Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham/archive1

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 26 June 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

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have subtantially expanded it (I think, about 5x?), in order to comprehensively cover the subject's life and career, in context of their time. It is now backed by good quality reliable sources, with particular adherance to WP:RS/AC. In order to achieve this, it required complete re-writing from this. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

A few brief passing comments (although I will return shortly to review in full) and I've made a few edits, mostly around spelling that you can see here:

  • There are a couple of footnotes (33 and 35 spring to mind) where the page ranges have not been closed off. Is there a reason for that?
  • Footnote 108 is a bare url
  • You deal with the DNB references in very different ways which should be made consistent. Footnote 1 is the best dealt with, but variations on a theme for the same person include 17, 45, 108, 139, 145 and 151. FN 146 should also be in the same format if it's a different person.
  • Is there a reason why most books are in the bibliography, with a short reference to identify them in the sources, while others are listed in the sources in full (149, 156 and 157, as example)? I'm not sure I follow a pattern or rationale.
  • There is a lack of ISBN/oclc numbers in the bibliography (although that may be because of answer to the point above).

I hope to be back shortly with a prose review. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks The Bounder- is this the place for me to comment? 'I've never done this befor,' she said ;) re. all your points about footnotes. The fact that I don't even really understand the questions should indicate the extent of my skills in that department. Research and prose man, me. Sorry about that! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've been fixing the bits I can, and I'll do the prose review after the format tweaking. There will still be a couple of bits I'll have to,chuck back to you, as I can't close off the page ranges (where you have "pp. 123–").'most of the rest I,can sort with some minor tweaking (I've done the DNB points this morning). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few more edits (following some source and formatting changes). A few other comments:

  • There are two "although"s in quick succession, which should be changed
  • There's either a word too many, or a missing name in "he and attended assiduously"
  • The following sentence needs to be re-written: "Indeed, since, Perche was a frontier region, and 'bore so much of the brunt of the war at this time,'[20] so whatever income the estate generated was probably ploughed back into the defence of the region.[21]"
  • You have "organise" and "organized"
  • "One of his most well-known disputes Buckingham had" needs re-working a little
  • "Buckingham was one of the lords commissioned arrest the rebels" needs a tweak
  • Is one a "negotiator to" or a "negotiator with" another party

Part done more to follow soon; I hope these help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Again I've made a few copy edits on the more straightforward points

  • I'm not sure whether you missed the final point about "negotiator to" or "negotiator with" or whether you disagree. (I'm not 100% sure which way it should be, but it's worth checking out);
  • "and encouraged to do so by those retainers reliant on him": this doesn't seem to parse with the previous section of the sentence. It may just need a slight tweak to make it flow more fully;
  • Ditto with "Buckingham, once again acting as representative of the king[110] and did not allow the Yorkists' envoys to meet Henry";
  • "It has been noted that..." Probably best to say which historian writes (not notes) this.
  • You should run the 'duplicate links' tool over the article, as there are a few double links in close proximity to one another.

That's it from me. I haven't searched for additional sources, reviewed the ones used, or checked image licences, etc., but focussed entirely on the prose and formatting elements. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • References/Bibliography not systematically organized. Some are last name first, others first name, etc. Plus why aren't "references" linked to Bibliography?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly because (with the possible exception of Cockayne) my referencing style is, as it should be, last name / first name, but the 'Googlebookrefgenerator' automatically and systematically does the opposite. End result, two different citation styles. On the assumption that this surely must have happened before, you, Lingzhi, probably have a better chance of resolving the issue than me. Cheers! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google book ref generator has wee little button you can click to fix that formatting. I press the wee little button every time... It's bedtime now. If you give me permission, I'll format things as the are in User:Lingzhi/sandbox, or at least similar, over the next few days.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you re-writing the Bengal famine of 1943 article? Excellent! H'mmm I think you should probably have that permission; although I studiously stay away from Harvard referencing, FYI. Good night! although it's only 1430 hours :p O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: left some comments about the referencing format over at the PR - just FYI, usually you shouldn't be running a PR and ACR concurrently. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm; I asked about that. Apparently it's no big deal. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I forgot to mention about PR. I'll redo the refs and leave a note on talk; if anyone grumbles I'll undo my edits.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you won't be offended, but that is one of the more confusing referencing systems I've ever seen. Not the most confusing ever, but one of the most... I pity the poor n00b who tries to press "edit" on this article. No offense.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine I was too subtle above; let me rephrase. I don't use Harvard because it is crap. No offence. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can revert all my edits, if you wish. I don't think harvard is more repetitive than what was there before. In fact, I think it's much less repetitive. But as I said, I can revert all my edits, if you wish.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Compton Reeves, A." or "Reeves, A. Compton"? My google search turned up slightly confusing results, but I suspect the latter, so I added it that way.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the Cokayne references are looking a bit wobbly. I would rather not touch them.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not doing Content Reviews of any kind any more. Good luck with your nom.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Not because of the Bengal Famine brouha? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 08:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Auntieruth[edit]

I'm commenting here and not on peer review. I'm willing to do one, but the comments would be the same.
Lead
  • {xt|His early years were spent in relative poverty, as much...} How about making this poverty; much of his estate... Although...I'm not sure as the two are clearly related. Did she keep him on a tight allowance? did she squander money on herself? what's the deal.
  • How many fathers did this man have? It looks like only one, but you refer to plural fathers...
  • "for some time..." how about he was constantly feuding with....
  • After his return from France, Buckingham spent the rest of his life continuing to serve the English crown, but remained in England.
  • Overall, the lead is sometimes jumpy. He acted as a peace maker in the partisan politics of the 1430s,
  • his mother's death didn't turn him into a wealthy man it just gave him control of his wealth. How old was he when Mom died? Darn the old girl was 100 years old!!! Extraordinary.
  • "a great grandson of Edward and etc...Actually, the key there is that he's related to the leading aristocratic houses of the time: a great grandson of King Edward on his mother's side, connected to Staffords, Grenvilles, Audleys, etc, back to the house of Lusigan on his fathers. Furthermore, he made an excellent marriage to etc.
Background and youth
  • was it important that they had royal blood, or is that just an aside.
  • you need the mdah between STafford and Edmund.
  • no omma after reduced income or after year
  • Although his mother controlled management of the estate through her dower rights, Humphrey became a royal ward, under control...
  • Iwould put the sentence on his being a hothead in the section on his character.
Early career
  • However, Henry V died in France on 31 August 1422.
  • I don't understand the part of the sentence about getting to Westminster.
  • who did not impose the usual fee
  • who decided. also need proper dash John, Duke of Bedford, and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, would have positions of importance. N
  • while the new king was a baby (not as)
  • he attended this meetings assiduously
  • favored the interests of Humphrey...Favored the interests of Gloucester
  • Beaufort, as defacto head of council, (needs comma)
  • what Cardinal? (you mention later, but it's confusing here)
  • the "He" after not too distant future should clearly refer to Stafford You have two Humphreys,
  • what bishop? Archbishop of Canterbury? I'm confused.
  • in the vicinity of Paris.
  • comma after 11 October 1431
  • when did the English withdraw from Norandy
  • ...although in an area of almost constant warfare, inreal terms, the ....
  • invested, not ploughed back. If he put it into agriculture....
  • the King's Lancastrian estates
  • regional magnates or regnal magnates?
  • do we have a link to royal affinity? If not, you'll have to explain it.

Will do more later.  :) auntieruth (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Any progress on this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HJ Mitchell: Blimey! Thanks very much for the ping: for some reason I didn't have the page watchlisted, and had totally forgotten about it. Okay- what's my next move-? I can do Auntieruth's corrections (sorry for making it sound a bit Sunday school there, AR!), and by the look of it I've got to do something (not sure what) to the Cockayne refs too. What's the actual A-class review procedure, if I may ask? I couldn't see it described anywhere. Let me finish of another page I'm working on (luckilly, shouldn't be long- he's just about to by it!) and I'll jump back over here ASAP. Cheers for the heads up. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: Right- I have finished most of the suggested edits, aware of the excellent contributions of Lingzhi and The Bounder too. There's couple from Auntieruth55 which I'm afraid are slightly criptic for me- his mother being 100 etc- and others, e.g., the lede being too jumpy- that I would probably want advice on how to repair, if that's allowed. — O Fortuna velut luna... 15:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Can you mark off the points you've done so we can check them and see what's left? The lead I would save til last. Ironing out the creases in a few paragraphs of summary is likely to be the easy part. I had a skim and it looks like there's some fairly heavy copy-editing needed but I'm up for a challenge. I might go through it tomorrow but I have an article of my own I was hoping to get written this weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

 Done- possibly. This is effectively a foriegn language, so forgive me if I ned to be spoken to very slowly in a very loud voice. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite a support yet - Hchc2009[edit]

  • The uses of "king" need to be checked against the MOS (where it is referring to a specific king, it should be "King")
  • "£1200" but "£5,000" - need to be consistent with commas in the money figures
  • Quotes take "..." in the MOS, rather than the '...' used here.
  • "The group are considered by English Heritage and the BBC to be sufficiently authentic in their portrayals to have been employed by them in such a capacity." - not supported by the reference given
  • "It has been suggested that Thomas Malory" - suggested by who?
  • Bibliography: Needs a bit of tweaking on capitals: "Cardinal Beaufort: a study of Lancastrian ascendancy and decline" should be "Cardinal Beaufort: A Study of Lancastrian Ascendancy and Decline", for example.
  • Bibliography: There's no need really to give the day and month that a book was published, as the year is almost always sufficient (e.g. "Biancalana, Joseph (27 September 2001). The Fee Tail and the Common Recovery in Medieval England: 1176–1502. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-43082-1.") but if you're going for that style, then you need to be consistent (e.g. "(e.g. "Bernard, G. W. (1992). The Tudor Nobility. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-3625-5." just uses the year) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cheers Hchc2009; I've done all that exc. the k/K-ing, and the done the bibliog. The bibliog was done by someone else :p My style, whilst idiosyncratic, is always consistent. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the later Hundred Years' War and in the early years of the Wars of the Roses." - for the lead, I'd lose the "later" and "early years"; would make the prose smoother.
  • "A great-grandson of King Edward III on his mother's side, he inherited his father's earldom of Stafford at an early age and, through his marriage to a daughter of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland, was not only related to the powerful Neville family, but many of the leading aristocratic houses of the time." - A long sentence for the lead. I'd recommend breaking at "early age".
  • "he had a reduced income in his early years" - reduced from what? (I'm not sure this is essential to this bit of the lead, btw; it could be combined with the increase in income bit in the next para)
  • "from earl of Stafford to duke of Buckingham. " "the earl of Stafford to the duke of Buckingham"? *sort of- I've tweaked the wording- better?
  • " His lands covered much of the country" - as written, could mean "much of the country was covered by his lands" (i.e. a high % of the country belonged to him) or that his lands stretched across much of the country (i.e. he had national interests)
  • "the crown" > "the Crown" (and worth linking) *Capitalised- but link to what? I've already linked to H6 earlier- and there's no wiki page for Crown (medieval centre of government) :)
  • "Buckingham was responsible for York's defeat in 1459" - "the duke of York" would be clearer here
  • Why the " the duke of Gloucester" but "Richard, Earl of Warwick"? Hchc2009 (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which gave the Staffords royal blood and made them cousins to the King Henry" - as written, suggests that this applied to the whole family; surely it only applied to Humphrey, rather than his dad etc.
  • "and so became 6th Earl of Stafford " - "so he became"
  • "although over two-thirds of his estate was still occupied by his mother," - sounds odd this way around; "although his mother still occupied over two-thirds of his estates" or "although over two-thirds of his estate was still controlled by his mother," ?
  • "who had been married by then to two previous earls of Stafford- Edmund the fifth earl, and Edmund's elder brother, Thomas, the 3rd earl, with whom she had had no children." - I had to think twice when reading this one! How about: "He immediately inherited a large estate with lands in more than a dozen counties. Before his mother Anne had married Edmund, however, she had previously been married to his older brother, Thomas. As a result, she had accumulated two dowries, each comprising a third of the Stafford estates, and she continued to occupy these lands for the next twenty years."? Hchc2009 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was placed under the control of Henry IV's queen Joan of Navarre" - comma after queen?
  • "and did not impose a fee to be paid into his Exchequer for doing so, as was usual." - unclear who "his" is in this context
  • "(not quite a full Protector)" - is the capitalisation right here?
  • "By 1424, the rivalry between Gloucester, as Protector, and the Bishop of Winchester, Henry Beaufort (from 1426, Cardinal)" - the Cardinal bit gets repeated later
  • "Lieutenant-General of Normandy,[18] governor of Paris, and constable of France" - capitalisation doesn't feel consistent here
  • "Count of Perche," - ditto
  • "it has been suggested" - by who?
  • ""bore so much of the brunt of the war at this time,"" - quote needs attributing (although I'd question whether it could just be paraphrased?) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1953, English historian K.B. McFarlane estimated" - unclear why it matters which year McFarlane did the estimate in
  • "In the words of one historian" - we need to say who (although I'm not sure the quote is needed here)
  • "which were worth about £1,500, and his mother's half of the Bohun inheritance (around £1,200)." - why the brackets around the second figure?
  • ""His landed resources matched his titles... the Stafford family estates were scattered throughout England, Wales and Ireland"" - I'd expect the quote to be attributed inline. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hchc2009: Done these; although there's a couple of points I'm uncertan about above, if you wouldn't mind clarifying? Cheers! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-ordinator comment: @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: are you in a position to address the outstanding points above relatively soon? Given the length of time this review has now been open I think we will probably need to close this shortly. It can always be renominated at a later date once the outstanding points have been addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, Anotherclown I'll get on that- thanks for the reminder. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @The Bounder:, @Lingzhi:, and @Auntieruth55: In the interest of finalizing this review (now open approx. 4 months) can the reviewers with outstanding comments above pls indicate whether they support or oppose promotion? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per the MILHIST ACR procedures reviews are generally open for 28 days and require at least three supports for promotion. Unfortunately despite a lot of commendable work from the nominator and a number of reviewers this article has been open for 4 months now and still has only one explicit support. As such I will be closing this one shortly as "no consensus" to promote at this time. This of course does not preclude it being renominated at a later note once any outstanding comments have been addressed though. Anotherclown (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Anotherclown The outstanding comments were already addressed. — fortunavelut luna 09:14, 23 July 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/archive1&oldid=1143876851"