Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry I 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 GrahamColm 10:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Henry I of England

[edit]

Henry I of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it covers the current literature on Henry I of England fully. Henry I was a major player in Europe and a pivotal King of England, and this is a relatively popular article on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review:

  • Consistency required in adding "UK" to publisher locations
  • Check Hollister page no. in ref 9
  • "David" in ref 323 has neither year nor page no.
  • The only David I can see in ref 323 is "David, Carpenter (7 July 2006). "Off the rocks". Times Literary Supplement. Retrieved 22 February 2013." If that's the one, there's a year, but no page reference as the on-line version doesn't use them. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "White" in ref 327 has no page number.

Otherwise, all sources and citations look OK. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments on a couple of issues:

  • "Matilda": Henry was the son of a Matilda; he married a Matilda; his legitimate daughter was named Matilda, as were two of his illegimate children. His son William was betrothed to yet another Matilda. Either there were fewer names going around then, or the nobility had little imagination; either way, it is sometimes difficult in the article to know which Matilda is being written about. I wonder if a few clarifications could be put in place, to reduce the confusion.
  • The "Death" section ends with an uncited statement: "The Empress Matilda did not give up her claim to England and Normandy, leading to the prolonged civil war known as the Anarchy between 1135 and 1153."

In general the article looks a pretty thorough piece of work, though I probably won't have time to read it in detail for a while. I hope it gets some attenton and support here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Coronation caption shouldn't end in period
  • File:Mont_St_Michel_3,_Brittany,_France_-_July_2011.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, you'll need a licensing tag for the structure itself (it's definitely PD, just needs to be explicit)
  • File:Louis_VI_denier_Bourges_1108_1137.jpg: again, as 3D work, this needs a tag for the object as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean about France and FoP, but I'm struggling to find the correct tag to use - is there any chance you point me in the direction of an image that already has one? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the age of both works, life+100 should be fine. Compare File:Theoderic_Quarter_Siliqua_80000847.jpg (minus the OTRS tag) or File:Christ_Magdeburg_Cathedral_Met_41.100.157.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki. Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (see remarks at the end of my list of quibbles)Comment – This is clearly a top-notch article, and I look forward to adding my support. Meanwhile, a few quibbles, queries and comments, all minor. I'll need at least two goes for this; first go herewith:

  • Lead
    • Much impressed by the discrimination with which the the author has chosen blue-links. Not linking "Latin" unnecessarily is a fine start, and the links throughout are very carefully chosen.
    • Second para – a small matter, but I think the "however" weakens the prose.
    • "embroiled in the investiture controversy" – in the Lead section this is perhaps too specific: the reader new to the subject will wonder what an investiture controversy is. Possibly "embroiled in a serious dispute" or some such?
    • "their marriage proved childless" – "proved"? Odd word – perhaps "was"?
  • Count of the Cotentin, 1088–90
    • "he met with the King but was unable to convince him to grant him" – two distinctly American usages here: in British English one meets with abstract things like disaster, applause etc, but just meets people; and one convinces that (as in your next sentence) or persuades to.
    • "convinced Robert to release him" – as above
    • "In late 1090 William Rufus convinced Conan Pilatus" – ditto
  • Fall and rise, 1091–99
    • "his power-base" – the OED does not admit the hyphen
    • "The King appeared confident" – you frequently refer to William Rufus as "the King", but hardly ever to Robert as "the Duke". After a while this becomes noticeable, and very slightly distracting. There is, by the bye, one instance of "the duke" (lower case) in the second para of "Count of the Cotentin"; you might consider capitalising it for consistency. Parenthetically, I have always thought of William Rufus as "William II", and am mildly surprised to see that title so little used in the article. I just mention it, and defer to your very obvious authority on the matter.
    • "William of Breteuil championed the rights of Robert" – I don't think we've met this William before, and it would be helpful to have a few words explaining why he mattered.
  • Taking the throne
    • "convinced the barons to follow him" – as above

More soonest. – Tim riley (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding lot of comments:

  • Treaty of Alton, 1101–02
    • "Upping the stakes" – perhaps just a touch too informal a phrase? Might "Raising the stakes" be preferable?
    • "initiated either by Henry and Robert, or by the barons" – that seems to cover practically everybody who was there, and so reads a bit oddly.
    • "would inherit their lands" – would inherit his lands
    • "the barons supporting either side who had seen their lands seized by the King or Duke" – I had to read this twice to extract the meaning. Would it be clearer to say "the barons whose lands had been seized by either the King or the Duke for supporting his rival…"?
  • Conquest of Normandy, 1103–06
    • "Henry invaded again in July 1106, hoping to provoke a decisive battle. After some initial tactical successes, Henry turned south-west towards the castle of Tinchebray. Henry besieged" – the prose would flow better, I think, if you replaced the second and third "Henry"s with "he".
  • Government, law and court
    • "Henry was a harsh, firm ruler… loyal and dependent on Henry" – Another batch of Henrys where a few pronouns might be preferable
  • Church and the King
    • "desire that the case not end up in a papal court" – in UK usage it would be normal to write "that the case should not end up…" here
  • Rebellion, 1115–20
    • "Henry was hit by a sword blow in the melee" – Reading this sentence I was expecting it to end with the name of a body part, and the melee came as rather a surprise. Perhaps turn it about and say, "In the melee Henry was hit by a sword blow"
  • Planning the succession, 1124–34
    • "generating prurient speculation" – tease! I think you should either say what the speculation was or else not mention it at all.

Nothing of any great consequence there, and I'm happy to add my support without more ado. This is a well-written article, admirably proportioned, without any sign of bias, thoroughly referenced from a good variety of sources. Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Not responded to one of these before, so apologies if this is the wrong place. In the Welsh Politics section, you have misspelled Gruffudd ap Cynan's name twice as "Gruffud". Presumably this is the spelling in Green; I can't access it. Wikipedia also has articles on Owain ap Cadwgan and Gilbert Fitz Richard; I'll leave it to you to decide whether these three deserve bluelinks. I don't feel qualified to judge this on the FA criteria, but it seems very thorough and well-written. Thanks! Gareth (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Recusing myself from delegate duties for this one, I reviewed/copyedited/supported at MilHist A-Class and, having checked alterations made since then, am satisfied it meets the FAC criteria as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda left for Anjou, but Henry argued that the dowry had in fact originally belonged to him before it came into the possession of Fulk, and so declined to hand the estates back to Anjou - could change the last few words to "return the estates" - to eliminate two "Anjou" s in the sentence.
Much of the earlier text has a speculative tone, but I am guessing that is because of the nature and uncertainties of the sources (at least I hope it is!). I think the Historiography is an integral part of the story and am glad to see its inclusion.

Overall, I think we're over the line in prose and comprehensiveness (as far as I can tell as I am not an expert) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Johnbod I'm still working my way through it, but while the text seems pretty much up to FA standard, the linking is not. I have just linked his mother Matilda of Flanders for the first time, and an ISP has corrected the statement that she was the daughter of Robert II of France - she was his grand-daughter. Nor did Henry keep animals at Woodstock! I have added a number of missing links to names and places, but I think there are a number to medieval topics that should be added - the feudal system is difficult for modern readers, who need all the help they can get here. It seems to get worse from the "Government, family and household" section.
  • I used to live just up the road from the "real" Woodstock in question, so I'm afraid it was natural to link to it just by name! :) I know I can be sparse on linking - are there any particular medieval topics you feel should be linked in addition? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you'll have to look yourself, but there are plentry there: Melee, consanguinity, suzerainity,... There will be plenty more. Please don't come back and say you've fixed those ones. I've corrected one mispelling of Callixtus, but there is another. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to identify the other ones that are concerning you John. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the referencing seems rather overdone. This passage: "In February, Flambard escaped from the Tower of London and crossed the Channel to Normandy, where he injected fresh direction and energy to Robert's attempts to mobilise an invasion force.[107] By July, Robert had formed an army and a fleet, ready to move against Henry in England.[108] Raising the stakes in the conflict, Henry seized Flambard's lands and, with the support of Anselm, Flambard was removed from his position as bishop.[109] - is all cited to 4 consecutive pages in one book (Hollister 2003); you'd think a single reference would have been enough. The current refs 42-55 are also all Hollister 2003, moving through pp. 69-82 in the same order.
  • I've tried to be consistent in linking at the sentence level, as I've suffered hugely in the past trying to work out when articles referenced by paragraph are genuinely so (as opposed to only part of a paragraph, etc.) and which parts of the paragraph link to which page, particularly with denser literary works. But I know there are several perspectives on this issue, and I'm probably on one side of the argument. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article leans very heavily on Hollister 2003, which must have more than 200 refs. I notice the review in Speculum ([2]) was rather short of fulsome in its praise, and notes the unusual conditions of its writing: commissioned in 1962, it was half-written when a fire in 1990 destroyed most of the notes etc, & after resuming work Hollinger then died in 1997, so the book was completed by another, who should perhaps also be credited.

Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll see how we can get Frost's name into the template. Of the two modern biographies of Henry, I found Hollister the easiest for tracking the narrative facts of Henry's life, although, like several reviewers of the book, it was clearly a shame that Hollister never had the chance to expand further on some of the interpretation. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. She is listed as an editor, so I've added her on in that category in the template. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Butting in - Hollister/Frost's work is definitely weighter and thicker than Green's biography. For the facts and details, it's probably best to rely on Hollister, and supplement it with Hollister (and other's) journal articles and Green's biography for interpretations. There's just no avoiding Hollister in this field... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 5 June 2013 (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_I_of_England/archive1&oldid=559040893"