Talk:John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk

sort errors

1. OK the first one might be hard to spot if you're not used to sorting things. It's the space (or lack thereof) between the R and the E. The first entry, Archer, R.E. (1984), is actually in the correct position. However, there's no space between the R and E. The sort algorithm ranks empty spaces higher up in any sort order, so (look carefully) the algorithm incorrectly thinks Archer, R. E. (2004a), Archer, R. E. (2004b), and Archer, R. E. (2004c) should all be ranked higher than Archer, R.E. (1984). So put a space between the R and E in the first entry. That one little edit will fix all of the first four sort errors.
2. As for the three instances of Hicks, they should be ranked in ascending chronological order, so they are actually wrong. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi Sorted both of them. No idea how I ended up with Hicks like that, but the Archer was V well spotted-dead eye! Also re. our convo (bringing it here) elsewhere, I think I've sorted the archive links; compare the earlier version with now? I found a plugin that archives pages. They OK? I mean, I had to put em in manually, and if you've got a bot that does it that would be grand...? But anyway, it looks a lot better now, not a bit or brown or red ink in sight... Thanks again for all your help! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• There are still several errors on "John de Mowbray". Forex, I just added a new warning to the script that checks for missing |ref=, and you've got one. You need to put a ref=harv on Archer, R. (1984b). You're also totally missing Squib 1997; Rose 2006 & Smith 1984. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Many thanks! -I know; work in progress, tweaks per the peer review below, minor expansion; refs always come last... is my excuse. Cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I had some MAJOR f***ing around from the visual editor. It delights in randomly moving chunks of text around and / or not showing {{ or [ etc. WTF! Take care, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

PR ...

lead:

• "and immediately performed important service to the crown" ... either it's "and immediately performed important serviceS to the crown" or it's "and immediately performed AN important service to the crown". And this sentence begs the question of what service/services were performed?
  • Does “and immediately undertook service to the crown in France, where Calais—an important English possession—was under attack” cover both points? And I’ve added a note regarding the role of the EM, and its somewhat ceremonial nature.
• "in the closing months of the decade" ... uh, which decade? Probably be clearer to specify.
  • “In early 1460.”

Background:

• "and namesake" - redundant - any real reason to include this since it's patently obvious?
  • It was originally intentional as an assurance that they did actually have the same name, rather than being a typo. But, gone.
• "and his wife and Lady Katherine Neville - two things here: "and his wife and ..." is gibberish. You probably meant "and his wife Lady..." but we really don't need to specify "Lady" in front ... I suggest "and his wife Katherine Neville".
  • Done.
• "Mowbray was thus able to see his new-born son and heir only two months after Katherine had given birth." why are we including this? It's trivial and obvious.
  • Well: it’s the sort of thing that nowadays is taken for granted, whereas (cf. the Pembroke curse?) it was not necessarily that common. But it can be got rid if you don’t think so.
• Suggest getting a conversion via the Template: Inflation for the sums.

Early career:

• "On this account, Rowena Archer.." odd phrasing .. suggest "Because of this," and also a quick explanation of who Archer is .. so we know that it's not just some randome passer-by
  • Mmm she should be blue-linked really. Utilised your words, and how bout “—who has made one of the few in-depth full length studies of the Mowbray family—"
• The jump from the lack of control of his inheritance to the feud with FitzAlan is jarring - is there some connection between the two events? Otherwise, it might make more sense to expand a bit on the dower issue and then put the feud into a new paragraph.
  • Well, I made them separate sections as there's enough material about both things; the crap inheritance is a work in progress atm. Thanks so far Ealdgyth. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Wouldn't " (and therefore the castle, honour and lordship of)" be part and parcel of the earldom? Seems redundant here.
• "Maltravers , though, had died by 1433 and so was never summoned to parliament as earl of Arundel." Okay, he was still alive in July 1433, or so it is implied - so ... did he die before the Parliament? Or did he die after the judgement in his favor but before being summoned?
• " (as a result of their recent expedition together)," seems to be connected to the patronage bit above but ... the source for the patronage bit isn't used as a source for the expedition bit - is this WP:SYNTH, or just a mis-placement of a citation?
• "an embassy to a" okay - one, we don't need to link this term. Two - I prefer "a diplomatic mission" but "an embassy" works also. But the linking is silly.
• link for "parliamentary representation"?
• "in his county" but ... East Anglia isn't a county. I assume you mean in Norfolk, but non-specialists aren't going to get that. Needs to be clearer.
• "This was to prevent Mowbray returning to seek revenge on certain of Suffolk's affinity who had previously been in Norfolk's own retinue but whom had deserted him for Suffolk." any reason we can't just use non-jargon here? "This was to prevent Mowbray returning to seek revenge on some of his former supporters who had switched to Suffolk's side." would be clearer and easier for the non-specialist to understand.
• We do not describe the second occasion of him being bound over in 1448?
• "a licence for him to do so had been granted three years earlier" probably need to explain why he needed a licence to go to Rome, most folks aren't going to know that one was required

More to follow as I have time. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Next bit:

Crime and disorder:

• link for "Mowbray's grandfather, the first Duke of Norfolk"
• "committed to the Tower" ... for non-specialists - at least link Tower of London, but would be better to not use a euphemism and say "arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London." or similar.
• Best practice is to attribute small quotes such as "influence "proved woefully inadequate" to protect" ...
• "that he was ("remarkably," according to Helen Castor) he too found himself lodged in the Tower of London" couple things wrong here - "He was he too found" is gibberish, needs fixing. And "lodged in the Tower of London" is a euphemism. Just say he was arrested or imprisoned. You might even get some real idiots who think it means that he was literally thrown into the walls of the Tower (never underestimate the idiots...)
• The quote box in the center is really annoying. We generally don't bracket off text like this for one sentence. Put it in the running text or better yet, paraphrase it.
• "as J.P. for Suffolk" I assume you mean Justice of the Peace? I don't think we've run into this abbreviation before.
• "keep the King's Peace" ... going to hit the anti-capitalization crowd here and you should at the very least link "King's Peace"
• need a conversion template on "within seven miles of the duke"
• "They, however, chose to reside at Letheringham (closer to Mowbray's seat at Framlingham than they were allowed)" let's just give the distance between Letheringham and Framlingham?

Murder:

• "presentment" link please.
• I would remove treasonable here "for his treasonable role"
• "Margaret Mowbray" ... related to the third duke how?
• conversion for "only five miles away"
• "Indeed, Griffiths described" ... I don't believe we've been introduced to Griffiths ... in which case we use his full name and a quick descriptor as well as a link
• link "Cade's rebellion"
• link for Paston family
• "positions at the expense of a lord" ... any lord or specifically Mowbray?

Still more to come. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Religious patronage...

I don't have anything easily to hand to address this - but what (if any) religious patronage did he do? Did he endow religious houses? Found any? This is an important aspect of the late medieval nobility - if there is coverage, it needs to be dealt with. I note that the Complete Peerage doesnt mention any but does mention he was a Knight of the Garter... do we have that in a more recent source? I'll double check the other offices/etc that the CP mentions later when I get home from watching Black Panther (film). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)