put it there, and I dislike it probably just as much as you do. I also feel strongly that Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a genealogy site. If there are no objections, I'd be happy to remove it. Lampman (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made it collapsible, so now at least it's much less intrusive. Lampman (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I reviewed this at PR, made numerous suggestions most of which had been acted on. I am satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria; it is well-written, compehensive and informative. I wish I knew what the comment immediately above was about, but I'm sure it is unrelated to my support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to my comment, it's about the huge and awkward ahnentafel at the bottom of the article, which contrasts terribly with the rest of the article and adds little info that can't be turned into prose. Btw, if something in it is relevant, it should be in the text (or else the article is not up to FA standards); if it is trivia, it should be removed (or else the article is not up to FA standards). But, at the very least, if we have to keep these things, can't we make the template collapsible as it is here? Dahn (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images are verfiable to be in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments &mdash;
 * "He appears to have entered into the service of King Henry VI by 1449, when mention is made of his services in a grant."
 * Are the tenses here correct?
 * I believe this is common practice, since were talking about his appearance in a historical document that still exists.


 * "This conflict was also a pivotal period in Warwick's career, as it was resolved by his appointment to the captaincy of Calais. The post was to provide him with a vital power base in the years of conflict to ensue; Calais was not only a town of vital strategic importance, it also held what was England's most significant standing army."
 * Should Calais be mentioned explicitly as a French-land occupied by the English either in or before this sentence. The predominance of English towns before this might lead one with lesser geographic knowledge of the land to think it is in England (unless they follow the link).  This could potentially confuse when the next section mentions "Warwick crossed over to England ...".
 * I've added a bit more on Calais.


 * "The promotion of Warwick's brother George to Archbishop of York shows that the earl was still in favour with the king ..."
 * Is the tense here correct?
 * This would be similar to the above case.


 * The Historical assessment section seems a bit short. Are there possibilities to flesh out the qualities of the earl discussed here?  For examples, instead of stating "pointed out his deficiencies as a military commander", perhaps a short expoundation on what Oman found lacking in Warwick that made the subject a flawed military man.  Furthermore, Weir has pointed out the earl's popularity and influence not just with the people, but within the European diplomatic circle (as illustrated by the Abbeville letter to Louis in the article).  This shows the earl's influence as a man.  His popularity with the common people at its peak rivaled or exceeded the young Yorkist king, which leads further strength to his "Kingmaker" moniker.
 * I've added some more on Oman's military assessment. As for the other points you mention, I think I've covered this in the lines: "His claim to prominence in national affairs was not a product of illusions of grandeur; it was confirmed by the high standing he enjoyed among the princes on the Continent.[128] Furthermore, Warwick's cause was not considered unjust by contemporaries, which can be seen by the earl's popularity exceeding that of the king at the time of his first rebellion in 1469.[129]"

On the whole, it is a strong article that reads generally well. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, hope I've addressed your issues sufficiently! Lampman (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, although I still think a greater breakdown of factors into why Oman think Warwick deficient in military ability could be explored (Haig hazarded that Warwick's brilliant exploit of the gap in the First St. Alban's was more to luck, for example). However, that could be too specialized.  In any event, the section does present an overview of the major sources' opinions towards the man, so I can assuringly throw in a support.  Jappalang (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Curious why the article deviates from the appendices suggested at the WP:LAYOUT guideline? Is "Literature" Further reading or References?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've changed it to a "Footnotes -- References -- Further reading"-format. Lampman (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think the prose still needs some work, is unclear in places, and the whole article needs to be checked over again for MoS compliance such as correct use of dashes, and a thorough look over by a good copyeditor.
 * "... he was instrumental to the deposition of two kings ..." "Instrumental to" sounds strange. "Instrumental in"?
 * "From this conflict he gained the valuable post as Captain of Calais ...". Post of Captain of Calais?
 * "At the age of six, the young Richard was betrothed to Anne Beauchamp, daughter of Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, and Isabel Despenser." So he was betrothed to two women, Anne and Isabel?
 * "When Beauchamp's son Henry died in 1446, and Henry's infant daughter died only three years later, Richard also found himself ...". So when was it he found himself Earl of Warwick? When Beauchamp's son died or three years later?
 * "... it also held what was England's most significant standing army." What does "significant" mean here? Largest? Best-equipped? Best-trained? Something else?
 * "There were some initial disputes, with the garrison and with the royal wool monopoly ...". How could Warwick have had a dispute with a monopoly? Over the monopoly?
 * "... he then embarked on highly successful raids of piracy ..." Not sure who the "pirate" is here. Is Warwick the pirate, or is he leading raids on pirates? Awkwardly written in any event.
 * "... their forces were scattered by the king's army, much due to the defection of Warwick's Calais ...". Awkward "much due".
 * "This act caused great offence to Warwick ...". This doesn't quite fit with the previous sentence, which discusses a revelation of marriage. Presumabl;y it wasn't the revelation that caused offence.
 * "... he sought to build the Woodvilles family into a power base independent of Warwick's influence." Shouldn't this be "Woodville" family? I'm not at all sure what "building a family into a power base" is supposed to mean anyway.
 * "... a fact that would later earn him his epithet of "Kingmaker"." I'm not keen of some of the use of subjunctives, of which this is one example. Why not a simpler "which later earned him"?


 * Thanks for your suggestions, I've tried to implement them as best I could. I'm not sure I understand your objection to my use of the word "monopoly" though. I am quite confident that this can be both an abstract and concrete noun. In this case it is used in the concrete sense, and specified later on in the sentence. Also, I'm not sure where you believe I have used dashes incorrectly, could you please elaborate on this? Lampman (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to have a dispute with a monopoly, unless the word is being used as a collecive noun. Is it in this case? On a similar note: "The marriage – made on 1 May ...". I have never before seen anyone "make" a marriage. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, OED definition 5 of "monopoly, n.": "A company that has, operates, or claims a monopoly." I'll change "made" to "contracted". Lampman (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

--DavidCane (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments on first two sections
 * Intro
 * "Through fortunes of marriage and inheritance" needs to be followed by a comma.
 * "...led him into collaboration with Richard, Duke of York,..." Suggest "...led him to collaborate with Richard, Duke of York...". When was this collaboration as there is ambiguity with the statement in the Becoming Warwick section that he sided against York in 1452.
 * In what way was the post of Captain of Calais valuable - prestige, power or monetary? Or all of the above?
 * the sentence on Warwick's death at the battle of Barnet is somewhat ambiguous - as it follows on from a sentence about Warwick, the Duke of Clarence and Henry VI - it is not immediately clear which of them Edward killed. Suggest use "Warwick" instead of "he".
 * "Edward initially based his reign on Warwick's support..." seems awkward.
 * Presumably the Salisbury who fell in battle was Warwick's father.
 * Becoming Warwick
 * This is a complicated section. It might help the understanding if more years were added to make the sequence of events more explicit. This would avoid the need for "...Warwick (as he had now become)..."
 * The first use of Richard here is ambiguous - it initially reads as if it is the article's subject rather than his father.
 * Explain how Richard (Ralph's son) became 5th Earl of Salisbury by marrying Alice, the 4th Earl's daughter, as this is not a normal route of inheritance for a peerage. In fact he didn't become Earl on his marriage but when the 4th Earl died, at least seven years after the marriage. Need to mention he held the title jure uxoris as is mentioned later for Warwick's own inheritance of the Warwick title.
 * Might be worth mentioning that Henry de Beauchamp (14th Earl) was married to Warwick's sister Cecily.
 * Should have a link to Anne (15th Countess). She was five when she died, an age not usually described as "infant".
 * Need to expand on the reason for the disputed succession to the estates (by way of his wife).
 * Did Warwick inherit the title of Earl of Salisbury on his father's death (1460) or his mother's (possibly as late as 1462), as it was originally her title?
 * The intro says he sided with York against the King, whereas it says here he sided with the King against York. Clarify that these are different disputes.


 * Thank you for your suggestions, I've made some changes and I hope it's to your satisfaction.


 * Oppose, 1a. I chose a section at random (Historical assessment) and I'm not seeing terribly smooth prose. This probably needs time with an independent copy editor to iron out the problems. Examples:
 * "Early sources on Richard Neville fall into two categories: the sympathetic chronicles of the early Yorkist years, or works based on these, such as the Mirror for Magistrates (1559), and chronicles commissioned by Edward IV after Warwick's fall, such as the Historie of the arrivall of Edward IV, that take a more negative view of the earl." Exhausting to get through with all those clauses. By time I got to the end, I'd forgotten the beginning.
 * I've split it up.


 * "In Shakespeare's Henry VI trilogy can be found the other perspective" Why twist this so to hide the subject away?
 * Changed


 * A great deal of wordiness (ex. why "This latter view was to predominate." rather than "The latter view predominated."?).
 * Changed


 * Pet peeve: using conditional tense improperly. It's pervasive (ex. "anyone who would impede the development" and "Later writers would be split"). The conditional tense requires an "if" statement when used properly. Otherwise, all such instances should be "anyone who impeded", "writers were split" and so on.
 * I believe you're wrong. This is not conditional tense, but repetition in the past, in which case the use of "would" is perfectly acceptable. I've changed it anyway, since I don't find this matter essential to the article.
 * I probably am wrong in calling it conditional tense in this case; but, I still dislike that wording. To me, there is no difference in meaning between "He would go to the store every day" and "He went to the store every day", except the latter saves a word. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Though Lytton portrayed Warwick as a tragic hero who embodied the ideals of chivalry, he was nevertheless one whose time was past, as the title implies." Not convinced the title implies that; where is your source? The citation is for the book itself.
 * I've removed "as the title implies" and added a secondary source.
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel that way, but thank you for your comments anyway. Lampman (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.