This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas de la More/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next day or two. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   some bits and spots that need some fixing

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   a few spots where we get into uneeded detail on others

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • Missing a closing parentheses in the date/other name. Normally I would have just put it in but wasn't sure where you wanted it ... before or after the footnote for the alternate name, or if you wanted to rejigger to avoid an ugly )<footnote>) stretch.

 Done Well spotted—yeah that was ugly. Looking at MOS:MULTINAMES was a help though; should be OK now.

• • "and which reignited in 1459" probably unneeded detail here.

 Done removed.

• • Why are we mentioning that Thomas remarried when we've not yet met his first wife?

 Done Added a sentence wrt his first and then subsequent marriage.

• Early life and marriage:
  • son of a namesake who held the same office" - but we've had several offices mentioned in the lead - probably should be specific here what office was held.

 Done specified MP.

• • First we're told he may be the son of a guy who held off in 1420, but then "On his father's death"... so we do know who his father is? I'm confused.

 Done Clearly so was I  :) no, we know nothing as to his parentage and I've added a note from Rawcliffe pointing out that it was quite likely that Wedgwood was confusing his de la Mores.

Much better. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay, so you've linked "jointure" and "feoffees"... and yeah, *I* know what those are (well, mostly. I have a vague idea on jointure, but it's a bit past my normal time period)... but the average reader is going to be totally clueless. Links help but a quick two-three word description in the text here will help a lot more.

 Done couple of footnotes summarising both.

• Offices:
  • Okay, so what did Thomas get a pardon FOR? The only thing he's done up to this point is doing a bit of raiding and getting married and buying properties.

 Done Good point. Another footnote! This time, showing that these pardons were often taken advantage of as a form of insurance rather than an admission of culpability. This Henry AGF in everyone—too much and too frequently—and frankly, this Henry makes the third one look like an ogre!

Yeah, but they all look like saints compared to the first Henry who put out the eyes of his own grandchildren. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not a fan of the easter egg link of "retaining" to "retinue" here "crown considered capable of retaining men for its ends". It's not a very intuitive link choice and the sentence will be hard to figure out for non-specialists.

Checking..., I changed it to Affinity (medieval)?

Works. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Do we need to know that Lowther's will was noncupative? Seems that "executor of his friend's estate" would avoid too much detail.

 Done cmpletely pointless in fact.

• • Again - while you link "inquisition post mortum" and "mainpernor", a quickie explanation would help a lot here in the article.

 Done

• • "De la More is known to gravitated into the service of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury by 1452" "is know to gravitated" is either missing a "have" or (better choice) can drop the "is known", since that adds little of value.

 Done dropped.

• • "and had perhaps done the previous decade" is again missing something ... and is also wordy... maybe "and perhaps as early as the previous decade"

 Done Thanks, lifted your wording there!

• • "the York held another parliament" either "the Duke of York held" or "York held"...

 Done York held.

• • link and explanation for "Protectorate parliament"

 Not done If you don't mind; we haven't got an article on it (although I could WP:REDYES it—there's plenty of material available—so it would have needed another blooming footnote). But by changing it to "York's parliament", as he's already mentioned, perhaps tidies it up?

Works. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relations:
  • "the toon half of the shire was divided from tother" ... I'm going to assume that these aren't typos? If they aren't.... this quote is pretty much useless to somone who doesn't know the dialect?

 Done True; Storey also uses the modern version, so have gone with that.

• • Again .. I know what "demonstrate his good lordship to de la More" but that's just jargon to a non-specialist. Needs more explanation.

 Done ...with another footnote.

Now, now... earlier feudalism also expected the lord to help the vassal... (grins) Works. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • " ("lyth wast and destroyed", he wrote)" is just padding and while quaint, really adds nothing and breaks the flow of the sentence. I recommend it be removed.

On hold well, you see, that was intended to show the reader that More literally meant "devastated" (i.e., that it wasn't me editorialising for effect). But I agree it breaks up the sentence, so how about sticking it at the end?

That'd work. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • "granted on condition that he report his losses on oath and that it did not set a precedent" I think it'll be clearer if you reverse these two phrases "granted on condition that he realize it would not set a precedent and he swear to his losses under oath."

done}} Thanks for that, borrowed again your wording.

• Later career:
  • Link for "writs"

 Done

• • "and had remarried to a woman" .. unnecessaryily wordy - suggest "and had married a woman"

 Done

• • "De la More's enemy in Cumberland, Lord Egremont, was already dead" - well "already" only applies if Thomas died AFTER June 1460, which we were just shown isn't sure.

 Done Tricky! But Egremont, died around the same time?

• Notes:
  • While at least its in an explanatory note, note 2 is a bit too much detail for an article on Thomas.

C I was thinking, contextualise the election shenanigans: the first sentence shows Parr remaining in the sheriff's good will later, and also links it to More?

Maybe ... but it's still a bit much on something peripheral. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, removed completely.

• • Note 5: "De la More also received preferential treatment at the Exchequer in during Salisbury's chancellorship" how so? I suspect this would be best in the actual body of the article, not an explanatory note.

 Done Three was a slight confusion I guess, as the preferential treatment he was talking about was that very petition, so yeah, moved it to the body with a little tweaking.

• • Note 6: "sheriff considered himself fortunate if he were only marginally out of pocket and the end of his term of office" do you mean "out of pocket AT the end"?

 Done

• References:
  • Both Given-Wilson refs should be cited as per the notations on their respective BHO pages...BHO is just hosting the information - it's actually {{cite book|title=Parliament Rolls of Medieval England|url=https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/parliament-rolls-medieval/march-1453|chapter=Henry VI: March 1453|date=2005a|editor-last=Given-Wilson|editor-first=C.|editor2-last=Brand|editor2-first=P.|publisher=Boydell and Brewer|location=Woodbridge|archive-url=https://archive.is/9LGdx|archive-date=5 January 2020|access-date=5 January 2020|url-access=subscription |editor3-last=Phillips|editor3-first=S.|editor4-last=Ormrod|editor4-first=M.|editor5-last=Martin|editor5-first=G.|editor6-last=Curry|editor6-first=A.|editor7-last=Horrox|editor7-first=R. E.|ref=harv}}

On hold Thanks for this, I don't mind using the books at all then—the only ting is, temporarilly, now they're not websites I need to find volumes and page numbers, which I won't be able to do just yet? (and it's a bit rich for my blood atm!)  :)

I use the Fasti Ecclesiae hosted by BHO all the time, and I just cite to the url, not putting in a footnote. Check out how I cite the Fasti in Richard Barre. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. (You can picture me sitting in the cab of a semi truck, in deepest backwoods Alabama at a sawmill while folks are loading lumber on a flatbed, with me deep into 15th century England reviewing... I'm not sure anyone in this blip on the road has ever mentioned medieval English history!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Ealdgyth, I appreciate the thoroughness. You'll see I agree with all your points, except a couple I'd prefer to leave, and perhaps some minor clarification of a couple of others, if you wouldn't mind?

Hope you're enjoying Elbow Fat, Alabama ;) Have a safe trip and don't work too hard! ——SN54129 17:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, just noticed that the swanky icons I though worked with these reviews seem to mean different things. One of 'ems a checkuser icon as it turns out. Ffs. Anyway, hope you get my drift. Cheers, ——SN54129 17:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. We are now bouncing through southern Illinois ... where the roads SUCK. Headed north...we'll see where we go after this delivery! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: On second thoughts, I agree with you about the Parr/Moresby footnote; I removed the first half, and got rid of the Yorath ref, and incorporated the stuff about More into the article body. Notes look much tighter!

PS, I've now got this stuck in my head :) ——SN54129 19:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in... we're just waiting on the BHO thing, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Ealdgyth—done, [1], sorry, got distracted by cantilupes  :) ——SN54129 14:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Passing now. Will get to William later... need to do the three I signed up for first... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]