Bonville–Courtenay feud received a
peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
A fact from Bonville–Courtenay feud appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 April 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that during the Bonville–Courtenay feud, the earl of Devon's men stole all
Nicholas Radford's horses and the sheets off his invalid wife's bed?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Devon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
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
Discussion is moved to talk page of Battle of Clyst Heath (1455) (the target of proposed merge) as per the guidelines of merge dicussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suggest the above merger would be beneficial. Comments please. (
Lobsterthermidor (
talk) 12:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC))
{{rfc|hist}}
This article is a four-month old Good article nominee. When I just thought of reviewing the article, but I found proposed merge tag on its top. This tag has placed in March 2015 (a very long back), and the discussion done is too little. So I thought of requesting for comments because if the article is to be merged then a review would be a waste of time. Regards,
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk •
mail) 02:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copyright
No copyright infringement as work quoted (Transactions of the Devonshire Association, Volume 44 (1912) pp. 252-265) published in 1912, thus prior to 1923 and now in the public domain under
Wikipedia:Public domain as USA copyright term expired. Work quoted from now added to sources section, sorry for the oversight.(
Lobsterthermidor (
talk) 20:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC))reply
More work has been done on this in the last century (Storey, Cherry) spring to mind, which would both update and expand the article. I might be able to do this tomorrow.
FortunaImperatrix Mundi 18:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suggest the above merger would be beneficial. Comments please. (
Lobsterthermidor (
talk) 12:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC))reply
Note:Bonville–Courtenay feud is a four-month old Good article nominee. When I just thought of reviewing the article, I found a proposed merge tag on its top. This tag has been placed in March 2015 (a very long back), and the discussion done is too little. So I thought of requesting for comments because if the article is to be merged then a review would be a waste of time. I have moved the discussion from the talk page of Bonville–Courtenay feud to the target article's talk page. Regards,
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk •
mail) 03:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)reply
MergeCuriousMind01 (
talk) 11:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC), the Battle article is small and can be included in the Feud article.reply
Redirect this title to the in-depth article:
Bonville–Courtenay feud. As FIM advises in the Point of order below, this article isn't about the battle anyway. —
SMALLJIM 23:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect as
Smalljim's and
FIM's responses indicate, the article has no substantive information that is not already included in the Feud article. However, a redirect should be left in place to point to the better article.
AlexEng(
TALK) 05:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect this article ("Battle") into the
Bonville–Courtenay feud article. The latter is MUCH more developed, sourced, and is very much more grammatically correct than the "Battle" article is (which was more at the level of a "fight" than battle anyway). Also, it is clear from the comments here to date that if a merge were to occur, the target article is the other one (much better developed and written), not here. This discussion should be re-placed at the "feud" article talk-page, not here. I can do the work and the merge if you want.
GenQuest"Talk to Me" 20:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@
GenQuest: Thanks for your opinion. There is a clear consensus for the merge. Please complete the merge procedure as your a master at it. Also update the status after you're done, by striking out the present one. Regards,
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk •
mail) 05:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Comments other than votes may be discussed here.
Point of order If the consensus is to 'merge' then that is effectively deleting the article, as there is nothing here that is not already in the 'feud' article. Nothing to merge. Indeed, that's actually why I wrote the feud article in the first place, because most of this short article isn't even about the battle that took place, but, rather, a potted summary of the events surrounding it; in other words, the feud generally (see my 13 May 2016 comment, above). Cheers,
MuffledPocketed 11:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA review
@
BlueMoonset: I thought the GA review had already started? Thanks for tidying this though.
MuffledPocketed 14:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
It had, but it was deleted, presumably at the request of the reviewer. I removed the mention of the merge, which has been completed, to avoid discouraging potential reviewers; hopefully the next reviewer will undertake and complete the review in short order.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
There are only a few more issues that I have found - please see 'Odds & ends' section below. Once these are responded to, I think I'll be able to finish up this GA Review.
Shearonink (
talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)reply
All the prose issues have been dealt-with, adjusted. 1A is now good to go.
Shearonink (
talk) 17:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Succinct and to the point.
Shearonink (
talk) 17:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: There are just a few more issues I have found on my most recent readthrough which can be found in the Odds & ends section below. I am going to do one more proofing/readthrough (and pending any adjustments/discussions), I think I should be able to finish up this GA Review within the next day or two.
Shearonink (
talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:There is a "clarification needed" template in the article - The earl subsequently sent a sortie led by Thomas Carrew. The issue it raises must be corrected before I can do any further work on this Review.
Shearonink (
talk) 05:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Done -in fact it was placed 'mistakenly' :) 18:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
to assist York, who however did not set out until new's was received of the should be to assist York, who however did not set out until news was received of the
Done
This sentence needs to be adjusted for more clarity:
However decisive the earl of Devon's victory had been, it had also drawn the attention of the government, which was still under the control of Bonville's allies, York, Salisbury, and Warwick, but had up until that point failed to intervene in this local feud (as it had also failed to do at the beginning of the Percy–Neville feud in Yorkshire some years before).
Done
I think I know what this sentence means but the meaning is a little unclear. The following sentence is also not as clear as it could be:
When parliament reassembled on 12 November it was presented with (to some degree, exaggerated) reports that Devon was leading an army 4,000 strong, including 400 cavalry.
I think this paragraph could do with some general copy-editing, with the number of commas and parentheses being somewhat confusing to the reader.
Shearonink (
talk) 13:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)reply
This paragraph makes some very specific assertions that seem unsupported by sources:
The king, Henry VI, had been incapacitated by mental illness in August 1453. This led to the recall to court of the recalcitrant Richard, duke of York, his closest adult relative and a potential claimant to the throne whilst Henry remained childless. York had been banished to his estates after a failed rebellion in 1452. The following year, with the king still comatose, York was appointed Lord Protector and First Councillor of the realm, for the duration of the king's illness.
I think it needs to be made clear that this was a period characterization of the king's then-condition and not the current understanding of the medical term. For instance, someone who is comatose couldn't be made to walk even between two men, etc. - someone who is in a
coma, or is comatose, is unconscious.
Shearonink (
talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The murder of Nicholas Radford
he had enfeoffed
What is enfeoffed? Is there a definition that you could link to or maybe a Note you could add? I think a lot of readers might not know what it means.
Done
Devon subsequently despatched a force.
Should this perhaps be dispatched?
Shearonink (
talk) 13:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I think the sense of who the article is referring to is now much clearer but I have some concerns about the present sentence structure. Please see "Odds & ends" section. Thanks,
Shearonink (
talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for that
Shearonink- I think I've dealt with those points- or incorporated your sentence re. the killer of Radford, etc, and went for the slightly vaguer- less loaded term- but still accurate 'incapacitated' instead of attempting a detailed description of Henry's illness (which in any case, it's prob more suited to his article than this?). Thanks a lot! —
O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 09:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Shearonink:- I've just seen you do the
ODNB tags- very sorry about that- I added the first one and (bizarrely, perhaps) thought the rest of them were automatically added! oops! Thanks for catching those though. —
O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Glad to do it - a Reviewer is allowed to do a few minor edits (can't be a "major contributor") so I thought it would just be easier for me to lend a hand on this. Oh, the access-date is also missing from that one cite, if you would add it that'd be awesome. I need to do one more deep-readthrough to see if there's anything I've missed, but barring finding any new issues, I should be able to finish this review up within a day or two.
Shearonink (
talk) 13:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)reply