When Henry III named his son Edward after his favorite saint, no one could have guessed that there would be seven more Edwards to follow. Ultimately, none would compare to the Edward Longshanks, who reformed England's currency, led millitary campaigns against Scotland, and most importantly, ressurected from the dead to star in the 1995 film Braveheart.
This is my first FA nomination that's not about a dead child! After some cups of coffee, a few months of hard work and a peer review by Dudley Miles and Gog the Mild, I am ready to present Edward I of England for consideration for featured article status. For this nomination, I summon the aforementioned Wikipedians, Ealdgyth (who may have a passing interest in the subject matter, but is somewhat busy), and Hchc2009, who has expressed interest in assisting with this article's promotion to FA, but is unfortunately retired and frequently absent.
Also I apologize to Nikkimaria in advance for the horrible image licensing in this article, as well as *gasp* the usage of px size. I would appreciate assistance with this from anyone; I am horrible at figuring out images on this site. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As always, these are suggestions. Feel free to refuse with justification.
Lead comments:
Lead 1st para: the "which included a rebellion by the English barons" phrase is unnecessary. I had to go back and read the paragraph again—initially I thought that there was another rebellion before 1259.
To my eye, slightly too much "Edward"-ing in the second paragraph. Keeping WP:ELEVAR in mind of course, some variation could be helpful to lessen the monotony of the prose.
That being said, should "the King" at the end of the paragraph be capitalised?
I believe so, because "King" is a proper noun referring specifically to Edward.
I'm fairly certain that when it is used on its own it is a common noun, but as I'm not a grammar expert I won't dispute further
On a related note, is there a particular reason why there's an "Edward I" in the last paragraph of the lead?
Must have been a remnant of some draft work. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't think "and for expelling the Jews from England in 1290." is supported by references in the body.
I have lightly copyedited the section, feel free to revert if you feel like it.
Note a seems somewhat out of place; perhaps it would work better in the lead?
"was devoted to the veneration" could you not just say "venerated"?
I don't think "venerated" alone captures the full reality of King Henry's devotion. Which was extreme, to say the least.
The sentence on Henry of Almein: as the civil war and crusade have not been talked about yet, perhaps it would be better to provide a timespan (e.g. "until his death")?
"Edward and Eleanor entered Gascony" entered from where? sailed from England I presume? you could just put "sailed to" in that case, for clarity.
"J.S. Hamilton asserts" verging on MOS:SAID here. I typically only use "asserted" (or "claimed") when there are disputes.
"his father's policy of mediation between the local factions" just to clarify, is his father's policy only on these two factions, in which case you're fine, or in general, in which case the "the" can be removed.
Only those two factions.
"It was at this pivotal moment, as the King seemed ready to give in to the barons' demands, that Edward began to take control of the situation. From his previously unpredictable and equivocating attitude he changed to one of firm devotion to protection of his father's royal rights." I can't define exactly what I dislike about these sentences, but it's something to do with them feeling too narrative in content.
"This so-called" why the so-called? is the name disputed?
"The city of Gloucester was held by the rebels and Edward initiated the armed conflict when he captured it" too short a sentence to necessitate two main clauses
"When Robert de Ferrers, 6th Earl of Derby, came to the assistance of the baronial forces, Edward negotiated a truce with the Earl, the terms of which Edward later broke." the repetition of 'Edward' and 'the Earl' could be removed by something like "E negotiated a truce with RdF, 6EoD, who had ..., but afterwards broke the terms of the agreement."
"By the agreement known as the Mise of Lewes" convoluted, could just be "under the..."
"He escaped on 28 May" do we know how?
"and acted in a way that gained the respect and admiration of contemporaries." such as?
The phrase in question has been rephrased in the article. I'm not sure by whom, but in any event, all your comments thus far have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Others who similarly committed themselves included some of Edward's former adversaries, although not all ultimately participated." Too unclear and vague. perhaps "Some of Edward's former adversaries, such as [Person X, Person Y, Person Z], similarly committed themselves, although some, like [Person Z], did not ultimately participate."
"the greatest impediment to the project was providing sufficient finances" does Edward really need to "provide" financing, or receive it?
" The crusade was postponed" had the crusade not already begun with the Tunisian campaign, or did that not really count?
"By then, the Christian situation..." the 'by then' implies that the situation had become precarious only recently, when in reality the situation had been precarious for a long time.
"In November 1276, war was declared." who declared it?
"This last conflict demanded the King's own attention, but in both cases the rebellions were put down." citation?
"Edward embarked on a full-scale project of English settlement of Wales" Does full-scale really mean anything? and maybe try smoothening the prose a little.
"drawing on Eastern influences" anything in particular? presumably just the castles he noticed in the Holy Land
"The castles made a clear, imperial statement about Edward's intention to rule Wales permanently" slightly convoluted prose—the castles didn't make the statement, the building of them did; how can such a statement be imperial?
Diplomacy:
"until at least 1291 ... in 1291, when the Mamluks" the initial year date comes without context; perhaps remove the "This intention guided ..." sentence?
The " Mongol court of the east" link should be to Ilkhanate, not Mongol Empire; perhaps reflect that in text (e.g. "Mongol Ilkhanate"?)
Nice section.
Great Cause:
"The relationship between England and Scotland by the 1280s was one of relatively harmonious coexistence" passive tense unneeded.
"only for the lands he held of Edward in England." clarification needed
Note m ("The term is an...") can be placed in text.
"Even though as many as fourteen claimants" is the even though really necessary? favourites do tend to appear in competitions.
Note o could be better organised, and note q could be incorporated into text
quo warranto is once used unitalicised and uncapitalised. I assume this is an error.
Excellent section.
Later life and legacy:
"What resolved the situation was the English defeat by the Scots at the Battle of Stirling Bridge" passive tense unnecessary
should it be "Bohun" or "de Bohun"?
Last two paragraphs of the Return to Scotland section could be combined.
"There is a great difference between English and Scottish historiography on King Edward." source?
General comments:
Should the Government and law section be placed after the later reign section?
I think I will repeat an injunction given to me by Tim riley: to carefully consider your use of "however"s, and to see whether all of them are necessary.
I have fixed a few American English words which slipped in.
@AirshipJungleman29 I believe that "This intention guided much of his foreign policy, until at least 1291" is an important sentence, so I'd rather not remove it. Also, I do not understand what you mean with the passive tense. Looks like a classic case of the preterite to me. The note describing the 18th-century term feels awkward in the section, so I believe it would be best formatted as a note. The fourteen claimants demonstrates that the Scottish succession crisis was extremely chaotic; John Baliol and Robert de Brus were not "favourites" per say, more so competitors who were more politically prominent. Concerning the Government and law section, I think it makes more sense to place events during Edward's lifetime before his death. Let me know if you still think the sections should be rearranged. All else has been addressed. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 Unfortunately, I could not locate a source for said image. All other maps of the Ninth Crusade on Commons are in foreign languages, so that's a dead end too. What do you suggest I do? Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't source something on Wikipedia, whether it be prose or a map, you can't use it. The source of this map is given as "Own work", which means it is self confessed OR. See eg File:Black Prince's campaign 1356.svg for an example of a sourced map - under "Information from". See also my very first comment in the recently closed peer review flagging up the same point about EdwardICrusadeMap.jpg as A455bcd9. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 Yes, I have Michael Prestwich's Edward I, published in 1997. [Here] is the link to the book on the Internet Archive. I have no idea what that green arrow labeled "June 1271" is supposed to be, and it's not backed up by my text. As for the red arrow, (which is supposed to represent the Mongols) the source material vaguely describes the Mongols moving towards Syria in autumn of 1271 while specifying that it happened after September but before December. Page 75 confirms that Edward departed to Acre from Cyprus in May 1271. That same page also supports the envoy sent to the Mongols from File:Neuvième croisade.JPG, and backs up the Mamluk trip to Tripoli in May. Pages 76-77 confirm that Edward attacked Qaqun in November 1271. Page 77 verifies that the Mamluks did indeed travel from Damascus to Acre in December of that same year. Pages 280-281 of A History of the Crusades (Volume 3) by Steven Runciman, which can be found here, supports the arrows connecting to Apamea. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 Most of that checks out. I am a bit concerned about Limassol, though. The map currently indicates an armed conflict there, but I'm still having difficulty locating a source for that. Lord Edward's crusade reveals that the green arrow labeled "June 1271" on File:Neuvième croisade.JPG is supposed to be related to that conflict: "He [Baybars] disguised 17 war galleys as Christian vessels and attacked Limassol. However, in the ensuing naval campaign the fleet was destroyed off the coast of Limassol and Baibars' armies were forced back." Again, no reliable source to be found. I will continue to look for sources for that, as well as the borders you pointed out. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found the source for the borders of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and County of Tripoli (Sheperd, William R. (1911) "Mediterranean Lands after 1204", in Historical Atlas, New York: Henry Holt and Company, p. 73.) (per File:Mongol raids in Syria and Palestine 1260.svg). For Limassol, let me know, if needed I'll remove it.
A455bcd9, pages 278-279 of the aforementioned work by Steven Runciman chronicle a naval conflict that occurred at the instigation of the Mamluks at Limassol during the time described by the French map, so I believe that checks out. That green arrow from Egypt should be restored as well, methinks. I don't think the arrow for the embassy should be included, seeing as I lack any specific sources for that journey. As for the borders of Armenian Cilicia, there may be some sources under maps found at Wikipedia Commons, but for more reliable textual sources, you'll have to give me a few hours to locate them. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK I added the Limassol arrow. I wonder why there's a river branch not connected to anything east of Qaqun. What should be the date below the Mamluk arrow from Egypt? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9 Thank you. The current date appears correct. Sorry for the inconvenience, would it be possible to move the "June 1271" arrow closer to the city of Limassol to make it clear that the two are associated? Also, did you happen to find a source for the borders of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: there's no date below the Mamluk arrow from Egypt across the Sinai (File:Neuvième croisade.JPG): 1/ should I add this arrow? 2/ if yes, which date should I add?
Oh, I'm sorry: I thought you were talking about the arrow that points to Limassol. Page 68 from Runciman's book states that the Mamluk assault on Damascus (which left from Egypt) took place in June 1199, but it's unclear if this event took place around the same time as the Ninth Crusade. I'm going to have to oppose placing a date for that arrow (because of the lack of a reliable source for it), but if you do locate one, please feel free to add it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9 Absolutely. I cannot thank you enough for creating this file; it was a huge step forward in improving this article! One thing though, how do I add a color-coded key to the article? Like I said earlier, images are sadly not my strong suit on this site. I'm a writer, not a designer :( Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does this sentence mean? “In May 1270, Parliament granted a tax of a twentieth of theof their personal income and moveable property value of all movable property;” it is hard to parse
Sorry, must have been a remnant of the fixes Dudley was trying to make. I've rephrased it to say "In May 1270, Parliament granted a tax of one-twentieth of all movable property..."
I found the mix of Simon de Montfort and the Earl of of Leicester in this section a bit confusing. I first thought they were two separate people. It gets a bit extra tricky when the son also has the same name: “Edward made a surprise attack at Kenilworth Castle, where the younger Montfort was quartered, before moving on to cut off the Earl of Leicester.[52] The two forces then met at the Battle of Evesham, on 4 August 1265.[53] Montfort stood little chance against the superior royal forces, and after his defeat he was killed and mutilated on the field.”P. S. Burton (talk)22:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @P. S. Burton. Because I have dealt with the source material for so long and am so acquainted with the subject matter, I find it difficult to locate which parts readers might get confused about. Would you mind providing specific sentences so I can try to rephrase them? Currently, I'm re-reading the article and I cannot pinpoint which parts are vague on the wording. By the way, I have revised the sentences you have pointed out. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@P. S. Burton Would it help if I introduced Simon de Montfort the Elder as "the Earl of Leicester" upon first mention, and then refer to him as such throughout the rest of the article, and then call his son "Simon de Montfort the Younger" or "the Younger Montfort"? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Henry of Almain remained a close companion of the prince, both through the civil war that followed, and later during the crusade. We do not know anything of the civil war and the crusade yet. What about "Henry of Almain remained a close companion of the prince till the end of his life", or something similar.
Introduce Hugh Giffard and Bartholomew Pecche (a knight or scholar?). (That Giffard was Godfrey Giffard's father has nothing to do with his appointment as Edward's tutor.)
Both citations mention nothing about their occupation, only their names.
Consider linking Ptosis (eyelid) when mentioning his dropping left eyelid.
Delink Simon de Montfort in section "Early ambitions".
Mention Richard of Cornwall instead of the "Earl of Cornwall" in the second paragraph of section "Early ambitions".
... Edward was sent abroad... To where?
Introduce Llywelyn ap Gruffudd (perhaps as a Welsh prince).
... Edward achieved only limited results... Such as?
...soon defeated the London contingent of Montfort's forces. Perhaps "the elder Montfort's forces"? (In a previous sentence the younger Montfort was mentioned.)
Edward remained in captivity until March 1265, and even after his release he was kept under strict surveillance. Do we know where?
@Borsoka All my sources use "emir" and "emirate as opposed to "caliph" and "caliphate". As for your point about the lost lands, the article for Henry III says "Henry and the baronial government enacted a peace with France in 1259, under which Henry gave up his rights to his other lands in France in return for King Louis IX recognising him as the rightful ruler of Gascony", but because Henry III is outside of my purview and the sources I have on hand do not specify, I am unable to provided a definitive answer. All else has been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why "continent" instead of "Continent" in the section's title?
Eleanor of Castile had died on 28 November 1290. Why past perfect?
The French occupation of Gascony would not end until 1303... As far as I remember the French occupation of Gascony is not previously mentioned. When was it occupied?
For me, it is still unclear that Gascony was occupied. That Philip declared Gascony forfeit does not mean that the French also occupied the duchy especially because we are informed that French ships were captured and a French port was sacked after Philip's declaration.
Fixed.
Edward of Carnarvon is already linked.
...surviving daughters... Is the adjective necessary?
...while, as noted above, his new castles drew upon the Arthurian myths in their design and location. De we nedd to repeat this info from a previous section?
King Arthur is already linked. Consider linking the "stories of King Arthur" to Arthurian Cycle.
The term "chancellor" is mentioned previously in section "Diplomacy and war on the continent".
Edward then replaced most local officials... In the context of the previous sentence, this phrase suggests that this happened in or after 1292. Is this true?
Below you mention that this happened around 1272, but the context implies a much later date.
Fixed. Please see if it is to your liking.
The Statutes of Mortmain (1279) addressed the issue of land grants to the church. Why not "Church"?
Introduce William Turnemire. (Perhaps his moneyer?)
I think you could mention that Turnemire was Edward's moneyer/minter because this info can be verified ([2]). You do not need to introduce a new source because this info would hardly be challenged.
@Borsoka: The French occupation was mentioned earlier in the section: "On his diplomatic mission in 1286, Edward had paid homage to the new king, Philip IV, but in 1294 Philip declared Gascony forfeit when Edward refused to appear before him in Paris to discuss the recent conflict between English, Gascon, and French sailors that had resulted in several French ships being captured, along with the sacking of the French port of La Rochelle". Let me know if that is too unclear. Regarding the replacement of the local officials: yes, those events happened after 1272. The source materials do not mention who William Turnemire is, only his name and that he introduced the new method of coin minting. As for your last point, Prestwich 1997 states: "In legal theory, they [the Jews] were the property of the king, and they were always subject to his will. In particular, they could be taxed arbitrarily".
Relations with the Papacy were at times no better: in 1297, Edward deliberately disobeyed the papal bull Clericis laicos, which generally forbade ecclesiastical taxation. However, improved relations with Rome later on allowed Edward to collect considerable sums by taxing the English clergy.In 1296, however, his position changed when he received the papal bull Clericis laicos. This bull prohibited the clergy from paying taxes to lay authorities without explicit consent from the Pope. ... By the end of the year, a solution was offered by the new papal bull Etsi de statu, which allowed clerical taxation in cases of pressing urgency. The same information should not be mentioned twice. Perhaps, in section "Character as king" a general reference to conflicts with the Papacy over the taxation of ecclesiastic revenues could be enough.
Are you sure that Robert the Bruce was first crowned by Lady Isobel? Isobel seems to be identical with Isabella MacDuff, Countess of Buchan (who is not the sister, but the wife of the Earl of Buchan), and is linked in a following paragraph. Do we have to know who crowned Robert the Bruce?
...he had been captured after he and his garrison held off Edward's forces who had been seeking his wife Elizabeth, daughter Marjorie, sisters Mary and Christina, and Isabella. Is this necessary?
Link Waltham Abbey.
...the result of the shortage of royal funds after the King's death Could the text "after the King's death" be deleted. I assume there is no connection between the shortage of royal funds and Edward's death.
The sarcophagus may normally have been covered over with rich cloth, and originally might have been surrounded by carved busts and a devotional religious image, all since lost. Is this necessary?
Do we have information about Welsh historians' view of Edward?
Eleanor of Castille and Margaret of France are already linked.
He is mentioned as Count of Ponthieu (as co-ruler of his first wife), Warden of the Cinque Ports, and High Sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire but without any verified reference to these titles in the main text.Borsoka (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka As far as I am aware, there are no authoritative works on Edward I written from a Welsh perspective. However, I have pulled together these brief sentences using the sources I have on hand: "Modern commentators disagree on whether Edward's conquest of Wales was warranted. Contemporary English historians were firmly in favour of the King's campaigns there. Morris takes the position that the poor condition of the Welsh state would have allowed for England to dominate it at some point or another, whether by direct conquest or through natural deterioration." Let me know what you think. All the other issues have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead presents Edward ruling in both Aquitaine and Gascony, but the main text does not mention when he began to rule Aquitaine. I understand Edward ruled Gascony as Duke of Aquitaine.
According to the main text and the succession box, Edward began to rule "Gascony" in 1254, while the lead suggests that he became the duke of Gascony in 1272.
Edward spent much of his reign reforming ... common law. Could he reform common law?
Link Burgh Marsh in the caption of the picture of the 19th-century memorial.
Introduce Payne de Chaworth. Do we need this footnote?
References 2, 61, 76, 80, 103, 125, 129, 204, 214, 251, 284, 315, 323, 326, 327, 331, 335-338 should be modified. (They differ from other references.) Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka Edward I's relationship with common law is well-established in modern scholarship and can be easily verified. See this following excerpt from Britannica, for example: "Edward I (reigned 1272–1307) has been called the English Justinian because his enactments had such an important influence on the law of the Middle Ages. Edward’s civil legislation, which amended the unwritten common law, remained for centuries as the basic statute law". Also, those citations you pointed out are different because they are citing a book not used in the bibliography. For example: a normal citation would say "Prestwich 1997, p. 82.", but certain ones like "Hughes, A. (1963) [1887]. List of Sheriffs for England and Wales from the Earliest Times to A.D. 1831. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. p. 1. OCLC 1048344863" are like that because those books are not found in the bibliography by virtue of being used for only one or two of its pages. This is relatively common-place on Wikipedia; however, if you really think this will be an issue, let me know. All other issues except for the footnote have been addressed, though. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it is not an issue, but I have not experienced that FAs use multiple methods when citing. References to primary sources and secondary sources may be different, but otherwise they are uniform. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Butting in with drive-by comment.) 1249 is obviously a typo. Prestwich 2005 p. 296 says 1254. However, I am doubtful about some of the sources used. There is a wealth of modern reliable academic sources for this article, so I do not see any reason for using less reliable ones. Jenks is dated, and his comments may not reflect the modern consensus. Britannica is a tertiary source, and secondary sources are preferred. Weir and the royal family site are popular general sources and not reliable specialist ones. I do not think these sources should be used. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I did not use those Jenks or Weir to back up anything too important in the article precisely because of that. Britannica and the RF website cannot even be considered encyclopedic, so I did not use those at all. They do reaffirm the 1254 date, though, which is nice because I was super confused about that during editing. Currently the article is using Hamilton 2010 p. 51 to back up the 1254 date; hopefully that is sufficient. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the bibliography I did not detect major problems. I also compared some of the sentences with the cited works and all sentences that I checked are verified. Thank you for this interesting, thoroughly researched and well written article. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A technical tip: when I've finished working on an article I copy the entire text from the displayed page (not the editing page) and paste it unformatted into Word, where the spell-check picks up such as the above, AmE/BrE variations, and (my own besetting sin) repeated words, etc. Works a treat. Tim riley talk19:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed thoughts
This is going to take me a few goes, and here's my first one, down to the end of the Crusade and accession section. I know little of the history of the period and so my comments are mostly on the prose.
Lead
"When the King died in 1307, he left to his son Edward II at war with Scotland and other financial and political burdens" – Not a sentence, and the intended meaning isn't immediately clear. Should "at war" be "a war"?
Childhood and marriage
"benefitted from most of the income" – "benefitted" is not actually wrong, according to the OED, but the preferred "benefited" is much nicer.
"J.S. Hamilton" – perhaps a space between the two initials? I think that's the MoS's recommendation.
Second Barons' War
"Edward negotiated a truce with the Earl" – I share your preference for capitalisation but I think the MoS would have us put "the earl" in lower case when used as here.
Crusade and accession
"the John de Vescy and 7th Earl of Gloucester" – superfluous definite article and then a missing one?
The assassination attempt against Edward I in June 1272
"The Christian situation in the Holy Land was a precarious one" – a bit wordy: perhaps just "was precarious"?
"Treaty of Montgomery recognised" but in the next para "Llywelyn soon realized". Here and elsewhere you should, I think, be consistent in your use of "–ise/–ize". In modern BrE the former is standard, with only the Oxford University Press still holding out for "ize" – the Cambridge University Press and The Times switched to "–ise" some while ago.
"Edward's brother Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, and William de Beauchamp, 9th Earl of Warwick" – you sometimes tell us that so-and-so was Xth Earl of Somewhere and sometimes just that he was a numberless Earl. I wonder why you make the distinction.
"King Edward ordered" – unexpected recurrence of "King" here. I don't notice any other Edward in this part of the text with whom the king could be confused.
Colonization
"the Principality of Wales" – should principality be capitalised?
Diplomacy and war on the Continent
"and took the cross again in 1287" – I'd have guessed that taking the cross meant going on crusade, but evidently not, from the earlier part of the sentence. I think you need to explain what it means.
"Charles' release" – in BrE the possessive of singular names ending in s is usually (though not invariably) ess-apostrophe-ess – Charles's and (later) Stubbs's. I'm not sure what I'd do with the possessive of Baibars, though. It looks all right as it is, I think. (In passing, I see our WP article calls him Baybars.)
"While this would not end up occurring – You are fond of using "while" to mean "and" or "although", which can obscure one's meaning ("While Miss Jones sang Bach, Mr Smith played Beethoven"), though I think the article doesn't fall foul on this account so far. And "would not end up occurring" strikes me as both wordy and a touch colloquial, if you simply mean it did not happen.
Character as king
"He was close with his daughters, and frequently lavished them with expensive gifts" – this reads rather strangely. The first "with" seems an odd preposition to use: one might expect "to". And I don't think one lavishes people with things, but rather one lavishes things on people.
Administration and the law
"after the disastrous reign of his father – I was surprised by the adjective. The earlier part of the article does not seem to imply that the reign was a disaster.
"This last measure was done – does one do measures? Usually one takes them, I think.
"Their loan with interest business" – I think it might help the reader navigate the sentence if you were to hyphenate loan-with-interest, which is common practice with a composite adjective used attributively, as here.
"Earl Marshal Roger Bigod, 5th Earl of Norfolk" – This looks like a false title to me. You wouldn't say, "Good morning, Earl Marshal Bigod". I think you'd be better to give him a definite article and a comma: "the Earl Marshal, Roger Bigod".
"Bigod and de Bohun turned up at the Exchequer" – "turned up" seems a touch too colloquial.
"it was a changes in personnel" – "change" singular wanted.
"terming the king the "English Justinian" – you ought to be consistent about whether you do or don't capitalise "the king". You don't here (and the MoS would concur, I think) but elsewhere we have "the King". For instance in the Administration and the law section we have "that the liberty should revert to the king" followed by "few liberties were returned to the King".
Hey, @Tim riley. Thank you for your thoughtful review thus far. Most of your comments have been addressed, and I have a few responses to the others.
Regarding the numbering of the earls, I generally try to format them as Xth Earl of Somewhere (due to there being many earls of the same place), but I notably use "the Earl of Leicester" when referring to Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, who was the 6th earl. This is because he is the only person in the body of the article referred to as the Earl of Leicester, whereas some other peers in the article died and were replaced by their offspring (some of whom has the same name!).
The article briefly touches upon the fact that during the reign of Henry III, he surrendered crown lands and faced internal conflict during the Second Barons' War. Those were certainly tumultuous events; even Henry's biographers agree that his reign was not particularly a success. Is "disastrous" too strong? Let me know what you think I should replace it with.
It's your text, and your call, but I don't get any impression from our article on Henry III that his reign was seen as disastrous. Troubled, certainly, and you might like to consider that adjective. "Disturbed" might be another possible adjective less indicative of cataclysm than "disastrous". Tim riley talk10:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a lot of duplicate links. In general there should be only one link from the main text to any other article, and at present we have more than one link to Richard of Cornwall, Dover, Archbishop of Canterbury (linked three times), Earldom of Chester, Duchy of Gascony, Robert Burnell, Luke de Tany, Magnates, Provisions of Oxford, Dictum of Kenilworth, Louis IX of France, Humphrey de Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford , Magna Carta, John de Warenne, 6th Earl of Surrey, Stirling Bridge, William Stubbs, and Michael Prestwich.
Capitalisation: is it Parliament or parliament – "the standard for later Parliaments" ... "the early parliaments of the period", and so on? At present I make the score 10:7 for the capitalised form. Better be consistent throughout.
Possessives: Though I say above that we usually use "ess-apostrophe-ess" for names ending in s, I would not myself write "Louis's". The possessives of names that end in a silent s are usually written as "ess-apostrophe", and I'd write "Louis' successor".
Support. This is a fine article: clear; highly readable; balanced (as far as my layman's eye can judge); evidently comprehensive, but not overloaded with excessive detail; widely referenced; and well illustrated. It meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion, and I hope we shall see it on the front page in due course. − Tim riley talk12:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought (humble apologies!): I meant, but forgot, to mention that I think some rationalisation of the capitalisation of Crusade/crusade would be a good thing. This doesn't affect my support but you may like to consider. − Tim riley talk12:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have time to review the article properly, but at least wanted to say that I'm very pleased to see it at FAC and well done to the editors who got it this far. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"After suppressing a minor rebellion in Wales in 1276–77, Edward responded to a second rebellion in 1282–83 with its conquest." This seems confusing. Rebellion implies that Wales was already conquered.
Fixed.
"He claimed feudal suzerainty over Scotland and the First Scottish War of Independence continued after his death." His invasion of Scotland is important enough to be mentioned specifically in the lead.
Fixed
"establishing Parliament as a permanent institution and so a functional system for raising taxes and reforming the law through statutes" I think "so" is the wrong word here. It implies that one follows from the other.
Fixed
"Edward, an Anglo-Saxon name," Why the italics?
Fixed
"He made several appointments to advance the cause of the reformers". What power did he havve to do this? You say above that his father had given him no power.
The text above did say that, yes, but the text immediately before that says things like "a show of his blooming political independence" or "Edward showed independence in political matters as early as 1255". Page 32 of Prestwich 1997 says: "On 15 November 1259 Henry III crossed the Channel to negotiate the final peace with the French. This gave Edward his chance. He was now able to appoint his friend Roger Leyburn to Bristol Castle, and Roger Clifford recieved the Three Castles in south Wales". I'm not exactly sure how Edward managed to do this (I'm sure his father wondered the same thing), but all that the sources say is that he did do it.
"This was not enough, and the rest had to be raised through a tax on the laity, which had not been levied since 1237". This is ambiguous. Do you mean that no tax had been raised from the laity or that a specific tax had been. Customs duties were indirect taxes on the laity, but if I understand correctly direct taxes were only levied when they were voted by Parliament in time of war.
Fixed
"It was not until 24 September 1272 that Edward left Acre. Arriving in Sicily, he was met with the news that his father had died on 16 November." He left Acre on 24 Sep and did not arrive in Sicily until news of his father's death on 16 Nov had already reached there?
Apparantly so. Prestwich 1997 p. 82 says: "Soon after landing at Trapani in Sicily on his return journey, Edward recieved sad news, firstly of the death of his son John, and then that of his father Henry III, who had died on 16 November". Page 56 of Hamilton 2010 says the same thing.
Colonization. I do not think this is the right word. I take it to mean control by a foreign country, not incorporation into another country.
Okay, so this situation is very murky. The Statute of Rhuddlan did indeed grant England control over Wales and allowed for English administration to exist there, but the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 was the thing that actually fully and formally annexed Wales into the English domain. "Colonization" to me sounds like the most appropriate word to use here. If you still think that another word would be better, we can discuss further :)
I would delete the 'Conquest' and 'Colonization' sub-headings. Either 'Welsh wars' or 'Conquest of Wales' is fine as a single heading for the whole section. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"one story tells of how the Dean of St Paul's, wishing to confront Edward over the high level of taxation in 1295, fell down and died once he was in the King's presence," This is presumably apocryphal. William de Montfort was dean until 1294 and the story is not in his article.
I agree that it sounds apocryphal, but the source material (Prestwich 2005 p. 177) makes no distincition over whether the anecdote was genuine or not. I don't think the point of this story is whether it is true or not. The point is that Edward had such a fierce reputation that people began making these rumours. And if the story is true, that just proves the point even further.
"Despite his more unflattering character traits" An odd wording. Maybe "Despite his harsh disposition".
"The same year as Burnell's appointment," "In the same year" is fine and less wordy.
That actually came up before during this FA process; apparently some readers got confused, thinking that Edward replaced his officials in 1292 (instead of 1274) because of this preceeding phrase: "a man who would remain in the post until 1292".
"The inquest produced the set of so-called Hundred Rolls, from the administrative subdivision of the hundred". This raises several points. 1. You do not need "so-called". I would delete. 2. You imply that the 1274 ones were the only ones, but there were earlier ones in the reign of Henry III and later in Edward's reign. 3. "from the administrative subdivision of the hundred" is vague and unnecessary. I would delete.
1. Done. 2. I don't see how the article implies that there weren't other administrative records? 3. I tried clearing up the language to make it less vague. I think keeping it would be a tad useful, because simply "Hundred Rolls" sounds like there were literally 100 rolls.
So how about "The inquest produced a set of the census documents called Hundred Rolls. These have been likened to the 11th-century Domesday Book,[192] and they formed the basis for the later legal inquiries called the Quo warranto proceedings." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"The 1290 statute of Quo warranto was only one part of a wider legislative effort, which was one of the most important contributions of Edward's reign." I would say "reform" (or reforms) not effort. It was the result which counted, not the attempt.
Fixed.
The 'Administration and the law' section does not mention Magna Carta, even though it was twice confirmed during Edward's reign. Was it not significant?
The 'Administration and law section' primarily adressed Edward's personal approach towards law and his parliamentary statutes to that end. In my readings, including Prestwich's Plantagenet England, 1225-1360, the re-confirmations of the Magna Carta do not appear to be particularly significant; the King only used them as a means to get what he wanted, which if you think about it, ironically defeats the point of the Magna Carta to begin with.
"English coins were frequently counterfeited in foreign places". I think "on the Continent" would be better than "in foreign places".
Fixed.
"Records do not indicate any adverse consequences that resulted from Edward's monetary reforms; on the contrary, the coinage overhaul successfully provided England with a stable currency." You could delete all the words up to "contrary".
Fixed.
"money lending and lay subsidies." It was borrowing rather than lending. Also, the links are not helpful. Loan is too general and History of the English fiscal system only mentions lay subsidies without explanation in relation to Charles I.
Fixed.
"lay subsidies – taxes collected at a certain fraction of the moveable property of all laymen". The explanation should be at the first mention of lay subsidies
Fixed.
"taxes collected at a certain fraction of the moveable property of all laymen – from the entire population". Entire population? There must have been people who had no property.
Fixed.
"prises, seizure of wool and hides" Prises and seizures or prises meaning seizures?
Meaning prises and seizures. Prises involved the Crown purchasing (albeit with ridiculously arbitrary prices), whereas "seizures" are, um, free. Let's put it that way. Free...
"At the time, the archbishopric of Canterbury was not fully secure, since Robert Winchelsey was in Italy to receive consecration." Why not secure? I think it would be better to just say that he was absent.
The dead tree sources all look reliable and the lion's share are recent. I don't have the bandwidth to do spotchecks right now, but that is the only thing left to do from a sourcing POV --GuerilleroParlez Moi15:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe one of the last things to do for this nomination is an image review. I would greatly appreciate some help in this department: as I've made clear many times, images are not in my purview. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, when your FAC is at this stage you can request an image (or source) review at the top of WT:FAC (I've done it for you in this instance). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Gustave_Dore_Crusades_Edward_I_kills_his_attempted_assassin.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto
I could not locate this information, so I have removed the image.
@A455bcd9: I apologize for summoning you on such short notice, especally since you've been generous enough to help me with images on this article in the past. However, you're the best person I know for this job. Any chance you could assist me with altering the colors in this image? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Yes, I believe that is around the time of the first publication of the book. However, the image itself was created in 1774; maybe I should consider that the publication year? Licensing could be tricky on this one. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking for something that meets the definition of published here. If you can confirm that the image was published around the time it was created, great. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The image is attributed to William Blake, who drew it in 1774. Marc Morris, who used the image in his book A Great and Terrible King : Edward I and the Forging of Britain, attributes it to the Society of Antiquaries of London in the prologue. The Society itself seemingly offers no publication date, and interestingly enough, this website claims that the image "...was never published by the Society of Antiquaries of London". Yikes. This whole situation is a mess... Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it was actually never published that simplifies the situation considerably, but what is the first publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks; I have just done so. In the interest of closing this FAC in a timely manner, do you recommend removing the image from the article until the licensing can be verified? Otherwise, I fear this nomination will be stuck in limbo for a few more weeks or even months. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good for our purposes. Because it's on Commons you'll probably want a tag for country of origin as well - the life+70 tag would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: For some reason, Commons won't let me combine the tags, so I had to place them separately. I think the current formatting of the tags is alright? Please check that out really quickly if you have the time. Anyhow, @FAC coordinators: this nomination finally looks like it's wrapping up. I eagerly await closure over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- Hi Unlimitedlead, could we have the last sentence of the second-last para of Crusade and accession cited pls? As a general rule, all paragraphs should end with a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
