Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loveday, 1458/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2020 [1].

---

Loveday, 1458

Nominator(s): ——SN54129 20:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Coming back in with the medieval masters, as they say. This time, King Henry VI tries to save the world as we he knew it, drawing together warring factions within his own government. "Did it work? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and 15th-century Britain fell deeper into depression". Not surprising really when he was trying to persuade people to hold hands and make up—literally—while each had a small army at his back! It was really Henry's last throw of the dice when it came to wearing the trousers; after his failed initiative, his wife became all the more powerful and war was right around the corner. Usual stuff. Anyway, if anyone wants to comment or suggest stuff, go ahead and welcome. Cheers everyone, ——SN54129 20:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

I will do a little copy editing, then get on with a proper review. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that one, or anything, can be "easily malleable". (Note 1.)
  • Manipulable.
• "and eternal masses were paid for the souls of all who had died" Should that be 'paid for for ... '?
  • With a comma?

I wouldn't, but it's permissible if you wish.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The House of Lords chose the Duke of York—as the King's closest adult relative—to command" "to command" is not, IMO, readily understandable as what you want it to mean. Can I suggest 'as Protector'?
  • Good idea, done.
• Note 3: If you are going to use a word like "ecclesiast", could you link it?
  • Heh  :) linked.
• Note 4: "Salisbury's "reckoning" of all the damage caused to his estates during the course of the feud". "the feud", what feud?
  • "...with the Percies".

Works for me.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Often one of them would be appointed an umpire in case of a deadlock." Would they be appointed preemptively at the start of the process, or only if a deadlock arose?
  • Clarified that it was near the beginning, although can't say much more accurately than that I'm afraid.

• "He summoned a great council to Westminster" Link "great council"?
  • Magnum Concilium.

I assume that it wasn't the curia regis?

You assume correctly. Only Wikiedia could use these names! Cheers for the spot.

• "Henry ... led the parade[80] from Westminster to London. Leading procession were Somerset and Salisbury" So who led? And should that be 'a parade'?
  • True: How about he —joined his wife and nobles on a celebratory procession?

Good.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Salisbury's son Sir John Neville was arranged to marry a ward of the Queen" Is there a better word than "arranged"?
  • They were, of course, betrothed, so odd not to just use the word!
• "The Headmaster Paul Johnson" Headmaster?
  • Per, non-false title? "The headmaster", rather than "Headmaster Johnson".

Ah. My main point is why are we being informed that Johnson is a, or the, headmaster? Does this give his opinion additional weight. Is he also a parish councillor?

CLASSIC :D fair point. This stems from my perennial problem about having to quote various people for things I can't put in WP's voice, but then, of course, my imagination regularly fails me once I've used The scholar/The historian/The medievalist, etc. So that was an excuse to use something completely different. but you're right, his headmastership is pretty damned irrelevant  :) ——SN54129 13:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The scholar David Grummitt, the Loveday illustrated the" A few too many "the"s. Lacking a 'To'?
  • Yes: added a to, changed second "the" to a this.

That's it for my first run through. See what you make of it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

All good stuff, thanks very much Gog the Mild. Just a couple of queries, if you can opine. ——SN54129 15:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I have inserted some opining. I shall no doubt be supporting, despite the lack of nuns, sieges, conjugal rights cases or the Sheriff of Nottingham being beaten up in an alley, but let me brood on it for a couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, very dull this one Gog the Mild. Still, you never know what's around the corner...murdered watermelons perhaps  :) Loved the crack about the parish councillor. ——SN54129 13:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

We aim to please. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Further nit-picking

• "The King's award" Lose the "The".
• Johnson should be introduced at first mention - second para of The King's award.
• I'm not sure about "The Loveday" as a section header and would welcome thoughts. IAR?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

cheers Gog. Did them first two. Sigh. If we IAR on the third, it'll get continually changed back, so no point encouraging it...how about ==Loveday, 25 March==? ——SN54129 13:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I suppose. Your usual painstaking job. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That "suppose" sounds grudging GtM!  :) If you prefer an IAR job on the header, I honestly don't mind. ——SN54129 13:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the support though, many thanks! ——SN54129 13:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It was a little grudging, but only because you are right. "The Loveday" is clearer and less messy than something like "Loveday, 25 March", which I assume is why you went with it in the first place. I think that I would prefer to leave it; but you are correct, it would continually be changed and you're the one who would have to keep explaining. So "Loveday, 25 March" is probably least worst. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That was it. After all, the section is for the day itself, rather than "The Loveday", the broader topic. I'll ask others who may pop along though, a consensus to proactively use the def article would go a long way. ——SN54129 14:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt

Interesting article, not much to criticise:

• " after his title of Duke of York.[note 1] The Duke of York felt increasingly excluded from government," I would separate the twice-given titles.

• • Excellent spot. I've split them up with a small date and changed to he.

• "The House of Lords chose the Duke of York—as the King's closest adult relative—to command. " The word "command" makes it sound military, though I am sure that was a large part of it, is that the best word?

• • Agree with you both. Now "Protector".

• "They wrote to Henry regarding their fears. They emphasised their loyalty to the King." Surely these sentences could be combined?

• • Of course, thanks! How about, They wrote to Henry regarding their fears, and emphasised their loyalty to him.

• When you mention Calais, you might want to mention it was English-occupied.

• • Added a short footnote.

• Is it "a Loveday" or "a loveday"?

• • I've gone through and capitalised where it's this particular loveday and lower-cased wheer discussion referes to lovedays generally or other lovedays.

• "unhinderred" unhindered?

• • D'oh! Of course.

• "Another probable consequence of the Loveday deliberations may have been that in May, Salisbury's son Sir John Neville was arranged to marry a ward of the Queen." was arranged? Is this OK in Britlish?

• • Yep, changed to betrothed.

• "The Headmaster Paul Johnson" Should headmaster be capped? (also, are we using that term these days?)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• • I've uncapped it. But not sure what other terms to use. Although it does remind me of "Ed Rooney, Dean of Students" sounding like he's Dirty Harry  :)

Thanks very much Wehwalt, always a pleasure! I think I've addressed your suggestions, hopefuly to your satisfaction. All the best! ——SN54129 15:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Support Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hope you're keeping safe, Wehwalt. Thanks for that though! ——SN54129 13:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, hope you are too.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• The king's portrait has multiple alts
• File:Old_St_Paul's.jpg: what's the original source of this image, and what's the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Nikkimaria—got rid of an alt, but went and got rid of the St Paul's pic totally. Swapped out for a contemporary image, which is more suited as it also shows a procession. I think I've cited it / licensed it OK? ——SN54129 13:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, as ever  :) ——SN54129 13:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Intriguing topic..

Lead

• First sentence - ...was a ritualistic reconciliation that took place at St Paul's Cathedral on 25 March 1458. - the word "reconciliation" to me begs to have a "between" and factions after it....

• English politics had become increasingly factional during Henry's reign, and this had been exacerbated in 1453 when he became mentally incapacitated. - the "and this" comes across as a bit wonky. Am about to go to bed now but will have a think on how to rephrase...

• By the 1450s, he felt increasingly excluded from government... - had to read this twice to figure out who "he" was...

Actually finding nothing much to complain about otherwise. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Cas Liber, that's good news! I dealt with your points the other day—in expectation of a further swathe! But if you like it, I like it  :) thanks very much for looking in! ——SN54129 13:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

all seems in order on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

The Loveday

• "The immediate aftermath of the Loveday, however, was positive, not least for the Nevilles, as the King granted Egremont permission to go on a pilgrimage that June." -- Which June?

• Note 8: Compared by who?

Nothing further, easily your best yet. Cassianto^Talk

"Crikey"  :) cheers Cassianto, bloody good of you to look in! Dealt with your points, hopefully to your satisfaction. Hope you and yours are keeping safe and sound. ——SN54129 13:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from HaEr48 (support)

I think I reviewed this at GA - happy to see it in FAC. As mentioned before, it is well researched, well referenced and decently written. Some further feedback from me:

• To give context for the general reader, I suggest mentioning/linking Wars of the Roses in the lead section (probably either in the last paragraph or the first). At least to help answer the question of "what period is this" for a first time reader.

Right, now opens the sentence Following the outbreak of the Wars of the Roses in 1455, it was the culmination of lengthy negotiations initiated...

• in November 1454, the Percy sons were captured in battle: Only one Percy son was mentioned prior to this sentence, should we say "Thomas Percy and his brothers (possibly named here) were captured …"?

God idea, named and linked.

• "but Percy and Somerset were bitter enemies of the Nevilles and York": Any reason why Percy is called Percy in this sentence but "Northumberland" in the preceding one? Suggest using the same name to make it easier to follow

For consistency, changed all to Northumberland (as everyone else is known by title rather than name).

• When was the king released after being captured?

Clarified that although he was realistically a prisoner, he was treated with all deference to his rank, etc., so there was never a question of legally "releasing" him.

• Suggest clarifying the relation of London and Westminster somewhere - this is not universally obvious. Maybe describe it when they were first mentioned together. Is Westminster a palace located near London? Or is it part of London? Some passages in the article suggest Westminster is part of London, (e.g. "In London, there was an ugly brawl at Westminster") but some parts suggest they're separate ("a celebratory procession from Westminster to London")

Added footnote wrt the separation and distance of the two cities.

• Did the procession only consist of the 7 people named in the first paragraph of "The Loveday"? Or did it include more people (but unnamed)?

No idea, the sources only reveal the bare facts: but, realistically, yes, it would have been a holiday day of sorts, and I've added a sentence talking about medieval processions in general, and how they were popularly received.

• Do we have any more detail on the procession, e.g. how long did they walk, what was the distance, and was the public there to see it?

See above (sort of).

• " the King granted Egremont permission to go on a pilgrimage in June 1458": Can you clarify why this is such a big advantage? Where did he want to go, and why was it disallowed in the first place?

Well, the point is that the King granted Egremont to go on pilgrimage...it didn't mean that Egremont had asked to go!  :) He was being got rid of abroad to keep him out of trouble, basically. Have clarified that.

Ah I see. My bad, I misunderstood the sentence until I realized Egremont is from the opposite side of the Nevilles (sometimes I struggle with this reading the article). Thanks for adding clarifications!HaEr48 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• "the award ignored and sidelined the original complaints of the Yorkists that they had argued led to the battle": what were the original complaints of the Yorkists?

Ha! Good one  ;) old time's sake, eh?!

Hold on, I don't understand, which complaints are these? HaEr48 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• In London, there was an ugly brawl at Westminster[114] between the Earl of Warwick's men and those of the Duke of Somerset: Can we add a date? was it still during the same sequence of events as the loveday gathering, or was it a separate event?

Yes, it was November the same year.

• two years for the monks to say perpetual masses for the slain: Just curious, what does "perpetual" mean here if it's only two years?

This is real "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? stuff"  :) after a lot of searching, it seems that perpetual didn't actually mean perpetual, rather, however, long it was likely to be before the soul was allowed out of purgatory. So in this case, 90 quids' worth of masses might last 5 years, by which time the souls of the slain might be assumed to have gone upstairs. Or elsewhere, presumably.

Any way, and to cut a long story short, since the whole perpetualism of the mass (or otherwise) seems pretty irrelevant, I've omitted it, and just left "masses".

• Note: I am planning to claim this review for Wikicup. HaEr48 (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks HaEr48, some really subtle themes you have had clarified there, many thanks! I would have pinged you, as GA reviewer, but wasn't sure if that would have been spamming. But glad you looked in anyway! Good luck in the cup, and keep yourself safe. ——SN54129 14:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Thanks for your responses. Please see my small follow ups above, but I'm happy to support this excellent article. Regarding pinging, personally I don't mind getting pinged when GAs that I reviewed go for FAC, at worse I can just ignore it if I'm too busy/not interested. Nice job on this article, and likewise keep yourself safe too! HaEr48 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Allen, Pushon, and Baker should have |degree = PhD like Baker, and not |type=PhD.

Done.

• Why is Ross Dphil and not PhD?

Because he went to Oxford, and Oxford, Cambridge (and I think, York), just have to be different, don't they...

• Griffiths (1972) has a stray "]".

Dead eye.

• Griffiths (2004): the link is dead.

Very odd, I just paseted the same link back in and now it works!

OK, and now it does for me too.

• Grummitt: Short Histories?

Done.

• "Hicks, M." or "Hicks, M.A."?

Done.

• Jewell: North-South.

Yeeeeas...done.

• Lander: "MA" in full please.

Really?!

We don't do US Post Office abbreviations. Either in full or make a case for removing it. I wasn't aware of a conversation, but I don't see why an average, non-US, reader should be expected to have any idea what MA means, or even that it is a geographical location.

I assumed you'd point me to the MoS; for your future reference, MOS:POSTABBR is what you're citing. ——SN54129 15:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Pollard (2004): Earl.

Done.

• Booth: Society.

Done.

• Storey, and Vale: "Stroud" → 'Stroud, Gloucestershire'.

Really?!

If you really object, I'll let it go.

It's unnecessary: historically, the only reason US places of publication are disambiguated isn't an idiosyncrasy, but rather because the US is over-represented with places that exist elsewhere in the publishing world (Cambridge being the most well known, but by no means the sole, example. Indeed, I'd be tempted, in the interests of consistency, to remove "MA/Massachusettes" from the citation and see how that aids the WP:READER, to whose erudition all our efforts should be directed, etc.).

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the review, Gog the Mild, all your perspicacious points dealt with, except for a couple which seem to be giving the MOS:HEADS their, err, head; but I might be persuadable wrt the spelling-out of US states—I remember there was a conversation about it somewhere, but not, I confess, the result. ——SN54129 14:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"Picky" is the word you're searching for. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"Brutal" suits me. I'll sort MA. Take care of yourself. ——SN54129 15:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, with one exception which I consider permissible. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2020 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

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