Talk:Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 16:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to try to occupy myself with this review during the present quarantine. It's a long article so it may take a while before I get back, but I will do so in the coming days. Yakikaki (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me a while to get back, I've been reading the article attentively and thinking about it. Firstly, the article is far better than many others and a lot of work has gone into it. It has every possibility to pass GA soon. However, some issues do need to be addressed. Now I'm still a newbie at GA reviews, so if you think I'm completely (or just a bit) off the mark, I'm open to revise my position in the light of arguments — perhaps that should go without saying. And I will be as constructive as possible in finding solutions.
I’m going to concentrate my review at this stage on its adherence to criterion 3.a of the GA criteria. As the article stands now, I don’t think it sufficiently addresses the main aspects of its topic. The article is a straightforward account of the life of Henry. However, his life and actions are not placed in very much of a context. Considering his centrality to the study of medieval history, this needs to be addressed before the article can be said to live up to criterion 3.a of sufficiently broad coverage before it passes GA status. At least the main points of Gregorian Reform and the Investiture Controversy need to be explained to the reader. There is for example reference to “reformists” but no explanation of the main points of the Gregorian Reform and why the conflict with the Emperor arose in the first place. The Investiture Controversy is only explicitly mentioned in a headline, and while the attentive reader may infer its main point (the struggle over who holds the power to install church offices) from the text its importance is really lost to the reader. I think that what is needed in this article are some kind of background sections, however short and not necessarily in the form of dedicated paragraphs, in several places. How these would be formulated I leave up to you, and I don’t think they need to be very long. The section about the Saxon Rebellion could be a good example, here the reader is briefly introduced to the nature of the conflict already at the beginning of the section. If you read German, the German article is FA status and may offer some pattern for how one could address this issue. Another suggestion could be to separate the narratives of the investiture conflict a bit clearly from that regarding the Saxon wars. For example, the shift from the conflict with the papacy to the invasion of Saxony between paragraph eleven and twelve under the heading Saxon Wars and Investiture Conflict is rather abrupt and the reader risks losing track of the bigger picture.
The reader needs to understand more about the reasons things happened; these conflicts are an essential part of the history and life of Henry. As it is, the article doesn’t guide the reader very much in this sense and mixes important and less important information in an A to B-narrative. Hatnote links or See also links to relevant subjects is another suggestion, though not necessarily the way to address the issues. At the very least there should be wikilinks to such central articles as those about the Investiture Conflict, the Gregorian Reforms, the Saxon Rebellion and the Great Saxon Revolt; that would also help bring the article closer to sufficiently broad coverage.
There are also some other, minor issues in the same vein, which also spill over into criterion 1.a regarding clarity. For example, under the heading “Under guardianship” there is the sentence, “A group of Saxon aristocrats plotted against Henry, fearing he would continue his father's oppressive policies after reaching the age of majority.” – in what way were the policies of his father oppressive towards the Saxon aristocracy? Again, I think a very brief elaboration could be welcome here to make things clearer for the reader. Likewise, under the heading First years of majority, in the sentence “Adalbert also took advantage of his influence on Henry during his feud with the Saxon aristocrats.” it is not clear to the reader what conflict this is. Is it the one from back in 1057 that never actually ended? Or is it a new conflict and what is it about? Or under the heading Saxon Wars and Investiture Conflict, in the first paragraph, the sentence “The Thuringians were also outraged that Henry supported Archbishop Siegfried of Mainz's claim to collect the tithes from them.” could also benefit from a small elaboration as to why this was so outrageous to the Thuringians. A couple of sentences later, the reader is led to believed that the Thuringians traditionally had been exempted from these tithes? That would certainly be enlightening for the reader as a background to the conflict to know earlier on, if that is indeed the case. In the eleventh paragraph under the heading Saxon Wars and Investiture Conflict there is a mention of the theory of the Two Swords which also could benefit from elaboration. Under the heading Imperial Coronation, the sentence “He began negotiations with the envoys of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos about an alliance against Robert Guiscard” again leaves the reader a bit in the dark about why Henry suddenly was in conflict with Robert.
If you wish to address these issues first, that would be great. I don’t think any massive work is required, but I do think there is a structural issue here. Before delving into possibly other (very minor) issues I would like to hear your reaction to this. I’m open to discussion and will be as constructive as possible. As I wrote, the article is basically good but it needs more context. Yakikaki (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review and also for your above suggestions. I highly appreciate your work. I am writing a short "Background" section in the next two days, taking into account your above remarks. I will ping you when I think I am ready. Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Yakikaki:, thank you for your patience. I expanded the article with a Background section, providing a general picture about the main features of the Salian monarchy. The section also refers to the ideological differences leading to the Investiture Controversy and the principal reasons of the Saxons rebellions. When writing the article I followed the chronological pattern set up by historian Robinson in his monography about Henry IV. I would not like to adopt an original approach. Please find my edits here: [1]. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: Thank YOU for a very thorough work! I think it's great, it really eases the reader into the subject and then the biography that follows is very well-written. I also appreciate the clarifications made in the following text. The only other suggestion I have at this point is regarding the pictures: to consider adding a short explanation, in the caption of those pictures which are from manuscripts or later engravings, extremely briefly noting where the depictions come from (e.g., “Minature from the 15th century” or “engraving by Bernhard Rode, 1781”) in order to make it clear from when these depictions are. There is a risk, especially regarding the medieval depictions, that a reader unused to medieval history will believe these are contemporary depictions. What do you think of that? Other than that, I have looked at the other criteria of the GA review and find the article to be in compliance with them. So let me know what you think of the picture captions and then I should be more or less ready to pass this, I must say, excellent article. Yakikaki (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. I modified the captions to reflect the time when the pictures were made ([2]). Please let me know if any further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: Thank YOU for a very thorough work! I think it's great, it really eases the reader into the subject and then the biography that follows is very well-written. I also appreciate the clarifications made in the following text. The only other suggestion I have at this point is regarding the pictures: to consider adding a short explanation, in the caption of those pictures which are from manuscripts or later engravings, extremely briefly noting where the depictions come from (e.g., “Minature from the 15th century” or “engraving by Bernhard Rode, 1781”) in order to make it clear from when these depictions are. There is a risk, especially regarding the medieval depictions, that a reader unused to medieval history will believe these are contemporary depictions. What do you think of that? Other than that, I have looked at the other criteria of the GA review and find the article to be in compliance with them. So let me know what you think of the picture captions and then I should be more or less ready to pass this, I must say, excellent article. Yakikaki (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Yakikaki:, thank you for your patience. I expanded the article with a Background section, providing a general picture about the main features of the Salian monarchy. The section also refers to the ideological differences leading to the Investiture Controversy and the principal reasons of the Saxons rebellions. When writing the article I followed the chronological pattern set up by historian Robinson in his monography about Henry IV. I would not like to adopt an original approach. Please find my edits here: [1]. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review and also for your above suggestions. I highly appreciate your work. I am writing a short "Background" section in the next two days, taking into account your above remarks. I will ping you when I think I am ready. Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Borsoka for a quick reply and quick changes. I can find nothing else that keeps this article from GA. Great job, great article. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)