Talk:Thomas Byron

Thomas Byron has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 5, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Byron article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Thomas Byron appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 February 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Sir Thomas Byron (pictured) was killed during the First English Civil War by one of his own soldiers over a pay dispute?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sir Thomas Byron.

Wikipedia

Biography: Military / Peerage and Baronetage

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

Title

Not sure why this is at "Sir Thomas Byron" when Thomas Byron is a dubious redirect to a photographic company page. Per WP:TITLESINTITLES and WP:NCBRITPEER, "Titles of knighthood such as Sir and Dame are not normally included in the article title: e.g. Arthur Conan Doyle, not "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" (which is a redirect). However, Sir may be used in article titles as a disambiguator when a name is ambiguous and one of those who used it was knighted." That is not the case here, as Thomas Byron isn't ambiguous. Recommend moving this to Thomas Byron and leaving a redirect from this title. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. I tend to dab rather than worry about primary topics, but you're probably right on this one. Note that at some stage there will also be an article Thomas Byron (MP), a member of Parliament for Hertford in the 1800s, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Harrias ^talk 08:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Byron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 22:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can take this on over the coming days. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I've made a very light ce, consisting of: adding 'he' in the lede and switching a 'he' to 'Byron', linking Nottinghamshire on the first rather than second mention, switching an instance of 'while' to 'and', de-capitalizing 'colonel' when not by a person, linking Shrewsbury, linking Oxfordshire, italicizing de facto, please see that these are agreeable to you

I removed the italics from "de facto", as it has "everyday use in non-specialized English" and so does not need to be treated as a foreign-language term. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hm. I see that Gog the Mild asked me to italicize it way back in a September 2018 GA review, which was where I got the idea in my head, I think. I'll note that by that articles FAC I was asked to un-italicize it, which is correct usage. Thanks for catching that. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see (c. 1610 cited in the article, much less mentioned in the prose

That was careless. Added in now. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"was a Royalist officer during the First English Civil War. He had effective command of the Prince of Wales' cavalry regiment during the first year of the war, including at the Battle of Edgehill." I'd like either years of either the First Eng Civil War or the year of Edgehill mentioned here.

Added the year for Edgehill. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 'early life' would be better titled 'early life and family'

Yeah, that makes sense. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"On the outbreak of the First English Civil War," is probably worth a year

Added. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"On the outbreak of the First English Civil War, Byron and his brothers were described by the biographer George Yerby as "all passionately the King's" makes it sound as though the biographer is writing it on the outbreak. Maybe try something along the lines of "The biographer George Yerby describes Byron and his brothers as "all passionately the King's" on the outbreak of the First English Civil War" or perhaps "The biographer George Yerby describes Byron and his brothers on the outbreak of the First ECW as "all passionately the King's"" or something similar

Gone for "On the outbreak of the First English Civil War in 1642, Byron and his brothers were "all passionately the King's", according to the biographer George Yerby.On the outbreak of the First English Civil War in 1642, Byron and his brothers were "all passionately the King's", according to the biographer George Yerby." Which hopefully maintains the flow while resolving this issue? Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Also, what brothers? There's been no mention before
  - It was mentioned that he was the fifth of seven sons? Beyond that, the source doesn't go into detail. I could dig around and confirm which brothers, but it would be a bit WP:SYNTH-y. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Eddie891: While researching another article, I found a little bit more on this, all in one source, so have added it. Let me know if you think it is too much. Harrias ^talk 14:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"He was knighted by King Charles " link?
- I linked Charles I of England; do let me know if you wanted "knighted" linking too. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"life of Richard Bulstrode" I think it's worth mentioning who he was
- Added that Bulstrode was one of his men, is that enough? Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"At the Battle of Edgehill," worth a date?
- Added. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Byron died two months later, " you don't mention that it was as a cause of the attack, I think that's worth explicitly stating
- Good point, also noticed that the source specifies it as a "chest wound", so added that. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice article on the whole, that's comments on prose from me, other stuff to come later. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Cheers for the review, responded to each point. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid redundancy, I think all of your changes address my points, I don't think there's anything regarding that that needs to be changed. Source checks &c to come. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

#1a, fifth of seven sons of Sir John Byron of Newstead Abbey, Nottinghamshire, and Anne Molyneux is imo a little too close to the source's was the fifth of the seven sons of Sir John Byron (d. 1625) of Newstead, Nottinghamshire, and his wife, Anne Molyneux for comfort, could you mix it up just a bit?
- Mixed it up. Harrias ^talk 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
#1b, source spells her name Catherine, not Katherine as you do in the article
- Ref #3 uses Katherine. Harrias ^talk 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
#1c, source has 'all passionately the king's' attributed to a Lucy Hutchinson, not Yerby himself
- Good point, changed attribution. Harrias ^talk 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
#1e, source describes a death "leading a charge", not necessarily a cavalry one
- Added an alternative source which states this explicitly. Harrias ^talk 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Byron was attacked in Oxford by one of his own soldiers, Captain Hurst, over a pay dispute as he left his lodgings" not a sourcing comment, but it reads here that the attack was as Hurst left his lodgings, but in the ODNB it seems as though it was Byron who was leaving.
- It was always meant to mean when Byron was leaving, this is just my writing! Flipped it around, how is that? Harrias ^talk 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The JSTOR version of Young 1945 has it published by the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, not the "Journal of the Society"
- Not sure what happened there. Harrias ^talk 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing #8b or #9a on the cited page, though I suffer from chronic not-reading-the-whole-page-itis, so its possible I missed something
- #8b should have been page 109. #9a (now #9b) is definitely right though: "The regiment was still with Hopton, so Sir Thomas was no doubt on leave for some reason or other". Harrias ^talk 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The PD ODNB mentions "that a degree was conferred on him at Oxford in 1642" [1]
joined the regiment as early as May 1642; commanded regiment at the Battle of Powick Bridge
- He was almost certainly there, but I find it unlikely that he commanded the regiment; only two troops from the regiment were there. It is likely that he commanded the Prince of Wales' troop at the battle, not the regiment. But this is mostly conjecture based on the troop lists that Young provides. Young is a much higher-quality source than Manganiello, so I'm unsure what to do here. While I feel confident in claiming that he was there, referencing tthat to Manganiello without saying that he commanded the regiment seems odd. But Young never explicitly mentions Byron among the commanders. (The Prince of Wales is listed as his own troop commander, but he was 12 at the time, and certainly did not command it in battle.) Harrias ^talk 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
some detail about saving Bulstrode's life if you want to add it
- It seemed excessive detail, but I can add it if you think it worth it. Harrias ^talk 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Eddie891, replies above. Harrias ^talk 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, I'm now happy with the article, no need for the detail about Bulstrode. I, too, am not sure about Powick Bridge, but I don't think you can only source a mention to Stephen C. Manganiello, givent that Manganiello is an amateur historian-- I don't trust it, so it'll have to stay out. The bit about getting a degree at Oxford is also mentioned in the (modern) ODNB, so I'd like to see that mentioned in the article. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Eugh, I clearly missed the Oxford thing on my many reads of the ODNB article, and then managed to miss your bullet point on it too. Sigh. Added now, cheers Eddie891. Harrias ^talk 21:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright this article, while rather short, is well written, reasonably comprehensive, well referenced, illustrated, neutral, and otherwise meets the GA criteria. Happy to pass. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]