Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Act of Accord/archive1

Act of Accord

Featured article candidates/Act of Accord/archive1

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

File:EdwardPrinceOfWalesBeauchampPagaent.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

"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]

Comment from Tim riley

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 too 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]

Comments from PMC

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

John

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]