Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 12 October 2019 [1].

John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter

[edit]
Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the Rettendon murders, John FitZWalter was the original Essex Boy. Yes, the usual extortion, murders, jury nobbling and...er...sieges?! He makes the Krays look like over-enthusiastic tobacconists, although FitzWalter was admittedly lucky that his King, Edward III, lacked the later energetic and imaginative approach of Essex Police, at least for some time. But on a more serious note, yes, it's another in the series (well, the second) of Robin Hood types from the early fourteenth century, and, you know, forget "stealing from the rich to give to the poor", like most gangsters, they're not very nice people.
All suggestions and comments for improving FitzWalter on Wikipedia as he was unimprovable in life, gratefully welcome. ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks for looking in, Nikkimaria; I've added a reference to commons, does it need one here you think? ——SerialNumber54129 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source and the map does no match. The source does no list "Chigwell", and "Caidge" is spelled "Cages" in the source. This means that note 2 in the article also does not match the source.P. S. Burton (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chigwell is sourced inline to Furber, and Cages is a lazy transcription I fancy, Watson. Although more or less subsumed into Southminster today, Caidges (not Cages) still exists in (OR alert) various references. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 05:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Thanks for the clarification. P. S. Burton (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if i sounded short there, P. S. Burton. The problem is, is that a reliable source (as you noticed!) calls it Cages, but unfortunately I can't find a source that says "Cages used to be Caige", or, indeed (even less likely!) an RS that says Moore has made a lazy transcription  :) otherwise I'd explin it in a footnote. Gotta be honest with you, though, I really hate unsourced footnotes! See what I mean? Thanks very much for looking in here though, it's appreciated. ——SerialNumber54129 13:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries :). I found this page from the University of Winchester confirming the spelling of Caige and at least showing that the later barons held the estate. P. S. Burton (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well found, P. S. Burton, I can use that to cite the correct name for he place now. Thanks very much!  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

[edit]
  • I'd put another paragraph in the lead on his legacy/impact on assessments of Edward III.
  • What was his cause of death, if known?
  • £sd letters are not italicized, if I am not mistaken.

That's all for now, I'll try to think of some more later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for looking in, John M Wolfson, it's much appreciated. I've added a line regarding the historiography to the lead; I'm not usually too keen on one-line paragraphs, but perhaps this works? Unfortunately, there's no information on the cause of death, except that it was natural. I imagine that once he stopped terrorising the place he fell into obscurity. And I deitalicised the LSD  :)
    If you do think of any other improvements, please do point them out! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 09:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem at all! I'm also not usually a fan of short paragraphs in the lead, but here I think it's warranted as FitzWalter's legacy. And I do not see any issues at this time, so I support the promotion of the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mr rnddude

[edit]
Indictment
However, Furber points out ... - However? The note doesn't contradict the statement that Fitzwalter had to pay out "at least" that amount.
Done.
this he paid this off incrementally - You can keep either this, but not both. I.e. "this he paid off ..." or "he paid this off ..."
First choice.
... comments Hanawalt ... - Introduce at first mention.
Introduced...
... the King summoned FitzWalter ... - Titles are usually only capitalized when appended to an individual's name, but left uncapitalized when used generically. You capitalize king a lot.
Indeed I do. And I guarantee someone's gonna come along (on the assumption there are anymore reviews , that is!) and moan. They do that, ye know. They come out at night to moan.
In November FitzWalter was transferred ... - "In November, ..." I think.
Done.
The forced the role of ... - I think the first "the" was meant to be a "this".
Yup.
... impermanent ... - Google says this is a word. I shall be stealing it as superior to "temporary".
Abjuring "temporary"?! Careful  ;)
... focused ... - Is BrEng "s" or "ss"? I thought focussed was BrEng and focused AmEng.
Deffo.
Siege of Colchester
... in 1350 Bradenham himself besieged Colchester for three months in autumn 1350 - Well yes, I rather suspect that "autumn 1350" was "in 1350", rather than some other obscure year.
Uuugh. Don.
... and Partington suggests ... - Who dat? (You introduce him in the next section, rather than at first mention)
Swapped.
, however, - like me, you use however a bit. Howe'er, it's unnecessary here: Neither inquest, however, appears to have ....
Dead right I do, thanks for the reminder. I've cut out all except one.
... disputed pasture rights in Lexden. and the area was ... - I think that period was meant to be a comma.
Done.
Aportion of Lexden Park ... - "Aportion" or "A portion"?
Criminal career
... summarily beheaded Byndethese by the roadside - Any clue as to why they did this? Retribution for some perceived slight, or just for shits and giggles?
Excellent point. Still no actual reason as to this bloke specifically, but it was quite a common occurrence, and I've added a footnote to put it in context. Without SYNTHing, I think we can assume that he was just one of many who strayed...interesting stuff though.
... the said distress until the £30 were fully paid - Really? This is where you decide that the £ symbol deserves a link?
Today's Deliberate Mistake  :)
All I have time for at the moment. There were other, more minor, infractions, shall we say. You have a distinct style of writing: a bit complex, so following the punctuation correctly is vital – lest FitzWalter, says the historian Mark Ormrod, had been "publicly discredited" be misread as FitzWalter says the historian Mark Ormrod had been "publicly discredited" as I did at first –, but its enjoyable to read. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Royal service and war in France
... he periodically returned to fight in France for over the course of his career - What's the for, for?
For gone  :)
... the young men FitzWalter's class and generation - young men of?
Of course, thanks.
FitzWalter was summoned and 43 other Essex knights were summoned ... - summoned twice. Perhaps "Fitzwalter was summoned, alongside 43 other Essex knights, ..." or "Fitzwalter, and 43 other Essex knights, were summoned ..."
Nicked!
Robert had reserved his rights to certain other city properties, however. This reservation was successfully challenged by the city authorities, however, and both Robert and John made repeated attempts to assert their claim - Mmm... two "however"'s, two sentences apart. There's a third later in the same paragraph. A bit repetitive.
Dealt with the massacre of the howevers above.
Lede
... have also been viewed ... has also been noted ... - Last sentence of the lede. It reads weird to me.
Re-written completely, hopefully reads better now?

I've read the rest of the article. This ends my comments for the time being. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just come around back to this article, having remembered it last night before I went to bed. I'm prepared at this point to support. I did notice one other thing, briefly. In footnote 2 you write that The FitzWalter family held 13 manors in Essex. The image under Early Life lists 14 manors, the one not mentioned in the footnote being Chigwell. Significant? Mr rnddude (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I have done some copy editing which you will want to check.

Quite. It is of the usual quality :p
  • "who had arrived in England at the conquest" Maybe tweak this? 'who had arrived in England at the time of the Norman Conquest of England'?
    • Used that. In fact, to save time, I think it's fair to say that out of sheer bone idility I've used your wording whenever you've offered it  :)
  • "The FitzWalters held estates all over Essex" "all over" isn't very encyclopedic. Rephrase? ('scattered across'?)
    • "Across"?
  • "FitzWalter also made a good marriage" Why "also"?
    • Rm also.
  • "the family estates were concentrated around the lordship of Dunmow. They also held estates as distant as Henham" Given that according to the map Henham is the closest estate to Dunmow, "as distant" reads oddly.
    • Err yes. Odd. So I've ommitted Henham and left it as south east, etc, south west, Norfolk, London.
  • "had transferred as fine land" "fine land"?
  • " In response, King Edward claimed the French throne and invaded France, thus beginning the Hundred Years' War" No, he didn't claim the French throne until 1340, three years after the start of the war , for reasons which I won't bore you with, and during his third 'invasion'. I suggest chopping this bit.
    • Juuuust testing  :) cut.
  • "have been under royal protection during the campaign" And "royal protection" would be?
    • Basically so Northampton couldn't sue them for breach of their contracts to him. Hopefully clarified.
  • "influential local men such as they" :-) "such as they" → 'like these' or similar.
  • Yeah!
  • "wrote Harris, who became the most feared man in Essex" Rephrase - obviously (I assume) Harris is not feared down Essex way, but he may be grateful if this were clarified.
    • Dunno. Hard as nails ole "bubble" Harris. But you're dead right of course. Done!
  • "transfer lands worth £40 to FitzWalter, for which FitzWalter was to pay Walter an annual rent of £22" If those figures are correct, what's the problem? Possibly clarify 'worth £40 a year'?
    • Done.
  • "amerce"; link to amercement.
    • OK; although I link later on to a subsection of amercement i note. H'mmm.
  • "anyone who opposed his doing so" Do you mean 'anyone who refused to do so'?
    • Nicked. See #2 ^^^

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was killed in Mile End during another attack on Lexden Park" "Mile End"? The London one? IMO you could simply lose it, → 'was killed during another attack on Lexden Park'.
  • "reinforced the siege with wood from the broken doors and roof beams of houses" This brings no mental image to my mind. Did they 'barricade the access roads with ... '?
      1. 2 ^^^
  • "for failing to appear in answer to accusations of felony" Perhaps 'for failing to appear to answer accusations of felony'?
      1. 2 ^^^  :)

That's all I have. Very impressive. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good stuff. Rereading, the one bit I am not happy with is "Seventeen of FitzWalter's men are known to have been under royal protection during the campaign, which allowed them to serve under FitzWalter and the crown rather than Northampton." This possibly obfuscates the point for the casual reader. Maybe something like 'Seventeen of FitzWalter's men are known to have been vassals of Northampton, but were put under royal protection during the campaign, thus allowing them to serve under FitzWalter and the crown rather than Northampton.' or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last edit summary, I say that it is a well written, thoroughly researched and comprehensive and I am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind, GtM, appreciate you popping back. Just to let you know, although I thought your phrasing above re the "Northampton 17" (sounds like a miscarriage of justice!) was excellent, it occurred to me that my statement about the royal protection was strictly OR since the source doesn't actually say why they were under it, and although you might know it, I might know it, I looked for a decent academic source who said in plain English what it actually meant...and after 20 minutes gave up without one. So, as I said, I don't think it particularly impinges on his career does it? Hope all's well! ——SerialNumber54129 19:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

[edit]
  • No Infobox?
  • long-established family in the north-Essex area Link Essex.
  • of the county, Woodham to the southeast American southeast.
  • Chigwell to the southwest American southwest.
  • According to the Elizabethan antiquarian John Stow, the last time the latter Sea of blue here.
  • manpower which the king was determined to exploit The King.
  • FitzWalter built up a reputation as a good soldier American built up.
  • Another, known only as Roger, was the parson of Osemondiston.[40][39][note 8] Re-order the refs in numerical order.
  • which in 1334 had been valued for tax purposes at over £1300 --> "which in 1334 had been valued for tax purposes at over £1,300"
  • bound to pay Edward the "colossal"[3] amount of (at least) £847 2s 4d Maybe link the "d".

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks User:CPA-5! Well, he's a gangster, so focussing on his military career is misleading I think; still, that's infoboxes for you!  :) I'll probably remove it, as it's ungainly squat at any page width, but I appreciate your help and that you looked in here originally. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 04:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point, in the "convictions" parameter, you're supposed to specify what crime he's been convicted of. A conviction, by definition, is a guilty verdict. "Convictions: Guilty" just means "Guilty of: being guilty". Consequently, the "occupation" parameter should list their [lawful] occupation, not which crimes they've committed. In this case, probably landowner or noble would work best. Are there any particularly well known barons with an infobox in their article? That might be a good place to look to see how to format an IB. I would have used IB:Noble myself, instead of IB:Person or IB:Criminal. I only know William de Percy and there's no IB there. Oh, and of course Lord Percy Percy. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: FYI, I've removed the IB. Although well-intentioned, it doesn't seem particularly useful: IB Nobility focusses on his royal service, etc, which is only a small portion of the article's content, while IB Criminal does the opposite. As I said I my edits summary, the subject is a nuanced one that cannot be constrained within the (somewhat limited, I suggest) parameters of the infobox. I imagine something like IB Bad Baron might work, but of course it would be of too limited usage. Even so, this was certainly an interesting and informative experiment. Thanks all. ——SerialNumber54129 07:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and misc comments

[edit]
  • I trust that I need not declare a COI for my half-cousin 21 times removed?
Great COI  :) don't tell anyone from Colchester!
  • Is the ipm for his father available? I know that many are online in the UK National Archives.
Possibly: I'll have a look...were you thinking as a source or an image?
Not sure. I know that many have been scanned, but I'm not sure if they've been converted to text or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't characterise King John's reign as late 13th century as he died in 1216
Check. It was the campaigns of the 1290s (attempting to recapture those lost by John): I've tweaked the text hopefully clarifying this.
a leading rebel against King John in the late 13th century There's still this...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Thought you were talking about the Gascon campaign. Changed late > early. ——SerialNumber54129 15:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • References are consistently formatted though they probably ought to be listed in numerical order in the text.
Done (footnotes anyway).
  • add |lastauthoramp=y to the cite book template for all your multiple author works to match the format used in the Refs
Great stuff, thanks ver much!
  • Page ranges need to be fully expanded, i.e. 130–36 to 130–136
Good catch.
  • Fix the page range in Duggan
Done.
Yep, bloody ODNB! ——SerialNumber54129 12:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review and other tweaks Sturmvogel 66, I think I've attended to them: what think ye. ——SerialNumber54129 12:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_FitzWalter,_2nd_Baron_FitzWalter/archive1&oldid=920957790"