Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert de Umfraville/archive1

Robert de Umfraville

 * Nominator(s):  SN54129  19:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies in advance to our Caledonian colleagues! This is a fellow—a 15th-century "hero" no less—who wanted "good rest and peace" in England while sending fire ships into Scotland—who may have plotted against Henry V but probably fought at Agincourt as well, who contemporaries saw as "an ideal knight" yet whose biggest claim to fame was that he raided Peebles on market day, burnt the place and nicked all their gear. A piece of work, one way or another. I'm welcoming all your comments and suggestions for improvement to this article. Cheers! SN54129 19:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Image review—pass, no licensing issues found (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with. Just a few minor points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Beginning his career under Richard II, he probably fought at the Battle of Otterburn with Henry "Hotspur" Percy in 1388. After King Richard was deposed by Henry Bolingbroke in 1399": I think we don't need "King" here, given that we just gave him a post-nominal in the previous sentence. You might consider making it "Henry IV" instead of "Henry Bolingbroke", since after he acquired the title at the moment of deposition, and since readers unfamiliar with the history will wonder why Richard was deposed by someone who did not succeed him.
 * Both good points.
 * "and the earl rebelled again, albeit unsuccessfully": why "again"? Unless I misunderstood the text, we have not mentioned a prior rebellion.  Was the Earl involved in Scrope's rebellion?
 * Easier to just remove I think (yes, he was, but since de Umfracville wasn't, I'd say it was a distraction).
 * "the high standing in which he now stood": can we avoid two forms of "stand" so close together?
 * Went with the much shorter "and reflecting his high standing with the King".
 * "De Umfraville was the only Percy retainer that King Henry made an effort to reconcile;": to my ear this would be better as "reconcile with".
 * Yes...I want to make it clear that it's a political reconciliation rather than a personal one though; I've gone for "reconcile to him", but perhaps "reconcile to the new regime" would be better?
 * "At the same time, he saw his diplomatic work with Scotland also increase as the result of the Percys' fall." Do we need both "at the same time" and "also"? Are they doing different work?
 * No and no!
 * Suggest integrating note 2 into the text; that changes the meaning quite a bit, and reader who doesn't follow the note won't understand that this doesn't mean "evil".
 * Okay, I ended up splitting the sentence; how does it look now?
 * "de Umfraville inherited the Redesdale and Kyme estates and $400": dollars?
 * D'oh!
 * "He also continued to keep the peace in his home county as well": as above do we need both "also" and "as well"?
 * Actioned.
 * Thanks very much for looking in, —I addressed your points in this edit. Perhaps you could check a couple of my suggestions above? Have a good weekend.  SN54129  16:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Support. All looks good now; interesting article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.


 * Why does "marcher" link to Welsh marches?
 * Bizarre: changed to Scottish.
 * I am not sure that "semi-permanent warfare" is a thing. Perhaps near-permanent?
 * Nice, thanks.
 * When de Umfraville's name starts a sentence, should the d not be upper case. Or do the sources consistently use the lower case? The MoS "As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized. An exception is made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable independent sources. In these cases, the name is still capitalized when at the beginning of a sentence, per the normal rules of English. Minor elements in certain names are not capitalized, but this can vary by individual: Marie van Zandt, John Van Zandt. Use the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources". I note that elsewhere you do use "De", so possibly a typo?
 * That was very long! Your last four words apply :)
 * I get paid by the word.


 * Is there a reason why Otterburn is mentioned twice but its outcome isn't?
 * Well, he wasn't captured or particularly suffered personally, so I didn't consider it germane. Still, since you mention it.
 * "He subsequently defeated a large Scots army". Who is "He"?
 * Guess. Done.
 * "Earl of Northumberland came to a head, and the earl rebelled". "Earl ... earl"?
 * Done.
 * "Gilbert had married Ralph, Earl of Westmorland's daughter Anne". That momentarily sounds a little racy. Perhaps 'Gilbert had married Anne, the daughter of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland'?
 * I must be losing my touch, writing racy material and not even realising it! Used your form of words, thanks.
 * Clearly your default writing mode.


 * "Admiral of the seas". Either lower case a or upper case S.
 * Unlike, and pace, of this parish, I would (almost) lower case everything  :)  but the sources always upper case A of the S, so this is effectively a typo.
 * "destroyed Scottish shipping sheltered in the Firth of Forth, capturing 13 or 14 of them, possibly using fire ships". "destroyed" or "captured"? And how does one capture ships using fire ships?
 * Tweaked, to clarify (basically inverted the sentence).
 * Lead "and took part in the Battle of Agincourt"; article "and perhaps the Battle of Agincourt". Which?
 * Added the qualifier to the lead.
 * "The 'Southampton Plot,' service in France and return": the first paragraph of this section leaps around chronologically. Is it not possible to retail events in the order they happened?
 * Right, good call. It was difficult to write originally, I remember. I've pretty much re-worded the whole thing, though, and shortened it too; could you take a look at the new, chronologically-friendly version and see what you think?
 * Looks good to me.

That is all I have, apart from noting a disappointing lack of impenetrable footnotes. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for commenting, always appreciated; I've actioned your points in this edit, and if you could look at the new paragraph. Thanks for your copy edits, by the way.I am losing my touch—my most recent article has only one footnote, of seven words! :o    SN54129  19:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I shall peruse the MoS to see if I can oppose it on that basis alone. Clearly standards are slipping.
 * Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
 * "more recently his family had married into that of the Percies, a powerful local marcher family" - source? Generally, check that details in the lead are cited either in the lead or in the body
 * Check; clarified that it was his nephew, which discussed in §Royal service
 * Still seeing some issues with lead claims not being supported - for example Robin Mendmarket (body supports Mendmarket but doesn't mention the Robin piece). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yes—I meant to check the spelling first. Done that now, see it was also spelled archaically (note note).   SN54129  11:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Check alphabetization of Bibliography
 * I put Raine in its place.
 * Rose: Worldcat indicates that the Phoenix edition was published 2003, the 2002 edition gives a different publisher - can you double-check? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, yes: this is indeed the 2003 Phoenix ed. rather than the 2002 Weidenfield & Nix: I changed the date and specified the edition.
 * Thanks for the review, . Hope you're well!  SN54129  12:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Source and full review from Ealdgyth

 * Sources
 * Beltz, although very old, is used sparingly and only for uncontentious facts (who had which Garter stall, something that's not likely to change)
 * Burke, although old, is used for just the coat of arms
 * Hardyng, although very old, is not used except to note what he himself noted. I'll note that the short footnote says "Ellis 1812" but it's listed in the Bibliography under "Hardyng" - inconsistent.
 * Yes...it's a bit tricky, and stems—ironically enough—to a former source review I received, because the alternative (in this example) looked odd (not quite as odd as Shakespeare 2012 of course, but it seemed misleading to suggest that Hardyng was writing books 300 years after his death. The problem though, as you have pointed out, is that Harding remains the author alphabetically. I'd like a way to square the circle, but coding...
 * Honestly? Go with Hardyng as the author. People are (at least I hope so) smart enough to figure out it's a new edition of an older work. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Raine, although very old, is only used to source a colorful quote.
 * Spot checks - (since I may be the only person besides SN who owns a copy of some of these works... it's just their luck I finally got them back up on shelves where I can find them...)
 * "Henry IV died in March 1413 and was succeeded by his son, Henry of Monmouth, as King Henry V." is sourced to Allmand and is supported by the source. (I think that's the first use of that book in ages for me...)
 * "De Umfraville was indentured to join Henry IV's invasion of Scotland in 1400" is sourced to this EHR article which is supported.
 * "This reflects a contemporary image of him as a fifteenth-century hero: in 1426 the royal council, on behalf of the then-four-year-old King Henry VI, wrote to him, thanking him for his "great and notable services… to your most renowned honour and praise and to the advantage of us and our whole realm"." is sourced to the ODNB article, and is supported by the source.
 * I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
 * Thanks very much for the source review Ealdgyth; there's just one thing, regarding Hardyng and a modern date if you could see what you think?
 * Lead:
 * "acting both as a bulwark against Scottish incursions and at the forefront of English aggression" hm... this seems a bit POV to me. Suggest "providing both offensive and defensive military actions against the Scots"?
 * Tweaked.
 * Background:
 * "Robert himself, a minor at his father's death, served his wardship under the first" "served his wardship" ... suggest "was a ward under" or "had his wardship assigned to"... I don't think I've ever seen a wardship referred to as "served his wardship under". Also, suggest linking the name so we have a clue who he is later when he's introduced.
 * Tweaked to your wording, also fully linked Ralph.
 * Early career:
 * suggest giving a quick description of "indentured" besides the link - as most folks will be thinking "indentured servitude" rather than the medieval military meaning of the term.
 * Added a short footnote with the legal background.
 * "part in the crushing of the Scots army" suggest avoiding the POV feel of "crushing" and use "defeat" instead
 * Indeed! I wouldn't want come seeking revenge  :)   SN54129  18:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why the King's son, John, Duke of Bedford. instead of the King's son, John, Duke of Bedford. ?
 * My fault for using Visual Editor I expect! Properly titled now.
 * Royal service:
 * "who retained him for life" suggest at least a link to explain this
 * Linked.
 * "Ralph, Earl of Westmorland" .... I know we linked him, but it was an easter-eggish link - ?
 * Resolved with that earlier edit hopefully.
 * "olde dogge [that] hath grete joy to bayte his whelpe" - might need an explanation of what "bayte/bait" means here
 * Explanatory footnote added.
 * Southampton plot:
 * "following year when he indentured with the King to serve there until 1417." serve where though? Agincourt? France? Normandy?
 * Went with Normandy since HV didn't go anywhere else, and Agincourt might be too precise.
 * That's all I have. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for dropping in,, all your points actioned, and well appreciated. "Come for the source review, stay for the Umfraville" :)    SN54129  18:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've replied above about the footnote - and I'm happy to support this. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I accept your reasoning. Thanks very much for your help!  SN54129  16:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)