Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville/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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 17 December 2019 [1].

---

William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 18:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Next in a series of bad or bonkers barons, here's Lord Bonville. Nothing to do with this, unfortunately. The early part of his career was pretty run of the mill—suing relatives, fighting the French—but in middle age, he found his niche: engaging in a long-running bitter and bloody feud with a more powerful neighbour, the Earl of Devon, in which they both had their share of victories and defeats. A small feud like that, of course, couldn't really stay the course against its bigger and badder brother, so both they and they squabble became part of a national political crisis which culminated, in early 1461 in both Bonville and his rival dying violently in quick succession for their favoured causes. Decide for yourself whether he was stitched up.

Having received an excellent GA review from User:Gog the Mild of this parish (thanking you), hopefully, it's time to give Bonville the treatment. All comers welcome, and many thanks for looking in those who do! ——SerialNumber54129 18:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Disambig, external links, redirects etc are all fine.
• Earwig checks out, once you discount the quotes.

Support by Gog the Mild

I assessed this at GAN, so I will get the ball rolling.

• The last paragraph of the lead is too long. IMO it could be cut by 50-69%. There is possibly scope for some winnowing elsewhere in the lead.
  • No worries: I've split it into a fourth para, per MOS:LEADLENGTH

What I mostly meant, was that I think that the lead is a bit long overall, and could do with a winnowing (word of the day check). Not a dealbuster though. Re MOS:LEADLENGTH, the readable prose size is just under 34,000, so it is only just into the "three or four paragraphs" range.

• "By this time, Bonville was old enough to undertake royal service, which then meant fighting in France in the later years of the Hundred Years' War. This Bonville did, and in 1415 he joined King Henry V's uncle on the King's campaign" I think that "This Bonville did, and" is redundant. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Good winnow!
• "landholder" Optional: 'landowner' travels better.
  • Yeeeas...thing is—and we don't want to get bogged down in a nest of feudal law vipers, but strictly he didn't own it; as a tenant in chief, he held land. The only landowner was the King (except to the church, to whom even the king held land off the Man). That's why it says what it says: having said all that, if you think that's too archaic/adjacent to the subject (i.e., it might be pertinent in an article on dynastic inheritance, but less so on an individual like this), then I don't mind running with that.

I remember my lawyer's horror at disovering that a residential property I was buying had a 999 year lease; they had never conveyed mon-freehold residential property before.

Yes, I understand the distinction. I don't insist, but the vast majority of readers won't care about the vipers and won't have a Scooby about "landholder". I leave it with you: but I suspect that you may be 'doing a Gog' and attempting to pitch the language for a scholarly audience, when that's not who we're supposed to be writing for. (That said, can I interest you in this?)

"Conveyancig, and What Alice Found Ther"  :)

OK, done, at least partly because it turns out I already called Bonville a landowner in the second sentence of the lead!!! Cheers :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Bonville had an illegitimate son, also named John, by Isabel Kirkby, to whom he bequeathed a "substantial" property and who died in 1499" It is not immediately clear whether it is John or Isabel who is endowed and dies.
  • Cut into two sentences, semi-c'd?

Looks good.

• "This struggle was to take over six years, but he had succeeded in establishing his rights to the estates by 1422." "was to take" → 'took'; delete "had".
  • Good catch, winnowed.
• "states a recent commentator" Sadly the MoS requires that the mystery commentator be named in line.
  • I'm sure that's correct—and I've clarified it's the Hist Parl. commentating anyway—but do you know where? On a High MOS alert, wary of playing the whole non-existent MOS:FALSETITLE-game malarky, you know  :)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thought you'd had your say, Gog the Mild. Good to see you though, thanks for the review, which I have mostly attended to (except where discussion, clarification is suggested that is!). Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 05:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You know me - never settle for a sentence worth of comment when I can stretch it to a paragraph. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Bonville undertook royal service in France almost from the moment he was old enough to do so." I am not sure that this tells us anything. Possibly something a little more encyclopedic? Eg 'Bonville undertook royal service in France in 14xx and frequently thereafter' or similar.

I wanted to keep the opportunity to link the HYW, but I've cut the stuff about "as soon as" etc, and merged the portions together?

• "Bonville returned to England at some point early the same year" "early"? Clarence died in late March; if Bonville left the next day I think that "early" might be a stretch.

True; how about "le had returned to England before May, when he attended parliam"?

Looks good.

• "From then on, though, he was fully employed" Suggest deleting "though".

Done

• " Other commissions included ... wastes ..." I suspect that "wastes" will go straight past most readers. possibly link to common land? Or else a footnote?

I've removed it, if that's OK...although it might refer to wastelands, a cursory search of the lit suggests other possibilities... ([2])

Very good :-)) . I wondered about Waste (law), although I am unsure how far back that goes.

I have somewhere a source which analyses the amount of fodder, food, water and alcohol needed daily for a medieval siege, and the amount of excrement, urine and soiled straw this produces. Mind boggling quantities. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• "thirty galleys to patrol the channel" Upper case C and link.
• "the new Earl of Devon" Lower case E.
• "Stewardship" Lower case S.

^^^Three done

• "regain the regional authority that his ancestors had had" I have no objections to "had had", but it may flow a little better if the second were replaced with 'held'?

Agree

• "which one contemporary described as causing "grete trouble" " Again, the MoS would have you name this contemporaneous gossip.

As above, but it was a council minute, so clarified

• similarly "imprudent treatment".
• "King's Council" Could you link at first mention?

Right!

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• "even if an "unworkable" one, says the historian John Watts." "says" → 'according to'.

Good tweak. Thanks a lot Gog the Mild! (Again!)——SerialNumber54129 16:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

All looking good so far. I hope to wrap up the rest of this in a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• "a period of illness and mental collapse in which he was" "in" → 'during'.

Done

• "He was, therefore, also unable to play the role of a king in the country's governance" Delete "also". Optional: "play the role of a king" → 'carry out the duties of the king'.

Agrre with this; was thinking perhaps "his royal duties"?

Yes. That's better.

• "Bonville attended council at Westminster in early 1454 only after "maken all the puissance they can and may to come hider [to Westminster] with theym",[73] as a Paston correspondent reported; it was even rumoured that Bonville was planning to join up with other lords—those of Beaumont, Poynings, Clifford and Egremont—and march on London itself" A bit long for a sentence?

A monster! Have split it into three, and hoefully clarified along the way.

• "The lords eventually appointed" Could it be clarified who "the lords" were?

House of; done.

• "protector of the realm" Link to Lord Protector.

Catch.

• "he had committed flagrant acts of piracy on foreign shipping" "on" → 'against'.

Agree.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Gog, much appreciated! ——SerialNumber54129 13:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Courtenay fought for the King and was wounded in battle". Optional: delete "in battle".
• " once again they controlled government" 'the'?
• "the Duke of York's appointment as Protector." Lower case P
• Link "pardon".
• "They caused proclamation" 'a'?
• "collector of the royal loan" "the" → 'a'?
• "bound over" is overlinked.
• Likewise "House of Lords".
• "bring Devon out into the open on as equal terms as possible" Perhaps insert '[Courtenay]' after "Devon".
• Link "Powderham" to Manor of Powderham.

Yeeees; although I already link to Powderham Castle, which I think is more accurate re, the siege.

• "His campaign lasted for two months>" What campaign? This comes after mention of a single incident.

How about "Courtenay continued his campaign against Bonville for two months"?

Fine by me.

• "As neither party had sufficient military or political weight to crush their opponent" This needs an explanation (a fuller one) that you are no longer talking about the Bonville-Courtenay feud, and probably a new paragraph.

Actually, I did mean the B-C feud, but you're right, the sentence was completely unclear. So I've split it up, added a quote that clarifies we are talking about the region, which leads neatly into what was happening beyond it.

• "Bonville was elected a Knight of the Garter" I thought that members were appointed, "at the Sovereign's sole discretion".

Well, the companions nominated X-amount of individuals each and the crown chose from their selection. But it's certainly not worth arguing about!

OK. Clearly the procedure changed over time. But your change looks good.

Many thanks Gog the Mild. All actioned, with a couple or three remarks. ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• "modern historians Roskell and Woodger in the History of Parliament" Optional: "the" → 'their'.

If you don't mind, I think I'll probably keep this: you see, the Hist. Parl. isn't really their work alone, it's a collaborative thing, of which they happened to write the Bonville article (so to use "their", then I'd have to say "...in their piece on Bonville in the History of P" or something lengthy). See what I mean?

• "to what one historian has called the "general condemnation" of contemporaries" It may just be me, but I am left unsure as to whether the condemnation is of the executions or the executed.

How about, semi-colon, "the executions were met with what the historian David Grummitt has described as the "general condemnation" of contemporaries"?

• "the 1461 attainder of the ex-King" Which ex-King would that be? And it should be a lower case k. (Although once you specify the king I suppose it flips back to upper case.)

Heh  :) indeed. I've gone with "the 1461 attainder of ex-King Henry"; on reconsideration, perhaps just "the 1461 attainder of King Henry" would work? After all, no other King H. has been mentioned.

Footnotes

• "Commissions of Array" → 'commissions of array'.

Done. The linkage was a bloody nuisance.

• "was as old as the duchy itself" Possibly more informative to say 'was X years/centuries old'?

Difficult to find a source on that, but the Gascon Rolls Project allows "at least 1278"; a useful source, in its own very small way.

I'm not too bothered, but doesn't it date to when the Duchess of Aquitaine married Henry II in 1154?

• "To the prince, Kyriel is said to have retorted" Upper case P.

Done.

And that's it from me. An impressive piece of work. I was serious re considering submitting it to WikiJournal of Humanities. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Gog the Mild, always appreciate your input. See my comments above, but all are good with your critiques. I'll look into the journal, although I have a feeling I !voted against it's seceding in the recent RfC  :) anyway. See you next—in Sarthe! ——SerialNumber54129 14:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass

I have just remembered that I checked all of the images for GAN. None have changed, so I can confirm that all images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done

• FN79: I'm confused by the page formatting here - are you citing one page and two notes, three pages...? Might even split this into multiple footnotes just to make it a bit more clear

• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges and whether citations of notes use "n." or just "n"

• Cheery 1981a: we don't need to say twice that this is a thesis

• The two Kleineke sources have the same editor differently formatted

• Pollard 2000 title needs editing for format

• Reeves: should specify DC to avoid potential for confusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Nikkimaria, tweaked per you, think fn79 is clear now. Didn't split it up into two because...you know someone will only come along and change it back "because it's the same source" at some point in the not so distant future  :) ——SerialNumber54129 05:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "was a member of the English peerage" Why put it so distantly? Why not "was an English peer" or lord, noble[man], etc?

Yes, odd. Changed.

• "and his father died before he reached adulthood." ambiguous.

Dismabiguated.

• "Both Bonville's father and grandfather had been successful in politics and land ownership, resulting in Bonville immediately entering into a large inheritance of money and land on reaching adulthood." Well, it's the stuff after the comma. "entering into"? Maybe (post-comma), "and when Bonville came of age, he gained control of a large inheritance of money and lands". Some such.

Yes, both you & Hchc below mention this, so I've tweaked (and simplified) the sentence.

• The second lede paragraph seems mostly not about Bonville. Can it not be consolidated?

Fair enough: scrubbed all of it exept a brief intro to the Courtenays.

• "and both Bonville and Courtenay ravaged each other's properties." "both" really isn't needed.

Rm.

• "the Earl of Devon watching". Maybe signal the reader it's not the same guy with "new" before "Earl"?

Check.

• Why is the uncertainty of the year of birth in the body not reflected in the lede sentence?

Not sure I get you on this: the ambiguous date is given in figures? ((12/31 August 1392–18 February 1461))

• "The dispensation was required because Elizabeth was already a godmother to one of Bonville's daughters." This probably could use further exposition, maybe changing the period to a comma and adding "thus, the Church regarded them as ..." or some such.

Done, and found a source for the detail.

• The final paragraph of "marriages" should be put in some sort of chronological order.

Swapped in and out.

• "Bonville's mother and grandmother each held a third of his inheritance in dower," Is this accurate? I'd expect it to be 1/3 of the father's estate held by the mother in dower, grandmother 1/3 of grandfather's.

Yes, this is a good point, and I suspect I was trying to avoid having to do the math. I think it's compound interest...his father dies and his mother takes a third; then (or whatever order it was) his grandfather dies and takes a third of what remained. Which might add up to 55%; but I'm uncertain of my competence in this area.

• "because the Duke had made Bonville one of the mortgagees for the ducal estates in Yorkshire." Wouldn't it be simpler to say that the Duke had borrowed money from Bonville?

Indeed it would, thanks.

• "From then on he was fully employed in the service of royal administration" This makes it sound like he was working full-time for the King which seems unlikely given his own property interests.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

From then on he was regularly occuppied with his duties as a royal official in the region perhaps?

• "In 1440 Bonville, with Sir Philip Courtenay—a close friend of Bonville's[9]—commanded a small fleet[20] of thirty galleys to patrol the Channel, although they saw little action; what action they did see did not necessarily go in their favour, as on one occasion the Portuguese fleet captured two English ships from them.[2]" "English" seems unneeded.

Rm.

• "for a lifetime term" Could this be simplified to "for life"

Yes.

• "Courtenay had just come of age but—due to his mother's longevity—" Survival for 21 years past an age where one could bear a child seems unremarkable, thus I'm not sure "longevity" is required. Maybe just say that her dower interest reduced his income.
• "but very materially impacted on his income" This makes it sound like he lost income he had been enjoying rather than being deprived of a hoped-for increase in income.

Tweaked (and shotrened) the whole sentence.

• "the new earl of Devon" He wasn't new, as I understand it, just newly come of age.

Rm.

• "6d. a day." I've more usually seen "6d" or maybe "sixpence" would work better.

Sixpence, with a link, is much better.

• "although in the event this did not occur..[75][note 13] Everyone, including Bonville, was preparing for war on a national scale, although in the event this did not materialise.[79]" A little close to use that phrase twice. One or the other could be eliminated.

Agre; lost the second one.

• "York and Salisbury were dismissed and resigned from their offices respectively and retired to their estates." This seems a bit clunky (especially the "respectively")

York and Salisbury were removed from their positions in government and retired to their estates?

• "York; York" I'd rephrase

Sorry—I must be going blind or mad, nut I couldn't find this at all! Could you narrow it down?

"Several chroniclers of the day suggest that Somerset was poisoning the King's mind against York;[83] York and the Nevilles may have feared imminent arrest. In any case, they reacted swiftly and with violence." I skipped the ref which may account for difficulty in searching.

Right, many thanks for that Wehwalt; how about "...York. He..."? ——SN54129 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• "shalle have vjd. every day as long as he abideth with theym".[2]" After some puzzling, I imagine vjd. is sixpence?

Yes: inseerted [sixpence] after the roman numerals.

• The quote box pushes the "Trial by battle" heading to the right.

So I've pushed the quote box to the right, better?

• As I understood it, trial by battle was a one-on-one thing. This doesn't seem to be. And per the sources I read for Ashford v Thornton, the last certain trial by battle in England was in 1446.

Yeeeas...per the sources, I've changed it to duel.

• "He certainly swore to uphold the rights of the Prince of Wales at the Parliament of November 1459[10] and in early 1460 he was commissioned to raise an army in the southwest against the Yorkists.[2]" I'm not sure I like the "certainly". We could use a link, I imagine, to either "Prince of Wales" or the article on the individual (who is linked to in the following paragraph). And shouldn't "against the Yorkists" appear a bit earlier in the sentence?

Rm certainly; moved and linked PoW to earlier mention.

• "Bonville's son marched with York," not much discussion of family to this point so a name would be good.

Added William.

• "Warwick's force was rapidly isolated by the swift-moving Lancastrian army, and Warwick fled, resulting in a Yorkist defeat.[115]" I'm not certain about cause and effect here. I assume Warwick fled because his army had been defeated.

I admit it may not be quite as simple as that; but I've reworded the sentence to avoid any confusion.

• In the "Aftermath" section. You might want to start with an explanation that there was no attainder because if there had been there would have been no estate to descend.

Well, that's trur, but it's rather "If we had some sour cream"  :) there was no attainder because the Lancastrians had neither the time nor the machinery to call a parliament.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the detailed review, Wehwalt, it's much appreciaetd. I've attended to your suggestions in this edit. There's a couple of outstanding point above, but nothing major I think. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 15:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Looks OK. No objection to the suggestions made in reply above.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated as ever Wehwalt—if anything jumps out at you in the future don't hesitate to pop back and point it out! Cheers, ——SN54129 16:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Hchc2009

An interesting piece, although I think the text needs a bit of a copy-edit. I've had read through the lead, and some comments below, although the rest of the article looks like it also needs a scrub:

• "as a member of the English peerage and an important, powerful landowner in the southwest of England during the late middle ages. Bonville was born in the last decade of the fourteenth century" - felt repetitious to me. The article already says in the same sentence when he was born and died, so I don't think we need to be told it was in the late middle ages; similarly, we don't need to be told that 1392 was in the last decade of the 14th century.

Removed "last decade" as pointless; keeping "LMA" as it allows for a link.

• "Bonville's father and grandfather had been successful in...land ownership," - not a phrase I've really heard before. "land management" or "property management", yes, but not "I've been successful in land ownership" - it read oddly to me.
• "a large inheritance of money and land " - is it necessary in the lead to give the details of the inheritance, or could it just be "a large inheritance"?

Yes, Wehwalt suggested somethng similar, so I went with ...he gained control of a large estate?

• "In 1415 he joined King Henry V's uncle on the King's campaign, which would result in the Battle of Agincourt." - unclear what the "would" means; does it mean that he did or didn't take part in the Battle of Agincourt? You can't really tell from this construct what's meant...

Yes, I don't know why it had to be so complicated: In 1415 he joined King Henry V's uncle on the King's campaign, and fought at the Battle of Agincourt sums it up.

• Agree with Wehwalt about the second paragraph - it seems to divert quite a lot from the subject of this article.

Yep, that's been got rid except for a sentence introducing Courtenay.

• "In 1437 the new king" - why the previous upper case for "the King's campaign", and the lower case here?

Typo.

• "the earls of Devon" - why lower case, when the previous paragraph had "Earls of Devon"?

Well Court[enay]  :) have corrected personal Earl and the general earls.

• Same with Earl and earl - this doesn't seem in line with the Manual of Style.

See last.

• "and both Bonville and Courtenay ravaged each other's properties." - "both" and "each other's" is repetitive

Rm.

• "the crown" - why the lower case? (The relevant wikiarticle uses "the Crown")

The crown is now capitalised on the two occasions its used.

• "the crown appointed—by accident, it is assumed—" - assumed by who? If generally agreed, why not "the crown appointed Courtenay by accident"?

Detail of historiography unnecessary for the lead: removed.

• "Henry and his government either failed to intervene between the two parties or did so ineffectually. " - unclear if this means they both failed to intervene and when they did intervene did so ineffectually, or did one but not the other.

Generally, Henry and his government failed to intervene between the two parties; when it did, its efforts were ineffectual, perhaps?

• "Violent feuding was becoming increasingly common between members of the mid-fifteenth-century nobility and Henry's government was unable to address it. " - unclear why the wider context is needed in the lead

This bit removed.

• "This was in a similar vein to many other of the ongoing noble internecine disputes, and the breakdown of law and order in the shires became subsumed into national politics. This, in turn, was drifting towards civil war, which would break out in 1455 with the First Battle of St Albans. " - ditto. Plus the "would" doesn't seem necessary.

And some of this.

• "his son was killed alongside York at the Battle of Wakefield" - I don't think you've said who "York" is yet. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Now linked York previously in the sentence.

Many thanks for looking in Hchc2009; glad you're out of retirement! Thanks very much for this though. ——SerialNumber54129 15:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• southwest of England. The "of" sounds to me odd and unnecessary.

Removed the / of.

• "In 1415 he joined King Henry V's uncle on the King's campaign, and fought at the Battle of Agincourt." In the main text you say king's brother, not uncle, and do not say he fought at Agincourt. Also I would avoid repetition of "king" if possible. Maybe "In 1415 he joined the English invasion of France in the retinue of Thomas, Duke of Clarence, King Henry V's brother, and fought at the Battle of Agincourt."

Thanks for this; I've used your wording, except to clarify that although it is known that he was on that campaign, I have no source that definitely identifies him as being as the battle. (E.g., he could've been guarding a captured castle, had dysentry, etc) And I think someone like him—probably a captain with men under him at the least—would have been noted somewhere. But it's not, so...

• "This had traditionally been a hereditary office of the earls of Devon, and the Earl was thus enraged." I would delete "thus" as superfluous.

Removed "thus" (also added ...at its loss"?)

• "Says the historian Christine Carpenter" This is too colloquial.

Reworded.

• "described by one twentieth-century historian" I think you should name him.

Named Griffiths.

• "In 1414 he married Margaret Grey, daughter of Reginald, Baron Grey of Ruthin,[9] widower of another daughter of Poynings." Why another daughter? You have previously mentioned a cousin of Poynings, not a daughter.

Very well caught, Actually, since I couldn't find a way of phrasing that so that it didn't read clumsily, I've removed it; who Bonville's father-in-law had earlier been married to doesn't seem particularly relevant now.

• You do not say that his son was "also named William", whereas you say his illegitimate son was "also named John" even though none of his relatives had that name.

I've swapped them over, more or less.

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for these points, Dudley Miles, always nice to see you. I've addressed (hopefully satisfactorily) your suggestions with this edit. Looking forward to your next salvo!  :) ——SN54129 12:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not feeling 100% at the moment but will come back to this shortly. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Bonville's mother and grandmother each held a third of his inheritance in dower, although the former had died a few months earlier." Earlier than when? And what does the sentence mean - that he only received £300 out of his £900 income until they died?
  • "Following her husband John Bonville's death—before William came of age—she granted" Who is she? His grandmother as you say his mother had died?
  • "she granted her Fitzroger inheritance to her second husband, Richard Styuecle" I am struggling with this paragraph. Now it appears that you meant his mother and that she died shortly before he came of age.

(Taking these three points as one, if that's OK) Yes, it was a bit of a monster. I've pretty much re-written it. Added a footnote to explain the principal of dower; clarified Elizabeth married again, with some chronology and further detail. Hopefully reads better now.

• Agincourt campaign. I think you should clarify that it is not known whether he took part in the battle.

Done, incl. a footnote highlighting that many who started on the campaign didn't get to A'court.

• "He departed for France again in 1423 in the service of the King's uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester," I think you should mention Henry V's death.

Expanded this slightly: HenryV dying, son's accession, the regency and Gloucester, Bedford (and footnote re lack of Clarence).

• "the Portuguese fleet captured two ships from Bonville's fleet" So he was serving in a war against Portugal? This should be explained.

Shouldn't have used the word fleet there: replaced, clarifying they were "just" rival merchants.

• "Courtenay's wealth was already reduced by his mother's dower,[23][note 5] and so granting Bonville the stewardship was not only a blow to the regional hegemony the Courtenays traditionally enjoyed but reduced the income he could have otherwise expected to enjoy." This seems a non-sequitur. You say the dower reduced Courtenay's wealth so the loss of the stewardship reduced his income.

Tweaked to "...but reduced the earl's income further"; the point about the sentence is that Courtenay faced a bit of a double-whammy on the income front.

• "among whom Bonville was pre-eminent". According to who?

Martin Cherry, done.

• "the minority created a power vacuum in the county" You say in a note that he had reached his majority but most of his wealth was controlled by his mother.

Yes; when he entered his majority, he inherited his patrimony, but the lands that dowagers held were retained by them until their deaths (the whole point was to give them a guaranteed income without menfolk). The note I added re. dower above should now make this clearer.

• "as Bonville's son-in-law, Tailboys, was closely associated with Suffolk." You date this to 1444-5 but above you say that the marriage was not until 1446.

True; clarified that he was at this point only a neighbour/associate.

• This is an interesting article but sometimes difficult to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much Dudley Miles, hope you're feeling better. Your points addressed, I think, here. Cheers! ——SN54129 17:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanking you, Dudley Miles, always appreciate your input. Slightly early festive greetings to you! ——SN54129 20:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, scholarly, and well illustrated. Some nitpicks to show I've read it before I support.

• English invasion of France — any suitable link for this?

Tricky one, it would be!  :) Se, we've got an article on the Hundred Years' War, we've got one on the portion of the war that began in 1415 with the Agincourt campaign, and of course we've got one on the battle itself. But not on the Agincampaign on its own. So: How about I delink the HYW main article and link to the sub-article on the 1415–53 part? ——SN54129 16:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• No indication in the lead that the civil war is the Wars of the Roses even though that's what the Easter-eggy link goes to

Ah, named WotR outright.

• Richard, Lord Rivers and his wife Jacquetta, Lady Rivers. —No indication of why they matter

They attended as the King's personal representatives; which is now clarified.

• Link King Henry V and godparent at first instance

Done, and according to the DupLinksHighlighterTool, caught a couple of others too.

• Many thanks for looking in, Jimfbleak, greatly appreciated as ever. I've attended to your queries; what d'you think on that tricky first point, which is a bit of a 50/50! ——SN54129 16:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I phrased my first point as I did because I suspected that it might not be straightforward, so I'm happy with whatever you think is appropriate, no other queries so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimfbleak, and festive greetings to you! ——SN54129 06:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Coord note - I see Hchc2009 has only edited 4 times since leaving the comment - I don't think pinging him is going to do that much good. I double-checked the sources (duh!) and did a quick pass for some obvious MOS things. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 17 December 2019 (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. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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