Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Erpingham/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) 28 February 2021 [1].

Thomas Erpingham

[edit]
Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sir Thomas Erpingham, a soldier, courtier, and loyal servant of John of Gaunt, his son Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV of England) and grandson Henry V. Erpingham led a full and interesting life, acquired great riches and much power, and was present at the Battle of Agincourt, where as one of the oldest men there, he commanded the English archers. The article has been peer reviewed over the last few weeks (thanks to those involved). Amitchell125 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Placeholder: recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead / Ancestry and early life
  • "he served under John of Gaunt". Optional: 'he served under the King's nephew, John of Gaunt,' to give an idea of the status of the position?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was with Gaunt's son Henry Bolingbroke in Lithuania, Prussia and the Holy Land". Optional: 'was with Gaunt's son Henry Bolingbroke on crusades in Lithuania, Prussia and the Holy Land'?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appointed as guardian of Henry younger son Thomas". 1, Is "as" needed? 2. 'Henry's'.
1 Amended; 2 done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "impeached as a rebel of the king". I don't think that one can be a rebel of someone, and anyway, isn't "of the king" unnecessary? It seems clear from the context.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whilst Erpingham was praised for his services, Despenser was publicly rebuked." This may be unnecessary detail for the lead.
Agreed, and so removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appointed Erpingham as Steward of the Household". Delete "as".
Done (but note 'as' is acceptable here in British English). Amitchell125 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He commanded the archers in the Battle of Agincourt". Give the date
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the main battle". The main battle. What would that be? Maybe 'during fierce hand-to-hand combat fought alongside the King' or similar?
Sentence amended to reflect the fact that TE was not with the king at the start of the battle. There's no evidence he was involved in actual combat. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alongside the king". Upper case K.
Not done - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people. Happy to be corrected. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From MOS:JOBTITLES: "They are capitalized only in the following cases: ... When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II)"
OK, done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His son Thomas". Delete "His son".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sir John died in 1370, when Thomas was thirteen." Were they still in Aquitaine?
Curry gives Sir John as dying on 1 August 1370 and buried in the church at Erpingham, Norfolk. Text amended to clarify the point. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Early military service
  • Indentured comes up a lot. Could we have either a brief in line explanation or a fuller footnote. (Or, if you want to spoil the readers, both.)[note 1]
Done (both suggestions). Amitchell125 (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "and knighted whilst still in his teens"; article: "The year Erpingham was knighted is unknown, but he is likely to have been at least 21".
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the earliest known date in which his knighthood is referred to* "in" → 'at'.
Done.
  • "the kingdom of Castile". Upper case K.
Done.
  • "dominated the duke's life". Upper case D.
Done.
  • "the freedom the king" K. I am going to stop mentioning them, read MOS:JOBTITLES, especially the second bullet point, and have a run through the article.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but after six weeks their campaign was abandoned." Is it known why?
Explanation provided. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "travelled in extravagantly expensive style, further enhancing their reputations as pious soldiers." How does extravagance equate to piety?
As it doesn't, I clarified that bit. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is not certain that he went to Aquitaine when he was young." This should be mentioned at the point where you state unequivocally that he did.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and given judicial powers to preserve order in Norfolk in the aftermath of the Peasants' Revolt." Give the year.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lancaster granted him the Norfolk hundred of South Erpingham in 1386, which was granted for life ten years later". So on what basis was it granted first time?
Issue addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ In a different article I dealt with the issue with "Derby was appointed the King's Lieutenant in Gascony on 13 March 1345 and received a contract to raise a force of 2,000 men in England, and further troops in Gascony itself. The highly detailed contract of indenture had a term of six months from the opening of the campaign in Gascony, with an option for Edward to extend it for a further six months on the same terms." which hopefully made the term clear from context. I don't necessarily recommend that here, I just wanted to show one way of dealing with it.
Revolution of 1399
  • "for his support for in the struggle" Delete the second "for".
  • "Bolingbroke gained more support in his cause". "in" → 'for'.
  • "duchy of Lancaster". Upper case D.
  • "As he moved across northern and central England. Richard, delayed in Ireland, eventually found ships to cross over the Irish Sea." Should this be a single sentence? Either way it looks as if something is missing in the middle.
  • "the bishop of Norwich". Upper case B. And similarly for any subsequent proper nouns.
This section's comments addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Career under Henry IV
[edit]
  • Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
  • "duketti". Foreign words should use the Lang template.
  • "French king's' council". Only one apostrophe.
  • "Constable of Dover". Lower case c.
  • "by making them force them to acknowledge him".
  • "the Erpingham Gate". Is there any further information on this? EG, where it is?
  • "benefitted". Single t, see usage notes here.
  • "when it supported the Lords Appellant". Perhaps a brief in line explanation? So a reader doesn't have to read a separate article for the sentence to make sense.
  • "which was presented". "was" → 'were'.
  • "Henry IV awarded the city a new charter ... [new paragraph] ... and the city gained a new charter".
All these points addressed, apart from the one about the Constable of Dover. See here for the official website, showing that it should remain capitalised. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Career under Henry V
[edit]
  • "he travelled with his father to the English possession of Aquitaine ... Edward III had lost Aquitaine in 1337"[?]
  • "strong infrastructure and amply supply of manpower". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • "Henry's inner circle", then "Henry V's campaign". Henry V at first mention, thereafter just Henry.
  • "Erpingham crossed over from England with Henry's army on 11 August 1415, where they landed at the mouth of the River Seine". "where" doesn't make sense unless France or Normandy is mentioned in the sentence.
  • "Erpingham was one of a significant number of middle aged commanders" → 'Erpingham was one of a significant number of middle aged English commanders'. And hyphenate 'middle-ages'.
  • "He is not mentioned in English versions of the events of 1415". 1. Insert 'contemporaneous'. 2. Not at all? Or just not in accounts of Agincourt?
Sentence amended to reflect comment by Curry (2000): "In fact he is not featured in any account of the battle written in England" Amitchell125 (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead states "Erpingham presided over the surrender of Harfleur and was garrisoned in the town over the winter of 1414–1415." but the second part is not mentioned in the article.
  • "men-at-war". Do you mean men-at-arms?
  • Link men-at-arms.
  • "in comparison with the men-at-war present on the field" Suggestion: 'in proportion to the number of men-at-arms present'.
  • "He positioned them in front and to the sides in front of the English army". I think that I know what you are trying to say, but it is not that clear, and having "in front" twice doesn't help. Leaving aside their being the largest part of the English army and so there are existential issues about their being in front of it/themselves.
  • The block quote: 1. link Jean de Wavrin. 2. I don't think that he wrote that in 1887. 3. "Article Title"?
  • "was ordered to advance the front line of his archers". Just the front line? Did the others stay where they were?
  • "to within range of the French". What range is meant here? In context it reads as if you mean attack range of the French, which you don't.
  • "a group of 200 archers concealed in a meadow began to shoot into the French flanks." I have great respect for Curry, but that seems improbable. Are you quite sure that is what she says? (And why is this single sentence in a separate paragraph?)
As Sumption agrees and is a little more detailed, I've used him. Apparently it's true. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph commencing "The main body of English archers then let loose" is not an accurate account of the battle.
@Gog the Mild: The account of the battle (using Curry (2015) in the main) is now as accurate as I can make it, but it may need trimming back. Please let me know what you think. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have copy edited a little. Let me know about anything you are not happy with.
Happy with your edits. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a distinguishing feature of the battle, and one which forced the French formations to divide into three columns." This either needs an explanation or deleting. I would suggest the latter.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the main battle began to be attacked by the English" Attacked by the English men-at-arms advancing on foot, or by archers firing from their original positions?
Amended to say it was men on foot fighting at close quarters. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS As his role at Agincourt is what he is most famous for, I don't think that relying almost entirely on Curry for that is going to cover "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I mean, it isn't as if there isn't a fair few accounts of Erpingham's role to be surveyed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sumption used to cite the Agincourt section, I'll check through Barker again to see if I can use her any more. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry V's army then marched to Calais". Mention that Calais was an English enclave. Link to Pale of Calais.
  • "After his return to England". Do we know when?
@Gog the Mild: the sources disagree—Barker appears to state here that Erpingham was at Harfleur over the winter of 1415/16, but Anne Curry states (2000, p. 73): "The army moved on to Calais and thence to Dover, where Erpingham landed around 16 November." Amitchell125 (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that is a disagreement. Do you mean Barker has him at Calais? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, at Harfleur. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. This may be on a different point: the article. after your account of Agincourt, states "Henry's army then marched to the English enclave of the Pale of Calais, embarked from Calais on 16 November and returned to England.[84] Erpingham was among those 300 men-at arms and 900 archers who garrisoned the town over the winter of 1414–1415"> Is that date at the end correct?
Thanks, now corrected. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain what a "mark" is. I suggest a footnote, in which case feel free to lift note 8 from Battle of Calais.
'Career under Henry V' issues addressed, with a few comments added. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
[edit]
  • "he purchased 12 manors from". "12" → 'twelve' to standardise with the other numbers.
  • "He also lost his tenure of lands". Should that be 'He also lost the tenure of some of his lands'?
  • Link Norwich Cathedral at first mention, not second.
  • "after a fire in the city caused serious damage". Is it known when this was?
  • "Erpingham built the east window". I assume that you mean that he paid to have it built?
  • "each dedicated to a noblemen or knights who died without producing an heir." 'nobleman or knight'.
  • The window dedication text needs to be in a block quote.
  • Link Garter stall plates.
  • "Knights of the Garter" Why the upper case initials?
  • Another single sentence paragraph.
All sorted, except that the upper case initials in 'Knights of the Garter' are correct (see the FA on the subject). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appearance in the Henriad
  • Most, if not all, of the straight quoting from Shakespeare needs to go. The first six and last nine lines handle this well.
I did wonder. Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Refs and sources
  • Note 2: "goes on to gives the men's names". "gives" → 'give'.
  • Cites 96 and 102 should be 'pp.', not "p.".
  • Is there a page range for Curry (2000)?
  • Curry (2015) should be before Curry et al (2010).
  • Several articles are missing identifiers - ISSNs or JSTORs.
'Refs and sources' comments addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amitchell125, have you addressed and/or responded to all of my comments? If not, could you ping me when you have? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all done yet (see my progress here. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Many thanks for all your comments above, which I think are now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Points above
  • "Constable of Dover". We don't go by what websites say, we go by the MoS. There are numerous examples of speciality areas - including many highly formal ones - liking to capitalise words which are important to them. But we still go by the MoS, not by common or expert usage; I agree that this is contrary to how Wikipedia usually addresses such matters.
Sorted throughout. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Knights of the Garter". Similarly. You are not referring to the Order, but to an unspecified group of its members, so it's a "job title, see MOS:JOBTITLES.
Done (please feel free to do any I've still not done, although there shouldn't be any now), Amitchell125 (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agincourt: you have now removed most of the account of the battle, which IMO, doesn't work either. Especially as the account now ends part way through.
Happy to restore the removed paragraphs. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shakespeare: "Most, if not all, of the straight quoting from Shakespeare needs to go. The first six and last nine lines handle this well." You have marked this as "Done", but I suspect there was some miscommunication. I would like to see all of the Shakespeare lines removed. I feel that the first six and last nine lines of prose in the section, written in Wikipedia's voice, handle this well.
Done now. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There's no evidence he was involved in actual combat". Well, possibly, but given your "He then dismounted and moved with his banner to join the King" and Sumption's "Henry V had to fight for his life" could you come up with something which doesn't suggest that he kept well back while shouting helpful advice?
Probably best not to mention the lack of evidence about TE's role in the battle? It's not there now. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take 2
[edit]
  • All entries in the infobox should begin with an upper case letter.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "House of Lancaster" is not going to mean a lot to most readers. Perhaps append 'including English kings Henry IV and Henry V'?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whose military career during the Hundred Years War spanned four decades" I may have this wrong, but the first involvement is the Hundred Years War I can find is the relief of Brest in 1386 and the last is Agincourt in 1416. That's not "four decades".
The words 'during the Hundred Years War' taken out—I simply meant his career spanned four decades. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Erpingham accompanied Bolingbroke into exile in October 1398, and was with Bolingbroke when he landed". Possibly replace second "Bolingbroke" with 'him'?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Marshal of England" Why the upper case M?
It's a title like 'the Duke of Kent', I think it's an example of "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description" (MOS:JOBTITLES}. He wasn't just a marshal, he was the Marshal. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Steward of the Household". "S"; "H"?
Ditto. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry IV's reign had been marked by a rise in lawlessness". The source provided does not support a "rise".
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "after the king was lured". "k" → 'K'.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "(BnF)" Either delete or give in full.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above some responses to your responses to my initial comments; and some further comments on just the lead, infobox and captions. I have not (so far) checked any of your changes to the article in response to my comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the successful defence tactics". "defence" → 'defensive'.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1390 he was with Bolingbroke's retinue when it crossed the English Channel that year". Delete "that year".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Erpingham's own actions during his travels across Europe are not recorded, and so, or was with him in Jerusalem." I assume there is a typo towards the end of this?
The sentence sneaked back in again after i thought it had been removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The historian Helen Castor has described the Duke of Lancaster's presence in East Anglia as a "disparate collection” that lacked coherence or a single identity" This doesn't make sense. How can Lancaster not have a single identity?
Good point, now amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be commissioner of peace". Is that from the source? I am more used to 'to be a commissioner the of peace'.
Goodman specifically refers more than once to men such as Erpingham being appointed to "commissions of peace", and calls them commissioners. I'll amend the sentence accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered Richard's decision an act of revenge". Any information on what Richard was revenging himself for?
Henry was one of the five appellants who opposed Richard in 1388, putting many of the King's advisors on trial and removing him from government for a year. Richard never forgave any of them; the five men were later exiled, executed or murdered. Do you think a note would suffice? Amitchell125 (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they were welcomed and presented with lavish gifts". By/from whom.
Sorted.
  • "and his banishment was increased by the King to life." Optional: delete "by the King".
I'd rather keep it in. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard remained delayed in Ireland" → either 'Richard remained in Ireland' or 'Richard was delayed in Ireland'.
Done.
  • "He eventually found ships to cross over the Irish Sea". Delete "over".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when Chester fell to Bolingbroke. By 27 July Bolingbroke had reached Berkeley, near Bristol" I thought that Chester fell after Bolingbroke reached Berkeley. Is that wrong? If not, why is the account not in chronological order?
You are correct—Henry entered Chester on 9 August, so the text has been amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To end of 1399.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all you're doing, Gog. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He served as Chamberlain until 1404, acted briefly as Steward of the Household the same year and became acting Marshal of England in October". Why all the upper case letters? Later "Steward of the Household". Probably more. These need resolving.
Capitals now changed to lower case, please revert if any are inadvertently changed in error. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry IV's reign, which had been marked by a rise in banditry and rioting". As I mentioned above, the source does not support this. The "rise" that is.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To start of Harfleur. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could we have a sentence or two joining the capture of Harfleur to the Battle of Agincourt?
Text added. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The concealed archers started firing into the French flanks, which signalled a continuous discharge of arrows by the main body of archers". Other sources, eg Sumption, have this the other way round.
Thanks for spotting that, it looks like Curry agrees with Sumption and others. Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French plan was to use mounted men-at-arms to overcome the English archers, leaving the men-at-arms to attack their heavily outnumbered English counterparts." Is it the same men-at-arms who do both attacks?
Sentence amended (' leaving the men-at-arms' here refers to the men in the battles and the wings) Amitchell125 (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Personal life. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He also lost the tenure of some of his lands, a common occurrence when manors were awarded 'for life'. This really confuses me. Surly losing tenure should be extremely rare if it is awarded for life?
Curry says (without any further explanation): "The tenure of manors seems frequently to have been given 'for life', and as frequently removed and given to others well within that life time." so I've taken her word for it. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but in that case can I suggest "a common occurrence at the time" → 'a common occurrence when manors were awarded 'for life or similar to avoid baffling readers.
  • "forced to relinquish his claim "of the manors of Erpingham and Wyckmere" Is it known why?
Sentence amended to say who received the lands, and that it was done by order the King. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a window opposite the chantry of the cathedral". Specify which cathedral.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curry (2000) needs a page range.
The citations from Curry (2000) include (at least) one from another chapter, so I've amended the source so that the chapter on Sir Thomas isn't mentioned. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All book titles should be in title case, eg Curry (2000).
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Amitchell125 (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take 3
[edit]

OK. I could have phrased that better. I meant for Take 2. Hopefully this last tidy up will be short and sweet.

  • See comment above on "for life".
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • John of Gaunt is sometimes referred to as Lancaster. Is there a reason? In particular this makes this from the lead "he served under the King's uncle John of Gaunt in Spain and Scotland" appear not to link to the main text.
He was a prince, an earl and a duke (and perhaps also king). I'm not quite sure where to go with this one. Do you think he should be referred to as John of Gaunt throughout? The name is only popular nowadays because of Shakespeare. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's tricky. And the sources don't help much. You have Lancaster pretty much throughout, and that seems fine to me. I suggest changing note 3 to Lancaster. I have tweaked your one bare mention of "Gaunt", [2], see what you think.
  • "chamberlain of the Royal Household"; "steward of the royal household". Which? My view is that the MoS requires 'royal household' in both cases.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that you move the sentence on his death to the end of the lead.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "landed with him at Ravenspur, probably at the end of June". Give the year.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "restore his rightful inheritance to the Duchy of Lancaster" → either 'restore his rightful inheritance of the Duchy of Lancaster' or 'restore his rights to the Duchy of Lancaster'.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leave Conwy for nearby Rhuddlan Castle" I would not have described these two as "nearby". Perhaps state the distance? (17 miles.)
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, just maybe, that really is all. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed going through the above points. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Solid work. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]
Done, thanks for the tip. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be completely sure, so I have removed it until I obtain another one that is OK to include. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons page amended to give the sources for these. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images' licensing looks OK
  • Quotebox from Chronique d'Angleterre is sandwiching the image, contrary to MOS:IMAGELOC. I would use {{quote}} instead so it appears inline, or alternately deleting entirely.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 23:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments Buidhe, which I think are now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aza24

[edit]

Please ping me when you and Gog are done above and I'll leave some comments. Aza24 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there something "Constable" can link to? afaik, it's a rather ambiguous term
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we sure "Privy Council" should be capitalized? I would think not, but maybe sources say otherwise
Capitals are correct. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • within twelve months law and order had been re-established throughout England I'm not sure the lead makes it what happened to the law in the first place?
Paragraph amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which one do you think is more significant for him, administrator or soldier? Just checking, as I think the order of them in the first sentence should probably reflect this—and which ever it is, the infobox is opposite currently
Sorted, went for s&a. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor quibble, but if we're being true to the prose requirements of FAC In 1379... In the summer of 1380 seems less than ideal with the double "in" beginning two consecutive sentences
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this is dubious, but an inflated price for £20 may help the reader understand why that would have made him rich
I checked for something, but all the sources warn against comparing modern incomes with medieval incomes in terms of inflation. Dyer mentions that during the 15th century only 12,000 households had an income of £10-£300 and Erpingham would have fitted into this category, so I'll include that to provide some more context for his wealth. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a general idea what it raised the siege of the English garrison means, but am left somewhat unsure, maybe there's a better way to rephrase? Also, the line almost sounds like Erpingham was against the English garrison
It's gone (I culled a couple of paragraphs). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know who won the joust?
Sentence added—he got through it. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps use Biggs's full name for the quote, since we haven't heard him before; and I reckon an identifier like "historian" would be nice, otherwise the reader may think this is a comment from someone else in the retinue!
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • feats that enhanced the reputation in England of Bolingbroke and his retinue as Christian soldiers – I see the point here, but perhaps there's a more to the point way to describe this, like "legitimized them", "true Christian soldiers", "soldiers of particular piety". There is a good chance though that I may be the only one finding issue with this line, so do what you will
  • a dispute — we should surely not go to length in explaining this, but I wonder if something like "a territorial/financial/whatever dispute" could be included, otherwise it seems rather vague
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • but chroniclers considered—as in contemporary chroniclers or later ones?
Yes, later ones, with an eye to regarding Richard as a tyrant. Sentenced amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of an amateur playwright I know...
  • more later, rather interesting so far Aza24 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse my ignorance, carried the King's sword before him—am not really sure what this means? As interesting as it sounds, I would suspect many of our readers may share my confusion here (at least American ones?). Although, if it is as literal as it sounds it would be fine I'm sure
As part of the coronation procession to Westminster Abbey, Erpingham carried one of the Swords of State, riding before the King. I've amended the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little confused, was he chamberlain twice then? Or are these chamberlain positions ("appointed to be chamberlain" & "he served as chamberlain") the same? If the latter, I wonder if "continued to serve" would be clearer
They are the same, so I've simplified the text to remove the confusion. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would recommend putting a ref directly after the "for bearing his word to"... quote, since this seems to be the (de facto or de jure, not sure) norm with quote verifiability on WP
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was achieved within a year. Henry's administrators—Erpingham included—were unusually talented, and order was maintained in England throughout his reign. – if available, any information on what Erpingham did specifically may be valuable here
Agreed, and I looked around, but there wasn't anything specific mentioned by the sources. It looks as if he gone on with the work involved with the roles he had in court. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edward, as a descendant of Philip IV of France – err, what? Edward III?
Text amended. 'Edward' and 'Edward III' are the same person. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a wikilink, so I used that. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming it's unknown when he married Joan?
That's right, Curry's "sometime before 1389" is the nearest we have. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • used Erpingham's character more inventively and more often than Olivier, and showed more of an awareness of Erpingham's place in history. if his part was still mostly silent, such a line hints of some POV; can we credit the source in-text here, or lessen down on the supposed supremacy of Branagh's depiction? :)
Curry quoted to remove any possibility that the text here is my POV. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24:Thanks for your comments, which I think are now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. I found this article enjoyable to read and well researched. The comprehensiveness was there and just enough background info was included to make sense of Erpingham's place. I'm realizing now that my confusion with the Edward line was that I didn't see the difference of roman numerals in Philip VI vs Philip IV! Happy to support this nomination. Best - Aza24 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]
  • I'm concerned that the prose here needs considerable work. Some examples:
  • "In July 1399, Erpingham was one of Bolingbroke's supporters who landed with him at Ravenspur, probably at the end of June." If he landed in July, how could he probably have landed at the end of June?
Now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conditions of service and payment were made in agreed voluntarily"
Typo amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lancaster granted him the hundred of South Erpingham in 1386, in the form of a fief, or legal right to use the land awarded. [6] for “loyal service to the House of Lancaster”,[28] The hundred was granted for life ten years later"
I've simplified the end of the paragraph. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally there seem to be quite a few typos in Bibliography, eg "MacMmillan", "Vikng", etc - please check throughout
The errors have now been sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These specific prose issues have been addressed, but more work is needed in this area. Some additional examples: "Erpingham was ordered warn the army" and "on 22 September he processed to the walls". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the narrative is difficult to follow for a non-expert. For example, is an annual income of £20 significant or trifling? Why would the king gain freedom from not having Lancaster around? Where had the peace been made by July 1392?
@Nikkimaria: I've addressed these points, are there other examples you could point me to? Amitchell125 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further examples: earlier in the Early military service section it says the year he was knighted is unknown, but later it says it is implied in existing records - implied to be what, and how? Why was the trial by battle cancelled? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sir Thomas Erpingham's statue (or possibly an effigy taken from his tomb)" - source? Some of the other details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere, such as the date of his second marriage
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation formatting needs editing for consistency
@Nikkimaria: I'm not sure where I'm being inconsistent, could you point me in the right direction? Amitchell125 (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Aza24 is working on this, will wait until that's done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, these should be good now, unless you're seeing something I'm not; sorry for butting in Amitchell, I had so extra time when I saw your message on my talk – Aza24 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further examples: ODNB sources don't match each other in formatting; Biggs has a double date; Bibliography is not correctly alphabetized. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checking on Vane again (who doesn't seem to be a published author), it's probably best to leave him out. A Google search for "Sir Thomas Erpingham" brings up the thesis if anyone is interested. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, quite a lot of work has been done on the article since your last comment, would you mind taking another look at it? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed my oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

[edit]

I greatly enjoyed this article. A few minor quibbles about prose:

  • Lead
  • At the start of the last para usual WP practice is surname only for second or subsequent mentions.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early military service
  • Two unexpected Americanisms: the usual English form is "in XYZ Street" not "on" it, and the OED prefers the traditional English "adviser" to "advisor".
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • but due to a lack of food - In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • journeyed through Europe, visiting Prague, Vienna, Corfu, and the Holy Land – this reads as though the Holy Land is in Europe. Perhaps "and then the Holy Land" or some such?
Thanks, that now looks better. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • important of his retainers in the region – "his" meaning Lancaster's no doubt, but it isn't immediately obvious from this phrasing.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard's decision an act of revenge – we haven't had any mention in the earlier paras of any action by Bolingbroke that might have displeased the King. Later on footnote 6 makes all clear, but a few words here would be helpful.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • where he met up with Richard's uncle – the only edition of Fowler I have to hand is the Gowers one, which is very sniffy about phrasal verbs like "meet up with". Memory tells me that the 2015 edition sits on the fence about them, but "meet up with" still looks a bit slangy to me.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord Warden – I am well aware that if one over-seriously pursues consistent capitalisation of titles one is apt to become unhinged, but I do just wonder why Lord Warden is capitalised when constable, marshal, and controller of the royal household are not. I do not press the point.
Relevant capitals now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Career under Henry V
  • and as a descendant of Philip IV of France had a claim to the French throne – I had to go back to the start of this sentence. I read "as" as "because" and was expecting something new where the full stop is. Even reading the "as" in the sense that you intend, I am not clear about whether it was Edward III's or Henry V's claim to the French throne we are talking about here.
Hopefully it makes more sense now. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erpingham was one of a significant number – what did the number signify? I try to keep in mind Gowers's advice: "This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large." There are two more significants in the text: one in the lead, and an encore in "Architectural legacy". It wouldn't hurt to revisit those too.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal life
  • His connections with the Lancastrians and his increasing wealth – WP seems to have developed a convention that at first mention in a new paragraph one must use the name rather than a pronoun. I think this is rather a silly convention, and one you will look for in vain elsewhere, but I mention it here in passing.
Name added. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appearance in the Henriad
  • Act IV of Henry V but Act 2 of Richard II – better to be consistent between Roman and Arabic numerals.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes
  • 1 – the case of The Duke of Lancaster's – lower case "the" probably wanted.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few comments. This seems to me a first-class article: a pleasure to read, top-notch prose, splendidly illustrated and as far as I can see admirably balanced and proportioned. I can't comment knowledgeably about the sources, but I note that they are many and more than half are of recent vintage. Tim riley talk 09:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: I've worked through your suggestions, thanks for taking a look. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. On a second reading, just now, I have again much enjoyed the article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 11:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • This is an interesting article, but I have some queries about the sourcing. A few are too dated and may not be reliable, especially Blomefield and Parkin, 1805-10 and Rimmer 1877. You cite the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, but the latest edition of any work should be consulted. You cite Veronica Sekules as Atherton, the editor of the book she wrote in, but you should cite her chapter.
Done, Sekules source amended. 1911 source taken out and Rimmer also removed (Sekules covers what he said). Amitchell125 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their ancestor Robert, the first lord of the manor,[3] represented Norfolk in the Parliaments of 1333–1334, 1335, and 1341.[4]" This shows the danger of relying on excessively dated sources, in this case Blomefield and Parkin. Pollard, who you also cite, shows that this is wrong on two counts. The Robert who was the first lord was a different person from the parliamentary representative and it is not known whether either was a direct ancestor.
I see what you mean here. Luckily, Curry (2000) came to the rescue, and so I used her reference to a Robert Erpingham MP. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 1368, when he was about eleven" You give his DOB as c.1355 so he would not have been 11 in 1368.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lancaster's wealth and royal status gave him a prominence in affairs of state that created tension between him and Richard" This is not quite right. His wealth would presumably not have created tension if he had fully supported Richard.
Absolutely, sentence corrected accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1380, the alliance between England and Portugal had been renewed" You have not said that there was a previous alliance.
Looking again at that sentence, it seemed a little unnecessary to include the renewed alliance, so I took it out. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For reasons that are not fully understood he went into the service of Bolingbroke." Why not understood? It seems quite natural.
I agree. Curry says that the transfer of Erpingham was one of "17 knights and esquires who had previously been granted an annuity by Gaunt". As the occurrence was apparently not unusual, I've not kept the ;For reasons that are not fully understood...' part. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it crossed the English Channel on a crusading expedition to Marseilles" Perhaps explain why a crusade would go to Marseille.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on an itineration of the Lancastrian lands" What is an itineration?
Word replaced. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Above comments now addressed, I think. Many thanks for taking a look. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly afterwards, Erpingham arrested Henry le Despenser, one of the few remaining supporters of Richard prepared to resist Bolingbroke.[40] Erpingham would naturally have supported Lancaster over Despenser[41]—Lancastrian antipathy towards the 'fighting bishop' may be traced back to 1383, after Despenser's crusade to Flanders was favoured over Lancaster's military aims." I suggest "Shortly afterwards, Erpingham arrested Henry le Despenser, Bishop of Norwich, one of the few remaining supporters of Richard prepared to resist Bolingbroke." The rest is redundant - Despenser would presumably have been arrested for resisting the coup regardless of any former antipathy. Also, it is relevant that he was Bishop of Norwich, which you do not mention in the main text.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard was forced by Bolingbroke and his representatives—including Erpingham—to relinquish the throne." "forced" is surely too strong - many men would have refused to give way.
Sentence amended, see what you think.
  • " lord warden and constable of Dover Castle as early as 21 August, and appointed to be chamberlain of the royal household" It is probably a matter of personal taste but I would capitalise the titles, which are capitalised in the linked articles.
I'd rather not capitalise as you suggest, having followed advice from Gog the Mild on this matter (see above discussions). Amitchell125 (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside my personal preference, my reading of MOS:JOBTITLES is that the MoS requires it not to be capitalised. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an old codger I do not read that section of the sacred MoS as requiring us to lower-case things no sane person would lower-case. To speak of "the lord chancellor", for instance, looks plain daft, me judice. Tim riley talk 17:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an even older codger, one of the things I find most irritating about Wikipedia is the passion for lower casing titles which clearly should be capitalised. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I want to avoid using it. The NA (and other sources I found) warn against converting incomes too literally. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Blount watched his own bowels being burnt before him, he cursed Erpingham for being a "false traitor"." Perhaps worth quoting the fuller account in John which shows his brutality and, as John says, provides a counterbalance to the favourable image of Erpingham in Lancastrian sources.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry's administrators—Erpingham included—were unusually talented". Walker in ODNB disagrees: "Erpingham was frequently at court during the early years of Henry IV's reign but an apparent distaste for administrative business meant that he attended the council only occasionally."
I am referring to Erpingham during the reign of Henry V though. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some chroniclers recorded the command as "Nestroque"" What does Nestroque mean?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the seniority of the men-at-arms reflecting the importance of not losing the town to the French." What seniority?
Thanks, now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where they welcomed John I, Duke of Burgundy" There seems no point in mentioning this without explaining its significance. Also John should be linked if he is mentioned.
Done, but John is already linked. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Over-complex text simplified. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You several times cite Curry ed 2000, but you should cite the chapter(s).
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His second marriage was to Joan Walton, the daughter of Sir Richard Walton, and widow of Sir John Howard, who had died in 1409 or 1410." "had died in 1409" sounds odd as he was widowed in 1404.
Dudley Miles Text amended slightly, please get back to me if it still doesn't make sense. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Today it makes up the most complete friary surviving in England." "makes up" sounds odd to me. Why not just "is"
The church was just one part of the friary, text amended to clarify this. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the author Thomas M. Cranfill" The description is not helpful. He must have been an author if you are quoting him. Can he not be more informatively described?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sekules, Veronica (1996). "The Gothic Campaigns"." I am not sure whether it is a requirement, but it is usual to give the page numbers of the chapter.
Done for all chapters in the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason you usually refer to Henry V before his succession as Henry of Monmouth, but in the succession box at the end as Prince of Wales?
Information in the box now amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles:: Thanks for your comments, which are much appreciated, and all your comments are hopefully now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will review, might claim for wikicup points. Hog Farm Talk 15:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm concerned that note 1 may be a bit too long and veer into slightly undue detail. It's helpful, and I may be wrong, so I'd be interested to here what others think about that
I'd like to keep it there for now, as it was added in response to a comment during the FAC review. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been me who requested it. It is long for my taste, but not to the extent that I would insist on shortening it. Which may largely reflect my interest in such things. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It is assumed that Erpingham was with Lancaster during the English invasion of Scotland in 1385" - By whom?
Not assumed, so sentence tweaked. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and went on to bring Galicia under English control" - Given that we have no primary topic for Galicia and that there is another region named Galicia in Europe, maybe call it Spanish Galicia or something to avoid potential confusion?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bolingbroke and his reduced retinue journeyed through Europe, visiting Prague, Vienna, Corfu, and then the Holy Land," - this phrasing can suggest that the Holy Land is part of Europe
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January that year a dispute erupted between Bolingbroke and Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk," This is 1396, right?
Errr, no. Now corrected, thanks for spotting that. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry's coronation took place on 13 October 1399 at Westminster Abbey, when Erpingham carried one of the King's swords before the King during the procession to the abbey" - The joining of these two clauses with "when" seems a little odd to me
Text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not such how much the semi-lengthy direct quote in note 4 adds
I was asked to identify the 11 men, but I agree with you that the note is overdetailed. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He was a commander in the army that suppressed the duketti rebellion of 1399–1400" - The average reader, including myself, is going to find duketti to be a rather confusing term. Is it possible to link or gloss this?
Done (term explained). Amitchell125 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that note 5 (Wavrin's account of Blount's execution) adds too much to this article
It looks alright without the note, especially as i've been asked to put a bit more from John into the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Erpingham held a prominent position in East Anglian society;" - Move the link for East Anglia up to the first sentence of Revolution of 1399, where it is first mentioned
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It cooperated with him as an important member of Henry's inner circle" - I find this sentence rather confusing. What is "it" and cooperated seems to be an odd word choice here (although that might be my American English)
Sentence amended slightly to help remove any confusion. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "third wife of the Duke of Lancaster, the manors of Erpingham and Wyckmere, and of all lands, rents, services, Villeins with their villeinages etc. there and in all other towns in Norfolk sometime of Robert Erpingham knight"" - We have the end of the quote, and this reads very much like a quote, but it's not marked where the quote begins
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His second marriage was to Joan Walton, the daughter of Sir Richard Walton, and widow of Sir John Howard, who had died in 1409 or 1410." - When did this marriage occur?
Unfortunately, there's no information about this. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in a simple line conveys the burden of being a ruler:[116]" - Is that colon intentional?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "Search the Collections" belongs as the |website= parameter in the V&A Museum ref
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting a referencing error stating that there is no link pointing to the Aston 1965 reference
Aston now not used. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last external link is used as a reference, don't need to have it as an external link
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look reliable enough
  • The older sources are used sparingly and primarily in footnotes, so I think they're okay for what they're citing
  • Is the English Navy category really the best one? The word Navy is not used in the article body
Agreed, category replaced. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 18:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm for your helpful comments, which i think are now all addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting on criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, and source reliability. 1b and 1c also seem to be met, although I did not explicitly check against those. Hog Farm Talk 23:22, 15 February 2021 (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/Thomas_Erpingham/archive1&oldid=1009514460"