Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Biblioworm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham[edit]

Nominator(s): Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Hello again all. This is a re-nomination (previous here). The last one took so long (mea culpa but will not happen this time on my watch) that editors left the project and others had moved on (and who can blame them!). I think most points were addressed by the time it was closed, although I look forward to more. Many thanks, — fortunavelut luna

  • Comments Support – this article looks in good shape to me, a few relatively minor MOS points:
    • There are a lot of duplicate links that should probably be removed per WP:REPEATLINK.
I removed most of the dups from he body, but considering the size of the article, I thought per WP:MOSLINK, keeping "the first occurrence after the lead"?
Yes that is right. Anotherclown (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...the dead King's brothers- John, Duke of Bedford and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester- would..." I think the hyphens here should be longer emdashs per WP:DASH but I’m not a 100 percent certain on this so please check (there are several instances of this in the article that may need adjustment).
I'm flattered that you think I understand dashes any better than you, Ac  ;) but it's not the case I'm afraid- I am completely lost and will have to take some advice elsewhere (if that's OK?)
    • "...although the centrepiece of Buckingham's estates..." is this meant to be a new sentence or should the proceeding full-stop be a comma?
Yes it should be; now is.
    • "...The latter also included the title of earldom of Buckingham, which bringing a further £1,000..." consider instead something like "...which brought a further £1,000..." or something like that.
Well caught, done.
    • "...Stafford also had major estates on the Welsh Marches..." The link to Welsh Marches should be moved from here to its first use.
Done.
    • Is there a missing word somewhere here: "...and that Buckingham's influential voice was used a vote for action in the King's camp..."?
I think so- can't remember- but "vote to do X" seems more likely that that.
    • "They had 10 children:"... was there meant to be a list after the colon? Anotherclown (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks- the list follows in the next para, this is just to introduce "seven boys and three girls."

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up maps
Right, I did St. Albans by 1.5 and Northampton by 1.3- better?
  • Suggest revising Brecon Castle caption
Agree; specified date, made it a proper sentence too.
  • File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Sir_Humphrey_Stafford,_1st_Duke_of_Buckingham,_KG.png: is this a user-generated version or a scan from the source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to be honest- but it's almost certainly user-generated- at least, the fact that the author references W.H. St John Hope's book on Garter Stalls suggests it's lifted from there. Although of course it could be a recoloured touched-up sscan couldn't it. How do I check? -or just ask the author?!
You could try asking, see if you get a response. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Yeeeas- they haven't edited for ten months, so I'm not hopeful- but left a nice message on their media.wiki page, which hopefully they'll see at some point. — fortunavelut luna 22:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: To finally answer your question, in the creator's own words, "As to the designs, they are my work based on originals or illustrated from various rolls of arms where only a blazon is available." — fortunavelut luna 10:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, then we should be good to go on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: thanks for your efforts. The looks quite good to me, but unfortunately I can't comment on the content. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • this appears to be unreferenced: "They had 10 children: seven sons and three daughters."
    • Well: This was really just meant to summarise the following paras, where those ten children were individually referenced.
      • I think it would be best to just duplicate the citation/s. It's not an oppose for me, but I would highly recommend that before FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: I guess I'm finding it a little tricky because something as smple as that is almost too simple to be in an 'academic text' (where they launch into details), but likewise he's not famous enough to have a 'Janet and John' book about him which would summarise such a thing. Now, the ODNB entry does sort of source it- but my text would really have to be tweaked to say (to align precisely with the source) "They had 10 children: seven sons, and three daughters who married well" (changes in bold)- because according to the ODNB there, they actually had five daughters! I'm guessing the other two either died young or took religion- she doesn't say. Can you see the slight difficulty I'm having in parsing the details! — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 05:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I'd suggest maybe adding an explanatory footnote in this case, to help explain the issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is some inconsistency in the presentation of citations, for instance compare Citation # 26 (Gundy) with Citation # 27 (Carpenter). Citation # 5 (Walker) and # 21 (Curry) also seem inconsistent with the main style used in the article
    • Done, all sfns etc now.
  • in the Bibliography, is there an ISBN or OCLC number that could be added for the McFarlane 1980 source?

Yes, and done.

  • in the Bibliography, the title of the McFarlane 1980 source should use title case caps for consistency
    • Done, cheers.
  • in the Bibliography, for the journals, suggest adding either ISSN or OCLC numbers (these can usually be found on worldcat.org)
    • Good idea, done.
  • in the Early career section, Normandy is overlinked
    • Delinked.
  • in the Family section, Humphrey is overlinked
    • Rather, unlinked.
  • "One estimation of his estates..." --> "One estimate of his estates..."?
    • Done, well spotted.
  • there appears to be a typo here (but I wasn't quite sure what to change it to): "He was already describing himself as "the Right Mighty Prince Humphrey Earl of Buckingham, Hereford, Stafford, Northampton and Perche, Lord of Brecknock and Holdernesse'Holdernesse" (specifically the "Holdernesse'Holdernesse")
    • Yes tih was bizarre. I removed the second mention of Holderness (a stray duplicate I guess?!), but the somewaht archaic spelling comes from the fact that Rawcliffe s citing the original letter (so it's the Ye Olde version). Should it have a 'sic'?
  • in the Family section, this isn't a complete sentence: "Third husband of Lady Margaret Beaufort, daughter of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, and Margaret Beauchamp."
    • Fixed- a full stop instead of a comma.
  • @AustralianRupert: Thanks very much for getting involved AR! Especially in the technical stuff which I tend to miss. Right, as you can see I've fixed most of what you suggested- just those couple of thoughts remain. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 04:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cinderella157

  • The Family section requires a little attention.
  • There are two unresolved tags which are both matters of ambiguity.
  • The last sentence of first para is out of place. Suggest should go to para 2.
  • There is no ref for the number of children as 10 and the ODNB says 12? An explanatory note would certainly be in order, to effect: "The available sources report the marriages of three of his daughters but is silent on the fete of the remaining two."
  • The second para is a little disjointed and out of place, in that there is detail repeated in the next and (particularly) the last. In all, I suggest a bit of shuffling to make this section work better.
  • Composition and style. The writing style relies heavily on complex sentence structures. This reduces readability and accessibility. Copy editing could address this issue without compromising accuracy. I note particularly (as an example but not the sole means to address these concerns), the use of the semicolon. The article might be better served by breaking to separate sentences at such points. Having said that, the article reads well.
  • "says one modern historian". It is probably better to attribute them by name.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Cinderella157. Unfortunately, it's not in my powers or desires to re-write the article  :) but I think I have addressed the bulk of your concerns. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 18:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited to move the problematic parenthetic clause: "This marriage cost Buckingham 2,300 marks, and he "took a long even time to pay that"." It was this clause that made the sentence problematic to read.
  • In the course of tweaking this section, I followed a couple of links and online references from these. See John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury, John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford, William Beaumont, 2nd Viscount Beaumont [1], [2] and [3]. This version of the ODNB is the 1898 Vol 53. The ODNB1898 gives names to the five daughters. It reports that Catherine (elsewhere Katherine) and not Margret, married Talbot. In the ODNB1898 Joan is styled Joanna. It might be useful to compare the two versions. The infobox is unsourced per the full details of his childrens' names (viz, they are not all given in the main text nor is there a source for the additional names appearing in the info box. The seventh son is either unnamed or his name is unknown. Such details should be reported rather than omitted. Differences between sources should also be acknowledged and (if possible, reconciled). These sources indicate that only Anne was married before his death (and possibly Joan[na] - a date before March 1461) while the article suggests otherwise. The marriage to Talbot was in 1467 and the birth year of Margret (or Catherine) appears in error cw Anne, the eldest daughter? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. I wholly dispute and reject any necessity for using a 100+ year-old source which has been deliberately updated and reissued. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of using it or even mentioning it. Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 07:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, WP:NOOFFENCE of course 🍔 🍟 🍦 — fortunavelut luna 08:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested you might "look at" and "compare it" (not intended as direct quotes) with the more modern edition. I did not state (or insinuate) that it should (or must) be cited. Having said that, the ODND1898 and other later sources indicate some of the afore issues - but not all. Age of a source is not, of itself, a reason for discounting it per se. I would though, point to the degradation or destruction of primary sources in the mid-20th century UK (WWII) as a reason why these might be considered - particularly for matters of fact, as opposed to opinion. My own experiences have uncovered errors in fact (made in good faith) in a relatively modern source that has been perpetuated by more recent writers ("copying" the original error - taking it as "fact" in good faith) where the primary sources are available and clearly indicate the initial error. This comes to my broader point (I was not being specific WRT the ODNB1989) that sources should be acknowledge and (if possible) reconciled. This is a matter of maintaining a WP:NPOV. This does not apply to sources that are "obviously" unreliable and with no credibility. This is not the case here.
I note that brief communication at a distance (such as this) can be easily misinterpreted. If my comments and assessment style has caused umbrage (as it appears from comments elsewhere), I appologise for any error on my part. My comments have been objective and reasoned (I hope). Regarding the matter of writing style, I can provide sources. This was a critique made of me (for similar reasons) in my initial endeavors here. I have embraced the critique, not as a personal criticism, but as a way of making WP more accessible. On the otherhand, my "critic" proposed changes to my amended text that were marginal or unsubstantiated by objective measures of readability. I have not crossed this threshold.
Per your immediate comments, I note that they do not address the "greater substance" of the concerns I have raised. WP:NOOFFENCE is a redlink and the closest I can find is Wikipedia:No offense intended; however, I will Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I note citations to: Beltz 1841, Cokayne 1912, Cokayne 1913 and Baugh 1933 (yes, I did read and understand what you wrote - in full). Tertiary sources are subject to something akin to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (my own observation) - entries in such sources are subject to a third "determiner", which is neither "fact" nor biased POV but editorial decision and "hover" about the "intricate" details. A "good" tertiary source (as we strive to be) should cite its sources. I note that the ODND1898 does this (though perhaps not to the same extent we do here). I cannot comment on the more recent version, as I do not have access.
I have neither required that you cite the ODND1898 nor have I wholly relied upon it in making my comments. Rather, that it is supportive and indicative in conjunction with the other sources. You will note that I have taken it upon myself to make minor "corrections" rather than to "pass the buck". I have also researched some citations, and, where initial searches did not support statements made, I investigated further. This was both in my assumption of "good faith" and my "due diligence", where I might have reasonably raised such questions as a challenge of verifiability without taking the time to invesyigate further.
I also note (at this time) your revision to "a massive chunk of the Midlands" and would cite WP: slang in this respect.
This is an article that deserves promotion save for some "minor" issues that should be easily addressed and that we might work togeather to resolve. I sincerely hope that this might be the case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, and apologies for misunderstanding you: you are not telling me what to do after all. However, I have... changed "chunk" to "swathe." I will also AGF, about trying to stitch me up below 😆 🧀 🍞 🍸 Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 08:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to confirm a quote as part of my due diligence and the link provided only a snippet view and did not find the quote. I was eventually able to find the quote but it caused me some concern. As you will see from below, I was uncertain on this point and have sought opinion on this matter, to which I have deferred. My only intent has been the objective assessment of the article. Yes, "swathe" is better. If you can address the substance of my comments, I will have no issue with supporting the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but what are they? — fortunavelut luna 07:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all indicated at my previous dot point however, ...

  • The names of his children appearing in the infobox do not all appear elsewhere in the body of the text. As such, this is not (apparently) supported by a citation.
  • The list of children absents one son and one daughter. This "appears" to be an error of omission and not (at least for the son) an absence of information.
  • In the family section, the dates given indicate that Anne is the youngest, and not the eldest daughter.
  • The text suggests that his three daughters married before his death. Sources indicate that only one definitely did, with one marrying close to the time of his death (before March 1461) and the third, in 1467.
  • There are conflicting reports as to whether Catherine or Margret was the third daughter to marry.
  • I note that Catherine is sometimes Katherine. This is not exceptional for the time, when spelling was not as ridgid as it is now. I also noted that Joan has been reported as Joanne. Only the matter of Joan[ne] and that the names of all five daughters is available arise specifically from the ODNB1898. The other apparent conflicts are from sources cited in articles on the husbands. They appear to be online compilations of Cokayne that are referenced to him (see hyperlinks above).
  • I indicated that conflicting sources should be acknowledged and, if possible, reconciled. More specifically, it is not up to us to make judgements about sources (thought we might rely on the judgements of others to reconcile differences). This last comment is not specific to any source or issue but a general observation, as it might assist in addressing some of these issues.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anotherclown, @Nikkimaria, @AustralianRupert, as commenters here, your opinions are sought. I am uncertain on this point. Links to google books in the references might imply that all or part of what is cited can be sourced online, either in full or in part, whether free or by "purchase" (IMHO). This is not necessarily the case. Specifically, a the link to google books provides a "snippet" but no access to the fuller work (with or without purchase). In effect, it is nothing more than a source of bibliographic detail in which the ISBN is provided in any case, as well as in the article - so it is redundant? Is this misleading? I don't suggest it is intentionally so. Is this an issue, either in this assessment or for higher elevation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guide is WP:PAGELINKS - generally if no preview is available we wouldn't include the link, but keep in mind that what is available can vary from person to person. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nikki here. I've no dramas with courtesy links. Access to Google Books can change from region to region. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "He spent the last few years of his life attempting to mediate between the Yorkists and the Crown" As he eventually took one side, maybe "He spent much of the last few"
  •  Done
  • "the King had made any last words" I would say "the King had spoken any last words"
  •  Done
  • "Humphrey was born at Stafford, Staffordshire," You should give the date here.
  •  Done -but actually, I couldn't find a source for that precise date, and themost comprehensive RS says Dec not August! Adjusted accordingly.
  • "Stafford was later granted livery of his father's estate by parliament, in acknowledgement of the dead King's verbal promise" What does this mean - that he was granted the right to wear the badge of his father's estate? Also, as you have not previously mentioned the promise, I would say "which he had been verbally promised by Henry V".
  •  Done your change of wording; also, linked to "suing one's livery" which is a legal term rather than a heraldic one.
  • You have linked to livery, which is mainly about the heraldic meaning and refers briefly to "suing one's livery" at the end". I think it would be clearer if you just said that his minority was ended and he was allowed to take possession of his father's estates. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dudley Miles to the section- I think it's important to link to such detail since we have an article for it, but I agree with explaining its meaning in the text. Reworded the sentence slightly on account of this.
  • "Since Perche was a frontier region, and experienced of the conflict at this time,[23] whatever income the estate generated was probably invested into the defence of the region." This does not sound right. Maybe "Since Perche was a frontier region, and experienced conflict at this time,[23] whatever income the estate generated was probably invested in the defence of the region."
  •  Done -been a bug bear from the beginning- cheers!
  • The section on estates is confusing. You say his potential income was £6,300 in 1447-48, then in the next paragraph go back to his mother's death in 1438, then estimate his income in the late 1440s as 3,700 to 5,000.
  •  Done At least, rearranged and shuffled around- better?
  • "often tenants for soldiering" What are tenants for soldiering?
  •  Done clarified.
  • "In 1442 he was appointed Captain of Calais[1] and of the tower of Risbanke, and was indented to serve for the next decade." How long did he stay in France?
  •  Done
  • "his "offensive behaviour" towards Jeanne d'Arc at her trial" You have not previously mentioned this.
  •  Done D'oh!
  • What offensive behaviour? (Oh I see you have explained but I did not find it at first because you have spelled her name differently.) Dudley Miles (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Standardized both mentions of her name, delinked the second one per OVERLINK.
  • You are inconsistent in how you cite DNB articles.
  •  Done-unnecessary panic, just think the page needed refreshing! Someone ballsed them right up for me, is why :) I've tried to change them, but no luck yet.
  • This is a good articles and the queries are minor, apart from the somewhat confused account of his finances. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers, Dudley Miles. Except for the ODBs, w What say you? — fortunavelut luna 17:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I see that the livery link did not go to the section because you put in the hash twice. I have corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. "Then I should retire to my estates and give my lands over to my sons"  :) thanks for your help wiith this, Dudley Miles. — fortunavelut luna 19:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Humphrey_Stafford,_1st_Duke_of_Buckingham&oldid=810064667"