Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick/archive1

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's quite close to FA-status; content-wise I think it should be up to scratch. But when I've nominated articles for FA before, there's normally been some comments about the language. I would really appreciate if someone would go over and wash the language. Also, I'd like to know if the meaning comes across clearly.

Thanks, Lampman (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have read the lead and the first three sections, and my comments are shown below. I will continue reading, and provide further comments later.

• Lead
  • I'm not sure about putting the Latin tags in the very first line; it's a bit unwelcoming to the reader. The terms properly belong, with explanations, in the body of the article, but I personally wouldn't lead the article with them.
  • "Warwick eventually ended up restoring Henry VI" is not very elegantly put. At the very least I think "eventually" should go, and "to the throne" should be added to the phrase. But I still don't like "ended up", and it would be good if that could be rephrased, too.
• Becoming Warwick
  • It's not clear why Richard's claim to be heir to the earldom of Warwick was superior to that of Edward Beaufort, which you also refer to.
    • I've put an explanation in the reference.
  • "By 1445 Richard had been knighted". Any indication as to why (he was only 17). You say he appears to have entered King Henry's services at an early age, but you seem to be talking about 1449, when he was 21 years old. Was that really an "early age"?
    • Probably to coincide with the coronation, it was not uncommon to be knighted at that age. I've removed the "early age" thing.
  • We learned earlier that Richard had become heir to the earldom, but now we hear that he had become the earl. When, and in what circumstances, did he succeed?
• Beginning disputes
  • Cryptic section title - not sure I understand it
  • "took custody of the lordship of Glamorgan" - what does "took custody" mean, in this context?
  • On 27 March the political situation had changed sufficiently for the duke of York to be appointed protector of the realm. A few issues here:-
    • Shouldn't the first word be "By"?
    • The change in the political situation in unexplained. Any brief details available?
    • Who appointed him protector?
  • I suggest "Marching at London" should be "Marching to London"
  • "By February next year..." It would be better to say which year.
  • I'm not clear as to what "resulted" in Warwick's appointment as Captain of Calais. Perhaps "resulted" is not the right word?
  • The term "staple" should be explained, not just linked
• York triumphant
  • Again I have trouble with a section title. I take this to refer to the triumph of the House of York. But until now, "York" has been used to describe Richard, duke of York (who dies in this section). So I'd reconsider this title.
  • "...fresh off his victory" - "from his victory" would be more usual
  • Not sure about "congregation" in this parliamentary context. Perhaps "assembly" would be better?
  • We have the first mention here of a political establishment. Who would they be?
  • "...a compromise was arrived at instead" should be simplified to "a compromise was agreed"
  • In "up until that point", "up" isn't necessary.
  • "...the prince was proclaimed King Edward IV" - by whom?

Perhaps you would consider these points. I will continue the review later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Later:

• Warwick' apex
  • "Altogether..." (one word), not "All together..."
  • What is £7,000 worth in today's values? It might be worth consulting Measuringworth.co,. which will give you a present-day value for any sum in any year.
    • Thanks, but that only seems to go back to 1830. In any case, it's hard to make any meaningful comparison with a much less money-based society. The way I see it, if you're the richest guy in the country, you're pretty rich.
  • There is unnecessary repetition of the phrase "rose up in rebellion" ("...the north rose up in rebellion..." and "Ralph Percy rose up in rebellion") in close proximity.
  • "The English decided..." Wasn't this a civil war, so weren't they all English?
• Early tensions
  • "...the promotion of George" - at this stage we need to be reminded of who "George" is.
  • "...who now had been created treasurer..." - "now" is unnecessary
  • "...which was not amended..." I'm not sure of this choice of word. Wouldn't "lessened", or "ameliorated" convey a better meaning?
• Rebellion and death
  • Robin of Rededsale - suggest should have full rather than single quotes
  • Edward "revealed" the plot? Surely, "discovered"?
  • We need a helpful reminder here as to who Edward Prince of Wales was (at least, I did)
  • the word "attainted" is uncommon and needs to be explained.
  • Aftermath: I wonder what the relevance is to this article of the distant fates (in one case 60 years' distant) of the duke of Clarence's children.
    • The relevance is that this is the end of the Neville line, I've tried to make that clearer.
  • Family tree. A note of explanation should be added, showing the distinction between plain and dotted lines, and also explaining the more complex relationships, e.g. that of Edward Prince of Wales to the Neville family.

That completes my review. Most of the issues I have raised can I think be dealt with easily. On the face of it images and sources look fine, but I am not expert in these areas. Overall, this is a classy article which I would expect in due course to see at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for a thorough and helpful review! Lampman (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)