Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House of Plantagenet/archive2

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

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

House of Plantagenet

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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


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



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


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

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

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

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

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

More:

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/House_of_Plantagenet/archive2&oldid=1138463216"