Talk:Wonderful Parliament

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The 'Wonderful Parliament' (1386)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments

General

• Blue links: too many everyday terms are linked for my liking. Do you really want readers clicking away from your article to find out the meaning of
  • subsidy
  • historians
  • retinue
  • fifteenths
  • tenths
  • melancholic
  • historian (again), and
  • execution?
    •  Done -although I think I kept 'retinue' as it seemed relevant if techno-speak.
• Duplicate links: these terms are linked more than once in the main text:
  • subsidy
  • Commons
  • Chancellor
  • Michael de la Pole
  • royal council
  • historian
  • Earl of Arundel
  • Merciless Parliament
    • All  Done- but what about WP:DUPLINK? Not particularly important in an article this size, perhaps.

Comments on individual points

• Political background
  • "Advisors" – unexpected and not very welcome incursion of AmE into a BrE article. Why not the traditional English "advisers"?
    • Oddly, I do not think I ever realised that it was AmE  :) cheers!
  • "Gaunt himself, by virtue of his absence, could neither use his wealth nor utilise his retinue" – a strange sentence. Gaunt's absence was anything but a virtue in this case, and "use" and "utilise" are the same thing. Perhaps something on the lines of "The absent Gaunt could use neither his wealth nor his retinue…"?
    • Absolutely, stole your phrasing.
  • "chancellor" – not sure why this job doesn't get a capital letter when the Treasurer and the Keeper of the Privy Seal do. Later: I see you give it a capital C later on. I return to this general point later.
    • Agree, all addressed per your main comment below.
• Parliament and parliamentary commissions
  • "This commission proceeded to not only criticise the King's choice as to who received his patronage, but even prevented him from"… the syntax goes off the rails here with the infinitive turning into a past tense half way through. Perhaps something like, "This commission not only criticised the King's choice of who received his patronage, but also prevented him from…"
    • Again, stolen, thank you.
  • "were likely regarded" – another unexpected Americanism. "were probably regarded" would be the idiomatic English form.
    •  Done -see above re. some aspects of AmE!
  • "No sooner had the Chancellor finished his address then the commons came before the King themselves" – I think "then" is a typo for "than", but I still don't quite understand the sentence. Did the Commons troop off to meet the King or did he come to address them?
    • Firstly, yes it was a typo, corrected; secondly- I'm not absolutely sure- the source itself literally states that Barely had de la Pole concluded his address by expressing the hope that the commons would loosen the nation's purse-strings, when those same commons came before the king and the lords and 'with one mind' presented a series of oral charges 'complaining grievously' about the chancellor's conduct. But since we know that R2 was at the opening of parlt. where dlP made his address, it's robably fair to say the Commons came to him there.
• Attack on the Royal prerogative
  • Third sentence – the Commons are capitalised but the lords are not.
    •  Done
  • "the earls of Warwick and Arundel… the Bishops of Winchester and Exeter" – more inconsistent capitalisation.
    •  Done
  • Second paragraph: contains too much repeated information. We already know that Pole was chancellor, and that he was unpopular and that he was Earl of Suffolk.
    • Trimmed- also moved the bit about his elevation to an earlier part where he is first introduced.
• Attack on William de la Pole
  • "…the original plan was actually to impeach de Vere…" – "actually" adds nothing and is padding
    • Depadded.
  • If you're going to link "impeach" you should do so at first mention, rather than at the second as at present.
    •  Done
  • "Focussed" – "focused", please.
    • Right!
• Richard's absence
  • There are three more "actually"s in this section, all of which are otiose.
    • Expunged.
  • "pre-warned them" – can one post-warn anyone?
    • Not any more.
  • "extra-ordinarily" does the source really hyphenate this word? It shouldn't.
    • Slightly embarassing; yes it does... because of a line break! So rm hyphernation.
• Aftermath and King Richard's response
  • "as well ensure" – not English. Missing an "as", by the look of it.
    • Yes,  Done
  • "loyalty to the him" – one word too many this time.
    • Removed.
  • "not only was Michael de la Pole soon set free" – why mention Pole's Christian name here?
    • Uuurgh. Done.
  • "document!" – lose the screamer.
    • Lost.
• Literary depiction
  • "Was the even then-famed poet" – gruesomely convoluted. Something like "was Geoffrey Chaucer, already a well-known poet" would be smoother.
    • Thanks again- tea-leaved.

Finally, for now, I have commented on aspects of this above, but you need to go through all the titles – king, crown, bishop, archbishop, lord, duke, earl, chancellor, commons, lords etc – and make the capitalisation consistent throughout the article. At present it is a right old hotchpotch: "he joined the king … the King left London" etc. I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you time to address these points. – Tim riley talk 20:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this thorough going over Tim riley- I think most of your points addressed- with particular reference to Capitalizations, which I think I've caught... What say ye? — fortunavelut luna 13:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It's getting there, but when I invited you to consider the capitalisation of "king" etc, it was not my intention that you should introduce the novel punctuation "taKing", "maKing", "maKing" (again) and "attacKing". Nor, when I suggesting Anglicising "advisor" to "adviser" did I envisage doing so only once, leaving three later advisors untranslated. Tim riley talk 21:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Now then, Tim riley. I hope you are not suggesting an over reliance on automated to tools with a concomitant lack of care and attention... Oh, you are... Right, all fixed. Sorry about that. Slightly foolish not to say irritating errors, certainly! Cheers — fortunavelut luna 09:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Very well. We crawl in the direction of the finishing line. I tell you frankly that your GANs are a lot more work for the reviewer than most. Turning to the references:

• The ODNB reference (ref 1) is bizarre. I don't expect to see a cry for help in a citation. I suggest you use the {{ODNBsub}} template.
• You should provide the url link to the other ODNB article too at ref 17.
• I find "Roskell1984" with no space looks most peculiar, but I make no objection. I do, though, object to a sudden lurch away to "Roskell, 1984" at ref 26.
• Most of the Roskell refs have two full stops at the end, though the popular prejudice is in favour of a single one.
• ISBNs: I don't press the point at GA level, but if you were to contemplate FAC you'd need to observe the MoS advice that 13-digit ISBNs (with hyphens) should be used. At present you have a mix of 10- and 13-digit styles. To convert the former to the latter see this tool.
• Ref 25 has a page range from 87 to infinity.

Over to you. Tim riley talk 17:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Points in order: The ODNB 'help' is automatically placed along side the 'subscription req' tag; I find the CiteODNB template unwieldy? Well, the #17 ref. does already link to the ODNB page, unless I misunderstood you? Or did you mean it didn't have the 'subscription req' tag? It didn't, so I did. However that creates another 'Help' tag. Happy days. Agree about Roskell+gap, rectified. Also got rid of the double full stops. Interestingly, that arose by my not being aware that the software placed its own f/s at the end, so I did it myself. More happy days, that. Re. ISBNs, I tried that tool, but it only hyphenated 10-digit numbers, rather tahn also convert them to 13s. Indeed, I find it hard to see how they could- surely abook printed before 2007 wouldn't even have a 13-digit ISBN? Ref 25 is now, as it should be, a single page. Well, that's mostly done. I'm sorry its a lot of hard work; you should probably fail this GA if that's the case. Wikipedia is, theoretically at least, meant to be fun. Incidentally, you haven't yet pointed out that the short-fomed citations are links to nowhere. Just like last time, if I remember. Thanks for everything, though — fortunavelut luna 17:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Settle down! No prospect of failing GA here, and after a last once-over I expect to cut the tape. But until we get there I must comment as objectively as I can. (I shall leave a link on your talk page to a current review where you can get your own back on me if you like.) Tim riley talk 22:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I take your points about the referencing, and as the citations to the sources are both clear and verifiable I shall not pursue the matter. So...

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Citations are clear and verifiable

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• @Tim riley: Haroo! Sorry to waste three days of your life though :) — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 09:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)