Wikipedia:Peer review/Ralph Neville/archive1

Ralph Neville

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FA and would greatly appreciate help with prose, comprehensiveness, and accessibility to the general reader. Any and all comments are welcome and greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: For some reason, before I started this I thought I was going to review an article about Warwick the Kingmaker. Ah, well! (they were probably obscurely related in some fashion). Here are my offerings:-

As far as I know, they were only distantly related, if that. Nothing I've got gives Ralph's parents, and just now I noticed that Young actually states in one of the family trees that Ralph's father is utterly unknown. Adding that into the mix now. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

Image caption: "Ralph Neville was buried..." Unless he's been moved, shouldn't that be "is"?
My source says "was buried" and I'm not inclined to change that, since it doesn't say he still IS there. A lot of these folks got moved around and lost... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I read the wrong books, but I have only ever seen "Great Seal" capitalised.
Fixed, although I suspect I'll have someone come along and uncapitalize it sooner or later. There seems to be a concerted effort to put everything but people's names in lowercase lately... have you noted the recent trend towards "battle of Hastings" ? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have, and I hate it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

"of the brothers, at least Ralph was illegitimate." Could be phrased better. Personally I wouldn't add this information on to the end of a sentence, I'd begin the section: "Neville, who was illegitimate, had at least three brothers..." And then, later: Neville was also related..."
Went with your suggestions, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having described him as "Neville" in the first paragraph, he becomes "Ralph" in the second and third paragraphs. To avoid confusion with brothers it may be better, in this section, to use "Ralph" consistently, in this s ection at least.
I've standardized... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are "Hugh de Neville" (1st para) and "Hugh Neville" (2nd para) one and the same?
Yes, fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ralph's activities for years after 1207 are not known". Needs "immediately" inserted before "after"
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"By" rather than "on" 14 April 1214
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some rephrasing advised in final sentence to avoid recurrence of "the king".
Try this? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal service and Bishop of Chichester

A couple of useful facts worth inserting at the start of this section would be the date that Henry III became king, and the fact that he was nine years old.
I added regnal dates to the body text, and added an explanatory footnote on the exact coronation date and Henry's age. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I got completely entangled in the pubctuation and sub-clauses of the following sentence, and I can't work out what it means."Neville was also vice-chancellor of England, and with the retirement of Richard Marsh, the chancellor, to Marsh's see of Durham to handle ecclesiastical affairs after his election as bishop in 1217, Neville in fact, if not in name, held the office of chancellor itself."
I've tried to sort that out... see if it works. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of too much being attempted in one sentence is: "In May and June 1219, when instability threatened the royal government, Neville was ordered by Pandulf, the papal legate, to remain in London with the great seal while a council was held at Gloucester which resulted in royal government being controlled by Hubert de Burgh the Justiciar, Pandulf, and Peter des Roches, the Bishop of Winchester." More digestible bitesizes needed.
Broken up. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Chancellor

I think, in the idiom, that appointments are "made" rather than "done".
Oops, yeah. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When did the royal minority end? You are vague about this in the previous section (perhaps April 1223, perhaps December, maybe not until later). But now it appears that Neville's appointment in May 1226 was still within the royal minority. Clarification necessary.
I"m vague because the process was vague - there were stages in the takeover of government by Henry - and they all are rather vague. (It could be argued that Henry III never really "grew up"... he always seems to have sloughed off a portion of royal government onto others...) We're hampered a bit by the lack of any comprehensive scholarly biography of Henry III here. I've added an explanatory footnote, that help? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the distinction between a department of state and a department of government?
None. The distinction is between an actual department of government and a department of the royal household here. I've edited a bit to be a bit more clear. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"splitting off the liberate rolls from the letters close in 1226 and revived the keeping of the charter rolls in 1227." "Splitting" and "revived" are inconsistent.
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"However, Neville also employed clerics..." Pronoun preferable, and "also" unrequired.
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a general blitz on "also". I count 12 in the article, many redundant or avoidable
Whacked on a few. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...an agreement that tried to resolve..." Agreements are not active, they are the results of actions, so "an agreement that would resolve"
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"in the end the agreement did not end..." (repetition)
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
State to what office William de Raley was elected
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion: de Raley's election was quashed, and Neville was selected in his place. Then: "However, this election to Winchester was quashed in 1239". To what election does this refer? Neville's selection?
Hopefully clarified now... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Triple "ands" in the sentence beginning: "Valence was the uncle of..."
Broke up a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try and be clear as to whether there is a distiction between the "great seal" and the "seal" in the latter parts of this section
HOpefully a bit better... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"although the regent appears to have had some responsibility..." - perhaps name the regent in question
The actual source used here doesn't name the regent, so I've put this in a footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death and writings

I believe it's OK to use the ordinals in a date range, thus "between 1st and 4th February". I think "between 1 and 4 February" would be fine, but the extra "February" is somewhat heavy-footed.
I just removed the first February - every time I try to use ordinals, I get whacked on the knuckles. I'm tired of dealing with the whole MOS crowd - they drive me nuts. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence needs reconstructing: "Besides promoting the career of his brother William,[5] one of Neville's clerks, Silvester de Everdon, served the bishop in the chancery until the bishop left the chancellorship, and then continued in the chancery until 1246, when he was selected as Bishop of Carlisle." At present it conflates two quite separate things - Neville's promotion of his brother's career, and Silvester de Everdon's unrelated activities.
See if what I just changed it to works better.. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more. Excellent scholarship; prose needs a little tweaking and primping to reach the usual high standard. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the votes of the Manchester jury

I'm not terribly happy about using Ralph's surname but pretty much everywhere else using Christian names for the other parties, as in "Hugh and Neville subsequently worked together ...", particularly as Neville could quite easily be a Christian name as well.

I've tried to make it a bit less annoying to you... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

"When the king returned to England after 1214, Neville remained in royal service until at least May 1216, although without custody of the Great Seal." I can't quite parse that. What has the king returning To England ("when the king returned to England") got to do with Nevill remaining in royal service until 1216? Could this be recast as "After the king returned to England ..."?

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal service and Bishop of Chichester

"Neville was keeper of the royal seal under the new king, Henry III (r. 1216–1272)[a] from about 6 November 1218." As we haven't been told that King John died in 1216, this seems a little out of the blue. In other words, why was there a new king?

Added a small bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the first acts subsequently sealed ...". Harking back to the capitalisation issue you raised earlier, I always prefer "Act" when talking about a law, to distinguish it from an "act" such calling someone a cunt.

Ah, but it wasn't a "law" - changed "acts" to "documents" Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... Neville was responsible for all the duties of the chancellorship and most of the power of that office". I'm unclear what distinction you're trying to tease out here between "duties" and "power".

Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In May and June 1219, when instability threatened the royal government, Neville was ordered by Pandulf, the papal legate, to remain in London with the Great Seal". So he was ordered twice, once in May and then again in June?

Nope - but would "In May-June 1219... " be correct? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The council resulted in royal government being controlled by Hubert de Burgh the Justiciar ...". What does "government being controlled by" mean in this context? Weren't Hubert and his mates effectively the government. Was there another government they were controlling?

Theoretically, the government in this period WAS the king. It was very unusual that a non-royal was in control of the governmental functions - that's what's meant. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... but was then elected as bishop of Chichester on about 1 November 1222". Any particular reason why you've chosen to link "bishop" (uncapitalised) here?

I did not. I'm sure this was some well meaning idiot "helping" me by linking totally unnecessary things. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This effectively meant the end of the royal minority, although this did not effectively come about until December 1223 and even then was still limited by the fact that the king had not yet officially been declared of age, so that the ban on non-time limited grants remained in force." Can't quite my head round that. Apart from the rather ugly "effectively ... effectively", was Henry declared of age in December 1223?

He was declared of age for a few actions, but not totally declared of age then. It's sort of like they said "he's of age for driving but he can't vote" yet. I warned Brian above that it was complicated... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]