# Talk:John de la Pole, 2nd Duke of Suffolk

This review is transcluded from Talk:John de la Pole, 2nd Duke of Suffolk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
See below
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
See below
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: 
See below
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: 
See below
C. It contains yo original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

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): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Thanks for these Hawkeye7; Hope you dn'y mind mind, but I've 
truck en bloc for simplicity's sake. Couple of queries too, though. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 14:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you please use the {{cite odnb}} template?
Move the first footnote away from the lead
"He was the son of William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk and" Comma after "Suffolk"
"John de la Pole's family was not very wealthy compared to some of their peers. The earldom of Suffolk, says historian Michael Hicks, was 'not particularly well-endowed,'" This is redundant; suggest dropping the first sentence.
His descent from Chaucer is mentioned in the lead but not the article.
"John's father also augmented the family's position" Drop "also"
"Already, earl of Suffolk," Remove comma after "Already", capital "E", Link Earl of Suffolk
"Contemporarries" ->   Contemporaries
"claimed that the marriage, to the daughter" Remove comma
"...flee the company and council of proude men, of coveitows me and of fateryng men...'" Use double quotes on Wikipedia per MOS:DOUBLE. An I think it should be "men" not "me"
"were now resumed to the crown" "resume" needs to be linked to the wiktionary, not to the article on résumé
I've seen this done, but no idea on the markup- and each time I've tried it I get a bloody box in the middle of the page!
It's not really necessary; but I've added it so you can see how its done.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this- handy for next time!
"Three years later, his marriage to Margaret Beaufort was annulled, in February 1453" Tautology; remove "Three years later"
"less than the minmum required" "minimum"  
"was to suppress "congregations and unlawful gatherings against the king;" Move semicolon outside quote
Link Richard of York
"The marriage took place at a politically turbulent time; only three years after the First Battle of St Albans, the king was attempting make a peace between York and his allies and the families of those lords who had died there. " Run-on sentence.
"and would later spend as much of his adult life -> "and he would later spend as much of his adult life"
"apart from the few months in 1460, it became a permanent post from 1464" I don't understand this
"the appointment of the county Sheriff." lower case S
"also he was JP in" Define and link "justice of the peace"
"Although the king doubtless intended to tie political opponents together, this marriage may have had the unintended consequence" Which marriage? And for that matter, which king? (I reckon if you were born in 1470, and lived to be 63 years old (probably not as easy as its sounds), you could work your way through ten monarchs.)
Six at least  ;) but point taken, and rewritten.
Ooops! Henry VI, Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Jane, Mary I and Elizabeth I. That takes us to 1558, and makes ten reigns, but in 88 years. Hard to imagine anyone living that long back then.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
"And, as Hicks says, 'once again hazarded the future of his House' by involvement in national politics the year after their marriage, York's opposition had become an armed campaign in the field." Once again, use double quotes, we have a run on sentence, and "in the field" is a tautology.  
"his fiscal imnability"  "inability"
"In 1460, the last year of Lancastrian rule John was appointed a Justice of the peace," Comma after "rule", and lower case J.
"seems to have deliberately avoided intimating supprt for either faction." "support"
"However, by early 1461Suffolk had come down firmly on York's side." space after 1461 
"He fought with Richard, Earl of Warwick at the second battle of St Albans in February 1461" Comma after "Warwick", and "fought with" is ambiguous. Which side was he on?
"As a result, Suffolk's cousin Edward was proclaimed king as Edward IV of England, and acted as Steward at the coronation " Full stop after "coronation". Is "steward" the Lord Steward? I doubt if the King acted as his own steward.
" One of de la Pole's first commissions under the new regime was to accompany Edward on his campaign against the Scots in winter 146," Missing a digit here
"Suffol also attended " "Suffolk"
"Letters patent" Lower case L
"He was a Trier of petitions at the parliament later that year." lower case T
"an annuity of 100 marks a year," Can you convert this to pounds, shillings and pence?
Good question; again, a technical limitation on my part. Any idea how?
Yes. A mark was worth 13/4. So 100 marks was £67. (People were good at arithmetic in those days.)  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Mmm, I know about the mark- I thought you meant use that modern-day equivalency calculator that I've seen some articles use- and wouldn't know how too here! But thank for clarifying, that's much easier. Added, and sourced.
Unfortunately, the Wikipedia inflation calculator only goes back to 1801.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
"In 1467. he acted as feoffee" Comma instead of full stop
"the powerful earl of Warwick" capital E
"helped the king him crush" Delete "him"
Link 1469 Lincolnshire Rebellion
"come to London to meet the Chancellor" Lower case C
"joined him on that campaign" Which campaign?
"Thus he also took part inn the battles" "in"
Link High Steward (academia)
"he could muster only forty men-at-arms and 300 archers-" Full stop instead of minus sign.
"Neither did he attend the dead king's funeral or interment." -> "Nor did he attend the dead king's funeral or interment." 
"own son, the earl of Lincoln" capital E. Delete "own:" to avoid repetition.
"the Oyer and terminer" Lower case O
"Suffolk's nephew by marriage, Henry Tudor," Link Henry VII.
Repeated "however" is getting tedious
Absolutely. However-
"who became a Nun." Lower case N
"whom she had no issue" "with whom"
Tomb - empty section
I think there's enough material available in RS to have a small section on this; not only is it meant to be "magnificent," etc., but of course loads of them got trashed the next century. If there aint, then I'll scrub it. There is; although whether it merits a whole section is another matter.
The article is okay with it in or out, but an empty section is not allowed.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I added asmall section.
Questions
What happened if you couldn't raise the qualifying income for your rank?
Well, officially (although rarely) you were downgraded. A good example from a few years later is that of George Neville, 1st Duke of Bedford (Hicks' article is v good, I'll send it you if you're interested). Also, it even happened again to our chap here's son. But I rather think it was as mch a political tool of the crown- I imagine if one was in royal favour, the crown would either 'ignore' the problem or assist one out of it. In these examples of it actually happening, it was in the crown's interests to use it punitively. In George's case, Edward IV immediately took the title and bestowedc it on his third son. In Edmund de la Pole's case the reason Suffolk did not possess the sattes to maintain a dukedom was that the king had confiscated them- so would have had to have given them back. Sharp practice at it's finest. Having said all that, earls etc oweda duty to the crown for their titles, so a peer who was incapable of raising a great force for the crown's use was of no use.
Any idea why his marriage to Margaret Beaufort was annulled?
I've added a bit to the article on this; but basically, whether it was William's or Henry's plan (or mostly likley both), after Suffolk's death she became a greater prize and source of patronage for the crown. Perhaps the fact that her next marriage was to Henry's half-brother is indicative of this.
"Suffolk received no major grants, in stark comparison to Edward's brothers" Should this be surprising?
It just reads a bit like, "Teresa May received few honours, in contrast to the Duke of Cambridge"  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Weeell; perhaps. As he was the king's brother in law- which of course is not as close arelationship to the king as his brothers had. Also, the fact hat he seems to have joined York's cause rather late, after some fence-sitting, might have dterred the king. I guess the point being made though is that E4 was generally (extremely] generous to those who had shown he loyalty, etc (cf. William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings)- even to those who were not married to a royal sister. So perhaps it is rather odd; YMMV though.
All the Queen's brother-in-law got was an earldom.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Is 37 years in the Tower of London the record?
According to our article, yes; although it is not stated as such by the source floating somewhat vacuously at the end of the sentence (Chrimes, Henry VII). This feller also says William was, but I think I'd go with Chrimes any day.
Answers verging on OR tommorow UTC if that's OK! — fortunavelut luna 15:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to add these to the article; I'd just like to know.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, Hawkeye7, I think I've sorted the last remaining couple of points;any suggestions? Thanks for your help! — fortunavelut luna 15:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Update, I've sourced the 'Children' section which had a curious dearth of refs, and played with the images. I'd like to add one more, but can't think of anything relevent. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 16:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Placing article on hold.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Passing now...  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

While most other biographies from this era of history flow quite well, John de la Pole's one is fragmented. Much of it is about the life of his father which obviously builds a story but I'm not here for the life story of William. It also starts referring to John as "Suffolk" before he is made Duke.
This page could be compressed/simplified a lot without losing any relevant information about John de la Pole.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.37.136 (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)