Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward II of England/archive1

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Edward II of England

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Edward II, an ill-fated English monarch who remains a famous figure in modern films, plays and art. The article reflects the current academic scholarship on Edward, and has been through Good and A Class reviews; I believe that it also meets the criteria for FA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class ... and I noticed that I missed some misspellings, so take this support with a grain of salt. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading this article, both in terms of general interest and the prose itself. I'm finishing A Distant Mirror, which dovetails nicely into this article. But there are minor prose issues, a little missing info, and one very confusing passage. I'm opposing only on that last one, the rest are merely comments.

this might be the one. May I offer an assist for some copy editing? auntieruth (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, and yes. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "deploying his own siege engine in the operation", do we know what sort of engine?
    • "he was knighted in a ceremony at Westminster Abbey", this confuses me. Was it not the case that a knight was a rung in the feudal ladder that he would have been part of by birthright? Is this knighting not redundant? I may just misunderstand the role of knighthood, but if that's the case I suspect I'm not alone and little expansion here would help.
    • "before then permanently exiling Gaveston", "then" is redundant and reads oddly to my eyes.
    • "same way that it might do in the 21st century", ditto for "do".
    • "Edward gave Isabella a psalter as a wedding gift", tricky link in here, which I always get annoyed at - I wanted to know what a psalter was, not the details of this particular one. Suggest something along the lines of "Edward gave Isabella a psalter, now known as the Isabella Psalter, as a wedding gift"
    • "Gaveston that he had stolen royal funds and had purloined Isabella's wedding presents", simply "stolen royal funds and Isabella's wedding presents". "purloined" is not a common term, and given the context it seems to suggest it means something different than stolen, which it doesn't.
    • "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, under threat of excommunication should he return, where he would be given estates to support himself". This is a confusing statement, and I believe it should be broken into two sentences. But which is it... "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, where he would be given estates to support himself. He was threatened with excommunication should he return." OR "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, and was threatened with excommunication should he return. However, Edward said he would be given estates to support himself if he did."
    • " but which offered to grant Edward", remove "which"?
    • "The Pope agreed to annul Gaveston's sentence of excommunication"... Ok here's the item I think needs to be addressed one way or the other. The statement above suggests this was threatened, but not carried out ("instead sent Gaveston to Dublin") seems to be at odds with the statement only a few lines above, which say it was threatened but never carried out. The next mention of the topic is later in the article and appears unrelated? This is the only problem I think needs to be corrected.
      • I've tweaked the wording - see if it makes more sense now. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm still confused about this, but it's more than just the wording. Apparently the Pope actually did threaten to excommunicate Galveston. Is that correct? If so, why? What does this purely internal matter have to do with the pope at all? And why would this be an excommunication-able (??) offence? It has nothing to do with the church. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified a bit more. The article probably isn't the place for a longer discussion of the role of the Church in the Middle Ages, but in brief, the Church and the medieval state were typically closely entwined. Kings of England typically depended closely on their senior clergy as administrators and government officials, while appointments and many clerical matters were of interest to, and influence by, lay rulers. Events such as the fate of Gaveston would not have been seen as an "internal" matter, but rather something the Church had a valid interest in. Excommunications could be made for various reasons, including as a tool to encourage good behaviour or to enforce peace agreements, as in this case. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That small edit is a great improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Edward retreated to his estates at Windsor and Kings Langley, and Gaveston left England, possibly for northern France or Flanders", suggest splitting in two, "Edward retreated to his estates at Windsor and Kings Langley. Gaveston left England, possibly for northern France or Flanders"
    • stopping at Famine and criticism for now, getting on a plane back to the GWN.Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maury, thanks for this. I'll get on and action tomorrow morning. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, all finished. It's a great article BTW! Only two last items and they're minor:
    • "If Edward did die from natural causes, his death may have been hastened by depression following his imprisonment." - is this anything more than idle speculation? I suspect not, and if that is the case, I'd recommend simply removing this statement.It doesn't really add anything to the content unless we its something that is widely commented on and argued in historical circles, at which point that is the notable point. It doesn't appear to be that, though.
      • It's an argument put forward by one of his two major biographers, so I think it's worth keeping in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • As there is no way that a biographer could ever know one way or the other, I suggest adding that caveat - "According to one of his biographers, it is possible that...". Or am I incorrect, is there some sort of physical evidence they offer for this opinion? 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Phillips puts forward his reasoning in the peer-reviewed biography, partially drawing on the Brut source, and partially on modern psychology; we're already putting forward the statement in the conditional tense, so I'm not personally convinced we need to caveat it further. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, striken. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image in the Battle of Boroughbridge appears to show the opening dispositions of the forces? In any event, it conveys very little information to the reader. I poked about a bit looking for something more suitable but failed. I'll keep looking. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should be able to dig into the content and sourcing on this over the weekend, I hope. Hold this spot. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdyth. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Do you have some time for this now? We'd really appreciate a source review from you as well as any other comments you can make... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I'm going to be snowed in tomorrow so I'll try. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Battle-of-Boroughbridge-en.jpg: what is the source of the information presented in this map?
  • File:Philippe4_eduard2_ludvikNavarra.jpg: source link is dead, and life+70 is redundant to life+100
  • The jewellery is PD, but we should say so explicitly
  • File:Seal_of_Edward_II-2.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Oriel_College_Charter.jpg: the uploader is not the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find the source of the information in the Boroughbridge image on the file; will check further.
  • Original sources of the Phillip4 file has now been given (the Bibliotheque de Nationale archives)
  • PD element of jewellery given, plus right of panorama tag added
  • Seal's US PD tage added
  • Oriel charter tag corrected.
  • Thanks Nikki! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose (with 2 points to make)

  • per above, I did an extensive copy review. I made some changes, all noted by section labeled "tweaks". Mostly they were related to wordiness, verb tense, clarity, or a few minor issues. I also added some dates and a couple of links for clarity, and I did move a paragraph within a section (Isabella and Mortimer).
  • Point One: Parliament or parliament. You've referred to it both ways, and given that his father relied on the institution, and its regular meetings, I suggest Parliament (with a link). But this is up to you. You can do the article-wide search and replace. But it should be consistent. And you might explain why it is only small p parliament, if that's the option you select.
  • Point Two: You refer variously to "the earls" and "the barons". Well, I know what you mean, and amazingly Wikipedia doesn't have an article defining these, but we could perhaps use some clarity on that.

Well done on this. Very well done. If you want me to look again I'll be happy to do so.auntieruth (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers AuntieRuth. Parliament is now sorted, and I'll see what we can do about a link for earls and barons... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hchc2009:, would you mind posting bits from the relevant section from Philips on depression? I tried to find this source locally but failed, the nearest copy appears to be about 75 km from here, and it is not available in any online form that I could find. None of the sources I did find mention this, although one apparently quotes Philips as saying "that he was murdered or helped on his way to death, either from a pre-existing illness or from physical decline and depression" If this is an accurate summation of the original, I reiterate my concern that this is simply one person's speculation based on nothing. None of what I could find were in anything that might be considered peer reviewed, and as Philips appears to have no medical background and I can't find any trace of publications of a medical or scientific nature, I am again growing concerned about undue weight being given to what appears to be an idle claim. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His "mental condition...is likely to have been very poor. It is easy to believe that Edward was deeply depressed...this might have been enough to bring about or accelerate his death". Phillips is of the two major modern biographers of Edward, and the Emeritus Professor of Medieval History at Dublin, with the book in question published by the Yale University Press, so I would personally consider it a reliable source for the statement in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (NB: Yale has an internal and external academic review process for manuscripts for publication). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So this is simply Phillips' speculation. It doesn't even try to hide this, it is clearly expressed as such - "is likely", "easy to believe", "this might have been". Lots of other things might have been too, given the same inputs. "It is easy to believe" he suffered from exposure and "this might have been enough to bring about or accelerate his death". Both of those claims have exactly the same amount of factual data to back them up - none whatsoever. If you wish to include Philips statement in the article, fine, but it needs to be clearly stated that "Philips speculates...". The article spends the right amount of time saying that other stories about the cause of death are speculation, and I see reason to do the same here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on this one. It is an opinion of a leading historian, and the article text makes clear that this is not a straightforward fact but a "maybe": "If Edward did die from natural causes, his death may...". The argument that Edward could have been depressed having been overthrown by his wife and her lover, chased across Britain, having lost his best friend in a gruesome execution, then being removed as king by the nobility and church and locked in a cell in Berkeley Castle, is not exactly an extraordinary or contentious claim (if anything one might argue that it verges on the obvious!) - and Phillips notes the Brut chronicle's statements about Edward's state of mind as part of his argument. I'm not aware of any other historian that has argued against Phillips' position here. It is acceptable for professional historians to interpret evidence (although not for ourselves to do so as Wikipedians!) and for those interpretations to be used in articles, provided that our text reflects the cited source. If we disagree with a professional specialist opinion, the place to argue the case is in academia, rather than on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you outline the evidence from Brut that you refer to? Perhaps this is what I am looking for. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be after Brut, section i, 252-3 as per the 1906 edition according to the footnote. Not the easiest document to interpret though, but at least it's not in Latin!:) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a copy at Robarts online (those aren't sections but page numbers). It's in English BTW, not latin, which is handy. So if this is the source of Phillips' suggestion, there is absolutely nothing that one might take to be any sort of evidence of any medical condition, especially when you consider the lengthy discussions of Merlin, clearly invented dialog, and other issues. If this is the source, I reiterate my original point: I strongly recommend this section be stated with something to the effect that "Philips has speculated that..." to make it clear that there is no physical evidence for this point, and that Philips himself makes no such claims. It's speculation, and as such, should be given the same disclaimers as the other bits of speculation, like red hot anal pokers. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, I know it's not in Latin (as per my previous commment!) As I've noted above, interpreting Brut is difficult (people do whole university courses on interpreting this sort of document), which is why we don't interpret or work with primary medieval sources on Wikipedia. You need to understand which component of the narrative came from which source (both human and documentary), the influence of medieval symbolism and mysticism, the translation of Middle English etc. - which is why we use reliable secondary sources, not primary ones. Personally, I thought that the references to Edward's state of mind and health were fairly clear in this part of the Brut text though - on. p.252, he complains to his gaolers about his mental suffering and ill-health, and goes on to make a rather depressing declaration that he is a nothing in prison, beaten down by God etc. the start of page 253, for example. I think we may may need to agree to disagree though; I think that the wiki text summarises Phillips' argument accurately, and isn't contentious with other historians - you clearly don't. If you disagree with Phillips' use of chronicler sources per se though, then that's probably something you need to raise off-wiki in academic circles. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the passage does summarize Philip's opinion. What it doesn't do is state that this is his opinion. Why are you so reticent to add the two words "Philip's suggests" after the comma? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Really a very impressive article which I thoroughly enjoyed. Happy to support once the minor issues below are addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The King probably deliberately chose the castle as the location for Edward's birit was an important symbolic location for the native Welsh, associated with Roman imperial history, and formed the centre of the new royal administration of North Wales." - aside from the spelling error, this sentance doesn't make sense - I think there is a word missing.
  • Not really "the location for Edward's birth was an important symbolic location" still feels like it should be "the location for Edward's birth as it was an important symbolic location" instead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alfonso is spelled differently in the lead and the main text - be consistent.
  • "but war broke out again in 1294" - when was there war with France before? I don't think its been mentioned.
  • "The earls of Pembroke and Surrey were embarrassed" - Link Surrey as he hasn't been mentioned before.
  • "and his decapitated head was sent back to Edward" - this reads like its Butler's head you're talking about. Rephrase please
  • "Edward ordered the arrest of any French in England" - any French citizens or any French people read better.
  • "When granting Gascony to Isabella, Phillip IV appeared to have been divided up his lands" - dividing?
  • "not least because of his abuse of high-status women" - in what way did he abuse them?

Support Comments Sorry for the slowness... life off wiki has been very hectic. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources:
    • Childs source - is the title really "'Welcome My Brother': Edwards II, John of Powderham and the Chronicles, 1318"? (the plural Edwards is what is sticking out at me)
    • Otherwise, the sources look fine to me. I see you're leaning heavily on Phillips, which is as it should be - it's the most recent scholarly biography. Since the ODNB entry for Edward was written by Phillips, not much use in using it.
    • I spot checked some information against Phillips - footnote 59 (pp. 111-115), footnote 81 (Phillips p. 102), footnote 122 (p. 161) and footnote 199 (pp. 374-375) - all were correct summaries of the pages but without close paraphrasing concerns. I also checked footnote 252 to Doherty pp. 74-75, which was also correctly paraphrased without being too close.
  • Childhood:
    • "but he was certainly supportive of the sport." - examples?
  • Early campaigns:
    • "deploying his own siege engine in the operation" - does this mean one he built or just one under his control?
  • I don't think the original text was clear; I'm presuming it would have had to be constructed on site, with with some parts pre-built off site and potentially some local timbers used for major framework etc. How far he got involved this I'm not sure. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piers:
    • Do we have an article for the Meaux Chronicle?
  • Tensions:
    • "in a febrile atmosphere" - maybe "heated atmosphere"?
    • link for "the marshal of the royal household"?
  • Ordinances:
    • Shouldn't "parliament" be "Parliament"?
  • I'd followed some other writers on this period by lower casing it; I think they prefer it to emphasis the process, rather than as a fixed institution in the sense of the later "Houses of Parliament". Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "cutting out the Frescobaldi bankers"? Slangish, since I assume you mean that they stiffed the Italians...
  • Death:
    • "he led a powerful faction in England" - I assume we mean Lancaster here? It's a bit ... twisty though.
    • I really do not agree with the link to "show trial" in "At a show trial Gaveston was declared ..." The concept of a show trial is very definitely a modern one, very much tied to modern propaganda. Phillips just says "A semblence of a trial may even have been held before two royal justices..." which seems to make it unclear whether or not a trial was even held. I don't have Chaplais, but my copy of The Three Edwards by Prestwich (first edition), does have a trial taking place, but he doesn't appear to consider it a show trial either. Prestwich does say the grounds for the trial were questionable. Prestwich in Plantagenet England says "It seems that a trial of sorts was held, and that Gaveston was sentenced to death on the basis of the Ordinances. His death, however, had little of the character of a judicial execution and more of a public lynching." Even Doherty, much more of a sensationalist writer, just says that Gaveston "was put on trial before hastily assembled royal justices and condemned to death as a traitor."
  • Tensions:
    • Shouldn't it be "Parliament" in "thanks to parliament" (And elsewhere in the article)
  • Despenser War:
    • "the recently elevated Hugh Audley and Roger Damory." Wasn't one reason these two opposed the Despensers was that they thought Hugh the younger had gotten more of hte Clare lands than he deserved?
  • War with France:
    • NOt fond of the easter egg link in "Duchy of Gascony flared into open war in 1324" .. can we reword to actually use the name?
    • "In 1323, he insisted that Edward come to Paris to give homage for Gascony, and insisted.." repetition
    • Why the sudden name here: "sending instead John de Warenne, the Earl of Surrey." we've been discussing him previously, right? Link/etc should go with first mention.
  • Abdication:
    • "sentenced to be drawn, disembowelled, castrated and quartered" link?
  • I may be misremembering, but I think it was linked to hung drawn and quartered at one point, and another editor disagreed and removed it, on the basis that the article wasn't on that specific topic; I don't think I could find a better one though. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burial:
    • "existing pilgrim attraction" - I think "existing pilgrimage attraction" would be slightly less jarring.
    • "The tomb was opened by officials in 1855, uncovering a wooden coffin, still in good condition, and a sealed lead coffin inside it." Did they not open the lead coffin?
    • "cost of over £100,000" - conversion?
  • The RPI won't cut it, so I could go for a project based alternative costing, although since it is only 8-9 years ago, I don't think its necessary, as the typical reader will have a decent sense of what that sort of sum is worth. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingship:
    • Need a cite directly on "was lazy and incompetent, liable to outbursts of temper over unimportant issues, yet indecisive when it came to major issues"
    • Need a cite directly on "was not so much an incompetent king as a reluctant one"
  • Historiography:
    • "Views on Edward's sexuality have continued to develop over the years." Develop how though?
  • Note 9 "Edward's chancery" ... link chancery?
  • Note 14: I had to laugh at "While agreeing that there is no documentary evidence available, Ian Mortimer takes a more radical perspective..." isn't that a pocket description of Mortimer - radical perspective?
  • Note 22: "see David Carpenter's review, and Roy Haines's analysis" ... can we have a bit more of the actual location in the note, rather than the citations?
  • Note 25: Need a direct citation on "a decadent extravagance, fitting the familiar stereotype of the king" and "conventional, and perhaps even rather dull"
Close to supporting, but a few things need fixing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—At 115kb almost certainly WP:TOOBIGNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

[edit]
  • Actual prose count is 72K which more than ideal, but still pretty reasonable for such a well-documented individual. I did a quick read through in light of this comment and didn't see any readily available savings that could be made by splitting out sections into subpages. I would ask the delegates to disregard Norfolkbigfish's comment.
  • All of your article titles are in title case, but what about those in your cites like the DNB and Carpenter?
  • I don't see any other issues with cite and bibliography formatting.
  • More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS is firm in terms of how book titles should be capitalised, but I think the preferred convention on web-titles is to leave them unaltered from the original online publication, except for moving to lower-caps if they are all capitalised. Happy to be corrected though (in which case I'll alter accordingly!) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS actually talks only about "composition" titles, not just book titles, although some people have argued that it only applies to books. To my mind a composition means a book or article, regardless of publishing format or mode, but read it for yourself: MOS:CT--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

[edit]

Reading now...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Quite a gap between 1314 and 1321, nothing worth mentioning in late 1310s period?
  • "to negotiate a peace treaty in 1325" -is there an article to link here?
  • "invaded England with a small army in 1326" -and for that invasion?
  • "Many of these have focused on the possible sexual relationship between the two men. " -do you think perhaps you should move down your initial mention of their relationship earlier in the lede to here to avoid repetition and revisiting it? Or is it really of vital importance to discuss twice?
Childhood, personality and appearance
  • "Probably" is repeated twice in one paragraph, perhaps one you could reword to the author claiming it likely or something
  • "as well as musical organs" - playing the musical organ or just interested in them generally as pieces?
  • Do we know anything more about his education and academic strengths and weaknesses?
Piers
  • "The two got on well. Gaveston became a squire and was soon being referred to as a close companion of Edward, before being knighted by the King during the Feast of Swans in 1306.[64] The King then exiled Gaveston to Gascony in 1307 for reasons that remain unclear.[65] According to one chronicler, Edward had asked his father to allow him to give Gaveston the County of Ponthieu, and the King responded furiously, pulling his son's hair out in great handfuls, before exiling Gaveston.[66] The official court records, however, show Gaveston being only temporarily exiled, supported by a comfortable stipend; no reason is given for the order, suggesting that it may have been an act aimed at punishing the prince in some way." -this reads a tad too much like a narrative,and I find the short sentence and short phrasing before the commas affect the flow a bit here. Is it possible you could find a way to rephrase it?
  • " close working relationship.[75] Contemporary chronicler comments are vaguely worded; Orleton's allegations were at least in part politically motivated, and closely" -rep of close/ly
  • "Such historians as Michael Prestwich and Seymour Phillips have argued that the very" -are both "such" and "very" essential here?
  • "A more recent theory suggests that Edward and Gaveston entered into a bond of adoptive brotherhood" -can you be more specific on who propagated that theory and and indication of when?
Coronation
  • "involved unprecedented powers being delegated to Gaveston" -such as? Oh I see, basically he was substituted as ruler, right?
  • "Edward probably had sexual relations with mistresses during their first few years together." -quite a strong claim, perhaps state "According to the author xx".
Tension
  • "Accusations, probably untrue, " -according to whom?
Mid reign
  • Have you already linked Scarborough?
  • "Edward probably hoped both to resolve the problems in the south of France and to win Philip's support" -who surmises this?
  • I think the argument originated with Maddicott, but its been used by a range of historians since. There is no firm documentary evidence, but it's not been disputed as an explanation that I'm aware of. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Famine
  • "food rose, despite attempts by Edward II's government to control prices.[177] Edward called for hoarders to release food, and tried to encourage both internal trade and the importation of grain, but with little success.[178] The requisitioning of food for the royal court during the famine years only added to tensions.[179]" -rep of food, Perhaps change the last one to provisions?
Later reign
  • Welsh Marches -a footnote or rough description of where this is today might be useful here for reference purposes, the Severn estuary?
Legacy
  • " Polychronicon, Vita Edwardi Secundi, Vita et Mors Edwardi Secundi and the Gesta Edwardi de Carnarvon "- can you date these works in brackets?
  • "The filmmaker Derek Jarman adapted the Marlowe play into a film in 1992, " -it was 1991 it seems.
Sourcing

Some minor concerns on the heavy reliance of the Phillips source in the first half. Does he have an article? What are his credentials? One Oxford journal does say "begins his authoritative biography of Edward II ", so I guess it's the most update to date and most respected source on him currently? Perhaps it has a lot of details on his earlier life which aren't well documented. It is otherwise broadly researched and written so not really an issue.

Sterling piece of work, some might find it a tad too long, but I personally prefer articles on subjects like this to be as thorough. In fact I could find very little fault in it! Await your replies, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Dr B. I'll get on and deal with these (and the ones above I haven't dealt with yet!) over the weekend. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hchc2009: Have you addressed any of these yet? I'll give my full support once done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes -- looks to me like we're almost there, except:

  • @Ealdgyth: Have your comments been addressed satisfactorily?
  • @Hchc2009: Have you actioned DrB's comments?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: It's a clear support from me, but I was hoping Hchc would have responded sooner to all of the points.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 30 March 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/Edward_II_of_England/archive1&oldid=654412772"