[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA review
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am giving this article a Review for possible GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In general, well-written but there are some grammatical issues - I'll list those here after my next read-through.
    • There are some extraneous dashes (that are part of the Wikilinks): according to Ralph Griffiths[7]-, Boulogne was effectively lost to him[13]-.
    • I found the first paragraph in the main text confusing. Also this sentence "Indeed, in light of his later generous treatment, it is possible that he was brought up with the young king as much as being merely a ward;..." is this in the source, this particular opinion/conclusion? It sounds like it might be OR. (Plus, as a matter of sheer practicality, I am not sure how much one can say a 12 year old can brought up with someone who is 12 years younger...)
    No; I don't do original research, Shearonink, but thanks for that. The source says: He may actually have been living at court in the later 1420s, since an act of the council in 1425 provided that wards of baronial rank should be permanently about the king. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to imply that you did OR just that the wording made it sound like maybe you had. Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for misunderstanding. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 18:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sir Thomas Erdington's estates, as he latter should be ...as the latter.
    • His allegiance to the crown was made plain enough for the Yorkists to proclaim him, in 1460, one of their most mortal enemies of the king's supporters,[1] and that along with the earls of Wiltshire and Shrewsbury, he orchestrated the insurgents' attainder at the 1459 Coventry parliament for their own benefit.[36]
    This sentence as written doesn't quite make sense to me, I tried to follow the meaning and the clauses, I think it needs to be recrafted into some separate sentences.
    I take its meaning to be that:
    1)The Yorkists proclaimed him as one of their most mortal enemies.
    2)The Yorkists proclaimed that he conspired with the earls of Wiltshire & Shrewsbury to steal the insurgents' land because the earls & Beaumont were greedy.
    But it almost seems to be stating, by use of the clauses, that the the conspiracy benefited the insurgents, because the Yorkists are the subject of that clause - they proclaimed certain things to be true: Beaumont = enemy, Beaumont conspired in the attainder so therefore the "their own benefit" could describe the insurgents. I read it several times before I figured out what the intended meaning was.Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-worded wheer necessary. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Well-done. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This proclamation...is it available anywhere online or in a published source? It would be interesting to have a link to it, maybe in an External links section, to see how insurgents/traitors worded a document accusing other people of bad behavior... Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have a look- it would be intersting; one of those Victorian antiquarians might have published it. Cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    The OxfordDDNB ref requires a subscription to access.
    And should be marked as such. Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it is a minor matter, I have gone ahead and fixed it. If it is not what you want, feel free to adjust. Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's great, many thanks it was one of those technical things that tends to trip me up! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 18:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am troubled that so many of the references are to just 2 sources. This is not impugning their worth, just that it troubles me. Also, these particular volumes are beyond my reach at this time so there is no way for me to check the verifiability of any statement. Again, not casting aspersions, just stating a fact. I will have to see if I can get my hands on copies of these two volumes.
    • That's a fair point- there was probably a degree of laziness in, having the volume in front of me, no need to look for another! But there probably are further sources- other books certainly- I'll see if I can find some online ones that you can check too? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be OK now? Also some online sources availble. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortuna Imperatrix MundiMuch improved. Some of the references are now broken - take a look at the red Goodwin2011. I think that is because even though you've combined all of them into one, the individual refs were to specific pages. Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    Passing this area as GA-worthy will have to wait until I can find one or both of the main references.
    @Shearonink:- I've just found one of the two main sources you're after online- Grifith's Henry VI: see here- it's not the entire book, but it's searchable, and those are the results with 'Beaumont' as the search string. You should be able to compare most of citations that way- if you want to of course; up to you which way you do it. Cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 18:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that is wonderfull! At some later date the link could probably be added to External links or somesuch. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Am wondering if there are any public-domain, etc. images of
    of what?! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Sorry about that. I was thinking of him or of his many estates (assuming any construction from his era are still standing) etc. I see you have added an image of the Battle of Northampton, that takes care of that issue.Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also his birthplace- such as it is. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think images of people's homes or castles are always useful - nicely-done.Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi The only matter to be dealt with before finishing this Review is the issue with the broken Goodwin2011 ref/s.Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Shearonink- I can't for the life of me get the bloomin' things to tie up- the only things different between them are the page numbers- but they would be wouldn't they! Is it 'ethical' to get advice at the help desk or somesuch fount of other arcane wisdom?! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 19:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi In my opinion this is a technical matter and not at all your fault. References can be tricky sometimes - I have fixed the issue since you altered the referencing per my Review. I would recommend you lift&paste what I did and use that for the other references - such as Griffiths - that have so many individual pages. Another way to accomplish would be to use Harvard referencing, which many consider the gold standard for referencing and is worthwhile learning. If you'd like to see an example of Harvard refs, take a look at George Washington for an example. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article fulfills all the parameters of being a Good Article. I would suggest to any interested editors that if on online version of or a link to a printed version of the Yorkists' 1460 proclamation could be found that would help flesh out some details of their antipathy towards Beaumont. Also, going forward the references should probably be brought in to agreement with each other - the style doesn't matter so much, so long as it is within agreement and follows the WP:MOS. Shearonink (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2017 (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.

King's age at coronation / date of knighting Beaumont

[edit]

Per [1], Henry VI was seven not eight at the time of the coronation, and Griffiths is using "barely" to mean "not quite" (one of the meanings given in the OED). Henry was born on 6 December 1421 and crowned in Westminster Abbey on 6 November 1429, one month before his eighth birthday. BencherliteTalk 09:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beautiful mix of OR and SYNTH with a dash of boneidleness thrown in. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 12:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was that rudeness ("boneidleness"???) directed at me? Simple mathematics is not original research, and sources abound that he was crowned aged 7 e.g "So it was that, on November 6th, 1429, a month before his eighth birthday and less than four months after the coronation of his rival, the Dauphin, in Reims, the young Henry VI was crowned King of England at Westminster Abbey" [2] (an article by Christopher Allmand). The alternative would be that Ralph A. Griffiths can't do simple mathematics, which I find unlikely. BencherliteTalk 12:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been aimed at you Bencherlite that would be a personal attack. Anyway, since we have sources that say what we want without assuming or forcing our readers to 'do the maths', the simplest approach is to present what the sources have to tell us. Which I have now done. And would have done earlier had I not been on nights and been ambushed by this ten minutes after waking up. Cheers. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 12:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knighted in 1429?

[edit]

"In 1429 Beaumont was knighted by the seven-year old king on the eve of his coronation. [Grummitt, D., Henry VI (Oxford, 2013), 75]" But looking at page 75 of Grummitt [3], it just says "On 5 November with the king just a month shy of his eighth birthday, the English coronation ceremony began. That evening 32 Knights of the Bath, including the young earl of Devon aand the earl of Warwick's son, Henry, were dubbed and the king lodged in the Tower of London." I don't see any mention of John Beaumont. If he was among the 32, then the link for knighted should be to Order of the Bath? Is he mentioned on a different page? The ODNB entry for Beaumont makes no mention at all of him being knighted in 1429. Maybe User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has some ideas? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this entry will be of some assistance: The Official Baronage of England: Showing the Succession ..., Volume 1 by James William Edmund Doyle Page 145. Shearonink (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: Beatson's "A Political Index to the Histories of Great Britain and Ireland ...(Page 256) does name him as a Knight of the Garter.
Perhaps I am mistaken but I think the issue seems to be the phrasing of: "In 1429 Beaumont was knighted by the seven-year old king on the eve of his coronation..." along with the DYK of "... that in 1429, John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont, was knighted by a seven-year-old king?"
  • The Cracrofts Peerage website states that Beaumont was made a "Knight of the Bath 1426".
  • Pages 130-131 of William Shaw's The Knights of England: A Complete Record from the Earliest Time ... (Volume 1) state that John Beaumont was made a Knight of the Bath on May 19, 1426 along with 43 other men:
After the battle of Verneuil (Aug., 1424) the duke of Bedford came over into England and on Whitsuntide in 1426 at Leicester [at a Parliament there] he dubbed King Henry VI. knight and forthwith the king dubbed the following 44 knights.
So what is verifiable from multiple sources is that the DYK should have been rendered as something like "...that in 1426, John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont, was knighted by a five-year-old king?" and the sentence in the article should have been something along the lines of "In 1426 Beaumont was knighted by the five-year old Henry prior to the King's official coronation three years later." Shearonink (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're not mistaken, that is the issue, as both the article and DYK hook seem to say something that isn't just unsupported by any source, but is simply wrong. So I've removed that sentence for now. It looks like you will be able to restore a corrected version, using those two sources. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. only page 130 of the William Shaw source is visible to me, so I just have to assume he's listed on page 131. I see that Cracroft's Peerage says that Beaumont was made a Privy Councillor 1434, so that might also be added to the article also?[reply]
  • I have more than just ideas, you'll be glad to hear. The sentence is sourced in two parts: The king's age is to Grummitt, the knighting, to Griffiths. Cheers. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 10:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. With only the Griffiths book citation at the end of the sentence I had assumed it was supporting only him being in France with Henry in 1430. Does Griffiths also give a date for him being knighted? Is this the Griffiths book? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmm. Unfortunately the DYK fucked things up slightly, and things got changed without the sources following them. That's because it's up against the clock I guess. Griffiths refers to the king as being 'barely eight' years old at the time. Evening of 5 November 1429.
Ah yes, I see that "Lord Beaumont" appears on page 190. So we now have a conflict of sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the broohah at DYK was about. The consensus was that 'barely' in this context meant almost, or near too. Or do you mean a conflict with Shaw? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both Shaw and Cracroft's? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC) p.s you mean Brouhaha![reply]
Well. I'm not sure as to the efficacy of those two. One's a Victorian antiquary, the other's unsourced. Compared with modern research, &c. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Yes. The DYK wonks got into a French state of social agitation. [reply]
Oh, I see, well I stand corrected. Just one more quibble - why "Lord Beaumont"? Knights of the Order of the Bath don't usually get the title Lord? Was he a Lord already? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his da was Henry Beaumont, 5th Baron Beaumont (curious that that's a red link- I think it's the only Beaumont that is!), so he inherited the barony. But, fair point- the article doesn't really state that, just implies it. Should be emphasised that he was already a pet when he was later promoted...? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now restored the sentence with a changed link for "knighted". I wonder would it be useful to add the GoogleBooks link as a url in the Griffiths citation? The full title seems to be: "The Reign of King Henry VI: The Exercise of Royal Authority, 1422-1461". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Beaumont,_1st_Viscount_Beaumont&oldid=1245219279"