Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 June 2023 [1].

Henry II of England

[edit]
Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC), User:Hchc2009[reply]

I was planning on nominating this article later this year, but here are in May. After somehow promoting Edward I of England in February, I have been working with the blessing of the now-retired Hchc to improve Henry II of England for FA status, and I think we have gotten there. The article has undergone a lenghty and comprehensive peer review from @Tim riley, Dudley Miles, Serial Number 54129, Borsoka, and Ceoil: all are invited to leave further comments. Thank y'all and enjoy another article about an English royal, courtesy of an American southerner, and, uh, whatever Hchc is. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Ealdgyth, the GA reviewer, and @Hawkeye7, Dank, Sturmvogel 66, and Ian Rose: all of whom reviewed the article at ACR. All are invited to comment, but none are obligated. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial#

[edit]
That 'by' is doing a lot of work there. While you have the highest number of edits to the article, in terms of text/authorship you've contributed between five and 16%. Happy days! You flatter me, but I wouldn't call my contribution to the peer review either lengthy or comprehensive; IIRC, all I did was make some cretinous remarks regarding sourcing. Bit if that helped, it's really nice to know! Re sourcing, you'll notice I've made a couple of tweaks for you, as they would certainly have been raised at the source review (page ranges, locations, etc). On locations, something you'll have to establish for yourself is your style; no-one will much mind which, as long as consistency is maintained. For example, I don't think we need top-level country names as part of the location (if our reader has got to the bottom of 1 ~13,000-word article like this, they probably don't need to be told what countries NY, Paris or London are in!). You list 'New York, New York, United States', but also New Haven, CT. Two things here. The first uses place/state/country, while the other uses simply place/abbreviated state. Also, some dating issues: If you've used the original versions of Cantor, Churchill and Duggan then obviously use those dates but get a OCLC number off Worldcat, whereas if you used a later version that has the ISBN use that but link back with |orig-year=. On ISBNs, there's a few works from the 90s that are probably sufficiently recent to have 13-digit isbns rather than 10.
Just a few thoughts. Best of luck with the promotion! SN54129 15:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 Thank you for your lengthy and helpful comments! They have all been taken care of. See you around, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
13-digit ISBNs only became official in 2007.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 Since I have already changed all of the ISBNs to have thirteen digits, should I change them back? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your call. Personally I prefer the format in use when published, but that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it as is, and then change it back if anyone else objects. Thank you for weighing in. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling

[edit]
  • "what was conventionally a period of truce".
    Why was it conventionally a period of truce? What period was it? Negotiation period? Or...? [I'm reading from bottom to top, so if it's stated a little above, sorry]...
It is indeed stated above; please let me know if it is unclear. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image sources do not say who is who, so I cannot label them without conflicting with OR, but I would assume that Richard is the one wearing red. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few original words below the image here and here, but I doubt they're helpful. Far more words here, but I wonder, is reading the original a form of WP:OR? I dunno. I suggest you just copy the description from the site, "Peter of Capua mediating between Philip Augustus and Richard I of England, from Chroniques de France ou de St Denis, 14th century" (first website) or "Detail of a miniature of Peter of Capua mediating between Philip Augustus and Richard I of England. Origin: France, Central (Paris)" (second website), and let readers guess for themselves who's who. § Lingzhi (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, but I think that mentioning Peter in the caption and not the body would raise some questions among reviewers. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I dunno how picky people are about dates, but the meeting in that picture took place in 1198, long after Henry was six feet under. § Lingzhi (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware; I believe the depiction of the people themselves is of value to the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering whether or not I feel a little unhappy about this article. I might have time to read it more closely later, but if you could save me some time, please point me to the spots I feel I'm missing. Maybe I am missing something! You see, when I look at the Legacy section, I see "Many of the changes Henry introduced during his long rule had major long-term consequences". Then we're given a list of three. Three is not many. Far worse, IMHO, are unfulfilled promises for discussions about how Henry's actions were important: "legal changes are generally considered to have laid the basis for English Common Law". Now you see, that is fascinating for me. I want to know more. But when I read the article, it's all "soap opera, drama, family kills family, soap opera, drama, family kills family." I just don't care. I know that many people do care. I know that all these brother-kills-brother types of events have a huge impact. But I don't care. The article is 95% soap opera and 5% analysis... I want to know very clearly what changes H. made and how they changed English (British) law. And so on. Less History Channel and more Google Scholar. When I read the article, these changes are given very brief treatment. Everything is just hit with a splash from a very broad paint brush... Maybe I'm missing something? I did read quickly. Please let me know. § Lingzhi (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi.Renascence: Hey, we can not help it if someone's life is eventful! But to answer your concerns, the article is littered with academic analysis on the administration and government of Henry II: see Reconstruction of royal government, Empire and nature of government, Law, Relations with the Church, and Economy and finance. None of the (at least) seven others who have read this article in depth have given any complaints about a lack of comprehensiveness. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As both nominators have previously had FAC nominations promoted there is no requirement for a spot check. Although one would be welcome if anyone fancied doing one. Is there anything else preventing your supporting? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not support the idea of skipping spot checks. If I brought BF43 to FAC, there would be a spot check, and it would involve tweezers, an electron microscope, and an anal probe. And I have multiple FAs. So: goose/gander. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 16:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, Dudley appears to have done an informal spot-check already. On another note, Ling seems to be a tad bit disgruntled about a recent experience at FAC, and while I express my regrets about that, I find it peculiar to bring that into an unrelated nomination. Regardless, if the coordinators strongly support a spot-check, then go right ahead. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ling, thanks for the prompt and clear response. Ull, in my comment above I was speaking as a coordinator. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Maps would generally benefit from more descriptive legends, but see MOS:COLOUR
@A455bcd9: Greetings; I hate to always have to summon you at FA, but can you help me with this task, or give me some pointers on how to address the issues? Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. I'm (mildly) colorblind and for me the only real issue is File:France 1154-en (Angevin Empire).svg with shades of red and green. I'll see what I can do. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your generosity. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried and... I couldn't modify the image. I'm not an expert at all in Inkscape and I thought I could manage but it's beyond my (poor) skills. And yet it should be simple: we just want to replace green-ish areas by another color (yellow? purple?). It may be faster to ask the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying anyways; I have put in a request. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @A455bcd9: @Unlimitedlead: Hey I have forgotten EVERYTHING abut licensing, so this may get deleted soon, but is it ok: thumb| § Lingzhi (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fantastic. I will add it to the article; thank you for the map. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two problems: one big, one small. First, there's a high probability that the licensing is wrong. I just clicked through all the options, choosing "my work, my work" etc. I don't remember how to define "my work". Just changing colors does not seem enough... Second, the ocean is light green instead of traditional light blue. I made a third version that changes that color. You can have that instead if you wish. § Lingzhi (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi.Renascence The licensing looks fine to me, but I will check with Nikki later. Yes, I would like to see the third version. Thanks for your work, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thumb|France, Angevin Empire § Lingzhi (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi.Renascence Is it possible to change the color of Toulouse and size up the image? Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) What color (or just lighter/darker)? How big? § Lingzhi (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any color besides purple or pink is okay. I want to be able to distinguish between the places in the key. And is 1,405 × 1,675 pixels possible? Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
INKSCAPE Motto: "Conclusive proof that there are many hard ways to do an easy thing". Took me hours to figure out how to resize!!! Try this: thumb| § Lingzhi (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for creating this image. It seems perfect! I have gone ahead and added appropriate licensing/sourcing and added it to the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Chateau_de_Montsoreau_Museum_of_contemporary_art.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Henry_II_Penny.jpg, File:Aleanor_of_Aqutaine_and_Henri_II.jpg
All done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:BL_MS_Royal_14_C_VII_f.9_(Henry_jr).jpg: source link is dead
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Château_de_Chinon_vu_de_la_Vienne.jpg is tagged as own work, but sourced to something else?
Not sure what the case is; I have just removed the image. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I believe all have been adressed. May you please take a look to make sure? Thank you, Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maps still need some more descriptive captions. What are we meant to understand from File:North_West_France_1150.png - what are the red dots? Which of the colours on File:France_1154-en_(Angevin_Empire)4f.svg are meant to be interpreted as shades of purple, and which (if any) are not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I have tried rectifying these issues. Is there anything else I need to do? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Apologies for the double ping, but may I ask for confirmation? Thank you. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ippantekina

[edit]

On first glance this article is in great shape! I will review the prose shortly; reviewing a History article is something new for me and I gotta admit this is pretty interesting. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Richard Nevell

[edit]

It's exciting to see this article at FAC, well done! I'm especially interested in the aftermath of the Anarchy and the 1173-74 revolt; complicated but gripping periods. Life is busy at the moment so it's entirely possible I may not get round to a proper in-depth review. With my castles hat on:

  • Is it worth mentioning Dover Castle? Henry instigated quite a few new buildings at castles, and Dover was by far the biggest.
I would be glad to insert a section regarding Henry's building projects, but the article is already quite lengthy. Shall I go ahead and do so anyways? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That said the only brand new castle Henry began was Orford. Is this worth mentioning?
See point above. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some nuance might need to be added around 'adulterine' ot unauthorised castles. Wareham, for example, was demolished in the aftermath of the war but I don't think I've seen it characterised as either.
The sources just mention them as 'adulterine'; how would you like me to address this issue? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rebel castles in England and Aquitaine were destroyed": this is probably an accurate reflection of what Warren says, but certainly not all castles belonging to rebels were demolished. I think the earl of Chester had his confiscated instead. This might be handy for checking. I don't think the Earl of Chester's castles were demolished, for example, certainly not Chester at least.
Good point. Warren's source just states that the rebel castles were destroyed, and I am inclined to go along with that. The source you have provided is quite antiquated and would doubtless cause and uproar during the source review. For now, though, I think brining up the whole Chester thing would be going too far into detail for an article that is already long. If it helps, I can rephrase "The rebel castles in England and Aquitaine were destroyed" to say "Rebel castles in England and Aquitaine were destroyed" or "Some rebel castles in England and Aquitaine were destroyed". Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When talking about the castles that were destroyed or demolished in the aftermath of conflicts, please could a link to slighting be added? That article gives more context about the phenomenon. Full disclosure, slighting is my main research area so I'm biased as to its importance (I reckon it's very important of course).
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should have some sources knocking around if that would be helpful. I'm writing this on my phone so I don't have them right now. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

The peer reviewers, including me, scrutinised the article with particular rigour. There were some concerns about the length of the piece, but they have been addressed, and I am happy to add my support for the elevation of the article to FA. It is a good read, appears balanced and well sourced, the proportions and layout are sensible and the illustrations are resplendent. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I have enjoyed revisiting it today and I look forward to its appearance on our front page in due course. Tim riley talk 17:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley Thank you kindly for your support! Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • Like Tim, I peer reviewed the article, but unlike him I always miss points which I find on another read through, so I will havve another go.
  • "resulted in Becket's murder in 1170. Henry soon came into conflict with Louis VII of France". "soon" is ambiguous here. I assume you mean soon after his accession to the English throne, but this should be spelled out.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "encouraged by Louis VII and his son Philip II". Maybe add "who succeeded to the French throne in 1180".
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry's mother was the eldest daughter of Henry I". What does eldest mean here? She was the only legitimate daughter and presumably not older than all of Henry's illegitimate daughters.
Clarified to "eldest legitimate daughter". Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I have removed "eldest". Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the marriage between Henry and Eleanor was just as consanguineous as that of her and Louis". If you say this you need to say above that the first marriage was annulled on the ground of consanguinity.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The process of demolishing the unauthorised castles from the war continued." You have not said that it started.
Note 10 explains this; I cannot think of a way to incorporate it smoothly. Perhaps you could assist me? Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about after "Henry and Stephen sealed the treaty with a kiss of peace in the cathedral." something like "In early 1154 Stephen became more active. He attempted to exert his authority and started demolishing unauthorised castles. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By contrast, the number of earldoms in England, for example, shrank considerably. Example of what?
Removed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 12th century saw the continuation of the reform movement within the Church". This implies that you have previously mentioned the reform movement, which I don't think you have.
It refers to the general reform undertaken in the Church at the time: overall during the time period, not as a mention to something earlier. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "The 12th century saw the continuation of the ongoing reform movement within the Catholic Church, advocating greater clerical autonomy from royal authority and more influence for the papacy". Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of their income came from their private estates, called demesne." I do not think demesne should be italicised. It is an English word, even though its origin is French, and it is not italicised by OED and Cambridge Dictionary.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some figures suggest that royal income fell by 46 per cent between 1129–30 and 1155–56". "some figures" is too vague.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A new coin, called the Awbridge silver penny, was issued in 1153 to try to stabilise the English currency after the war." 1153 implies issued by Stephen and I think you should say so. I also think you should say how it was intended to stabilise the currency and whether it succeeded. Did it have a higher silver content?
Addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although taxes were used heavily in the first 11 years of his reign." What does this mean? Were taxes lower after 1165?
It means that generally, Henry relied on the demesne for his English income, but when he first became king, he was forced to rely more heavily on taxes instead. This eventually fizzled out and Henry began to be able to rely mainly on the demesne during the later parts of his reign.
You need to clarify this in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed this comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Revenue from the demesne formed the bulk of Henry's income in England during much of his reign, although taxes were relied upon heavily in the first 11 years". Is that okay? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he reformed the currency in 1158, putting his name on English coins for the first time". You mean he kept Stephen's name on his coins for the first four years? Why?
Indeed. To be honest, I have no idea: one of the sources I have read specifically notes that this was a strange missed power grab on Henry's part. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • heading "Later reign (1162–1175)" This is hardly later - Henry reigned 8 years before and 14 after the period.
Changed to "Intermediate reign (1162–1175)". Does this work? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds awkward to me but I cannot think of a good alternative. Middle years? Warren has 'The consolidation of authority' for 1161-8 and you might use a variation on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Middle years. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sent his ally Alfonso II of Aragon and the Archbishop of Bordeaux against Raymond in 1164". "allies" not "ally".
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1165 Raymond divorced Louis's sister and attempted to ally himself with Henry instead." Next mention of Raymond "In February 1173, Raymond finally capitulated and publicly gave homage for Toulouse to Henry and his heirs." This is confusing. What does attempted mean here? That Henry refused the alliance? How could Raymond's capitulation be the next thing?
Warren says: "...Count Raymond had recently divorced his wife, Louis’s sister, and was presumably seeking a new ally [Henry].... Count Raymond did homage for Toulouse..." Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Warren does not say that Raymond attempted to ally with Henry. On pp. 116-7 Warren says that Raymond allied with Barbarossa. Gillingham, 2nd ed, p. 100 says that Raymond's surrender was the result of unremitting pressure from Henry since 1159. I do not think you have a source for Raymond attempting to ally with Henry and you should explain the reason behind his surrender. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "In 1165 Raymond divorced Louis's sister and possibly pursued an alliance with Henry instead" based on the following excerpt: "During Lent 1167, writes Robert de Torigny, ‘the king of England spoke with the count of Toulouse at Grandmont’.5 No more is revealed, but Count Raymond had recently divorced his wife, Louis’s sister, and was presumably seeking a new ally". This to me implies that Raymond was in talks with Henry to form an alliance. Warren pp. 116-7 does not say that Raymond allied with Barbarossa, rather that he aligned himself with the Emperor's preferred claim to the papal office. As for your last concern, I have changed it to say: "In February 1173, after unremitting pressure from Henry since 1159, Raymond finally capitulated to the English king and publicly gave homage for Toulouse to Henry and his heirs". Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Becket temporarily agreed but changed his position shortly afterwards" If I remember correctly, one factor weakening Becket was the other bishops' resentment at Becket bullying them into going along with his surrender and then turning round and demanding that they go along with him reneging on it. Perhaps worth mentioning?
I think that would make the already lengthy section on Becket convoluted and too detailed for the scope of this article on Henry II. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the mid-12th century Ireland was ruled by local kings, although their authority was more limited than their counterparts in the rest of western Europe." This is not what the source says. Warren says that it was the High King whose authority was weaker.
Changed to "In the mid-12th century Ireland was ruled by local kings, with the High King of Ireland having limited authority." Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mainstream Europeans regarded the Irish as barbarous and backward." I do not have Davies, but Warren does not say that. He says that it was 12C popes, and that they ignored the Irish record of cultural achievement and missionary zeal.
I have removed the sentence: it was somewhat off-topic anyhow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1160s the King of Leinster, Diarmait Mac Murchada, was deposed by the High King of Ireland, Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair.". This seems to contradict the statement that Ireland was ruled by local kings. According to Warren, the High King was only able to depose Diarmait because he had been defeated by a powerful coalition of his enemies.
Apologies, but I do not understand what you are getting at. The sentence (to me) does not contradict the existence of multiple kings in Ireland. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The contradiction was that you say Ireland was ruled by petty kings with no mention of a high king, so it seemed strange to have somone not mentioned deposing Diarmait. As you do now mention the high king and say that his authority was weak, you might clarify that deposition was the culmination of defeat by a powerful coalition. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1176 announced an extraordinary claim that he had agreed in 1169 to give Richard's fiancée Alys the whole province" I would delete "extraordinary". it was probably no more remarkable than many other claims.
Deleted. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "put to an arbitration panel". We do not link common words such as "arbitration".
Deleted. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Philip Augustus's creation of itinerant bailli, for example, clearly drew on the Henrician model.". bailli needs explaining.
Done in a note. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, 20th-century popular historians have generally praised Henry. The Canadian-American historian and medievalist Norman Cantor called Henry a "remarkable man, undoubtedly the greatest of all Medieval English kings."This appears to imply that Cantor was a popular historian and that he is the source for their views of Henry. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted "popular". Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough review and support. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • "Nevertheless, Henry has generally found praise among 20th-century popular historians." You then quote two professional historians with PhDs in history, and a politician who failed his school certificate. If you must cite Churchill - I don't think you should - could you make it very clear that he is not an RS, much less HQ. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, he also thought that Simon de Montfort had 'lit a flame that would never be extinguished in English history' etc. And anyone who thinks Leicester was a paragon of parliamentary democracy needs their brains tested. I didn't look at sourcing before proffering my support; had I done so, and noticed this, I probably would have deferred doing so. The historiography can certainly bear the weight of multiple, further opinions from modern historians. This would ensure the article meets 1C. And giving Churchill equal weight with modern historians leads to 1D issues. SN54129 14:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild@Serial Number 54129 Thanks for pointing that out. I will work on removing Churchill from the article later today; I believe the reason he was first added was because his popular image among the general public. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not so much that he is a non-RS, as that he was not clearly flagged as such. I also consider the Historiography section over-detailed, despite the fact that it effectively ends in 1969. Has there been no historiography in the past 50 years, and do we need so much detail on the prior period? Especially that on views which are no longer held by historians?
The ODNB has this to say: "Historians such as Christopher Brooke and Frank Barlow agree, and yet there is dissent from those who disavow the ‘great man’ theory. For Bryce Lyon, the legal strides made in England during Henry's reign owed more to his choice of advisers than to Henry's own interest in or mastery of the law, while Michael Clanchy credits English constitutional development in this period to the impersonal force of the spreading use of the written word, a technological advance, the product not of English genius, but of a 'brilliant time in Western Europe' (Clanchy, 154, 158, 161). In the end, wherever historians focus their attention—on individuals or impersonal forces—the scope of Henry II's life and the records of his reign provide a tantalizing wealth of material to which they are sure to return again and again. Perhaps this is legacy enough." Is any of this information worth adding to the article? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, this discussion about Churchill’s analysis of Henry II is not useful. It’s not as if article is saturated with h quotes from him or from A History of the English-speaking peoples. The inclusion of his analysis—at the tail end of the historiography section which bleeds into popular history—is a valuable addition to mark Henry’s place along the heights of English historiography. For a monarch who can claim, without hyperbole, to have laid the groundwork for a legal system which daily and directly impacts hundreds of millions across the world, such an inclusion is, I think, merited. Otherwise, it is rather blunted and stale.
    Frankly, just as an aside, Churchill was an able historian and his analyses are usually razor sharp. Those who dispute this should take a gander at his illuminating Marlborough epic. To reduce him, and thereby this small contribution, to a mere “politician who failed his school certificate” is betray a distinct rancor. A History of the English-speaking Peoples was among his works which earned him a Noble Prize for Literature and his analysis of Henry II as perhaps the founding father of English legalism is valuable. Stupor26 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need very little historiography from much before the 70s, frankly. There is an abundance of it, and we must consider summary style; perhaps a short para on the salient points of development of scholarship, but this need not include WC. Hume should also be removed. Churchill pretty much a popular historian. Incidentally, accusing other editors of "rancour" is generally considered an aspersion, and they are not smiled upon. FYI. Cheers! SN54129 19:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed the article's mention of Hume, which now only reads: "In the 18th century the historian David Hume argued that Henry's reign was pivotal to creating a genuinely English monarchy and, ultimately, a unified Britain". I believe this passing mention is more than enough information on Hume in the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Apologies for the delay, I have: (del. as appropriate) had some time in hospital / been getting trolled elsewhere on the 'pedia. I note UnlimitedLead has dealt with my mildly acerbic comments above, and read the consensus correctly re. Churchill, I can now 'support this article's promotion to featured status. Nice work fielding this FAC! SN54129 18:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Using this version, keeping in mind that I know nothing about English or French historiography. Bull, Marcus (2007) has a somewhat unusual archive link to Elsevier. Martinson, Amanda A. is a PhD thesis, is that a robust enough source for a FA? Apart from these, it seems like source formatting is consistent and the key information is there. Where does #245 give the year of Theobald's exile? If Christopher Harper-Bill is Christopher Harper-Bill, David Crouch David Crouch (historian), Jim Bradbury Jim Bradbury, REGINALD L. POOLE Reginald Lane Poole, Ralph Henry Carless Davis R. H. C. Davis, H. Mayr-Harting Henry Mayr-Harting, R.R Davies Rees Davies and FRANK BARLOW Frank Barlow (historian), a link might be useful but not necessary (I am asking since I am using their Wikipedia pages to check credentials). Who is "World History: Perspectives on the Past Cover"'s Larry Krieger? Norman F. Cantor is Norman Cantor? Eyton, Robert William seems like a reasonable use of such an old source. I can try to do some spot-checking from Google Books if folks want it, but not today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can give Martinson a pass; the source seems comprehensive enough. If someone else raises objections, I can reconsider its usage. As for "World History: Perspectives on the Past Cover", the source describes Krieger as a "social studies supervisor in Edison, New Jersey; coauthor of social studies textbooks and teaching materials; former world history teacher". If you are concerned about the source's reliability because of this, it is worth pointing out that the same source was used in Edward I and it was accepted. Thanks kindly for the source review! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All else has been fixed, by the way. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that "comprehensive enough" here equals "high-quality reliable source". Is this PhD thesis commonly cited in discussions around the topic? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the thesis was published under the guidance of St. Andrews' John Hudson, who likely is John Hudson (historian). @Dudley Miles, as a well-versed writer of royal history, do you think this source is quality enough for usage in this article? Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Martinson is a peer-reviewed academic source but very little cited. I would pass it as a source to be used cautiously. I would personally not pass Krieger. I do not trust books on broad sweeps of history as no one can have reliable knowledge of such a large field. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts, Dudley. I have removed Krieger from the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, anything else on the sourcing? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so does Martinson get used by other reliable sources? I am not 100% up on the reliability of PhDs but my impression has been that for whatever reason they are less than fully reliable RS; Ealdgyth do you know anything about this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thesis is cited in Oppitz-Trotman, G. (2011). Penance, Mercy and Saintly Authority in the Miracles of St Thomas Becket. Studies in Church History, Cambridge University Press, 47, 136-147. doi:10.1017/S0424208400000917. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Does that tie up your last point? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So-so, I must say. That's why I am hoping to get Ealdgyth's input on the question - I am not sure if in this case we ought to call it reliable. 2 citations isn't that much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Dissertations would be that it was RS; I had assumed that the debate was over whether it was HQ. Ealdgyth, your input would be welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be ... leery of stating (as the article does) opinions without attributions such as "In this regard Henry's religious tastes appear to have been influenced by his mother" or "In order to improve his popular image after the death of Becket" - Martinson's PhD work appears to have been under John Hudson, who is a specialist in the period, so it's a decent source, but I would not state Martinson's opinions without attribution, unless other scholars are agreeing - which does not appear to be the case yet. Also - there does seem to be a lot of usage of this source which came out in 2008 and only is cited twice in later scholarly work? That would be concerning - did Martinson go on to a scholarly career and continue in the same topic area? I'm not seeing a lot to push this from reliable to high quality... and I am concerned that Martinson's opinions are being stated as fact in the article without further scholarly corroboration. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth makes a good point. I am unsure how to proceed, since many of the statements cited by Martinson are quite manner-of-fact, like "Henry also founded religious hospitals in England and France". In my experience, I tend to only mention the author if the statement is controversial or opinionated. Removing Martinson from the article would be quite challenging as she is one of the few academic papers focusing on the religious aspects of Henry's reign; several knowledgeable editors have confirmed that she is (tentatively) reliable. @Gog the Mild Any thoughts on what should happen next? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Martinson is not HQ, and you have yet to make that case, then her work cannot be used alone to cite facts in the article. That it is accepted that she is RS, which seems to be the case, is beside the point. ("claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources") If there are no HQ RSs commenting on the religious aspects of Henry's reign, then you can't say anything about it in an FA. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I will work on that aspect later today; hopefully it can be finished quickly. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Serial Number 54129 had generously assisted me with this onerous task, and Martinson has now been replaced with different authoritative sources. And he has truly outdone himself, I might add. The section appears immaculate to me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Just to be clear, were all your sourcing issues resolved? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another ha'pennorth would be that: Martinson is not heavily relied on; she is cited four times out of around 470 discrete references (x-tools is down for me atm), which does not seem excessive. In any case, she's used for—what, four sentences? His founding churches in Eng and France is in almost SKYBLUE territory. And most of the other bits could be easily garnered elsewhere. Marjorie Chibnall's 2006 article springs to mind, exclusively on his religious patronage. Likewise Chibnall should be good for anything you need about his mother in her monograph, re. signing charters in jointure. And the dogs on the street know he tried to reinvent himself, as we'd put it today, after Beckett's death; that must be possible to garner from a general biog. Perhaps, more importantly, it isn't the addition of a random thesis which does small good and less harm (which everyone is getting their smalls in a twist over), but the curious absences of major events—nominally, at least, based on religion—of the reign. Ireland: you begin discussion of this in the 1260s, but surely you want to mention Henry's acquisition of the Papal Bull Laudabiliter which, on the grounds of organising the church there, provided the legal and religious foundation for the invasion? This, of course, leads on to another omission: relations with a very specific Papacy, that of Adrian IV, who was, of course, the first and only English pope, and who granted him the—possibly faked!—bull in the first place. But both remain unmentioned. SN54129 19:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 I believe I have now taken care of this issue in the Arrival in Ireland section. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SN, just checking: does your "support" above extend to a pass for this source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: yes, in that I support the use of the sources now used in the section I rewrote :) but, seriously, yes, I think all issues have now been covered. SN54129 23:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NØ

[edit]

Boy, this is a long one... Great job on this very elaborate article! I'll base my review on parts I am randomly choosing to read.

  • "Henry returned to England in 1147, when he was fourteen" - I guess this could be "Henry returned to England in 1147, at the age of fourteen" or "Henry returned to England in 1147, when he was fourteen years old".
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably with help from the Scots" → "probably with the help of Scots"
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bringing only a small army of mercenaries, probably paid for with borrowed money" - How about "Bringing only a small army of mercenaries, probably financed with borrowed money" to aboid the terms "for with" together?
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, Henry has generally found praise among 20th-century popular historians." - Could be active voice: "Nevertheless, 20th-century popular historians have generally praised Harry."--NØ 09:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: All done! Anything else? Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else. It's a definite support. Very well done!--NØ 10:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your review and for your support as well! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment

[edit]

Are all the alternate names really prominent enough to be in the text? I think a note might be better. Otherwise the first sentence is huge & all of the names show up in both the google preview and when one hovers over the link). Aza24 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my past experiences at FA, I think this is permissible. I do not believe it takes up much room as is. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note that none of them appear in the main article, as required by the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, then. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grant, 1993. Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale is a quarterly journal, not a book. And "37e Année (n°145-146), Janvier-Juin 1994" looks like the volume and issue, not part of the title. You want to have another look at that, and maybe reformat as a journal article? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out. I have tried to fix it, but if someone could make sure I did it correctly, it would be much appreciated. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Lead prose

[edit]

Just a few things on the lead: as always, these are just suggestions (especially as so many have commented before me). Feel free to decline with justification.

  • "...Henry inherited the kingdom on Stephen's death a year later. Henry was an energetic and ruthless ruler, driven by a desire to restore the royal lands and prerogatives of his grandfather Henry I. During the early years of his reign Henry" bit of a superfluity of Henry's—any way to remove one?
A bit tricky, but I have swapped the first "Henry" for a "He". Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of a pedantry, but the lead has "what has been termed a "cold war"" (linking to Cold war (term), while the body has "to liken the situation to the 20th-century Cold War in Europe" (linking to Cold War). What precisely did Dunbabin say, and could you reconcile the lead and body?
Surprisingly, he said both: "...the analogies with the mature Cold War era are quite strong...Louis was in the end led to adopt typical cold-war tactics...It seemed that the tools of cold war might soon be abandoned as trust blossomed between the parties... In the meantime, the cold war between the rivals was back in full force". Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was a rise in tensions over the future inheritance of the empire, encouraged by Louis VII and his son Philip II" doesn't this technically mean that Louis and Philip encouraged the future inheritance, not the tensions?
As a prepositional phrase, I believe it is clear that the thing being encouraged is the tension, not the inheritance. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they also expressed concern over" — "expressed concern" just doesn't strike me as the best choice of words for historians' judgements.
Changed to "...but they also criticised certain aspects of his private life and treatment of Becket". Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for reviewing further; replies above. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2023 (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/Henry_II_of_England/archive1&oldid=1160817326"