Talk:Neville–Neville feud

Uppercase for Earl?

I'm not sure about this, but looking at Earl of Wessex indicates the "E" of earl should be uppercase when referring to specific earls. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: Yes I think so- upper case for specific people, lower case for the honour on its own? _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

GA review

I've just discovered that this is undergoing a GA review. @Seraphimsystem: although doubtless you were relyng on the bot to inform me, it didn't. Dunno why. Still, didn't you think it was a bit rude of me not to saying anything about it for over three weeks?! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I have actually never done this before, so I didn't know I was supposed to, but now that you mention it, I wish I had. I chose it because I am interested in the Nevilles - (I am also involved in Wars of the Roses) - I don't really know the procedures for closing either. I thought it was a good article, but a more experienced editor pointed out some improvements he would like to see. I offered to help to improve it if needed - I wish I had known who created the article so I could have gotten in touch sooner, is there a way to find this out without going through the entire article history so I can avoid making this mistake in the future? Sincerely sorry about that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries Seraphim System :) I was not annoyed with you, just a little embarrassed at the fact that the review had been going on for weeks without me saying a dickie bird! It would look awfully rude that. For finding out page creators, just look at the list of options in the column on the left side of the page- click 'page information'- and in the ?second box, it will say who created it, when, how big it is, etc. I'm glad you're interested in tWotR, it's a bit of specialism of mine too. Welcome aboard :) Question: so would you rather complete the GA review yourself, or actually have the credit for getting an article to GA? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to work on editing it and leave the reviewing to others in this case because it's an article I'm very interested in, as long as I'm not required to close the review because I opened it I would gladly work on improving it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Great 👍 there's plenty of to share around. We can put it on hold, then resubmit it. The bot should do the rest. although we've seen how reliable he can be. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

How should we deal with the en dash problem User:BlueMoonset raised? I think the best thing would be to move the entire page - en dash is not standard on keyboards (I can't even figure out how to get the article opened in my text editor) - I can probably figure it out, but I think most editors will continue to use the standard - out of habit Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Certainly no-one's going to carry out a search using an en dash are they! I regret using the blasted things in the first place now. How does trimming it to 'Neville family feud' or suchlike sound? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"Neville family feud" works for me Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually it's ok as it is, I can input en dash, and this is more consistent with the other article Percy-Neville feud. The reviewer seems to want it standardized rather then removed, so I will use APA style guidelines for dashes throughout the page. It's causing some kind of meltdown when I try to open directly in my editor, but I copied the article into my sandbox so it's not a big deal. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, good start 🍔 — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Charles Ross dissertation

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Do you think it would be ok to remove this source? I am concerned that an unpublished dissertation with 37 reads that is only available on ResearchGate may be WP:UNDUE for inclusion (especially as a contrast to OUP) - I have not read the dissertation so I can not judge the sources the author has relied on, but I have emailed the author to ask for a copy. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No, Seraphim System the source is fine (not that I am an arbitor, you understand, merely with the usual IMHO-caveat, etc ). University of Oxford D.Phils are some of the most peer reviewed publications in the western world, with only a little exaggeration. there is a good discussion at the WP:RSN here. I would, though, be interested to know how you emailed the author? :) Charles Ross (historian) died in 1986! In which case your talents are truely wasted here  :) BTW, how do you mean, 'only available on research gate'? It's in the Bodleian library! (cf. WP:PUBLISH) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok maybe what I found was something else, researchgate didn't have it available so I just clicked the request button - not sure why that would be available for an author who has passed away ... I just wanted to be sure. Is there anyway to get a copy of it? Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's from 1952, so it's MEGA-fragile (I don't know if you've seen 'paper' from the post-war period but (I guess due to shortages) it's more like greaseproof paper- which has gone 'crispy'- not sure of the technical term!). I had to go there myself- they won't lend it out because of it's age- and took copious handwritten (pencil, that is- no ink allowed!) notes- and paid for one of the chapers to be digitised / photographed. But frankly, dreaming spires my arse: They're not backwards when it comes to charging- it's about £5 /$7? a page. So the whole thing would cost a few hundred. F*** that :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neville–Neville feud/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is in fairly good shape, but its a bit rough in parts. It will take me a while to work through this, so I'll do it in several lots over a week or so. In general, I found it a bit hard to follow all the family connections and the overall narrative, which jumps around a fair bit. I have the following comments/queries:

Lead

• Given that the lead should only summarise the body of the article, there should be no need for citations in the lead, everything in it should be cited down in the body

 Done removed the citations; left the two footnotes in the lede for now

• there seems to be inconsistency in the handling of titles. Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland, first earl of Westmorland etc, shouldn't it just be rendered as 1st Earl of Westmorland, 2nd Earl etc?
• link Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland in the lead
• I'll suggest a bit of a rework of the lead to make it flow better. Given that the feud started with the death of Ralph Neville (1st Earl), it would be best to immediately introduce the grandson Ralph Neville (2nd Earl) as his heir as earl, then explain his disinheritance of many of the family holdings in favour of Richard Neville, then talk about the disputation and its ultimate resolution. I'll have a play around with it once I've gone through the rest of the article and make a suggestion.
• I read elsewhere that John (Ralph the elder's son) agreed to the disinheritance of his own son Ralph? Is that right?

Background and causes

• is there a link for the Mountford family? Redlink the head of the family if they are likely to be notable?

I wasn't able to find a link, and learning more about the family is not really essential for understanding what is going on in the article. The source only mentions it as another example of a type of land dispute where property was transferred to issue from a second wife.

• Who is Michael Hicks? When introducing an authority or attributing a quote in-text, introduce them by explaining why their views are relevant, such as "The historian Michael Hicks"; same for Anthony Tuck

I've added it for Tuck and Hicks, though I worry it becomes redundant introducting one historian after another, so I've left some as links - Charles Ross, G.L. Harriss, R.L. Storey, R.A. Griffiths, the links make it clear they are historians, so I think this is ok for wiki-style articles. I've introduced Lander as a historian because we've not linked to him in the article.

• don't leave a space after a sentence and before a footnote, there are several examples of this
• the first instance of fn 14 is not required

 Done

• the final sentence of the first para of the section does not have a fn.
• introducing Ralph Neville as 1st Earl before he actually became 1st Earl is a bit counterintuitive, as we soon learn that he did not become 1st Earl until after his second marriage. Perhaps introduce him just as Ralph Neville, 4th Baron Neville de Raby initially, which I understand he was until after he married Joan (still using the link).
• link earl of Westmorland at first mention
• "in tail male" has an extensive note which doesn't explain what "in tail male" means. I suggest a shorter note that explains what the term actually means

 Done

• perhaps state explicitly that Ralph junior became 2nd Earl
• drop the initial cap on Inns

 Done

• link Ripon

 Done

• did all the properties that stayed with Margaret's children go to Ralph?
• I believe John died before his father, if so, this should be explained in terms of what effects that had on the inheritance of titles and properties. If the title then went to Ralph as John's eldest son, did any of the properties go to John's other children?
• the sequencing really doesn't work here. We've earlier learnt that Ralph was created Earl, now we're being told this again. I suggest using a strict chronology here, explaining who Joan was when she is first mentioned as the second wife. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll hold off on more significant content revisions until you've completed the first read through. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• the more I read through, the more the lack of understandable sequencing detracts from the article. For example, we learn that Robert Neville became Bishop of Durham in 1437, but this is still in the Background and causes section, not the Course of the dispute section where one would expect it to appear. The Background and causes section should cover the period up to the death of Ralph senior, the Course of the dispute from that point on until the resolution
• the final para of this section is really a summary of the course of the dispute, and properly belongs at the bottom of that section or even the Aftermath and consequences section, not the Background section

Course of the dispute

• The first couple of paras are actually background, as the dispute did not occur until Ralph senior's death, there is also yet another restatement of Ralph senior becoming earl, something that far predated the dispute arising
• The course of the dispute should flow chronologically, following the actions by both sides that related to the dispute, at present, it jumps backwards and forwards in parts
• Cardinal should be cardinal unless in a title
• there are mentions of violence (which I assume is why this article is in the Milhist project, but there isn't any detail of what violence occurred other than some tenants being assaulted at one point. Did either side raise a force to take back any lands? Did this actually occur? I was left wondering what about this relates to military history.
• redlinking a term such as a third of a penny is unhelpful. It needs to be explained.
• for clarity, please use the proper name and initial caps when using a title, ie William Neville, 1st Earl of Kent, & Edward Neville, 3rd Baron Bergavenny etc. It would also be useful to place where they received their titles in the chronology, as it builds the picture of the development of the power of the Salisbury and Beaufort families during the dispute
• a similar observation could be made about Salisbury joining the King's council
• we jump back to discuss Ralph junior's marriages, when they should be dealt with in chronological order, as it builds the picture of the power and influence he had, there are many more examples of the chronology problem, it makes it incredibly difficult to follow

Aftermath and consequences

• How did Ralph get Raby Castle and other lands?
• a pension or a bond?
• how is the conduct of the Neville family in failing to work together and the actions in the late 1450s relevant to the dispute?
• again, there is a lack of thread in this section

Sorry to say that I'm failing this article in its current state. I strongly suggest the main editors go through it and fix the obvious MOS issues identified, and the chronology and division of information under the sensible section headings that already exist. Whilst the top level structure of the article is sound for a matter of this sort, the execution within each section, particularly of the development of the background and the dispute itself, really don't work due to the non-chronological approach to a subject that is by its nature best explained in a chronological way. I'd be happy to take another look at this article after my observations have been addressed, as it will need a lead rewrite once the article has been reorganised chronologically by sections. At present, I couldn't make a suggestion about the lead because the article is so hard to follow. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you put it on hold instead, I will try to address the issues you just raised. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I see it was already failed, I generally agree with the comments but I think they could have been addressed during a hold. I didn't want the article to keep changing mid-review but I think I indicated that I would work on the issues that were raised, none of which are major fixes for someone familiar with the article. I really don't think it should have been failed without my being given a chance to address the issues raised in the review. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)