Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Act of Accord/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 29 September 2024 [1].

Act of Accord

[edit]
Nominator(s): SerialNumber54129 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most. Accord... it didn't.
Let me know what you think! Many thanks! Cheers! SerialNumber54129 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What's the benefit of the footers on the multi-images? They seem to duplicate captions
Thanks Nikkimaria, I've linked to the original publication, all PD by now. I have also removed the duplicate footers. They was, as you say, not achieving much. SerialNumber54129 12:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

"One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most: sounds like a slightly stretched metaphor for the Tories at the time of Brexit. Have a couple of other things on my plate at the moment, but will be along to look over this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, great analogy! With the rest of the country all looking at em and wondering how much more they can completely balls things up! SerialNumber54129 12:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • There are seven uses of "however" in the text, which is probably at least six too many! I've skipped the lead for now, but will finish off with it
Only one 'however' left, in a footnote.
Background
  • Note one seems a bit out of place here. It starts off talking about 'The labels "York and Lancaster"' , when neither of the terms have yet been used in the body.
Indeed. Moved to 2nd para; now note 2.
  • "when a York had won": again, the York-Lancs division hasn't been raised in the body yet, and the reader needs to pre-understand the situation before getting to this. I think a sentence or two explaining why the politics was "partisan and factional" and who was involved in the "intermittent rises in violence and local disorder". It's a background section, so you're allowed to give a bit of potted history for people to understand rest.
Expanded the recent history; always clearly of getting carried away on the old hobbyhorse.
  • "Salisbury marched": A fleeting image of a whole town (houses and all), marching cross country popped into my mind here! Maybe full title and link (plus identification of what side he's on)
Clarified in discussion of Yorkists.
  • "York went into exile": ditto
Ditto.
  • "Warwick and Edward of March": Ditto
Ditto
  • "in Calais": probably best to add that this is in France – not everyone will know it's in a different country to the rest of the action
Done.
  • "In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile": I know the tense sits well with the subsequent quote, but the grammar is a little off. "In the nine months following the Yorkists' exile" would be more in line with expectations
Thanks, adjusted.
  • "The Calais lords returned to England in May 1459": Just checking on the date: they returned before they were attainted by the Parliament of Devils?
H'mm Ludlow castle a time machine? Bigger on the inside that on the out?! but changed, just in case it wasn't  :)

More to follow - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

York's claim
  • There's a bit of a mismatch between the text and the tree which jars a bit. The text refers to John of Gaunt who isn't named as such in the tree, but as John, Duke of Lancaster. It took a long moment for me to dredge that up from my memory, and others—particularly who haven't been through the British education system—won't be able to make the connection at all. Same problem for Richard of Conisburgh of the text, who is the tree's Richard, Earl of Cambridge.
Adjusted their titles; added ordinal numbers for York, Lancaster and March, added death dates. Mass complicated table tab
  • " Anne's grandmother, Philippa of Clarence, was the daughter of Lionel of Antwerp": Do we need to know this? I can't see the relevance
No, removed.
  • "argues Brondarbit": who he?
New York comedian and PhD Winchester. Nice bloke. Knows what to do with cold canapes and warm wine.
  • "when he landed": who is the 'he' here? I'm a bit lost in this bit with a plethora of names and a lot of 'he's being used – may need just a bit of a brush up for clarity
Hopefully, some names have been clarified? Replacing 'he'.
  • "says Ross": who?
Linked.
  • "but having been unable to do so": grammar ever so slightly off here. Maybe "but had been unable to do so"?
  • Excellent, thanks.

Next sections and more to come. I can only echo Tim's words that I think this would possibly have done better with a PR first to iron out some of the wrinkles. – SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recommencing with some minor tweaks and a support. Once comment, however: you need to decide whether you use King or king, as you have, for example, "The King was weak-willed" and "the king's efforts at reconciliation" running throughout. Consistency would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat, and I appreciate the edits. Well caught! On K/kings, my personal preference—I think an increasingly popular one today—is king for a no name, but King when named. So, e.g., 'the king said', 'the king went', etc, but 'King Henry said' and 'King Henry went'. but do the MOS:HEADS preclude such simplicity in favour of something more esoteric that allows them all to argue for 5,000 words at a time?  ;) I'm not absolutely pro or con any style, just whatever either a) makes it easier for me, or b) what we can all agree on! But I totally agree about consistency. SerialNumber54129 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think user:UndercoverClassicist gave a most succinct and helpful summary of how to turn the precepts of MOS:CAPS into practice, in a comment at another recent FAC: "... if the title stands in for someone's name (so "I met the Pope last Thursday" -> "I met Francis last Thursday"), it's capitalised, so most cases like "the Prime Minister did such-and-such" should be". Tim riley talk 07:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Tim riley

[edit]

This article is not yet of FA standard: there are too many things wrong with the prose. It would, in my view, have been helpful if the article had been taken to peer review before coming here.

  • "he and Henry were both direct descendents of Edward III"–"descendants" (OED and Chambers recommended spelling).
Absolutely.
  • "York possessed two claims, through both the male and female lines"– but later we say "Unlike the Lancastrian claim, the Yorkist claim on the throne was based upon the female line of descent" – I can't make these two statements square with each other
I've recast that whole paragraph, which hopefully clears things up but also simplifies the explanation?
Much clearer now. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "broke out into open battle, when a York had won a skirmish"– can one have "a York" tout court?
Not that one would want to, certainly!
  • "In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile, "the political situation in England had again been transformed" – needs an attribution inline.
Check.
  • "And coming there he walked straight on ..." –unclear why this big quote is given in modern English but the other one – "At which parlement the commones of the reame..." – is in medieval English.
Fair point: it's literally the sources. One transliterated, the other... don't, I'm afraid. I could do it, but at some point, it stops being merely mechanical and starts being original work.
Fair enough. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "York's claim and right to the throne had long been recognised by the Royal council and in law, although it was theoretical until Edward of Westminster had also died childless." –I find this impenetrable. We need either a family tree or a clearer exposition of where the likes of Edward of Westminster fit in to the scheme of things.
Family tree, check.
Excellent! Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Nevilles knew of York's plan prior to his arrival" –"before"?
Done.
  • "Warwick's keenness to disassociate himself with York's plan" – "dissociate" and "from"?
Yes. Odd one that dis/as/sociate, I probably use them synonymously.
  • "the Lords requested that the royal justices examine the matter ...The lords next turned the matter over " – capital or lower case for Lords/lords?
UC for House of, lc for people.
  • "the king's god-given " – the OED prescribes a capital for "God-given".
Done.
  • "Having to achieve popular acclamation, York had to push his case on a strictly legal basis" – Is there a word, such as "failed", missing here?
Quite an important word!
  • "the prince of Wales own patrimony" – possessive apostrophe required
Done.
  • Caption: "Richard of York, a descendent of Edward III's" – spelling ;of "descendant" and do we need the apostrophe-ess?
Check x2.
  • "removal by forceable means"– "forcible" (OED and Chambers)
done.
  • "Having sworn to protect the king's life, York presumably expected the king to do likewise" – doesn't say what I think you mean: not that the king would swear to protect the king's own life, but that he would swear to protect York's.
Changed to "expected the king to reciprocate".
Fine. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Queen Margaret into York's implacable enemy ... became more implacable in their resistance to the Yorkist government" – two implacables in one paragraph? Perhaps "resolute" or some such the second time?
Good choice.
  • "it could also have driven Yorkist loyalists away" – either a different stop before "it" or a capital letter needed.
Semi-c'd.
  • "Margaret could not accept the disinheritance of her son and perhaps encouraged her and her supporters to see York's death as now the only chance of returning Edward" – seems to be a missing word such as "this" after the first "and". And is "could" rather than "would" the correct word?
Both good.
  • "stymied " – jarringly inappropriate word, suitable for 20th-century golf but not for medieval history
Glad to say I've never set foot on a golf course in either century... except in anger perhaps. Changed to 'prevented', although it doesn't convey quite the sense of 'stalled in her tracks'...
"thwarted" perhaps? Just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thwarted is just right.
  • "Henry's supporters who were behind this malcontent" – in modern English "malcontent" means a disgruntled person; the state of being discontented is "discontent".
Thanks.
  • "Rutland was probably probably knifed by Lord Clifford on Wakefield Bridge" – very probably.
Check.
  • "while Salisbury was captured and later executed at Pontefract Castle." – does "while" mean "simultaneously" or just "and"? Needs clarification.
How bout "and Salisbury was captured after the battle, to be later executed"?
Absolutely fine, though just "and" would be fine too, I think. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wakefield was a decisive blow for the Yorkists" – "for"? "to", surely? And as they eventually won, in what sense can it be called "decisive"?
True, it wasn't. Rm 'decisive'. For the other, I went with 'a hard blow to the Yorkists...', but I'm not sure that sounds right either!
If it were my prose, which of course it isn't, I'd say "a severe blow", but as always it's just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Severe, also good thanks.
  • "The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how made them responsible" – missing a word, by the look of it; perhaps "it" after "how".
Indeed.
  • "He was both inept as a ruler – presumably "he" is Henry, but this needs to be clear.
Named Henry.
  • "Refectory.[31]" – I cannot work out the point, if any, of this footnote.
I admit, that was completely bizarre. going back to the source, I realise it was to clarify that the room they were in was their refectory!

That's all for now. Tim riley talk 10:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Tim riley and SchroCat, I have spent much of the last decade carefully fashioning a circle of enemies, rather than friends.
    What happened here was that I forgot about the final—basic, if fundamental—stage of my approach: leave it overnight and do a final copyedit with fresh eyes. Sometimes, the last c/e might be light—typos, dup links, etc.—and sometimes heavy, such as moving stuff around and rewriting for clarity. This had a little of both. Still, Mutandis Mutatis is the cry around the hillside, and both your (much appreciated) comments above, often acting as a springboard to further development, have improved the article on how you would have found it had I not forgotten the final stage. What a palaver, though. Thanks again! SerialNumber54129 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Order, order! I'm not an enemy and nor is our mutual friend Schrocat. We are on your side, but must do our duty as reviewers. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Thanks for your word suggestions, just the ticket. Re the above. Apologies: I don't see you as enemies at all, I was just putting myself down so as to save anyone else the trouble  :) as you say, the duty of the reviewer is sacrosanct. Thanks for your help. SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'll look in again for another read-through soon. Tim riley talk 17:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second batch of comments from TR.

Coming on nicely. Nearly there, I think. A few odds and ends:

  • Lead
  • "They, in turn, were defeated three months later" – "They" presumably being the Lancastrians, but you could make that clear, I think.
  • Done.
  • Background
  • "that it impacted national politics ... Less impactful nationally" – two impacts in close proximity: perhaps change one or the other?
  • "began interfering in government business"?
  • "By 1459 ... despite the king's efforts at reconciliation" – but earlier you tell us that the King had become mentally incapacitated, comatose and unable to recognise his companions. Had he recovered somewhat? If so is there a source for that?
  • Right. Opened the 3rd para of the section explaining that the king recovered his health, and sacked York.
  • York's claim to the throne
  • "the fourth surviving son of Edward Gaunt's younger brother" – I wondered for a moment who Edward Gaunt was, but I think a comma will make your meaning clear.
  • Good spot!
  • "Warwick had met with York in Dublin" – I generally maintain that in BrE (unlike AmE) one meets with things – fate, success, trouble etc, but just meets people, but here I can see that the profusion of geographical labels might be a touch dizzying. I wonder if "Warwick and York had met while they were both in exile in Dublin" might be smoother, but I don't press the point.
  • OK...thanks, firstly for a clear way of remembering that difference. The only thing here that makes me pause is that, while they were both in their exiles, they were exiled to different places—Warwick to Calais, York to Dublin. Thoughts?
Good point (ahem!). Your original wording will suffice, but I wonder if it is necessary to mention the location at all? ""Warwick and York had met while they were in exile..."? I leave the ball in your court. Tim riley talk 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Negotiations and the act of Parliament
  • "he bore the Langley arms ... he had never worn the Langley arms" – if he had never worn them in what sense did he bear them? Does this just mean he claimed entitlement to them?

That's my lot, I think. I'll look in again shortly. Tim riley talk 08:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim; all of your suggestions adopted; just the matter of their exiles that's tripping me up a little. SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the recent improvements to the article it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I am happy to add my support. But peer review first next time, perhaps? (Speaking of which—hint). Tim riley talk 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

Forthcoming within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat - my comments are made with fairly minimal knowledge of the entire War of the Roses, so if I ask something particularly stupid, forgive me (but feel free to say so)

Lead
  • Why was the king absent?
  • No idea; in Berkhampstead, IIRC, bt he'd only opened the blooming parliament three days earlier, and since it seemed a bit of extraneous detail, all mention of his or York's absence is now... absent.
  • "The queen, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the disinheritance of her son, although her husband had publicly supported the act." I might swap the clauses here so we flow from king's support to queen's refusal to the next sentence's opener of "she was joined"
  • Thanks, reads much better.
  • I've never heard of Margaret before but I think I love her already.
She was more King than her husband could ever hope to be!
  • What was Henry doing while his wife was raising hell? Might be worth mentioning in the lead
Well, he's still in London; he was still king, but York and the Nevilles were running the government. He was a catspaw.
  • "was crowned King Edward IV" - when? Right then, or later?
Dated.
Background
  • I recognize that the situation is complicated, but this article is ~3500 words and the background is ~1100. The section about York's claiming of the throne is another 500. That's just shy of half the article all together just to set the scene, before the Act even comes up. Is it possible to condense any of these details?
Aaghh :) would it be OK, and the comradely act of a fellow editor, to throw SchroCat under the bus at this point ("Miss! It was his fault! He made me do it!")... I may have taken his suggestion of expanding the background too literally. I guess some words probably can be cut; can I take a deeper look into this point.
We'll have to cut his catnip rations for sure. No worries though, I realize I'm kind of being a hypocrite here, complaining about the length and then asking for several clarifying points :P
  • "heir to the throne until 1453" - what changed?
Hh and the queen did their duty  :)
It is embarrassing to admit that "queen had a baby" genuinely didn't come to mind.
  • "the maintenance of God's Peace" is "God's Peace" a specific notion distinct from just "peace", or would "peace" suffice?
Of course, absolutely.
  • Henry was utterly incapacitated in 1453, but in 1455, he's able to raise a great council. When did he recover?
I think my clarification to Tim above (his 2nd trance, 2nd point under 'Background') might cover this; he asked something similar. Can you see if it's satisfactory to you too?
Looks good to me
  • "King Henry was captured by the Yorkists after the battle" later he's taken prisoner again. when did he get let go?
Clarified that it was only for a couple of months.
  • Both pairs of images are so tiny, I think you could safely make them bigger
Done. Yes, much better.
  • "Henry Bolingbroke" who
Glossed him in that sentence.
York claims the throne
  • The lead mentions that the king is absent when York makes the claim, but the body doesn't establish this (was the king still a captive at this time?)
see above, re. absenting.
I can see it being removed in the lead, but in the body of the article, not addressing where the king was during this moment really begs the question of why he didn't object to someone else strolling up and calling dibs on his chair
  • This whole second paragraph is giving me just the worst secondhand embarrassment for York, it's like a Blackadder bit
Totally. Thought of the theme song at the time! "His great grandfather was a king / if only for 30 seconds" :D
  • "York appears to have had Henry removed from his lodgings" - was the king still a prisoner or how did he do this?
Not really, they were the royal apartments, which York threw henry out of so he could live there. Nice attitude!
Negotiations
  • Double checked Ross and Ross says he never bore the Clarence arms, so I've corrected that
Thanks again.
  • "The resulting compromise was modelled on the 1420 Treaty of Troyes, which it mirrored;" "modelled on" feels redundant to "mirrored", I think we could pick just one
"The resulting compromise mirrored the 1420..."
  • "York's political opponents could now legally be classed as traitors" this is likely a question from ignorance, but how did the Act give him this power?
Not at all. Clarified, hopefully, that it had always been treason to attack the heir to the throne, and now that was York, it applied to him.
  • "The Act of Accord neither stopped the civil war..." - the second half of this sentence feels redundant to the first (mainly "nor resolved anything"). I see what you're doing, stylistically, but I don't see what it adds to the reader's understanding
Duly cut.
  • "If she had been looking" - this sentence feels a bit knotted up in itself
Yes, verbose. Have tweaked.
Aftermath
  • Same question as in the lead - where is Henry while Margaret is raising hell?
Still in London 'supporting' York's government...
  • "Henry was accused of breaching the act long before that date" - in what way?
point. Have clarified what Henry was now accused of in breach of the act (and, I imagine, his coronation oath).

Okay, that's what I've got on first read-through. Again, I apologize for any questions that arise out of ignorance of English history, although I hope an outsider's perspective is helpful in terms of spotting things that may feel obvious to a more knowledgeable person. No rush on responses, cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: That's a great review, really helpful. To be honest, an outsider's review can be the most useful because that's 99% of the readership, I guess. Also, you hit (annoyingly!) on broad themes along with prose. I think I've addressed your points—all improvements—except where I'm sharpening a penknife! Cheers! SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good to me, there's just the background section and the question of the king's status during York's throne-touching incident that remains. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the few days' grace, Premeditated Chaos. I had another look and reduced the backgound section by 25%. I've also added a couple of sentences on what Henry was (not!!!) doing or thinking while this was going on. It's very vague, unfortunately. With no thought at all for the 21st-century historian, contempories didn't seem interested in what people weren't doing, only in what they were doing  :) but this should help clarify things a bit. Thoughts? SerialNumber54129 13:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick re-read and I think all of my concerns have been addressed. The top half of the background I think is much better in terms of setting the stage for someone with minimal knowledge. Happy to support this one! (Unbelievably rude of people to not have been thinking of Wikipedia editors when they were writing stuff down in the 1400s, we should put in a complaint)
By the by, unrelated to my support, I have another McQueen collection at FAC. I found your commentary on The Hunger very helpful; if you have the time and interest to have a look at this one, I'd be very grateful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the review and support, PMC; I enjoy your McQueen articles and will be happy to look in! Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]

Lead

What does this sentence mean?

Following much discussion—in which the king's serjeants-at-law and justices claimed that under the act, Henry was to retain the crown for life, but York and his heirs were to succeed him.

Background

In Late Medieval England, strong kings were seen as essential to sound governance and the maintenance of God's Peace.[5] Likewise, weak government was perceived as encouraging the collapse of law and order, and contemporaries saw this as happening in the last years of Henry's reign.

"Likewise" isn't right here. I'd just make a longer sentence and use "and".
Done.

York's claim to the throne

Warwick had met with York in Dublin while in their respective exiles.

Would "...while they were both in exile" be better?
Done.

York claims the throne

"When York entered London, he had his sword, and the Arms of England, born aloft before him, rather than the traditional Mortimer quarterings, emblazoned on his trumpeters' banners, in the manner of a king." I'm lost by the end of that sentence. What does it mean?

It was rather turgid! I've turned it into a couple of shorter sentences now?

Parliament

"Forty years later, the Act of Accord similarly decreed that Henry would retain the throne for his life, but that on his death, instead of descending to his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, it would do to York or York's heirs." "Do to" sounds awkward. I would reword this.

Done.

Aftermath

"Elsewhere in the country, events necessitated urgent government intervention. In Scotland, James II had captured Roxburgh Castle and was poised to march on Berwick." Scotland and England are different countries and were all the more so in the 15th century.

Blush!

"The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how it made them responsible for the civil war, became a mantra of Yorkist propaganda until the end of the dynasty in 1485." A mantra is something else. Would "theme" be a better word here?

Absolutely.

John (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking in, John, and for the suggestions. I've actioned them all—with a guilt trip for doing to Scotland in a couple of keystrokes what Edward I couldn't do in 30 years... SerialNumber54129 13:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. Any objections if I just take a general hack at the prose? As others have pointed out, it isn't quite there yet. John (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedia anyone can hack at, John  :) SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I'm owed that for spotting the England/Scotland thing. Still smarting from the Euros... John (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and please carefully inspect my edits to ensure I have not inadvertently changed any meaning. There may be one or two other bits and pieces, but those were the issues that were jumping out at me. John (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No John, that all looks good to me and reads nicely. Can't believe I never even mentioned the Wars of the Roses! The Homer Simpson of FAC, after all... SerialNumber54129 17:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, not at all, it's an excellent and well-written article, it just needed a little polish. Still ok? John (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks John, appreciated. SerialNumber54129 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: you should not ask; it is an impossibility. John can neither support nor oppose and to ask is infamia. The important thing is, the article underwent solid improvements and, as a result, the project wins. Thanks to all who took part on this page. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 20:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The page range of #21 seems pretty large. Is Boardman, A. and Boardman, A.W. the same author? Is there a logic behind some sources having an ISBN and others an OCLC? Regarding "The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-Century Political Community." there seems to be a 1987 and a 2002 edition, or is that just Google Scholar acting up? A similar question about "Historical Writing in England: c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century". "Shadow King: The Life and Death of Henry VI" seems to be seldom cited in the wider world. Does "The House of Lords in the Middle Ages: A History of the English House of Lords to 1540" have a publisher? Seems like we are using major publishers, although I can't speak much about completeness or the authors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JJE, taking your queries in turn:
  1. Ha! Especially as the book is <200 pages long in total. A couple of other numbers fell in there; now corrected.
  2. Boardman: yes. I tend to go by what's on the actual book I'm using, so sometimes just Andrew, sometimes A. W. Consistency is good though, so changed to the latter.
  3. ISBNs: Well, since they've only been in common use since the late 70s, WorldCat ascribes an OCLC number to works predating this, a form of digital object identifier for books and journals I guess, available from Worldcat (I pass no comment on the fact that Worldcat is owned by, err, OCLC inc; no COI there, then, even though Wikipedia treats Worldcat as gospel!). In this case, you'll see that only the pre-70s books (Armstrong, Bellamy, Brie) use OCLCs, the rest are journals.
    I'm sure this is pretty much standard practice at FAC these days, isn't it, using OCLCs to predate ISBN? Apologies @FAC coordinators: if I've been doing it wrong all this time.
    • Strictly speaking I'm answering from FA editing experience as opposed to FAC coord knowledge but I think in this case it amounts to the same thing. I’ve long employed OCLC for books that have no ISBN, and it's always met with everyone's approval. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good reason, but when I see inconsistencies, I generally query them unless the reason for the inconsistency is obvious. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Given-Wilson: Indeed, acc. Worldcat it's been reprinted several times, although not necessarily revised; I used the 1987 edition because it's the one that I bought when it came out, and I'm still lugging the tatty thing around since :)
  5. Gransden vol. II: Pretty much ditto; although, per WorldCat again, there have been several printings between 1982 and the present day. I use the 1996 printing of vol. II.
  6. Sacked Johnson; not sure what I was thinking of. There's a Winter King] by the highly reputable RS Thomas Penn, on Henry VII; could've been that. Anyway, I replaced it and tweaked the language accordingly.
  7. Enoch: yes, both publisher and location now filled. It's odd that the script didn't highlight it for me, though.
Thanks for looking it over, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Hopefully, all your points are clarified/addressed. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 17:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jo-Jo Eumerus is this a pass for you now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shushugah

[edit]

Hello Serial_Number_54129, a delightful article on a topic I know very little about. And a very accessible rewad, despite all the number of people.

  • Although her husband had publicly supported the act, the queen, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the disinheritance of her son. In this, she was joined by the majority of the English nobility, who also opposed York. -> explicitly state who her Husband is and change to their son unless there's a good reason.
    Agree with both—done.
  • Wiki link Yorkist government with House_of_York
    Done.
  • Wiki link the queen with Margaret of Anjou
    Done (sort of); I thought it was unfair that all the men were first-named (Henry, Richard etc) but she was just a noun! So linked her directly.
  • Include pages where it's part of a larger book, e.g Horrox SFN
    I'm guessing this is her ODNB article (and so also Pollard and Watts). It has something to do with the template; even though the version used is online, it presents it like a book. So it appears to need a page range but actually doesn't have one. And I got bored some years ago—as I think others did!—of fighting the bot that would randomly come along and regularly change it  :)
  • The diagram is incredibly helpful and I wish more articles had them. Relying on colors is not super accessible (for both screen-reader users and non users). That said, I still noticed color mismatches. I would replace the color maps {{Cyan|Light blue}} with {{color|#0eacf8}} and {{blue|Dark blue}} with {{color|#047cb6}}. See the corresponding color coded examples for matching dark blue light blue?. The red/black are matching as is. I need to think more what is best way to make them accessible. Perhaps also corresponding border styles (dotted, dashed, thickness) etc...
    Thanks for the kind words! the table was kind of fun but also a complete PITA considering I haven't got a technical bone in my body. I've replaced the light blue with Purple as a possibly temporary measure; but if you have any further suggestions along the lines you propose I'd appreciate hearing them! ACCESS hasn't, I'm afraid, embedded itself in the general FAC mindset yet.
  • Is York Protector, Lord Protector and Protector all referring to same title? If so, use full name the first time instead of third time
    Done.
  • Change Further readings to External links per MOS:LAYOUT
    The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away  :)
  • Thanks very much for looking in, Shushugah, a very pleasant surprise. Thank you, too, for your comments, which are appreciated. I've actioned them, except where I've explained otherwise. And I'm interested in your suggestions re. the chart. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 12:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 giving this a final round of reviews. I always find a few days in between helps me catch stuff I missed the first time round.

  • Replace This began systematically destroying York's and the Nevilles' Yorkshire estates with This began the systematic destruction of York's and the Nevilles' Yorkshire estates
    Done.
  • Lede can be shortened from son Edward, Earl of March, who was crowned King Edward IV on 28 June 1461 to son was crowned King Edward IV on 28 June 1461. We don't need his original title in the lede.
    Done.
  • Either italicize The Brut Chronicle in the quote, or remove The here
    Adjusted (although per the actual page name, not what I had previously guessed it to be).
  • suggest replacing had not attended and so argued that they did not consent to the act and nor were they bound by it with had not been in attendance, and thus had not consented to the act, nor were they bound by it
    This is slightly more tricky: "nor were they bound by it" sounds a definitive statement being given in wikivoice, whereas the source is more ambiguous: "...and could not be regarded as bound by [the act]". Perhaps a direct quote would better represent the opinion of a single historian.
  • I made accessibility adjustments to the graph. Still not exactly screen-reader accessible. Am thinking of ideas there
    Open to any improvements, of course.
  • What is the sort logic for orders of certain pairs? e.g (Philippa/Edmund Mortimer), (Henry Bolingbroke/Earl of Derby) and (Henry VI/Margaret of Anjou)
    Could you clarify, please? Basically, the first listed is the the relevant descendant. So, regarding Philippa and Edmund, she was the daughter, he merely her husband; Henry VI likewise the son of his father and Margaret, his wife; and to be honest, I can't see how Henry IV (an only (surviving) son) is a pair at all unless you mean his titles?
  • Haigh, P. A. and Haigh, P. not consistent in Works Cited
    Done.
  • Lewis, K. J is out of order ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well spotted, she got lost amid the Laynesmiths.
  • Thanks Shushugah, and no worries about waiting. If I were in a rush, I would have given up years ago  :) Thanks for these suggestions, I've got a couple of queries but nothing drastic. Thanks again, SerialNumber54129 20:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this nomination, even though there is no deadline 🎉 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much Shushugah, I appreciate your comments and edits, especially around MOS:ACCESS. If you've got any suggestions for my replies above, I'd like to implement them, but it's up to you, of course. Cheers! 🍻 SerialNumber54129 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

SN, can you add sourcing for the family tree? If everything was also in the text and sourced there I wouldn't ask but not every member/relationship is, e.g. Philippa of Hainault. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian Rose, is this what you were thinking, or a footnote? (Apologies for miscapitalising your name there.) Thanks for the suggestion! SerialNumber54129 13:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, tks. FTR, this was part of my coord-y pre-promotion checks, which I'll continue later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing... Most quotes are attributed, and some that aren't seem fine as is, but:

  • "take the full part" with York -- perhaps just paraphrase?
  • "find ... all such things as might be objected and laid against the claim" -- is this actually Henry, or the source?
  • "through the sinister labours of persons intending the king's destruction" -- said who?
  • "unrest, inward war and trouble, unrightwiseness, shedding and effusion of innocent blood, abusion of the laws, partiality, riot, extortion, murder, rape and vicious living" -- said who?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Act_of_Accord/archive1&oldid=1248520702"