Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2015

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2015 [1].

House of Plantagenet

[edit]
Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the family that ruled England from the 12th to the 15th centuries—a period that changed and shaped a nation from what had become an Anglo-Norman colony. The article failed a FAC back in 2013, largely due to attempting to act as a general history of the period and a history of the Plantagenets (including the Angevin, Yorkist and Lancastrian periods). Since then it has been split with the general history moved to England in the Late Middle Ages and a greater emphasis on the family added here. Since then it has undergone two peer reviews, a copy edit from GOCE and a successful Milhist A class review. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What is the meaning of the red squares in the Hundred Years' War map animation?
red squires are crucial battles - added to key. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Royal_Arms_of_England_(1198-1340).svg: should explicitly indicate that the design is now PD
  • File:The_Children_of_Henry2_England.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:Henry_II_Plantagenet.jpg
  • File:France_1154-en.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
  • Same with File:Hundred_years_war.gif, which is tagged as lacking source info
Support Comments

This article seems to me of FA quality. A few quibbles about prose before I sign on the dotted line:

That's all I can find to grumble about. The article is thorough but not excessively detailed. A huge amount of information is packed into 8,000 words – very impressive. – Tim riley talk 10:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now happily adding support. I think this is a very fine piece of work, and meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 23:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Almost support--minor quibbles
  • Some of the prose is confusing.
    • "They held the English throne from 1154, with the accession of Henry II, until 1485, when Richard III died." The family held the English throne from the accession of Henry II in 1154 until the death of Richard III in 1485.
    • "But Henry I quarreled with Count Geoffrey and Matilda about handing over some possessions and power while he was still alive to ensure the succession." However, Henry I quarreled with Count Geoffrey and Matilda over handing ... Are you saying here that Geoffrey and Matilda wanted Henry to hand over some possessions that would insure the succession, or that Henry was withholding the possessions because he wanted to insure the succession, or am I just totally stupid about this? There are several other sentences that begin with "but" which could also be examined. For example, "But he [Richard] was respected for his military leadership and courtly manners...(although he was respected for his courtly manners and military leadership, Richard was also a ruthless....
  • While returning from the Crusade, Richard was captured by Leopold. He was passed to .... Philip II of France overran large portions of Normandy, while John controlled much of the remainder of Richard's lands. -- While Henry the Lion held Richard for ransom (1192–1194), Philip II overran large portions of Normandy in his absence and his brother John acquired control of the remainder of Richard's English lands....? Or, while returning from the Crusade, Leopold of Austria captured Richard and eventually passed him to Henry the Lion. During Richard's captivity, .....
  • just some ideas. I'd be happy to go through this further with you. HOWEVER, it is an excellent article, and you do realize that this are nit-picks. auntieruth (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comments I seem to remember suggesting or supporting the split the nom describes some while ago, & I think it has worked very well.


Thank you for your kind words, you did suggest the split and I am very glad you think it has worked well. Your comments leave me a bit more than I expected but I will crack with trying to answer them Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are stretches with no images that could be filled. Becket's assassination for example is easily illustrated.
  • Lead: "England was transformed from a colony, often governed from abroad and considered less significant than other European monarchies, into a sophisticated, politically engaged and independent kingdom". I don't like or believe this unreferenced sentence for several reasons, especially the first part. England was never a colony, either strictly or loosely, and was not "often governed from abroad". Unlike the Angevins, Cnut and the Norman kings spent most of their time in England, and regarded it as their most important possession. What "other monarchies" was England "considered less significant" than, in say 1200? Unlike France and the Empire it was a unitary state actually controlled by the monarch, which the French kings hugely envied. All other European monarchies (without going as far as the Bulgarians etc) were pretty tiny. "Politically engaged" is I suppose one way to describe the last years of Plantagenet England, but probably not the best.
  • "Angevin zenith" I'd include the titles in the list of "issue", at least for those who reached adulthood, as you later do with similar lists. Same again for the children of Edward I later.
  • "His cruelty was demonstrated by his massacre of 2,600 prisoners in Acre" - historians of the Crusades tend to be more sympathetic to the Massacre at Ayyadieh . Saladin dragged his feet on the normal negotiations for the ransom of prisoners to use up the remainder of Richard's campaigning season, and to allow his reinforcements to arrive. The Siege of Acre (1189–91) ended on July 12 and the massacre was not until August 22. By the conventions of the day Richard's actions were not inappropriate (in best Official Enquiry language). "Ruthlessness" would be better than "cruelty".
  • Re Bouvines "The battle greatly contributed to the formation of the absolute monarchy in France." Hmm. Absolute monarchy in France begins, conventionally enough, "Absolute monarchy in France slowly emerged in the 16th century and became firmly established during the 17th century." This is what people mean when they use the term. The article doesn't mention Bouvines btw. The French monarchy in 1214 still only really controlled a small part of France, with huge limitations on its power elsewhere. The source dates from 1836 I see; I doubt modern historians make so much of it as Smedley, though it did end the Dukes of Normandy and would have done so for the Counts of Anjou if the kings had not foolishly re-granted the fief.
  • "( Anjou), Brittany, Maine and Touraine,..." not all linked before I think
  • "and built a magnificent, still-extant shrine for the Confessor" yukky phrasing.
  • "...the pope offered Henry's brother Richard the Kingdom of Sicily, but the cost of making the claim good was prohibitive. Matthew Paris wrote that Richard stated: "You might as well say, 'I make you a present of the moon—step up to the sky and take it down'." Henry pur chased the kingdom for his son Edmund, which angered many powerful barons. He was bankrupted by his military expenses, ..." Somewhat puzzling without context, though the Valois Angevins managed it, for a while. You might mention that the Emperor was fairly firmly in control of Sicily & had no intention of handing it over. It sounds as if the "military expenses" were to do with Sicily, but they weren't, were they?
  • "instead his son married John of Gaunt's daughter Catherine of Lancaster, creating the title Prince of Asturias for themselves." grammar
  • "The prince fell ill and returned to England, where he soon died." - He was virtually bed-ridden for the last 10 years of his life, after Spain, from a mysterious affliction, which should really be mentioned.
  • " During the minority of Henry VI the war caused political division among the Plantagenets, Bedford, Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester, and Cardinal Beaufort. " reads mysteriously, given that the only mention of Bedford so far supressed his title. They were all H6's uncles, weren't they? Why not just say so?
  • "...and later murder of Henry VI extinguished the House of Lancaster." unreferenced, & it's far from certain he was murdered, isn't it?
  • " In 1506 Archduke Philip returned Edmund and he was imprisoned in the Tower." no link? Who was he anyway?
  • "Richard III had asserted that her father Clarence's attainder barred his children from any claim to the throne and that her marriage arranged by Henry VII to Sir Richard Pole was not auspicious." Eh? The marriage was probably in 1487, after Richard's death anyway. The quality seems to be deteriorating in these later sections - many links missing, and fewer refs.
  • Ok, Far too many missing links now, which I won't go on adding myself.
  • More later Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose Some minor bits for now, and I'll have a look through the earlier sections tomorrow in more detail.

  • "The king was no longer solely the most powerful man in the nation" - who else other than the king was the most powerful man in the nation after Magna Carta?
  • "a pitiful state later known as the Great Slump" - I couldn't see the Great Slump label picked up again in the main section, which felt odd if it was important enough for the lead
  • "Crime was rampant, and was often perpetrated by destitute soldiers returning from France." - I couldn't find the crime or destitute soldiers referenced in the main text (but apologies if I've missed it!)
  • "These children included nine sons (Richard, Oliver, John, Geoffrey, Henry, Osbert Gifford, Eudes, Bartholomew and [probably] Philip) and three daughters (Joan, Maud and probably Isabel)." - I found the [probably] a rather odd inject in square brackets, particularly as Isabel doesn't get them...
  • I don't think the capitalisation of "king" is consistent with WP:JOBTITLE.
  • There's inconsistency in the way that century is presented (e.g. "12th century" vice "twelfth century")
  • ""Plantegenest" (or "Plante Genest") had been a 12th-century nickname for Geoffrey V, perhaps because his emblem may have been the common broom, named planta genista in medieval Latin." - Plant, who's cited here, gives several other explanations other than just the emblem version.
  • "but that the term "espace Plantagenet" was acceptable." - should "espace Plantagenet" be in italics, since it's French? The meaning should be pretty obvious to most people, I guess, but a translation would also be good for absolute non-French readers! :)
  • "While Henry held Richard for ransom valued at 100,000 marks (1192–1194), Philip II overran large portions of Normandy in his absence" - the bracketed years didn't read smoothly to me; my eye expected it to be an equivalent sum of money...
  • "This brutal act drove Thomas and his adherents from power." it may have seemed brutal to some (but not, for example, to the nobles involved...) but we need to attribute that, otherwise it feels like judgemental editorial language.
  • "To obtain financial support, Edward summoned a precedent-setting assembly known as the Model Parliament, which included barons, clergy, knights, and burgesses." - I don't think it was known at the time as the Model Parliament, was it? Isn't that a much later label, and not often used nowadays in parliamentary studies?
  • "Among those arrested was the King's cousin Henry Courtenay, 1st Marquess of Exeter, his wife and 11-year-old son. (His wife was released two years later, but their son spent 15 years in the Tower until Queen Mary I released him). " - the bracketed sentence felt like poor drafting.
  • "Margaret was attainted; the strategic position of her estates on the south coast (a perceived invasion threat in which Reginald was involved) and her embittered relationship with Henry VIII precluded any chance of pardon, but the decision to execute her seems a spontaneous, rather than a premeditated, act." - this felt like a very long sentence to me.
  • "The poor state of the economy (as his government levied a number of poll taxes to finance military campaigns) resulted in the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, followed by brutal reprisals against the rebels." - again, I don't think the bracketed section is brilliant prose.
  • "While depopulation stemming from the Black Death led to increased wages, static food costs and a resulting improvement in the standard of living for the peasantry, the English economy sank to a pitiful state under Henry." is the link/contrast here really relevant? The depopulation from 1348 onwards did lead to increased wages for the peasantry, but there had been several economic ups and downs before we get to Henry in the 1420s, surely?
  • " Her execution was botched at the hands of "a wretched and blundering youth ... who literally hacked her head and shoulders to pieces in the most pitiful manner"." I couldn't tell from this who had written the quote.
  • In some of the quotes, the article wikilinks names etc. I think this runs contrary to the MOS, but I can't remember where I read it...
I think the MOS says that's fine, but you should do it with some consistency if you do it. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found it... "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Linking. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who accompanied Duke William of Normandy at the Conquest of England in 1066." - is the capitalisation of "Conquest" right?
I'd say "Norman Conquest" but "conquest of England" Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Copper-alloy boar mount found on the Thames foreshore near the Tower of London, London in October 2012..." This bit under the image needs a reference, as the last section of it goes beyond simple description of the image. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's from the Museum of London on the image file, which I don't think needs a ref. Annoyingly, they don't specify that it is a livery badge, which might be added. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd normally expect it to be referenced directly in the article itself, e.g. to https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/530737, where the information comes from. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under the Plantagenets England was transformed although this was only partly due to the conscious intentions of the Plantagenets." - this read awkwardly.
  • "Winston Churchill stated in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples: "When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John, than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns." - This is a very typical, Whiggish Churchillian quote: but it doesn't reflect current scholarship.
  • "The Plantagenets were also responsible for the construction of important English buildings, such as... Windsor Castle ". I think Windsor Castle was constructed by William I.
  • ""Angevin" can also refer to their descendants and the period of history in which they reigned." - accept for John's descendants; I don't think anyone calls Henry III an Angevin usually?
  • "unified the houses of Anjou, Normandy and Wessex." - While true, it's not an observation I've seen made in many other contexts. Is it a typical point?
  • I'd argue that the article (particularly given the broad temporal period concerned) should focus on highlighting the major issues raised by historians etc., rather than focusing on facts that aren't prominent in the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry I had the marriage annulled to avoid strengthening William's rival claim to his lands." - well, at least Normandy.
  • "Henry I refused to relinquish any power to Geoffrey and Matilda that would be necessary for them to ensure the succession prompting a quarrel." - the more typical explanation for this is that Henry was worried they would use the Normandy castles to seize Normandy for themselves, while he was still alive.
  • " He later lost his support, enabling Geoffrey to continue with the conquest of Normandy." - "lost his support" seems a little too simple a statement here.
  • "According to William of Newburgh, who wrote in the 1190s, Count Geoffrey decided that Henry would receive England and Anjou for as long as he needed the resources for the conflict against Stephen. Count Geoffrey instructed that his body should not be buried until Henry swore an oath that the young Geoffrey would receive Anjou when England and Normandy were secured" - different historians take different views about the reliability of this chronicler's account.
  • "Louis VII of France divorced Eleanor of Aquitaine on 18 March 1152," - wasn't it annulled?
  • "This disheartened Stephen, whose wife had recently died, and he surrendered. " I don't think Stephen surrendered to anyone.
  • "This angered Henry's eighteen-year-old son, Henry the Young King, who had not received any lands from his father." - more to the point, the castles given away technically belonged to Henry the Young King...
  • "The younger Henry rebelled before dying of dysentery." - it would have been unlikely to have been the other way around... ;)
  • " Arthur, Richard's nephew and nominated heir, obtained Anjou, Brittany, Maine and Touraine, while John ruled over England and Normandy." - the wording here isn't quite right; the "nominated heir" bit was nowhere near as clear, and "obtained" suggested he was given it, rather than being supported by some of the local nobility in what was effectively a civil war. The subsequent narrative then skips over the 1200 Treaty of Le Goulet, where Philip abandoned Arthur and recognised John's rights, and goes straight to the 1202 conflict. This section also misses the major debate over the role of economics in the struggle between Richard/John and Philip on the continent.
  • Try Barrett's "The Revenues of King John and Philip Augustus Revisited" in King John: New Interpretations, which you'll probably find visible on Google books. He summarises the argument pretty well. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " French barons supported Philip." - which French barons...? I couldn't work out who this was supposed to refer to.
  • "After re-establishing his authority in England, John planned to recapture Normandy and Anjou. The strategy was..." - there were several different strategies between 1202 and 1214.
  • "John failed to abide by the terms of the Magna Carta, leading to the First Barons' War" - historians are pretty much convinced that neither side abided by the terms of the peace agreement.
  • NB: I'm opposing for now, as I think the text needs a fair bit of work. Jones gets a mention below by Ealdyth; he's a popular historian, and can be useful as a citation for some sorts of statements (in a positive way, he sometimes "states the obvious" that hardcore medievalists take for granted, so never write down in their books!) but I don't think he needs to be used extensively in this sort of article, where we should be able to rely on more specialist historians for the period. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ta. Might also be worth having a look at the collapsed "Reigns of the Plantagenet monarchs of England" and "Timeline" section. The latter seems to be a duplicate of the information in the first. The "Reigns..." contains some rather judgemental language, though, and a rather odd selection of images... ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • We have "origin" then we digress to "terminology" then we go back to "angevin kings" - wouldn't it make more sense to do "terminology" "origins" and then "angevin kings"?
  • Arrival in England:
    • Need a citation on the quote "the heir to the kingdom".
  • "Henry I refused to relinquish any power to Geoffrey and Matilda that would be necessary for them to ensure the succession prompting a quarrel." With my background, I eventually figured out what you meant with this sentence, but it is very confusing. Suggest "In order to secure an orderly succession, Geoffrey and Matilda sought more power from Henry I, but the king refused and the two sides quarreled."
    • "Three events allowed for the Angevins' successful..." wordy - you can remove the "for"
  • Angevin zenith:
  • "even his favourite son, John, had rebelled" - but Geoffrey (archbishop of York), Henry's illegitimate son stayed loyal. He also played a big part in defeating the 1173-74 revolt.
  • I'm unable to find a single review of Jones' work - which you're using to support "Contemporary opinions of Richard were mixed. Although he was respected for his military leadership and courtly manners, he had rejected and humiliated the sister of the king of France, deposed the king of Cyprus and later sold the island, refused to give spoils from the Third Crusade to nobles such as Leopold V, Duke of Austria, and was rumoured to have arranged the assassination of Conrad of Montferrat. His cruelty was demonstrated by his massacre of 2,600 prisoners in Acre." The problem I have with this is in a couple parts. One - you say "mixed" but the emphasis is on "bad" stuff - it greatly outnumbers the "good". I would also be curious as to who the various opinions that go into Jones' statement are. The biographers of Richard, as well as other historians are pretty clear that contemporary opinion, while finding fault with Richard, usually considered him praiseworthy. Gillingham's article in the ODNB on Richard says "Inevitably historians attached to the courts of Philip Augustus and his allies took a hostile view, but not even Philip's panegyrist conceals his underlying admiration for Richard. According to Guillaume le Breton, had Richard been more God-fearing, and had he not fought against his lord, Philip of France, England would never have had a better king. Some English historians such as Coggeshall and William of Newburgh mix praise with criticism. Newburgh disapproves of Longchamp and thinks Richard overgenerous to John. A German contemporary, Walther von der Vogelweide, believes that it was precisely Richard's generosity that made his subjects willing to raise a king's ransom on his behalf. Richard's reputation, above all as a crusader, meant that the tone of contemporaries and near contemporaries, whether writing in the West or the Middle East, was overwhelmingly favourable. According to Baha ad-Din, Richard was a man of wisdom, experience, courage, and energy. Ibn al-Athir judges him the most remarkable ruler of his time for courage, shrewdness, energy, and patience. In France St Louis's biographer Joinville portrays Richard as a model for St Louis to follow. In England he became a standard by which later kings were judged. Even in Scotland, thanks to the quitclaim of Canterbury, he won a high place in historical tradition; according to John Fordun, he was ‘that noble king so friendly to the Scots’ (Chronica gentis Scottorum, 2.271)."
  • I've got a copy of Jones in front of me now (the revised 2013 edition) and there is nothing on page 128 (or in any of the coverage of Richard) that says anything about contemporary opinions of Richard. So where did this opinion come from? I checked the index and there is no entry on Richard's contemporary opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard was captured by Leopold while returning from crusade and passed to Henry the Lion." - you mean "his custody passed", right?
  • There is no discussion of William earl of Salisbury? Or Geoffrey, Archbishop of York? Or the other of Henry's illegitimate offspring? They would be considered Plantagenets also (Weir lists them in her various sections).
  • Decline:
  • "It was rumoured that Arthur was murdered by John himself," while that is one rumor - there are others that John ordered him drowned, but did not do the deed himself. Turner's biography of John says (p. 91) that Arthur either died at John's hand or at his orders.
  • "The battle greatly contributed to the formation of the absolute monarchy in France." is cited to a 1836 work. I do not think it's safe to say such a bald statement of causation of absolute monarchy based on an almost two hundred year old work. Especially as the article linked to ...Absolute monarchy in France ... itself says that absolute monarchy slowly emerged in the 16th century and was firmly established in the 17th.
  • "his son, King Henry III, maintained the claim to the empire until 1259." ... no, Henry maintained his claim to the continental lands. Given that earlier in the article you are equivical about there being such a thing as the Angevin Empire. I note this is sourced to Jones also...
  • "As a result of John's actions, French barons supported Philip." something is missing in this sentence - do you mean that all of the French barons or some of them or many of them? And yes, English historiography uses "barons" as a synonym for "leading nobles" but it's very jarring to see "barons" used in a French context as there is no rank of "baron" or such a thing as the "barony" in France. "Lords" or "Nobles" is what you use in to refer to the French equivalent of barons.
    • I usually see just plain "Magna Carta" not "the Magna Carta"... for example Huscroft Ruling England p. 150 "put his seal to Magna Carta" or Turner King John p. 104 "concerning Wales in Magna Carta"
  • "The official website of the British Monarchy presents John's death as the end of the Angevin dynasty and the beginning of the Plantagenet dynasty." but other sources don't - including ones you use such as Weir. Cover both sides or drop the statement.
  • Baronial conflict:
    • Oh, now we mention illegitmate offspring? Why now and not for Henry II and Richard?
  • "The Marshal Protectorate issued an amended Magna Carta as a basis for future government." - i've never seen that period of Henry III's minority called the "Marshal Protectorate" - I checked the source 1215 p. 271 and there is nothing on that page about the information in that sentence. This is also not the greatest source to be using - it's very much a popular history (even if Gillingham helped). It's possible that the page numbers differ a bit (I have the 2005 Touchstone edition) but I checked pages around and nothing there. Nor is there an entry for "Marshal Protectorate" in the index.
  • Why "Bartholomew and [probably] Philip" but "and probably Isabel" in the same sentence?
  • the paragraph on Henry relies a lot on Jones again. ANd it's very disjointed .. we hear that Henry identified with Edward the Confessor because of the struggle with the nobility, but we've not yet heard that Henry had difficulties with the nobility - that comes later in the paragraph, after the bit about naming his son Edward and building a shrine to Edward.
  • Looking at the revised edition of Jones (2013) I found the section on Henry III and Edward the Confessor on pages 200-201. In the article, this set of sentences is sourced to Jones pp. 234-235: "Despite the Treaty of Lambeth, hostilities continued and Henry was forced to compromise with the newly crowned Louis VIII of France and Henry's stepfather, Hugh X of Lusignan. They both overran much of Henry's remaining continental lands, further eroding the Angevins' power on the continent. Henry perceived many similarities between himself and England's patron saint, Edward the Confessor, including his struggle with the nobility." But... the revised edition pp. 200-201 (which does discuss Henry's devotion to Edward) does NOT say anything about the Treaty of Lambeth, Hugh X of Lusignan. Nor does it back up "...including his struggle with the nobility." Jones draws a parallel with Edward's struggles with his ministers and having come to the throne in a time of civil disorder. The phrasing of Jones, however, says nothing to draw a parallel with Henry's troubles with his nobility. Jones is discussing the early part of Henry's reign - when his troubles were mainly with his ministers. I don't think you can say "struggle with the nobility" here. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adding the earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury to the kingdom through his marriage" uh. No. Edmund's son Thomas did NOT add those earldoms to the kingdom - they were already IN the kingdom. Yes, eventually, they passed to the royal estate ... WAY down the road. Again - this is sourced to Jones - does Jones REALLY say that Thomas' marriage added the earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury to the kingdom? If he does, wow. You need to NOT be using him as a source, as that's so wrong it's breathtaking.
  • Yes, I object to Jones, having now had a chance to see it. There are no footnotes. There are not even attempts to say where he's getting his information. It's not just a popular history (ala Weir) but it's almost a novelization at times. As an example - p. 112 of the revised edition (2013) starts the chapter with "Geoffrey archbishop of York stared up, like every other visitor to Dover, at the great castle being built above the harbor. It was September 1191 and work had progressed since the late King Louis VII had toured the building site with Henry II. Now Geoffrey could look up at its imposing square keep and think of his father..." That reads like a bad soap opera. Or later in the same paragraph where Jones baldly states that Geoffrey was the son of Ykenai, which I know from my own work on Geoffrey's article is not a settled fact for historians. But Jones says its a fact. This is the problem with using popular histories instead of actual historians. You end up stating things that are not accepted by actual historians. I would not consider it nearly as reliable as other sources and given the problems I've run into with it, I'd suggest someone with access to a copy of the 2012 HarperCollins edition audit every citation to it. You'd be better off using Desmond Seward's The Demon's Brood which DOES have endnotes so you can at least track down where he got his information. Other good sources would be Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, Prestwich's Plantagenet England (which is used slightly, but should see a lot more use - but why are you using TWO different editions? Use one, the most recent one.), the Yale University bios of the various kings, Clanchy's England and its Rulers, and others. There are too many good academic works out there to be relying on a book with no footnotes/endnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk
  • "He was bankrupted by his military expenses" - who was? The last person referred to in the previous sentence is Edmund Crouchback.
  • " in which Henry acknowledged the loss of the Duchy of Normandy, Maine, Anjou and Poitou, although he retained the Channel Islands." uh. Gascony was kept. It remained in English hands for quite a bit longer - until the 100 years war was ending up, in fact. And this is sourced to a UN document? Can't we find something ... more academic and rigourous? is this the document in question? If so, it does not support the full text that's subscribed to it - "The pope offered Henry's brother Richard the Kingdom of Sicily, but the cost of making the claim good was prohibitive. Matthew Paris wrote that Richard stated: "You might as well say, 'I make you a present of the moon—step up to the sky and take it down'." Henry purchased the kingdom for his son Edmund, which angered many powerful barons. He was bankrupted by his military expenses, and barons led by Henry's brother-in-law Simon de Montfort forced him to agree to the Provisions of Oxford, under which his debts were paid in exchange for substantial reforms. He was also forced by Louis IX of France to agree to the Treaty of Paris, in which Henry acknowledged the loss of the Duchy of Normandy, Maine, Anjou and Poitou, although he retained the Channel Islands. The treaty stated that Henry would retain "islands (if any) which [he] should hold ... as peer of France and Duke of Aquitaine"." I'm pretty sure that the UN judgement only has any bearing on the last bits and thus the whole earlier section of that statement is unsourced.
  • Source added for the previous bit. As for the latter I don't know if you are aware that the Channel Islands are not part of the UK. This often ignored in more academic works as is the fact that they remain part of the Duchy of Normandy. They have a status as a crown dependency on the basis that they are "governed" by the Duke of Normandy, presently this is QEII. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Constitutional change:
    • We gave marriages for John and Henry III's children, but not now? or only partially? Consistency.
    • "Among her eleven children were earls of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton, and countesses of Ormond and Devon" - should be "Among her eleven children were the earls of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton, and the countesses of Ormond and Devon"
  • I do not. I read it as saying that among her 11 children were several that were earls of Hereford, several that were earls of Essex, several that were earls of Northampton, several that were countesses of Ormond and several that were countesses of Devon. In fact, two of her sons were Earl of Hereford AND Essex in succession and a third son was created earl of Northampton. One daughter married the earl of Ormond, and another married the earl of Devon - but none of this is clear from the article text - which lumps the five children who held titles into some sort of mass that's hard to distinguish. 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk
  • "who was executed by order of Mortimer and Queen Isabella" -but we don't know who Queen Isabella IS yet. Confusing.
  • "His military campaigns left him in debt, and to enable him to raise more taxes through the frequently summoned Parliaments, he tried to gain support for his policies among the lesser landowners and merchants". Several problems here. The preceding sentence is "Because of his legal reforms, Edward is sometimes called "The English Justinian", but whether he was a reformer or an autocrat responding to events is a matter of debate." which doesn't really mesh with the bit about military campaigns and leaves the whole debate undebated. The military campaign sentence is also confusing - switching tenses and leaving subjects dangling. What were his attempts to gain support with the lesser landowners and merchants and why are they connected to his attempts to raise money? Totally lacking in context.
  • Expansion:
  • " Llywelyn ap Gruffudd ruled North Wales as a subordinate of the English king. Llywelyn maintained that he was "entirely separate from" England and Edward considered him to be "a rebel and disturber of the peace"." ... okay. First you state baldly that Llewelyn was a subordinate of the English king, then the next sentence it comes out that well, Llewelyn didn't think he was subordinate... which is it? If Llewelyn objected, it's pretty clear there was some dispute and the first sentence is not quite true. And why use "a subordinate" here... there are better terms. Again, you're relying on Jones when you should probably be using the various biographies of Llewelyn and Edward available.
  • Okay, that's enough. There are some serious issues with the article. Still has some issues with trying too much to be a political history of the dynasty without really covering the actual members of the house. There are members of the house left off or covered in only slight bits. Yes, it's improved, but not nearly to FA status. There are some factual errors here that need fixing. The prose has issues. There are places where I spot checked sourcing and came up with issues. It's taken me two and a half hours to do this much of the review, and I've still got over two thirds of the article to go. It's not FA ready and probably needs some serious serious work to get there.
  • I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose and strongly suggest engaging Hchc2009 to help with many of these issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Arrival in England:
  • "Louis VII of France divorced Eleanor of Aquitaine on 18 March 1152, and she married Henry (who would become Henry II) on 18 May 1152. Henry consequently acquired the Duchy of Aquitaine, greatly increasing his resources and power." Weir pp. 60-61 does not say a thing about "greatly increasing his resources and power". There is also some lost nuance here - as Weir points out that Henry only became Duke of Aquitaine in right of his wife, which probably needs to be made plainer as this fact has a bit of importance later.
  • Angevin zenith:
  • "Of Henry's siblings, William died as a child and Geoffrey died unmarried and childless,..." William was born 1136 and died 1164 - at age 28. This isn't a child. Nor does Weir (p. 60) say William was a child. And you list 8 children - but Weir gives 9 (8 sure, one possible). Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.) gives only 8, however. (Note that Weir is the only place I see the existence of Philip, son of Henry II and Eleanor, even mentioned.)
  • Decline and loss of Anjou:
  • "John's defeat weakened his authority in England, and his barons forced him to agree to the Magna Carta, which limited royal power. John failed to abide by the terms of the Magna Carta, leading to the First Barons' War, in which rebellious barons invited Prince Louis, the husband of Blanche, Henry II's granddaughter, to invade England. Louis did so and John died in October 1216, before the conflict was conclusively ended." is all sourced to Weir p. 74. The only thing that Weir p. 74 actually sources here though is "John died in October 1216"... the rest is not supported by Weir p. 74. Weir is merely a genealogical account - she does not give much chronological data ... so we have a pretty big issue of unsourced material here.
  • Baronial conflict:
  • "Eleanor – wife of William Marshal's son (also named William), and later the English rebel Simon de Montfort" is sourced to Carpenter 2004 p. 306. But this only says that Eleanor married William Marshal, son of William Marshal. No mention of her marrying Simon de Montfort.
  • Small issue - the correct citation for current citation 44 "Richardson 2004 p. 9" is more like "Richardson 2004 pp. 9-13" as all the illegit offspring given are actually ennumerated on pages 11-13. A nitpick - Philip is given as "possibly" John's but Isabel is just listed as "alleged". Note also that Charles Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis Royal Bastards of Medieval England p. 179 gives as sure bastards of John "Joan, Oliver, Geoffrey, Richard de Dover, Osbert Giffard, John, Henry". Possible bastards are "Richard and Eudo (or Ivo)". Doubtful offspring are given as "Isabel la Blanche". Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed) gives only Joan and Richard de Warenne, lord of Chilham, but they don't list all bastards.
  • "Joan was the best known of these, since she married Prince Llewelyn the Great of Wales." is sourced to Carpenter 2004 p. 328. But p. 328 discusses Joan, Henry III's younger FULL sister, who married Alexander II of Scotland, not Joan, Henry III's older half sister, who married Llewelyn the Great. Source does not support the statement given for it.
  • "Margaret of England (1240–1275). Her three children predeceased her husband, Alexander III of Scotland; consequently, the crown of Scotland became vacant when their only grandchild, Margaret, Maid of Norway, drowned in 1290" is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 203 - but that page does not support the statement at all. All it supports is that Margaret (who is usually known as "The Maid of Norway" not plain "Maid of Norway") died in 1290 while on board a ship to Scotland. Nothing about drowning, being the only grandchild of Margaret of England and Alexander III, etc.
  • "Edmund Crouchback (1245–1296), who inherited the titles and estates of Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester and the earldom of Leicester after Henry defeated Montfort in the Second Barons' War. Henry later granted Edmund the earldoms of Lancaster and Ferrers. From 1276, through his wife, Edmund was Count of Champagne and Brie." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 75. But this source does not say anything about Edmund inheriting the titles and estates of Simon de Montfort after Montfort's defeat. Weir says Edmund was created Earl of Leicester on 26 October 1265 and Earl of Lancaster on 30 June 1267. Being created as an earl is not the same as inheriting it. Henry III granted Edmund the lands and honours of Montfort. Weir also notes that it was Edmund's second marriage that gained him Champagne and Brie.
  • Is Prestwich 2007 the paperback edition of Plantagenet England? I ask because the current citation 60 goes to Prestwich 2007 p. 101 - but this does not appear to fully support the information given there (it appears to be the start of the section discussing the events leading up to Evesham, which if this is a different edition, makes sense that the numbering of pages would be off).
  • Conflict with the House of Valois:
  • The entire third paragraph staring "Fighting in the Hundred Years War spilled from the French and Plantagenet..." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 102, but the only thing in that paragraph that p. 102 supports is the part "and John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, the Black Prince's brother, married Peter's daughter Constance". The rest is not supported by that page of Weir (not even the bit about John of Castile's son marrying Catherine of Lancaster because Weir only says that Katherine, daughter of John of Gaunt and Constance of Castile, married Henry III of Castile. Weir doesn't say who Katherine's father in law was.
  • House of Lancaster:
  • "Henry married his Plantagenet cousin Mary de Bohun, who was paternally descended from Edward I and maternally from Edmund Crouchback. They had seven children:" is sourced to Weir 2008 pp. 124-130. The children numbers are correct, as is Henry's marriage to Mary de Bohun, but Weir just says that Mary was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun by Joan, daughter of Richard FitzAlan, a descendant of Henry III.
  • House of York:
  • "By the mid-1470s, the victorious House of York looked safely established, with seven living male princes. Edward and Elizabeth Woodville themselves had ten children, seven of whom survived him" is sourced to Weir 2008 pp. 139-145, but this does not support the first sentence.
  • "Richard seized the throne, and the Princes in the Tower were never seen again. Richard's son predeceased him and Richard was killed in 1485 after an invasion of foreign mercenaries led by Henry Tudor, who claimed the throne through his mother Margaret Beaufort. He assumed the throne as Henry VII, founding the Tudor dynasty and bringing the Plantagenet line of kings to an end." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 145 but the only thing that page supports is "Richard was killed in 1485" and "Richard's son predeceased him"
  • Tudor:
  • "When Henry Tudor seized the throne there were eighteen Plantagenet descendants who might today be thought to have a stronger hereditary claim, and by 1510 this number had been increased further by the birth of sixteen Yorkist children." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 75 - but there is NOTHING on that page relating to Yorkists or Tudors.
  • "Warwick was implicated by two further failed invasions supported by Margaret using Perkin Warbeck pretending to be Edward IV's son Richard of Shrewsbury, and Warbeck's later planned escape for them both; Warwick was executed in 1499. Edward's execution may simply have been a precondition for the marriage of Arthur, Prince of Wales to Katherine of Aragon in 1501." is sourced to Carpenter 2004 p. 1, but nothing on Carpenter 2004 p. 1 supports this at all. All Carpenter 2004 p. 1 talks about is the background and development of the term Britain as a geographical term for historians prior to and around the Norman Conquest.
  • I'd like to note that just because there are all these problems with sourcing, I'm not of the opinion that they are deliberate. It's difficult when someone starts working on an already developed article - it's very easy to mix sourcing up or just assume that any citations already present are correct. The way to avoid those issues is to check every single citation yourself - but that's a LOT of work. I do think ALL the citations in this article need checking - I've checked those for works I have, but I don't have the editions of Jones used, nor do I have some of the other works used. Until that's done, though, I'm going to have to stay opposed to this article's promotion - there are just too many sourcing issues for me to be comfortable with it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You addressed the specifics, but I still think the article needs a complete source check ... which I'm not able to do at this moment. Too many issues I found with things not matching what they were sourced to. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note - As there is no consensus for promotion, and it is unlikely that one will be reached in a reasonable time, I will archive this nomination in a few moments. I encourage the nominator to address our reviewers' concerns and to renominate at a later date (a minimum of two weeks). Graham Beards (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2015 [3].

History of tropical cyclone naming

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few years I have had a lot of fun while researching and writing the article on the History of tropical cyclone naming. As a result of this research, I feel that I have built up the most comprehensive article on the history of tropical cyclone naming worldwide, as most guides focus on a particular basin like the Atlantic. I feel that the next logical step for this article after passing its GAN is to get it featured and would welcome any feedback on it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The practice of using names to identify tropical cyclones goes back many years, with systems named after places or things they hit before the formal start of naming." - the opening is rather weasel-y, such as "many years", and "or things". What do you mean by "things"? In addition, you say that the start of naming goes back to Wragge, who used human names, so human names were used before the formal start of naming. You follow with "Examples of such names are 1928 "Okechobee" and 1938 "New England". First, there is a typo in there (it's Okeechobee), second the name wasn't "1928 Okeechobee" (it was 1928 Okeechobee hurricane), and third, you don't include a "thing" here, just another location.
  • "The system currently in place provides positive identification of severe weather systems in a brief form that is readily understood and recognized by the public." - I'm not really sure what this means. "positive identification"? And it's not all severe weather systems, just tropical cyclones in this article.
    • The thinking was that the naming of tropical cyclones is a positive thing as it raises awareness etc, however, I have tweaked it to: The system currently in place provides identification of tropical cyclones in a brief form that is easily understood and recognized by the public.Jason Rees (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The credit for the first usage of personal names for weather systems is generally given to the Queensland Government Meteorologist Clement Wragge, who named systems between 1887 and 1907. " - again, this article is about tropical cyclone naming. Did Wragge name non-tropical systems? The way you use "weather systems" here is confusing in that regard.
    • As far as I know he named all sorts of systems including tropical and non tropical systems, so i have tweaked the wording to: The credit for the first usage of personal names for weather systems is given to the Queensland Government Meteorologist Clement Wragge, who named tropical cyclones and anticyclones between 1887 and 1907..Jason Rees (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the South Atlantic Ocean really a major tropical cyclone basin?
    • Probably not - so ive tweaked the wording to now read: been introduced for several tropical cyclone basins, including the North and South Atlantic, Eastern, Central, Western and Southern Pacific basins as well as the Australian region and Indian Ocean.Jason Rees (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The start of the second lead paragraph is a bit long, and could probably be split after the eleven meteorological services.
  • "Standards vary from basin to basin, with some tropical depressions named in the Western Pacific, while tropical cyclones have to have a significant amount of gale-force winds occurring around the center before they are named within the Southern Hemisphere." - this could be ordered better - it is currently very back heavy, and it is a bit daunting to read.
  • Most of the second lead paragraph is lifted straight out of the "modern day" section. I think there could be a bit more about the history in the lead. The only date mentioned is when Wragge was forecaster.

This is my review just of the lead, but there are some issues there that need to be addressed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination was initiated on September 21, but the nominator did not place it on WP:FAC. It has now been added. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now on prose and style. I feel like this article could've benefited from a peer review or the solicitation of an experienced copy-editor. Continuing on Hurricanehink's comments above, the wording of the article is weak and unclear in many places, which is my main concern. As it stands it does not read as a cohesive and fluid whole. Auree ★★ 10:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vague terminology such as "many years", "subsequently" "The system currently in place" (what system is that?), as well confusion between these terms: "system" is used for both tropical cyclones and the practice of naming ("This system of naming weather systems" is particularly awkward). This is not something I'd expect of an FAC.
  • Weasel-y, subpar sentences with poor context run rampant throughout the article. Examples:
  • "This system of naming weather systems subsequently fell into disuse for several years after Wragge retired, until it was revived in the latter part of the Second World War." - What made it fall into disuse? when/why did Wragge retire? Why was it revived?
  • Why was the system revived I dont know and nor does the Dorst reference, since all he states is it was a natural thing that just happened. As for Wragges stuff i am not sure and will try and do a bit of digging, but we have to bear in mind that this is the C19 when communications were not as great as they are today.Jason Rees (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, they were not able to persuade the United States Weather Bureau (USWB) to start naming Atlantic hurricanes, as it was felt that the system was "not appropriate" to use while warning the United States public." - "However" makes for an awkward start of a new paragraph; who is "they"?; "it was felt" by whom?; what system exactly?; "not appropriate" in what way?" Overall this doesn't follow logically after the preceding text as an opener for a new paragraph.
  • "They also felt that using women's names was frivolous and that using the names in official communications would have made them look silly." - "frivolous" in what way? Make them look silly? As in children in high school?
  • "A name is retired or withdrawn if a consensus or majority of members agree that the tropical cyclone has acquired a special notoriety, such as causing a large amount of deaths, damages, impacts or for other special reasons" - A consensus can't "agree" to something; "notoriety" is a little awkward for an inanimate phenomenon; "impacts" is redundant to damage and deaths; "or for other special reasons" is awkward in succession of "such as".
  • Numerous vague entities/agencies are mentioned, some with largely unknown abbreviations in their names, without proper introduction/wiki-linking or further elaboration on their authority, significance, or purpose (e.g. "ESCAP/WMO Typhoon Committee," "WMO/ESCAP Panel on North Indian Tropical Cyclones," " RA V Tropical Cyclone Committee," "RSMC La Reunion," among others), likewise with some presumed figures of authority (who is George Stewart and what made him inspired? What did he read about Clement Wragge?).
    • Hang on a sec.... I don't think history records what made George Stewart inspired or what he read about Clement Wragge. He is wiki-linked though on first mention and since the story was read by forecasters who went on to restart the naming of hurricanes I feel it is relevant to mention. As for the rest of your comments im not sure how to play them, as i think it would be way to much to start introducing them all in prose.Jason Rees (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style issues are abundant. At the moment, commas are used inconsistently for temporal clauses ("During 1944, United States Army Forces" and "After reading about Clement Wragge, George" vs. "During 1977 the" and "At the 22nd hurricane committee in 2000 it") as well as other participles ("However," but also "However"). Hyphens are used in place of en dashes throughout. Most markedly, the table for tropical cyclone naming institutions is, quite frankly, an unsightly mess; the manner in which the areas of responsibilities are delineated is inconsistent and violates the MOS on several grounds. Lastly, references are formatted in a variety of styles at this point.

While not an exhaustive review of the entire piece, these are some of the article's many most prominent problems, in the areas of prose and style alone. Good information is present, but I suggest withdrawing and asking a pair of independent eyes or two to extensively look over the text. Auree ★★ 10:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review @Hylian Auree: and I will work on the comments later, but i am not going to withdraw a 7 day old FAC and ask someone to look at it when FAC is the best peer review process around.Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Briefly examining prose, because of objections above:

  • You mention WW II code names in an image caption, but not in text.
  • Not what I'm talking about. You mention the 1944+ use of the names of "wives and girlfriends", and then the 1947 use of the Joint Army/Navy Phonetic Alphabet. However, neither of these explains the 1941 Typhoon Cobra that you highlight in the associated image caption. In fact, the history of WW II code names for tropical systems is more complicated that you imply here. Initially, the phonetic alphabet was used. But since that was being used for everything, it was deemed too confusing, and tropical systems were then code-named after animals. Although several animals were reused repeatedly (Bear and Wolf, especially), the two most historically significant of these storms were Typhoon Cobra and Typhoon Viper (better known as Typhoon Connie. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not related to WW II, but while I'm on the topic of comprehensiveness, you note that early unofficial names were selected for "places, saints or things they hit". For one thing, that's ungrammatical, because the construction equates to "places they hit, saints they hit, or things they hit". But you might also want to provide examples of this style of naming other than place-names. There were systems in the period named in other ways as well, such as the Siebold Typhoon (referring to its study by Philipp Franz von Siebold). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typhoon Cobra was 1944 not 1941 - as a result I think it is covered, however, i must confess to not being aware that the phonetic alphabet or animals were used to name systems during WW2. Jason Rees (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am currently doing some double checking into this but will note that Dorst notes that he does not know if the names Cobra and Viper were used in operations or made up for George Kosco's 1967 book.Jason Rees (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The §Modern day presents chronology problems, because much of the material there overlaps the previous two sections. For example, Greek letter storms were planned for after the 1985 season (for the Eastern Pacific, at least...). But then the §New millennium fails to even mention the 2005 season that actually employed them. We read past events in 2008, 2010, and 2015 before going back to mention the 2005 naming.
    • I am unsure if it is actually worth adding a sentence on the Greek names being used in 2005 to the New millennium section. I am also unsure how the Modern day section overlaps the previous two sections when it deals with the current system of naming.Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You discuss the retirement of names, in §New millennium before explaining what that is or when it was introduced. Indeed, so far as I can tell, you never actually inform the reader when that practice began.

References and reference formatting:

  • Cry is an article in a journal. You are citing a digitization of a bound volume of that journal, and that's fine, but this still needs to be formatted like a journal citation. Mariners Weather Log, for example, is the journal title.
  • Even if you are citing a digitized copy, print sources do not require retrieval dates (indeed, retrieval dates are discouraged per the MOS). The idea here is that the digital copy is a convenience link, rather than a mandatory aspect of verification. The Norton article in Monthly Weather Review is one example, but there are several.
    • So that we are clear here: Can you define what you mean by print sources (I assume newspapers, journals and reports but would like clarification). Also are you trying to say that accessdates are not needed in general or just for printed stuff.Jason Rees (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • General rule: anything that was initially created in printed form – book, journal article, newspaper report – is a print source. If you are citing to a digitised version of such a source, e.g. a google book, jstor article, newspaper etc, then you don't need an access date. If, however, the article etc has been incorporated into a website in a revised format, i.e. is no longer a digitised copy of your source, then you do need an access date. Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Padgett source is missing bibliographical information. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the actual source, the website Australia Severe Weather, is reliable.
    • Im not sure which bibliographical information is missing but either way its a self published source, by someone (Gary Padgett) who has been deemed to be reliable during previous FAC's. This is because he has had information passed to him by people working in the various warning centres and has been used as a reference by warning centres in their [seasonal summaries] at times.Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Padgett in reference 41 includes the website as Australian Severe Weather; your other citations to Padgett do not. You should be consistent. I'd probably prefer it was there, but others may differ. Whether or not to capitalize this (and how to suppress it, if not) is one of those awkward questions of web formatting. In any case, I'll begrudgingly withdraw my objections to using Padgett in this FAC, as it seems FAC has been broadly accepting this source for years. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Decide Next Month On Use Of Girl's Names For Hurricanes" is incorrectly cited. You give the location of the Times-News [sic] as Washington. In fact, Washington is the location of the story, not the newspaper. The Times-News is actually from Hendersonville, NC. Also, newspapers in general do not require publishers.
  • Ah, I see ... you actually cite The Times-News twice; you corrected one location problem, but not the other (ironically, you fixed the one I didn't explicitly mention). Regardless, in both cases, the periodical should be styled with The. Also, a substantial number of journal articles have publishers; I should have been more clear, perhaps, because they do not require publishers any more than newspapers do. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And at this point, I'm stopping the reference review. In light of the many problems raised above, as well as what I've identified in a cursory examination, I regretfully must oppose promtion and urge withdrawal. This is not ready to be judged against the FA standards. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will try to find time to examine the references more thoroughly. I would like to express my personal objections, however, to the idea that FAC is "the best peer review process around". That may be the case, but it is not what this process is for. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed here. FACs are expected to be at least close to meeting the criteria (which can be found out during the peer review process). With such an extensive plethora of significant issues, this is evidently not the case here. Auree ★★ 17:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digging further into reference formatting, in addition to what's noted above:

  • Mújica-Baker is throwing a template error. If this is a non-English source, it needs its language specified.
  • The 1935 letter to the editor in The Examiner has an author in the source (G. M. Barnard). Additionally, newspapers (with a handful of obvious exceptions) do need a location. In this case, Launceston, Tasmania.
  • It's not entirely clear to me whether the Anstett website should be considered a reliable source.
  • The source cited as "W.B., Issues 36–38. South Africa Weather Bureau. 1960." is a Google mangling of whatever this actually IS. Google does very, very poorly with bound collections of journals and creates titles for them through some algorithmic process. Or magic, for all I can tell. This almost certainly should be cited as a journal, but I have no idea what the correct title should be, much less the additional necessary bibliographic information.
  • What you are citing as "South-West Indian Ocean Cyclone Season: 2000–01" (currently ref #22) is not cited at all correctly. Your link is to the digital archive of a print source. In this case, it is actually an annual periodical. There is probably more than one way to cite this, but it doesn't make our job easy. It doesn't provide explicit volume numbers, nor publication dates; it is dated solely by the year-range season it represents; accordingly, I've opted to style that as the (nonconventional) volume number, and so would cite it thusly:
  • "Analyse chronologique des perturbations de la saison" [Analysis of the disturbances of the season in chronological order]. Saison Cyclonique Sud-Ouest de l'Océan Indien (in English and French). 2000/01: 12–73. ISBN 978-2-9511665-4-7.
  • What you are citing as "Tropical Cyclones of 1963. Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration. p. 45." is probably not cited correctly. This is another Thing That Google Did. I'm going to bet this is either an annual publication that should be cited like a periodical or an excerpt from some book source, but I've failed to identify it, and the tiny blurred thumbnail title page offers insufficient guidance.
  • In the Dioquino source, [O]nline.
  • For the source cited as "14. When did the naming of cyclones begin?", I don't see any compelling reason to title the source by the specific question cited; the title of the page is "Frequently Asked Questions" (although based on the layout, I would not object to "Tropical Cyclone Frequently Asked Questions". This lets you eliminate your |type field, which isn't what that field is intended for, precisely (the field name is short for "media type"; it rarely applies to web sources).
  • There is not precise consensus for which websites should and should not have their names italicized, and dealing with the template ramifications is sometimes a work of art. However, in the Samenow source, Washington Post absolutely needs italics. You can move that to the |website field, which should do it for you.
  • The DeAngellis source should look more like the Cry source (once that has had its publisher culled).
  • Force italics in the via field for "Sex-Shift in Australia".
  • The "National Hurricane Operational Plan: 1978" has an actual author (not just a position title): Richard E. Hallgren. I'd go ahead and add "|id=FCM 78-2" to the citation, as that's its government publication id number.
  • Does McAdie et al. have an ISBN assigned?
  • "Big Blows to get his and her names" probably needs Daytona Beach, FL added as a location.
  • Kirkman needs the newspaper italicized, and its location added (Lewiston, ME). Also, probably a section and page number (|section=4 |page=25), although strictly speaking, those are optional. There's no reason not to, though, as you have them available.
  • For "National Hurricane Operations Plan 1987", the coordinator's (and thus author's) name is Robert L. Carnahan. I'd include "|id=FCM-P12-1987".
  • For Lomarda (1998) and Lomarda (1999), if a periodical publication only includes one set of numbering values, convention (and the MOS) is to call that the |volume, even if the source calls it |number or |issue (in order to produce the correct format styling). At least from my current location, these sources aren't loading, so I can't really speak further about the formatting here.

I am particularly unimpressed by some of the sourcing. It's always a huge red flag for me when something is sourced to a Google Books snippet preview for a work where Google mangled the bibliographical information, because it strongly suggests that the editor has only examined the snippet out of context, and not actually consulted the source. Despite some improvements, my opinions on the merits of this article for promotion remain unchanged at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Suggest withdrawal - there's just too much to do here for this to have a chance of succeeding this time around, and FAC is not intended to replace PR. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{@FAC}} I think i am going to have to withdraw as a few things have come up that i have to deal with elsewhere. However, in response to @Squeamish Ossifrage:'s comments about the google snippets, i will say that i have always been very careful with how I interpret information form them.Jason Rees (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2015 [4].

Freida Pinto

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Vensatry (ping) 17:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Indian actress who shot to fame with Slumdog Millionaire. I'm nominating it for FAC because I believe it's well-written and well-researched. After taking this article to GAN in April 2013, I opened a PR which was closed without receiving any substantial comments as some felt she has had a short career until then. After a brief phase, I started working on the article as it received a major face lift during this period. Suggestions, criticisms, in any form are welcome! —Vensatry (ping) 17:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Poorly written article. Stand out 'ok' to be GA(which it isn't). Not a FA. Thanks. Daan0001 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive review. Please quote some specific examples. —Vensatry (ping) 04:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In lieu of BLP main images, that image of Freida in the infobox is simply atrocious. Commons has much much better images that can actually be used for identification purpose rather than the current one. She is cross-eyed, her face is in the opposite direction of the light and the picture is in poor composition. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The current image is a VI. —Vensatry (ping) 07:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does need to have better writing. For example, there are three issues with the second sentence: "Hailing from a Mangalorean Catholic family, she wanted to become an actress from a young age." First, the second part of the sentence does not follow from the first part. How does her being Catholic influence her idea to become an actress? Second, "hailing from" is colloquial and not encyclopedic language. Thirdly, it's a needless passive sentence. For clear writing, an active voice is generally preferred. That's just the second sentence, unfortunately I do not have time to review the entire article. Mattximus (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: The article has had a thorough copyedit. It would be really nice if you could offer a full review sometime later. —Vensatry (ping) 19:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM

It does strike me that the writing falls short of the standard expected at FAC. Here are a few of the issues which jump out at me:

  • "she worked as a model, a television presenter, and acted in amateur plays" She didn't work as an acted in amateur plays.
  • "Pinto continued modeling" It's not clear what the "start point" of the "continuation" is.
  • There's inconsistency as to whether you put speech marks around award names.
  • "she won the "Breakthrough Performance Award" at the Palm Springs International Film Festival and Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture" Grammatically ambiguous as to whether Screen ... Picture is another award or another awarder of the Breakthrough award. In addition, she was only one of the recipients- the prize was not her, but the cast.
  • "Despite criticised by" This doesn't make sense
  • "She is also known for voicing opinions about women empowerment." Do you mean "the empowerment of women" or "women's empowerment"? "women empowerment" sounds like a made up term.
  • "St. John's universal School" Why the lowercase u?
  • "When Sushmita Sen won the title of Miss Universe in 1994, Pinto recalled of having taken inspiration from her." At the time of the award she recalled being inspired by the award being given?
  • "joined the Elite Model Management" Why "the"?
  • "and continued to model for two-and-half years.[7] During this time, she was featured in several television and print advertisements endorsing products such as Wrigley's Chewing Gum, Škoda, Vodafone India, Airtel, Visa, eBay, and DeBeers.[5] She continued to model for four years" I'm struggling with this
  • "in runway shows and magazine covers including Femina and FNL." Clumsy. How about "in runway shows and magazines, appearing on the covers of Femina and FNL."
  • "In a 2015 interview with Daily Mirror," It would typically be referred to as "the Daily Mirror", or even "The Mirror"
  • Are FNL or Full Circle worth linking? Don't be scared of redlinks!
  • "Following a series of unsuccessful attempts" Of what?
  • "Pinto received a call from Danny Boyle in 2007 to play the female lead in his upcoming film Slumdog Millionaire, which was supposed to be shot in India.[17][10] After six months of extensive auditions, she managed to land the lead role" Is this chronological? "She managed" strikes me an non-neutral
  • The description of Slumdog Millionaire strikes me as a little overly laudatory. I appreciate that it was a successful and well-regarded film, but this could be presented in a more neutral way
  • "Set in the backdrop of war-ridden Jerusalem, she played" This doesn't work- the film was set, but she played.
  • "reviews, however, Pinto's performance received positive reviews" Repetition
  • Do you really not have a more reputable critic/newspaper to cite than an anonymous review in the East Bay Express? I'm sure that this isn't what happened, but readers may be led to believe that you've delved into the most obscure papers to find someone who said something nice about her!
  • "while The Independent wrote" This is unwarranted personification- you've got the critic's name- use it! There are a lot of other examples of this- it strikes me as a little informal for an encylopedia article.
  • "played by alongside Riz Ahmed" ??
  • "The film was universally acclaimed as it was nominated for the Best Film Award at the 55th BFI London Film Festival and Grand Prix at the 24th Tokyo International Film Festival" This is not a reasonable claim- the fact that it was nominated at these festivals does not imply that it was universally acclaimed
  • "However, MTV described the act as "one gloriously cinematic scene", while James Montgomery of the channel further added "Thanks to Pinto's wattage"." You've overcomplicated this to the extent that it's become slightly deceptive. It's not clear what is "thanks to Pinto's wattage", and your syntax makes it sound like there are two separate reviews. All of it is from Montgomery, who was writing for MTV.
  • On a more general note, I'm not convinced by the subsection titles in the acting section. They sound a little non-neutral, and "the future" will rapidly go out of date. Honestly, you could just remove them at this time.
  • You're inconsistent on whether you use "name ending in s-apostrophe-s" or "name ending in s-apostrophe" for possessives. I'd recommend the former, but both are acceptable. Anyway, choose one, stick with it!
  • "in which she stars opposite Mickey Rourke" stars opposite implies (I think) that she's one of the two leads- is that the case?
  • "former publicist Rohan Antao" Do you mean her former publicist?
  • "who is six years her junior" So what?
    • This was publicised in the media when the two started dating each other. Further, Pinto claimed in an interview that her mother initially had reservations about their relationship because of the age factor. —Vensatry (ping) 19:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The same year, she collaborated with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim for the Call to Action – Girl Rising campaign. The documentary film Girl Rising made by Academy Award nominee Richard E. Robbins, showcases the power of education in transforming girls' lives around the globe." This needs copyediting. I'm not quite sure what Pinto's relationship with this campaign/documentary are.
  • "on India's Daughter, a documentary based on the 2012 Delhi gang rape" Is it based on or about? Or perhaps it is in response to? It seems unusual for a documentary to be "based on" an event.
  • "Pinto garnered immense popularity" What's your source for this?
  • "was frequently included in the "Most Beautiful Women in the World" list" What list?
  • "spokesmodel" strikes me as a neologism
  • "A controversy arose when she appeared in a TV commercial promoting L'Oreal, as many thought it to be racial discrimination from countries that are possessive about fair skin. The commercial showcased Pinto in what many perceived to be a lighter skin tone due to make-up or editing." This needs to be reworked
  • The mention of The Mindy Project is apparently unsourced. It should probably be included in the career section.
  • Perhaps, for the sake of completeness, the filmography should include music video appearances.

I've not looked into the sourcing yet, but these comments will hopefully give you some bits to work on for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: A majority of your concerns have been addressed. Agree with your views about SM, will try to trim down the praise. Thanks for your copy edits. —Vensatry (ping) 19:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know when you are "finished" with my comments and I will try to find time to take another look through. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Milburn: Think I'm done with all except the SM part. I'm unable to find out anything that is more particular to Pinto. —Vensatry (ping) 17:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Milburn: Any update yet? —Vensatry (ping) 09:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Think I'm done with all except the SM part. I'm unable to find out anything that is more particular to Pinto. —Vensatry (ping) 06:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find some time to take a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

[edit]
Lede
  • This section needs no sources per WP:LEAD.
  • Why is the studio within quotes?
  • "Pinto is credited with breaking the stereotypical image of an Indian woman in foreign films" - will replacing "foreign" with "non-Indian" comply with WP:NPOV?
  • "Outside acting, she is" - Which would be a better option - "In addition to her acting career" or "Alongside her acting career"?
Early life
  • The date of birth can be kept here with the same source used in the lede section.
  • "turned out" - sounds idiomatic, and hence unencyclopedic. Can be replaced with something more formal. Eg: "Pinto auditioned for numerous cinematic roles, including the part of Camille Montes in Marc Forster's Quantum of Solace (2008). However, all attempts turned out to be unsuccessful." Over here, you can write that her attempts were unsuccessful.
Acting career
  • "in his upcoming film Slumdog Millionaire, which was supposed to be shot in India" - his then upcoming film would be better as the film has already released.
  • "winning eight of the ten nominations, including major categories such as Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay" - everyone knows that these three categories are part of the Academy's Big Five, so the phrase "including major categories" seems redundant.
  • Why is "Latika" quoted? I don't see the necessity.
  • "Woody Allen's comedy-drama film You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger" - WP:SEAOFBLUE. You can put "film" outside the link.
  • "She played the central character in her next venture Miral, a biographical film based on a novel by Rula Jebreal" - what is the name of the novel?
  • "Pinto's next release was the science fiction film Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), a reboot of the Planet of the Apes series ... but the performance of the lead actors were criticised. A review from Slant Magazine stated that the lead characters, played by Franco and Pinto, are "stand-ins for moral platitudes"." - How can a single review determine her overall performance? Either an additional review can be added, or remove the sentence "the performance of the lead actors were criticised", or merge it with Slant's review. In fact, if this film was her first release of 2011, it can come under "2011–present".
  • "Pinto's second release of 2011 was Michael Winterbottom's British drama film Trishna. She played the titular character in the film" - Merge the sentences, and remove "film".
  • "Unlike some of Pinto's previous films, Trishna gained positive response from critics. The film was universally acclaimed and was nominated for the Best Film Award at the 55th BFI London Film Festival and Grand Prix at the 24th Tokyo International Film Festival." I think you can remove "universally acclaimed", as the film's Rotten Tomatoes score is 65%, based on 56 positive reviews and 30 negative reviews. I don't think that is anywhere near "universal acclaim".
    • A source is there for the 'universal acclaim' part. Do we go by review aggregators to decide on the extent to which a film was acclaimed. Since I'm not an expert in this regard, I'd like to have a second opinion. —Vensatry (ping) 17:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The same year, she played "Princess Lailah" in the 1930s-set period drama film Day of the Falcon" - Again, why is the name quoted? And I think a better sentence would be "The same year, she played Princess Laihah in Day of the Falcon, a period drama set in the 1930s."
  • "Pinto's final release of 2011 was the fantasy-action-drama film Immortals" - I think "drama" can be removed. Always keep the genre limit to two.
  • "As of September 2015, Pinto is working on Andy Serkis' Jungle Book: Origins, a live action adventure fantasy film based on Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book." - When is it scheduled to release?
    • Not sure about the release date. We don't document about future events. 17:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That's it for now. I'll come with more if necessary. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Thanks for the comments. Hopefully, I've fixed all of them. —Vensatry (ping) 17:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jungle Book Origins is scheduled for 2017. You can add this claim with a source. Otherwise, the article looks good, and has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: Thanks for the review. I'm slightly against adding scheduled dates because these films initially would be screened at some film festivals. After a year or two, they will be theatrically released. —Vensatry (ping) 17:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt

[edit]
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). There's a lot of sentences that use too much commas, and sometimes semicolons, but overall commas, and I'd suggest, at least even during this FAC process, nominating the article for WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors review, and maybe, if it doesn't work out this time, also going for a Peer Review, and, during that process, trying to find, some good quality copy editors, who can go through the article, to improve its sentence structure, with an eye for making the writing quality succinct, and also, a bit more concise. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cirt: Agree with you on the semi-colon thing. Since the guild seems inactive at the moment, I myself will try to c/e the article. Thanks, —Vensatry (ping) 09:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, good luck. But an outside viewpoint as copyeditor is better than doing it yourself. Suggest putting this article up at the list for WP:GOCE requests. And also going for Peer Review as next step if it doesn't work out here during this process. And during the peer review, posting to all relevant WikiProject talk pages with a neutrally worded notice saying you are asking for copyeditor help. You can even try asking a non-Wikipedian friend who is very good with professional English to read over the article. Hope these suggestions are helpful, — Cirt (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - needs eyes and a thourough copyedit. Parts are balanced, but some others read like snippits from favorable promotional press. The third lead paragraph is espically so, opening with "Despite being criticised", and ending with a littany of charitable, "humanitarian" efforts. The writing is dull and repeditaive, but not so much that an hour or two hard work could not sort out.

Random:

  • "Pinto actively participated in plays and amateur theatre while attending college.[9]" - actively?
  • "she joined Elite Model Management, a modeling agency" - needless clarification
    • "she joined Elite Model Management, a modeling agency"
  • "She studied acting at a studio run by Barry John, whom she considers her mentor.[13][14]" - breathless
  • "After a period of six months, she landed the lead role.[16]" - drop "a period of"
  • In response, Pinto claimed that she is unable to find roles that suit her in Bollywood while stating that she enjoys watching Bollywood films and is keen to work in the industry in future. - sounds like press release stuff
  • Outside of the lead, those are the sentences I read. I appreciate the amount of effort gone in here, and its certainly comprehensive enough, but needs work yet. Vensatry I will keep an eye and look forward to outside help. Ceoil (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: A native speaker of the language might want to do a copy-edit as you say. The issue is finding someone to do that. Nevertheless, I'd requested a user to copy-edit the article. Not sure if they'll find time for this one though. Another problem, outside the prose, is she's had a relatively short career. So finding sources for critical commentary/analysis on her acting style, and roles played by her thus far is nearly impossible. Since you've read the article in bits-and-parts, can you please guide me in improving the prose? Time shouldn't be a constraint. —Vensatry (ping) 08:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vensatry, as I say this was a scan, and there were issues throughout. I appreciate what you are saying, and am reading since I posed. The difficulty for non-native speakers/writes is of course huge, and I do commend that you have brough it this far - the level of coverage and citation is to your credit. Will post back later. Ceoil (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given recent chat on my talk, I'm not sure Vensatry understands the difference between promo and bio and I am doubtful this ARTICLE will be allowed to be repaired; my oppose stands. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the delegates – Sorry to say, but the article was butchered by some bad-faith editors, albeit under the cover of making "improvements". I do not think the article has really benefited from the recent copy-edits. Requesting withdrawal of the candidate. Thanks, —Vensatry (ping) 15:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards, Ian Rose, and Laser brain: Requesting to archive this nom. —Vensatry (ping) 05:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/October_2015&oldid=687132392"