Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas de la More/archive1

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 December 2023 [1].

---

Thomas de la More

Nominator(s): ——Serial 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, Arbcom elections are nearly upon us; I bet there's a few who wish they could simply tear up someone's winning ticket and replace it with that of their pals! But, unfortunately, it's not 1429, and we can't. If anyone can help improve this article, please walk right on in. Kettle's on.

Yes, I know the article is too short. Obvs. I must oppose promotion on the grounds of size ;) ——Serial 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Jens

I know little about the topic, but was able to broadly follow. My comments below:

• There seem to be a lot of typos still. I will list those I stepped over: in the area. and regularly acted; thef Nevilles; Earl of Salisbury''s; Delamore; for him.; the date given in 1501 document; even number disputed

Embartassing, but dealt with (except, I couldn't find Earl of Salisbury''s?)

First sentence in "Relations with the Earl of Salisbury". But from the wikitext, it seems you did it on purpose, but I can't see why. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Check. No idea where all that nowiki came from, but I think it's something to do with visual editor and possibly switching back to source editor; it's caught me a couple of times before.

• This, and his close connection to the Percy family's rivals, the Nevilles, eventually got involved – Can a circumstance get "involved"? Maybe write "Because of this, he got involved"?

Done.

• This resulted – Two subsequent sentences starting with "this" are not ideal.

Tweaked the second sentence, and added dates.

• link "Cumcatch" and "Stanford family"?

Unfortunately, no. I would have linked Cumcatch if it existed, and if it hadn't, I would written a stub. But it looks like it's literally just a farm! I hope it was bigger in his day  :)

• It is known that by 1429, he had sheltered one Robert Bell—a member of a local violent family—from the law – Is this the reason for the royal pardon?

No sources suggest it, and personally, I'd say that eight years was too long for the pardon to be needed (he would have been done long before that if anything had come of it). But I have added the result of the attack—an arbitration—which hopefully suggests that the events were unconnected?

• elected MP – what is MP, can you spell it out?

Good point.

• This put de la More in close contact with the earl, – What put him in close contact? I am not sure what this is referring to.

Clarified.

• was a retainer of the Earl of Northumberland, – "who was"? Or "who became"?

New source suggests from TC's marriage a few years earlier. Added, with ref.

• Among the dead were personal enemies of York and the Nevilles: the Duke of Somerset and the Earl of Northumberland respectively.[51] The king was returned to York's keeping,[52] and next month the duke held another parliament – What "Duke" is this talking about; the Duke of Somerset, the last Duke mentioned, is dead as stated in the text.

Clarified.

You now write "the he". I assume the "the" is too much, so that "he" refers to the king? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, sorry about that! Removed 'duke' but forgot to remove 'he'...

• The History of Parliament's Simon Payling – What is this?

Linked to it, it's a government research thing.

• For laypeople like me, such history articles are often difficult to follow because of all the names one needs to keep track of. This article, however, seems to make it much more complicated than it actually is: The names "Percy", "Thomas", and "Lord Egremont" all seem to refer to the same person. It would me much easier to read if the article would stick to one name.

Okay. I'm afraid I can't really see this; as far as I can see, I only call him Thomas Percy twice, once in the lead and on his first mention. All other times, he is called Egremont. When Percy is mentioned, it's in the context of the family, the House of Percy, which is linked. (Also, on one occasion, I mention "the Percy brothers") Could you show me if I've missed any? I could easily have a bliond spot, especially with the main guy being Thomas too...

I see now, and "Percy" usually refers to the family. Maybe you could change "Thomas and Richard Percy" to "Thomas (Lord Egremont) and Richard Percy", as I think it would help the reader with following the text. But I can understand if you have reservations here, so see it as an optional point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for being considerate; if you don't mind, I'll leave it for now, pending feedback? But I do get your point.

• political struggle for dominance in the west march between Percy and Neville – Which Neville is meant? If it is the Earl of Salisbury, than we should keep referring to him under that name.

As above, families of. Clarified.

• De la More "sent word of þe said manasse to þe Erle of Salesbury by his lettre and his seal to thentent þat his good lordshipp shuld shewe it to yowe and your counseill – Who is quoted here? Also, as a non-native speaker, I am unable to understand it.

Fair point. In fact, thinking about it, there are probably quite a few native speakers who wouldn't understand it! So I've transliterated it, and moved the original early mod. English to a footnote.

• if it came to him Henry's own chancellor rather than an ex-sheriff – "from" missing"?

Yep, thanks.

• Egremont was unable to challenge de la More claims. "De la More's" (with 's)?

Ditto!

• At the outbreak of the Wars of the Roses, he – "he" refers to "Lord Egremont", I assume?

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarified; not particularly repetitive I think.

---

Nice of you looking in today Jens Lallensack, it's appreciated. These are all excellent points. Thanks. Particularly for pointing out some rather silly typos! There are a couple of things I've queried above, but all of your suggestions are improvements, and I've happily gone along with them. Let me know what you think; thanks again! ——Serial 19:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear that my non-expert review was helpful. See two responses above, but I can support this nomination already. Nice work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jens Lallensack, I appreciate your review. You say a non-expert's one, but really, that's exactly what this kind of thing needs, isn't it, as you have shown. Little things that may seem obvious or I've just got used to, is doing the reader a disservice. Thanks for supporting this candidate. ——Serial 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Support by Borsoka

• ..., although they are known to have settled in Cumberland during the reign of King Henry III 1. I understand that Thomas's father is unknown. Can we say that anything is "known" about the de la More family? 2. Introduce Cumberland as a county because in the following sentence it is mentioned as such. 3. Perhaps the years when Henry III ruled could be mentioned in the text.

1. Very little I'm afraid! I've added another possible piece of info though, re. 1280. 2.Linked. 3.Regal years added.

• ...the truce with Scotland ... A wikilink?

Not only no links to this particular truce, there was no link to Anglo-Scottish truces generally. So I had to write the thing myself—hence the delay to my responses here. Apologies.

• ....Thomas was "almost certainly related to John... To which of the two Johns previously mentioned?

Inserted "[the latter] John"

• De la More may have trained as a lawyer.... Could this PoV be attributed to a scholar or could it be explained?

Introduced Peter Booth, edited previous first entry.

• De la More may have trained as a lawyer, but in 1415, de la More was discovered leading secret raiding parties across the Scottish border... Why is the but? Perhaps a separate sentence?

Done. As you say, connection at all.

• I would move the first sentence from note 3 to the main text if it is verified by a reference to a scholarly works that specifically mentions Thomas.

Great idea, done.

• It is known .... Could you explain it? I assume documentary evidence exists.

See below

• ...a local violent family... What does a local violent family mean?

See below

• ...Bell's victim... Previously, he/she is not mentioned in the text. I think Bell's crime should very briefly be described.

All three above done! Tricky, because not everything is in the source, but I've expanded the details a bit.

• It was in county administration and royal service, however, that his career was to be based... Why "however"?

Fixed.

• ...it was around now that his full-time public career began. He was variously appointed or elected to many important regional positions. Do we know why he chose a public career? Why was he appointed to important positions?

  Well, he didn't so much choose it, so much as it was expected of him. I've expanded these lines to clarify, hopefully.

• These included royal escheator for 1431 to 1432 for both counties and Sheriff of Cumberland for 1443–1444, 1447–1448 and 1452–1453. The sentence is unclear for me. I guess a comma, or a conjunction is missing.

  Add comma.

• This was an important position, as elections could take place under pressure from both the Crown and local nobility. Did an elector resist royal or aristocratic pressure, or represent it? Was Thomas a representative of royal/aristocratic will, or rather an opponent?

  The gentry are generally considered to have been looking out for themselves, first and foremost, unless a local lord was so powerful he could pack his own electors in (as Salisbury seems to have done in 1455), and de la <ore was definitely Salisbury's man. It's a bit OR to say all that simply, though!

• ...his annual income was valued at £20 per annum... Delete per annum.

  Done.

• Introduce Booth and mention his full name. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Linked above, moved from here.

Hi Borsoka, and many thanks for the review. Just to let you know I've seen it, but you gave me an idea which I want to follow up tomorrow. Might take most of the day, but I should make a start on your suggestions come the evening, if that's OK. They look interesting by the way 👍 ——Serial 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, many thanks again for your suggestions. I especially like the ones that involve added context, that's really useful stuff. I think I've addressed everything you ask—perhaps you could have a look. Cheers, ——Serial 16:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• A wikilink to protector? Richard of York is not listed among the Lord Protectors in the relevant WP article.

He's second on the list ;) but the sourcing isn't up to much! Thanks, linked.

• Indeed. :)

• ...turned into armed struggle... I would name the Wars of the Roses.

Done.

• ...esq., alias gent., alias late of London Could you link or explain the abbreviations and the term "late"?

Have linked gent and added a footnote re. the latter.

• ...the North West England Is "the" necessary?

Well spotted!

• Thomas Percy is not introduced as Lord Egremont in the main text.

Ah, done.

• A link to "west march", "keeper of the truce", and "vault"?

Links to Scottish Marches, Conservator of the peace and vault added.

• He was never knighted. Some context or explanation? I may mention this fact before mentioning his death. Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Very tricky this one, because I suppose I'm asserting a negative. But I've given various examples of what else he was formally called instead. The odd thing is that since he is called an armiger at one point, he is obvs considered able to afford the status, but why he never does, we don't know. Irritating, actually.

All your further points attended to, I think, Borsoka, if you're happy with them. Cheers! ——Serial 19:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete the reference to his birth date in the lead because it is verified in the main text. Why c.?

Ah, MOS:CIRCA says the template is preferred on first use.

• Sorry, I was unclear. The main text does not say that the year of birth is uncertain.

• Delete the references to his death dates in the lead because they are verified in the main text. Why not {{circa)} 1460 or {{circa)} 1460/1 June 1459?

I will go all out on an investigation.

• ...he was a loyal royal official... Loyal?

Removed.

• ...making him more influential than his income would suggest For me the reference to his income is not informative in context. Perhaps "his relatively low income/his relatively low annual income (reporedly £20)"?

Have a look now; I've added some more context—average incomes etc—and a footnote. Does this help?

• ...his men were beaten and threatened... According to the main text, de la More was also assaulted and he was threatened (not his men).

Adjusted the lead to tally.

• As a result, he could not collect money for the Treasury as a sheriff was instructed. I would merge this sentence into the previous one because this is also claimed by de la More.

I've tightened it, but not sure how to merge it exactly. What did you have in mind?

• The exact date of de la More's death is unknown, but it was sometime between 1459 and 1461. Is this necessary? The uncertainty is indicated in the first sentence. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

True; removed and the sentence has been tightened.

Thanks for these Borsoka, all helpful. Just that second point is going to be tricky, I think, but should solve itself one way or another. Many thanks! ——Serial 15:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think only the dates of his birth and death are still pending. Thank you for this excellent article. I always enjoy reading "micro-history", and the life of this guy may assist us to better understand real life in the Late Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to leave the death cites for the time being, as I think it probably qualifies as material likely to be challenged or questioned if I take them away. And surely a range such as 1395–1459–1461 is misleading; it would imply he took two years to die! (as well as looking a bit bizarre!).

FWIW, I was in agreement with what you say about the birth using {{circa}} (or not). But there is a problem there, too. The RS literally does both: the title (see in the bibliography, Rawcliffe|2019a) says he is "c. 1395", while her text says, "On his own testimony, Thomas was born in 1395". She's a historian and would (a bit like us!) prefer independent sources to his own word. There were, as today, sound reasons for lying about one's age in the Middle Ages; not to enable underage boozing, but to come into an inheritance early (see our article Proof of Age in medieval England). I might be able to add a line about "not recorded in any other source", but of course, that may not be true, and it must be extremely OR to try and read the mind of the source!

Thanks for your generous words. You've helped greatly improve the article, and as you suggest, "real life" and ordinary people are understudied things in this period. Here's to levelling down! ——Serial 17:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The year of birth in the lead is still problematic: that he was born around 1395 is not mentioned in the main text. I would also delete the citations from the first sentence of the lead for the years of birth and death. I would not add a range for his death date either but I would say c. 1460 (but this last suggestion is not crucial). Borsoka (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Apologies for being dense, but I've just realised what you mean! Of course, the cites for death are superfluous. I have removed them immediately. I'd rather not use c. 1460, as I say; I think the range is just a bit too broad for that (if it was a year either side, but not a couple of years, I think). Thanks for sticking with this, and apologies for being slightly slow occasionally! ——Serial 08:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to support the promotion of this excellent article. I also deleted the unnecessary references to his birth date. Borsoka (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Tim O'D's flyby

Why is the IB arranged with all his roles squeezed into one bar? Should it not be something like:

IB example

Thomas de la More Arms of de la More, blazoned A cross flory, with a scallop in dexter chief. Sheriff of Cumberland In office 1430, 1443–1446, 1447–1448, 1452–1453 MP for Cumberland In office 1420, 1429, 1450, 1455 Escheator of Cumberland In office 1431–1435 Justice of the peace In office 1447–1448, 1448–1452, 1452–death Personal details Born c. 1395 Died 1459, 1460 or 1461 Resting place Brampton Old Church chancel 54.564668°N 2.455868°W / 54.564668; -2.455868 Nationality English Spouses Maud Sandford (or Idione) Margaret Children Margaret Isabel Occupation Royal official Member of Parliament

References

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, Tim O'Doherty, because I am a techno-luddite and/or incompetent. You can't imagine how much trouble I took faffing around with {{plainlist}} until it was right. And then felt really proud of it  :) thanks for this, it's a great improvement and looks much cleaner, tidier now. Cheers! ——Serial 08:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 - No prob, glad to be of help. Thought it might've been a deliberate stylistic choice, but thought I'd ask. Might do a full review later down the line; we'll see. Nice work anyhow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• and de la More's wife's included both Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland and Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland as her feoffees - de la More's wife's what?

Thanks Tim good spot. I obviously couldn't decide how to phrase a simple sentence... now rephrased and rephrased again. Many thanks for the latest flyby :) ——Serial 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Just realised you were drawing my attention to some recent edits, Tim; thanks for that. Didn't spot it on the watchlist... first thing in the morning of course!

I'd like, that being the case, to go on record and thank Jonesey95 for their recent copy-edit, which I wholly accept, to the point that, if they had made the same suggestions here, I would have implemented them myself. I also apologise for my ungentlemanly response to his innocent fixing of linter errors (or having "something equally inane to moan about" as I put it!) which was extremely ungracious and unnecessarily abrasive. Please accept my apologies, Jonesey95, and thanks for your help! ——Serial 16:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries! I just AGF'd and assumed that you were being sincere. I am good at finding inane things to fix! You can count on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't seen this; yeah, I was pointing out the clarify tag. Seen this is being promoted, so unluckily for you you missed out on one of my reviews ;). One fewer thing on my mounting to-do list anyway. Congrats on another FA though, hope to see it on the Main Page soon. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Tim, you should have left a note. But happy to reduce your workload. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem Gog, don't let my sluggishness stand in the way of progress! Cheers - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, I hadn't spotted it myself! But I look forward to a review (*gulps* as the realisation hits him...!). Possibly. Might be something a bit different. Thanks to Gog too, for being on the ball  :) Talking of which, I've left DM (below) hanging elsewhere... ——Serial 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Although never particularly wealthy". I would delete "particularly" as vague and unhelpful.

Done.

• "He entered the circle of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury at some point in the 1440s, making him more influential than his income would suggest." "than his income would suggest" is clumsy and unnecessary as it is covered in the previous sentence.

Removed.

• "De la More did not only play his part in the procedural aspects of elections. He was himself elected Member of Parliament" This too wordy. All you need is "De la More was elected Member of Parliament".

Indeed!

• "Leigh's case was weak on its own merits". What case? You say above that he was a victim of chicanery.

True; clarified that he didn't have much support in the first place. (If he had, would the chicanery have worked...?)

• "The History of Parliament's Simon Payling". I assume you mean that Payling is the author of a volume of the history, but it is a vague and confusing wording.

Hopefully I've clarified that they are a trust and that he has written with them.

• "predominantly due to Scottish raids which had "lyth wast and destroyed"". This appears to contradict the charge against Egremont, and you did not mention Scottish raids in describing More's shrievalty.

Excellent points. I was able to find some specific troubles from DLM's own shrieval year (kidnaps etc), and also the history of poor tax returns the area had.

• You have a section on 'Early life and marriage', which has a paragraph on his ancestry, but the paragraphs on his marriages and children are second and fourth in the 'Later career and death' section. I suggest putting these three paragraphs in a 'Family' section.

I'm with you in spirit. And in that spirit, and broken into a 'Family' section and discussed his wife, mentioned daughters. But the stuff that they do either after he dies or around that time I'd rather leave at the end of his life rather than introduce it so early.

• "Isabel was subsequently recorded in her own IPM". IPM is not explained.

Well, it's linked + footnoted in 5th para 'Royal office' section, but the abbreviation was committed. Rectified.

• "This did not prevent her marriage to William Vaux of Catterlen[96] (died 1481)". [96] appears to be an error.

Can't see how, Dudley—could you enlighten?

• I see that it was an error which you have corrected. You put the ref inside the link. The problem has disappeared since you moved the closing square brackets to the correct place. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Roland helped posthumously administer de la More's estate with Margaret." This appears to say that Roland acted after his own death. Also, what does "with Margaret" mean? That Roland and Margaret acted jointly?

Removed posthumously and added 'jointly'.

• "He was probably buried in the chancel". Presumably "He" means Thomas de la More, but grammatically it appears to mean the Earl of Warwick. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it does, and clarified.

Thanks for looking in, Dudley; I can't deal with your (excellent) points immediately due to currently bombing up the M11 (in so far as one can bomb up the M11 on a Friday afternoon!) as the next couple of days are with the in-laws, I'll see what I can do from the middle of the Norfolk potato fields!  ;) Cheers, ——Serial 16:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, Dudley Miles, I appreciate the thorough review, as ever. Just one thing I'd like you to clarify if you would. Have actioned all your other points, hopefully to your satisfaction. ——Serial 21:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: So I fixed it without even knowing it! Just about sums me up. Thanks very much for the support, and for all your help. ——Serial 21:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "His family had lived in the county since the 13th century." Does this really need to be the second sentence? It feels like an interruption.

Absolutely. Irrelevant to the lead.

• "This had prevented him from collecting money for the Treasury." Why had?

Clarified about the lack of money, also that it was as much down to the Scots as Egremont.

No, I meant why "had prevented" rather than "prevented"?

I was reading far too much onto it! Sorry about that.

• "It was by now customary for the Crown" perhaps "by then"

Done.

• "sheriff and Justice of the peace" I keep a safe distance from MOS:JOBTITLES but this looks odd.

Which I could keep such a safe distance! But yes, lower-cased.

• "This indicates, argues the prosopographer Gilbert Bogner, that de la More was a propertied man, effectively at knightly level, and at least "prominent" member of the gentry.[34] " Is there an "a" missing somewhere before "prominent"?

Indeed, added.

• "The King was returned to York's keeping,[67] and next month he held another parliament.[68]" I would think a "the" before "next".

Done.

• "shrievalty" (used twice). Is this really necessary? wouldn't "tenure as sheriff" (if that's what it means as I suppose) be more reader-friendly?

OK, I swapped out the second occurrence. Keeping the first usage to avoid repetition, but would that still be not user-friendly?

I guess it's clear from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a contradiction between notes 8 and 18?

Very well spotted! And the odd thing is they're both from the same source and page. So I've basically erased FN18 and added how interchangeable the terms were to FN8, since the same guy says both. Is that suitable?

That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That's it. Most interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice review Wehwalt, though provoking. I think I've attended to all your points, but let me know if you feel anything unsatisfactory needs to be tweaked further? Cheers, ——Serial 19:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Just a couple of notes above. Didn't mean to provoke, still, whatever improves the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciate that Wehwalt. Apologies are in order: that^^^ was a typo. I meant, "thought provoking"! You are not provoking at all :) ——Serial 20:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Of the five images, two have alt text and three don't. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Added, thanks. ——Serial 17:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Gog, many thanks! ——Serial 18:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Habitual I know, but spot-check upon request. Why does #8 have "p. n.5." and #9 doesn't? #22 likewise has a pp with a single number, then a n. #38 and #74 also have such a n note. Is there a logic between using ISBN for some sources and OCLC for others? PhD theses from what I know are so-so sources; . I'll ping Ealdgyth to check over potentially omitted sources or iffy sources that I can't quickly check; this topic is more in her wheelhouse than in mine. Pedantic I know but I wonder if the Parliament Rolls of Medieval England and the Rawcliffe sources need to be formatted like websites, isn't that more like a book? What are V.C.H, T.N.A and H.M.S.O? While I don't know many of the people cited, it seems like there are prominent historians and many university publishers among the sources. The M. E. D. (2023). source can probably reformatted so that it doesn't have that URL fragment and rather says where the website is hosted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll respond with a list if that's OK:

• FN8 is to a webpage, which obviously doesn't have a page number, but it does use footnotes. So have changed the param to |loc=; I think the footnotes are small enough to warrant distinguishing (i.e., easily overlooked).
• FN9, because it does reference the main page.
• FN22: this caught me out. Compare it to FN18; this is also a page + footnote, but only uses |p=. But see, it also hasn't got a comma? I realise now, that that comma makes the template think there are two pages, which would of course require |pp=. I've removed the comma so it only needs a single page ref. FN38 uses |pp= because it's citing multiple pages, even without the footnote, while FN74 rightly only needs (and uses) |p=.
• Naturally. ISBNs are used for books, where appropriate. OCLCs are used where they would not be; theses, journal articles and books printed before books were assigned a standardised internationally recognised number (pretty much everything pre-1970).
• I don't know what a so-so source is, as such, but the thesis has been (sparingly) used and is by a published expert in the field at an accredited ("respectable", I suppose) institution.
• Indeed, Ealdgyth knows how much I respect her work. I imagine she'll be the first to suggest that 15th-century sheriffs are about as much her wheelhouse as 11th-century bishops are mine. Or horses, for that matter. Apart from betting on.
• PROME is a website. I admit Rawcliffe is an interesting one. The way the History of Parliament Trust works is that they print a multi-volume work, and then a few years later, it gets published on the website (sound financial sense, presumably, on the assumption that many people buy the thing in the first place!). So in Rawcliffe's close, her 'volumes' are old enough—pub. 1993—to be by now online online, and that's what I used, so must I cite. But Payling's edition was only published ?last year, so won't be online for another few years. As such, with him, I had to use the dead-tree source.
• Good point, full names now used.
• True. In the world of faculty dinners and cheap canapés, those who are still with us are great folks.
• Another good spot. Swapped out that dangly ref for Univ. of Michigan, who seem to host MED.

Thanks JJE, all your suggestions carefully considered, mostly actioned and all appreciated. Let me know if I've misunderstood you anywhere, particularly re. technical stuff. Cheers, ——Serial 20:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a so-so source per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship: Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Depending on how this thesis was written and afterwards used as a source, it may or may not meet high-quality RS requirements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I think it probably conforms, then. Booth himself was subsequently published on the topic (used in the article to a greater degree). He was supervised by Dr. D. T. Williams—who has an undergraduate prize named for him—with input from A. J. Pollard (Teesside) and Bill Sheils (York). The thesis itself has been cited several times in the literature ([2] from Boydell & Brewer, [3] from Cambridge University Press, [4] from Bloomsbury, etc.). Finally, as I said, it is used sparingly—four discrete occasions—and to provide context for material already sourced. As for Leicester... well, they might have behaved appallingly—f'ing appallingly, frankly (see: [5], [6], [7], [8]) in recent years—five years after Booth submitted, the THE ranked them as 197th globally. Perhaps, unfortunately. Cheers, ——Serial 13:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems like it might pass muster, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo. Is that a pass for that source, or for the whole source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It is for that source and upon thinking also for the rest. On condition that someone with more familiarity with the sources doesn't object and that we don't need a spot-check that is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.