Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William de Ros, 6th Baron de Ros/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) 13:53, 10 January 2019.

William de Ros, 6th Baron de Ros

 * Nominator(s): ——  SerialNumber  54129  00:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's a thing, a rare thing: possibly a genuinely nice feller from the English middle ages; certainly one historian has described him—near as dammit—as being the only honest man of his era. And yet, you will (not!) be surprised to hear, in the words of Edmund Blackadder, for all his goodness, he still managed to make a "fat pile of cash" out of the King he was so loyal to...and who was himself almost permanently broke! The article has received a possibly adequate GA review, and a detailed going over by at peer review (Thanks again); hopefully we're not too far off promoting Will. As ever, respect also to the original page creator. Many thanks in advance to all who choose to give up their valuable time here—it's always appreciated. Cheers! —— SerialNumber  54129  00:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)It has also now received a thorough copy-edit from The One Like User:Miniapolis, many thanks there too  :)  ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mr rnddude

 * References
 * Citation 30 - pp. 121122. I suspect 121–122.
 * Citations 58, 116 p. xxx +n vs Citations 64, 70 p.xxx+n. Space or no space?
 * Citations 111, 116, 131 have double periods "..". Not sure why.
 * Bibliography exceptionally clean and without a single error showing up. Great.
 * Cheers; all cleaned up. The odd thing about the ".." is that they didn't show up in a ctrl+f search either; still, I think I caught them all.


 * Notes
 * Note 10: Indeed, at this time, relations between Westmorland and Henry IV - Mmm... is "indeed" necessary here?
 * Gone.
 * Note 9: the enormous sum of nearly £5,000 - Any chance we could get this figure in more modern terms as well?
 * Yeeees; I've added the template. I'm not overly fond of making this kind of comparison, as I said at the peer review, but since your the second editor to request it we can call that a consensus. It's a curiously specific figure for such a long time ago...
 * Note 8: Anthony Steele, on the other hand, dates de Ros' appointment quite precisely to between 14 July and 16 September 1403, but also says that Furnival replaced him in December the next December.
 * Problem a) "in December the next December" Que?
 * Quite.
 * Problem, or perhaps question b) Are the appointment dates provided here the start and end date, or a range of just the start date? If former, nvm, if latter then "quite precisely" is a bit subjective.
 * Clarified; Steele is talking about a range of dates for the appointment, which lasted—he says—until Dmr the next year. Removed "precisely" since, clearly, a range of two or three months is anything but precise.
 * Note 2: Possession was was usually - Drop one was.
 * One was.


 * Family and Bequests
 * By his wife Margaret Fitzalan, William de Ros had four sons, John, Thomas, Robert and Richard. They also had four daughters, Beatrice, Alice, Margaret and Elizabeth; de Ros also had an illegitimate son, John, by a now-unknown woman. I fail to see why you separate sentence 1 and 2 with a period, but then sentence 2 and 3 with a semi-colon. I get we're trying to be all fancy with semi-colons and the suchlike, but I think just a period will do.
 * What's fancy about a semi-colon?! However, I've reworked it into what I believe you will consider a great improvement...
 * Charles Ross suggested that de Ros's - Either you are another victim of the enforcement of MOS:POSS, or you have some unintentional s's. You use s' throughout the notes (I'm reading backwards for CE purposes), and a mixture of s' and s's in the article body.
 * Indeed. There was a couple of others; think I caught those also.
 * provides full confirmation of what the scanty evidence of as to the character of his earlier career suggests, that Ros was a man of just and equitable temperament - Serious question, are you just using quotes when people are speaking incomprehensibly cause you don't get what they're saying either? or are you just trying to make me suffer? The heck does "of what the scanty evidence of as to the character of his earlier career suggests" supposed to mean?
 * I've removed the "of".
 * ... which church has de Ros family armigers throughout. - Uhhh... this reads like a question. I think "church" isn't necessary here.
 * I've got rid; it was an unnecessary detail and lengthened the sentence equally unnecessarily.


 * Later years and death
 * ... although died after a military skirmish outside Paris two years later - although [he] died.
 * Mildly disagree that it's essential to retain the object to an intransitive verb; although not vehemently enough to debate it of course.
 * His mother had drawn up her will in January 1414 ... - Whose mother? Henry V's, William de Ros', someone else? same question with ... of which he was an executor. It's not clear to me from the previous sentence is all.
 * Clarified: de Ros both times.
 * Question regarding the quote in the top right hand corner. Was de Ros' drunk when he wrote that? or is that what early 15th century English looks like? Like, I've read Shakespeare, but I don't recall "neghst" being night (or is that next?) and "greet noumbre pf men aurmed and areyed" being great numbers of men armed and arrayed.
 * Well, the pf was a blatant typo; but the rest of it, yeah. Transcribes as: "At Wraby in the shire of Lincoln, the Saturday next after the Feast of St Michael, did assemble a great number of men armed and arrayed against the peace, to lie in wait against the same Lord de Ros". Remember, yer man Shakespeare was writing in early modern English, which was only became formed in the mid-15th century, so sometime after de Ros is writing in what was still middle English. We may, of course, to choose to thank our stars that it's not old English, which—from Beowulf—would be Hwät! we Gâr-Dena in geâr-dagum / þeód-cyninga þrym gefrunon :) I'm slightly wary of making such a transcription, though, as it may smack on WP:OR; although I am regularly assured it wouldn't be. But the odds on finding a source with that particular quote in it are slim to nothing, and yet a mistranscription would mislead the WP:READER. Know what I mean?


 * Looking pretty good so far, will take a break here for a while and come back soon to keep working through. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Great review, Randomity Guy :) many thanks! I've attended to most / replied to all your suggestions. Look forward to the rest of your wares :)  cheers,  ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Regional disorder
 * Although, say modern historians, the case was not uncommon in its basic facts
 * a) Modern historians say/argue/suggest or According to modern historians.
 * b) Which ones? or is that just what the source says?
 * Yep, changed both.
 * As a result, the case–heard before the Lord Chamberlain and the Archbishop of Canterbury–took over three weeks to hear. - Heard then hear in the same sentence. Can heard be replaced by argued? you know as in "arguing your case" or would that render a different meaning?
 * No, it's a good point; I eventually went with "three weeks to determine", I wanted a word that means the case was presented, argued and adjudged all in one.
 * The Chamberlain and Archbishop requested the attendance of not just de Ros himself ... - don't need "himself" here.
 * Himself gone.
 * ... "knyghtes and Esquiers and Yomen that had ledynge of men" for him" - One too many quote marks.
 * Well spotted; gone.
 * ... that a nobleman of de Ros position ... - I believe de Ros' rather than de Ros
 * Done.
 * ... and that de Ros had shown forbearance - "that he had shown", as you'd already named him in the previous clause ^above^.
 * Agreed, changed.
 * ... de Ros was no exception to the phenomena of local conflict himself. - Don't need himself here, either.
 * Ditto.
 * Theirs was only a temporary ceasefire, however, and the following year de Ros sponsored a second arbitration between the two parties, which they promised to abide by on pain of a 500 mark fine - Change "theirs" to this. Remove "only" and "two". Tell me, is anything meaningful lost?
 * 2/3—I think "only" is worth retaining in order to emphasise that it wasn't intended to be temporary.
 * In such efforts, one modern historian has suggested that de Ros' "reputation for fair-mindedness" ... - Why not just tell me who?
 * Because it's yet another bloody Given-Wilson that's why! :D


 * Royal favour
 * This he had not done; indeed, if anything, his opinions were even more entrenched than before. Tighten: He refused; if anything, his opinions [entrenched further/were further entrenched] (16 words vs 8/9). The key to good writing, it seems, is to convey as much as possible in as few words. I learnt that from Ceoil and Tony1's FA guides, admittedly.
 * Quite :) adjusted!
 * He was burnt to death, possibly, according to the sixteenth-century martyrologist, John Foxe, in a barrel, in London's Smithfield - Geez what a way to go. Cheaper I suppose, don't need the extra wood to build a bonfire around a large stake.
 * I deed, Henry IV's austerity measures eh!
 * Historian Mark Arvanigian - You're going with BrEng I suspect, so just mentioning the lack of a definite article before a false title. I didn't realize it was a thing in BrEng either, but apparently it's an Americanism.
 * Cheers!
 * ... such as this gave de Ros patronage to dispense of his own - I think you can end this sentence at dispense.
 * Thanks.
 * ... eventually only charged ... - Really nitpicky, cause now I'm actively looking for each word that can be culled, but "eventually charged" or "only charged" or even just "charged" would all work here.
 * Agree, cheers


 * Local administration and crisis
 * De Ros had been instructed not to engage the rebels without the King's express authority - Well... the king has authority (as in power) and he can exercise it, but I think you mean more along the lines of permission (approval / assent) here.
 * Good point.
 * ... says Chris Given-Wilson ... - And I care what Given-Wilson here says because? introduce him Nvm, you introduce him further up. I can't bring myself to just delete this though, I spent five minutes trying to find Wilson. Somebody will see my reference, whether it matters or not.
 * Brilliant! He is, indeed, given Wilson :D
 * ... and two years was granted an annuity of 100 marks a year as the King's retainer - and [for] two years?
 * Well, two years later?
 * ... de Ros' local knowledge would have been invaluable - named in previous clause, hence "his"
 * Changed.
 * ... Cotton MS Cleopatra, F. m. f. 58 b. (Letter from the Royal council to King Henry, May 1405, regarding the rebellion in the north. - Missing end ")" bracket.
 * Added.
 * His brother-in-law, Reginald, Lord Grey of Ruthin ... vs Indeed, personal animosity between Gray and Glyndŵr ... Is it Gray or Grey? And damn that useless "indeed". Indeed, it is the least functional word in the entire article. Indeed, it is, sire, indeed it is. :P
 * It's Grey, indeed :p
 * ... robustly confronted the King over his lack of monies - Monies? money has a plural? I've only seen that word used as slang before. E.g. I'm gon' gets me sum monies.
 * ,, ,.
 * ... subsist on poor revenues. - I feel like I should fix tiny issue like this myself, but... you have an extra space.
 * No problem :) done.
 * ... hearing the Commons complaints - Hmm, are the complaints called "Commons complaints" or are these the Commons' complaints?
 * As you say, theirs.
 * ... says the parliament roll ... - I didn't realize rolls of parchment could speak.
 * says Given-Wilson at second and third mentions; As historian Chris Given-Wilson - at fourth mention; says Chris Given-Wilson at fifth mention. I think one introduction was enough, and all other mentions can be just "Given-Wilson".
 * Absolutely.
 * Whatever his reasons in 1399, historically both de Ros and his father had been Lancastrian rather than Ricardian in their loyalties - This reads like a sentence fragment, but I think I know what you're saying. Perhaps: Whatever his reasons [were for rebelling] in 1399.
 * That's right, and half-inched, many thanks!
 * For his services, de Ros received had received annuities - One too many receptions.
 * D'oh. Done.
 * De Ros' new position at the centre of government was highlighted in December.1399 when he was appointed to Henry's first Royal council - Period in the wrong place.
 * Removed.


 * Despite my many nitpicks, this is an excellent article. I look forward to eventually reading it in the direction that was intended, that is, from the top down. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks very much again, all very useful stuff. Classic line about the volleyball! Cheers,  ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Inheritance and marriage
 * ... could even have worked against him with the King. - I don't think that "King" should be capitalized except where being used expressly as a title. I.e. I've never met King Henry IV vs I've never met the king.
 * Yeeees...know wot you mean. Changed.
 * Also useful to William was the fact that his wife's father had also recently died ... - Don't need that second also.
 * Got rid.
 * his dead brother's wife - Perhaps deceased would be a more... diplomatic way to put it.
 * Heh :)  yes, ok.
 * Beatrice, on the other hand, had already outlived three husbands, and, indeed, was to outlive William - Indeed.
 * I'll give you that one :p
 * ... which meant that a large swathe of land— predominantly ... - Accidental space after emdash.
 * Thanks for spotting; filled that, but actually that sentence is bugging me now. I've tweaked it, but I'm not sure for the better. Thoughts?
 * Sorry, didn't note the request. She was assigned her dower lands in December 1384. This meant that a large swathe of land—predominantly in the East Riding of Yorkshire—de Ros would never hold. I can suggest: She was assigned her dower lands in December 1384, thus [denying de Ros the satisfaction of acquiring {1}]/[withholding the acquisition of {2a}] a large swathe of land—predominantly in the East Riding of Yorkshire—[from de Ros {2b}]. I don't know if that helps, but those are my thoughts on a potential rewrite.
 * Her dower lands were assigned to her in December 1384 ... - Somewhat necessary repetition, but can alternately be written as "She was assigned her dower lands in December 1384 ..."
 * Excellent form of words, thanks: half inched.


 * '''Background and career under Richard II
 * No concerns.
 * "Huzzah"


 * Lede
 * ... his son and heir, John was still a minor. - double commas around John, I think.
 * Done.
 * A few months later Bolingbroke invaded England and deposed Richard. De Ros took Bolingbroke's side almost immediately. - Implies that de Ros took his side after the deposition, rather than rebellion.
 * Yep; in fact, I removed the "deposed" bit, and think it's tighter now. Check it. A few months later Bolingbroke invaded England. De Ros took Bolingbroke's side almost immediately. Richard's support had deserted him, and de Ros was alongside Henry when Richard resigned his throne to the invader and later voted in the House of Lords for the ex-King's imprisonment...
 * I already had, but since you asked: very good.


 * I've done the last of the reverse reading. Only a very few pointers this time. Will get to reading in the correct direction tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again ; look forward to your return from Australia. Indeed! :D   ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Notes
 * William inherited his father's barony and estates - I wonder if perhaps "barony" should be linked?
 * The Fitzalan family, like that of de Ros, was a well-connected family at both local and national levels of the political community. - Perhaps change "was a well-connected family" to "was well-connected". I.e. The Fitzalan family, ..., was well connected...
 * In return for his loyalty to the new regime, de Ros received extensive royal patronage. - Didn't notice it previously, but you link patronage only at the final mention. Link in lede, and perhaps in first mention in body (Regime change and career under Henry IV).
 * De Ros attended the King's wedding to his second wife - You have a few lot of instances of capitalization of the word king where they aren't used as a title. E.g. ... and also a relatively close friendship with the new King himself and In 1401 he directed the King's attempts to increase the royal income among several others. Oddly enough, I don't really mind it. Not sure what to do now, tell you to recapitalize "king" or decapitalize it everywhere where it's not used as a title per Manual_of_Style. MOS is not a suicide pact. I guess?
 * ... he had lost his office because of his involvement with the Lords Appellant and been exiled since 1397. - Link "Lords Appellant"?
 * ... including that of de Ros ... - May be tightened to including de Ros'
 * Henry initially announced that he intended only to reclaim his rights as Duke of Lancaster, - should note 7 be appended here instead?
 * Henry and Richard met for the first time since Henry had been exiled - "he'd" instead of "Henry" at second mention.
 * ...and participated in Henry's Great Council the following year. Link Magnum Concilium perhaps?
 * In 1402, Owain Glyndŵr's Welsh rebellion erupted ... - We have an article on Glyndŵr Rising, though I am keeping in mind "sea of blue", perhaps link just "rebellion" to it?
 * ... and de Ros was swiftly granted Audley's lands while the Audley heir was a minor - you link Minor (law) here, but not in the lede.


 * My final set of comments on prose, as I have now read the article properly. I've responded to a couple of your queries up above in the previous set, check them as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - Miniapolis' copy-edit renders most of my points moot, but do check the couple above about wikilinking. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly will; thanks very much for popping back. I wasn't ignoring your comments: but I'd completely forgotten applying to the GOCE for this, and when it suddenly started I didn't want to get on the way... :) ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And done, many thanks again. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on prose - With Miniapolis' excellent copy-editing and all of my prose concerns addressed, the writing of this article is assuredly of an FA standard. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * Done.


 * Alt text shouldn't be identical to caption
 * Made descriptive only.


 * File:Sir_William_de_Ros,_6th_Baron_Ros,_KG.png should include an explicit copyright tag for the original design
 * Okay; would a pd-scan tag suffice, as it's taken from a book by Bernard Burke, d.1892?
 * The PD-scan tag would work if the image itself was scanned from that book, but if that's the case it shouldn't be claimed as own work. The design would be PD due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The "creator" (or otherwise) gets all their images from this book; printed 1901, author died 1919. I've added a ref to the usage here and the actual source to commons (to "adjust" their "own work claim"!). Have added relevant tags to commons page. what say ye now?  ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that's workable, although I'd be happier if we were crystal clear that the "own work" in this case is only a mechanical reproduction (which doesn't warrant new copyright in the US). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm. As best I can tell there're no actual arms for de Ros depicted in St. John 1901. Their blazon, however, is given in Burke 1884 (details on image page): Gu. three water bougets ar. (that is: "A Red shield with a picture of three water bougets [water skins] in silver"). Looking at the picture, and your linked discussion, I suspect the uploader created a new image of the arms based on the blazon from Burke and by cut&pasting and referencing various individual elements from other arms in St. John. The blazon is not copyrightable, so the copyrights that matter are the uploader's and the PD bits and pieces they used to create it (if any). In other words, Own Work / CC-BY-SA appears correct (uploader has copyright in their new design), and the PD tags are incorrect (the original bits are PD, but the new design isn't; and PD doesn't actually require attribution). --Xover (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * An alternative reading of that would be that the whole thing's a combination of OR and SYNTH, and should be omitted entirely. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, not really. The rules for blazons and the imagery they correspond with is pretty well standardized, and every coat of arms you find in old books were generated in exactly the same way as a modern illustration. It's fairly rare (AIUI) for coats of arms from this era to be actual original designs: the blazons survive but the actualised arms are often either lost or inaccessible. Just note the provenance of the illustration by stuffing a "modern" in there somewhere and it should be fine. --Xover (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers, nice to see you again. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Licensing on File:Two_consecutive_kings_of_England,_Richard_II_and_Henry_IV.png should reflect the original works being combined
 * Done (I think)—that is, added a para explaining that the two original illustrations are also PD on account of age; I added the pd-us tag, but I guess it doesn't work because it's an I guess the tag will go live then. I would do it myself, but it's well beyond my ability.
 * Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying here? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That I have added the requisite information.


 * File:John_Badby_death_barrel_Foxe.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the source link with the one from Ohio State Uni library, where, IIRC, I originally got this one from, and also added us-pd tag.
 * Thanks very much as ever, . I think I've attended to the issues you arise—although there is that question about Burke's original, above, if you could confirm. Cheers! ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
I'll add substantive comments once I've read the text thoroughly. Meanwhile, from a first canter through, two spelling points: Dryptych should be Diptych, and I very much doubt that the plural of Percy is Percies, although I am quite prepared to be proved wrong. More anon.  Tim riley  talk   20:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Great to /see/ you again, and many thanks for looking in, it's appreciated. Briefly, on these bits: a) I must be going blind or mad (both is a possibility of course), but I literally can't see where I've used (either) dryptich or diptych! b) Well, Percys / Percies is pretty much interchangeable to medievalists, and it's only habit to use the latter on my part, but it's certainly accepted use. E.g., Mark Arvanigian, Alistair MacDonald, Jonathan Sumption, Michael Hicks; and offline, we have Bean, J. M. W., 'Henry IV and the Percies', History 44 (1959), 212–227; Griffiths, R. A., 'Local Rivalries and National Politics: The Percies, the Nevilles, and the Duke of Exeter, 1452-55', Speculum 43 (1968), 589–632. Anyway, you get my drift; it's an oddity based on the fact that surnames are usually logically pluralised (the Hollands, Nevilles, Mowbrays, etc) and I don't mind either way. Since it's an affectation of medievalists, perhaps the WP:READER should have Percys rather than Percies?  ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On Percy, fine. (That's me told.) As to the diptych I think it is I, not you, that's going mad. I can't find it now. Pray ignore – so sorry! Back soon (tomorrow, probably) with any comments prompted by a close scrutiny of the article. Happy New Year, meanwhile.  Tim riley  talk   12:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not going batty Tim, or at least not unless we both are. I noticed the odd spelling too when I looked at the article back in June (iirc; I even want to say it was in prose around "Later life and death" somewhere), but forgot about it before I got around to checking whether it was a mistake or just a term unfamiliar to me. However, now I cannot for the life of me find it, not even in the revision history. In any case; a digression since it's not in the current version of the article, but I figured we could both use reassurance that senescence had not overtaken us. --Xover (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's completely bizarre! ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be fine for Two-brains Sumption (false title?), but for the general reader, which definitely includes me for this period, I think Percies may be liable to confuse..... returns to his well-thumbed copy of Plantagenet Somerset Fry. KJP1 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

After a thorough re-reading I am happy to support the promotion of the article. There are a few minor drafting points that I'd have put differently – Chris Given-Wilson's slightly jarring false title, "in London's Smithfield", which seems vaguely tabloidese, and in a BrE article I'd prefer "Ros's" to "Ros'" – but de gustibus, and the text is very readable and clear, the coverage evidently balanced and the sourcing impressively extensive. All I knew about this period of English history came from Shakespeare, and so this article was something of an eye-opener, and I have much enjoyed it. –  Tim riley  talk   15:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, excellent news, and I'm glad you like it. Just to say, I've reduced it down to just Smithfield, and have also used S's, per your suggestion; I didn't actually know that the latter wasn't BrE, so that's a lesson. Out of curiosity, I'm in a bit of a bind over false titles; quite often, reviewers ask "who the hell is that", and saying that someone-is-what-they-are gives a reason for their quote to be relied on, rather than that they may be the man on the 88 bus. How to reconcile these views, any ideas? Thanks very much for the support though Tim. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't a firm rule that ess-apostrophe is AmE and ess-apostrophe-ess BrE, but that's generally the case. As to the false titles, The New York Timess style guide is excellent on this point: "Do not make titles out of mere descriptions, as in 'harpsichordist Dale S. Yagyonak'. If in doubt, try the 'good morning' test. If it is not possible to imagine saying, 'Good morning, Harpsichordist Yagyonak', the title is false." So for Given-Wilson, leaving the description in place but simply adding a definite article will do the job.  Tim riley  talk  ' 16:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's excellent advice, and I've taken it. I'll just have to try and remember it now :)   Thanks very much!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
I had my say on the noble lord at PR, and the input here and the copy edit, have only improved it further. KJP1 (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your work and the support, . ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Coord note
Looks like we had source formatting checked early in the piece but not sure anyone's signed off on source reliability -- if not feel free to request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, have done so. I guess I thought source reviewers were like British Rail—"there'll be one along at some point" :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I should've pinged you but a thorough review was carried out by Xover, see below. Cheers,  ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Source reliability review
Per the above, I looked through the sources cited and overall they are reliable and high quality. There are a few that are published on popular presses and such, but spot checks of these suggest they are either by well-renowned experts in the relevant field, or are not used to support anything controversial, or both. There are a few to random websites (Ian McKellen's official home page, say) that are not of the highest quality, but they are of sufficient quality for what they're used for.

The only real potential problem I see is that several of the sources are pretty old, and some are now clearly primary sources (e.g. Dugdale 1675). A few spot checks suggest these are not used excessively or in ways that would make use of primary sources problematic, but that might be worth double-checking.

I do somewhat dislike that reprints of older secondary sources are not marked with original publication year, like: This book was first published in 1948, and I would say that anything older than about 1980 needs to be clearly labelled. Even in this field there have been significant changes to academic standards and rigour since then: not to disqualify older sources by any means, but it's significant enough that the reader should be aware when reading.

And the article cites publications by one Shakespeare, William in 2011 which would have seemed quite the feat except Shakespeare is such an obvious case. The way I've dealt with these in the Shakespeare articles is to attribute the work to the editor and at the modern date, because there we're usually actually citing the introduction or the edited text specifically. For citations to the play text I might suggest citing the play by title and leaving out the year (if you like, there's a beta-ish template intended for citing quotes from the plays to the Folger's online texts; example use in Falstaff, including an explanatory note at the top of "Notes and references"). It's not wrong to cite e.g. "Shakespeare (2011)" here, but I usually try to avoid it when possible.

I have not checked whether the individual citations verify what they're attached to, but the overview of the works cited does not suggest any particular reason why there would be problems there (this is adjacent to my field, so I am somewhat able to assess the sources in those terms). Or put another way, this review is a superficial review only of the general quality of the sources, and not a full source review. --Xover (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for looking in (again!), much appreciated as always. Let me critically address your points with no criticism attached :)


 * Absolutely agree re. some of the sites; McKellan is a good example (although, similarly to that of RHUL and BUFVC etc) of me using to it to reference something that a) they should know, and b) would not themselves want to be caught out being wrong over! So although not necessarily reliable, by our standards, they are not intrinsically unreliable either...as you say, I've tried to keep such usage to minimal X did Y-type stuff.
 * Yes; we have the |orig-year= parameter for that, and it is (unforgivable) forgetfulness on my part that I only rarely use it. But as you say, it's only fair to the reader. I think I've picked out the culprits from pre-C.20th.
 * Ah, Shakespeare|2002, etc :) yes, I don't deny I always smile when typing that. The two reasons are: I was once bollocked for a lack of consistency, in citing the editor rather than the author (which of course is rarely done except in cases where there is no primary author), and more, prosaically, not understanding how to make it link to the editor when there's a primary author that it could link to—see what I mean? But I can certainly try the  for the quoted lines, thanks for that heads up. Thanks again—I'll attend to what I can now.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With the CS1/2 templates, the trick is that ref takes any old value, so you simply use in it and that cite will get the right link target for  irrespective of the authors and editors listed in last etc. You can do the same for things like the BUFVC database (which is both reliable and high quality, btw!) for consistency or convenience:  +  (renders as ""). And, of course, you'll need to do that when you use orig-year too (the link target is generated from date/year rather than orig-year) if you want to cite the original rather than reprint year in the short citations (which sometimes makes sense, cf. the "Shakespeare 2012" problem). --Xover (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well;, this is all getting a little Vorsprung Durch Technik for me :) I sorted the sfds, which is a nice trick even if one is tied to a particular publisher!—but the harvid—, . Nowhere...still, thanks anyway.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I seee, thanks for that, it will doubtless come in useful in the future—something else for me to remember! BTW, the other thing abot the sfd is that it doesn't point to a bibliographic entry? ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec)
 * ref takes a literal string that will be used as the identifier (link target) for that full citation. The template generates such a string based, typically, on the author's last name (the first parameter) and the year (the second parameter). For convenience, ref also accepts the "magic" string   which makes it go grab the author and date from the full citation's existing parameters and make an identifier from that in the same way   would. In other words, harv is just a convenience shortcut for doing ref. And you can exploit that when you need to use something different than the author's last name or the year of publication. So long as a pair of  and  have the same X and Y, the link will work between them.
 * As for tied to a single publisher, there is no single authorative text for Shakespeare's plays (which is why there's so many new critical editions of them) so you have to pick a particular edited text. The Oxford Shakespeare, The Arden Shakespeare, and The New Cambridge Shakespeare are the big dead-tree editions. But the Folger digital texts are professionally edited (Barbara Mowat and Paul Werstine are well-known and well-regarded experts), freely available online, and released under a CC-BY-NC license (sadly not just CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, but… gift horses).
 * provides only a short ref to the play with the act.scene.line linked to the right bit in the Folger online text. I could probably tweak it to also link to a bibliographic entry, but for my uses I've found that to be redundant and awkward. Since my uses have been in articles whose subject is specifically about Shakespeare, it has not been excessive there to use a blurb in the "Notes and References" section (see Falstaff as an example) like:
 * "All references to Henry IV, Part 1, Henry IV, Part 2, and The Merry Wives of Windsor, unless otherwise specified, are taken from the Folger Shakespeare Library's Folger Digital Editions texts edited by Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Under their referencing system, 3.1.55 means act 3, scene 1, line 55."
 * But for de Ros this would probably be overkill. --Xover (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, sorry, you mentioned Falstaff up there and I forgot to look. I have no problem with Folgar in any case, it was more of an observation; I mean, even if it could be tweaked to other publishers the question would remain, why. Thanks Xover. ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.