Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Edward III of England/archive1

SG review

Serial Number 54129 at 9,300 words of readable prose, I agree with your view here. So my nitpicks begin (along with the image issue I mentioned back on the main FAR page); not versed in the topic, ignore me as warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a successful campaign in Scotland ... when I clicked on Scotland, I was hoping for a direct link specific to his campaign? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following some initial setbacks, this first phase of the war went exceptionally well for England, which would become known as the Edwardian War: --> ???
Following some initial setbacks, this first phase of the war went exceptionally well for England, and would become known as the Edwardian War: --> or --> ??

Following some initial setbacks, this first phase of the war, which would become known as the Edwardian War, went exceptionally well for England. The victories at ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edward was temperamental and thought himself capable of feats such as healing by the royal touch as some prior English kings did, but he was capable of unusual clemency.
I am not seeing the connection or the reason for but ... does this need to be better expounded on, or the sentences split differently?
He was in many ways a conventional king whose main interest was warfare, although with also a broad range of non-military interests. --> ?? -->
In many ways, he was a conventional king whose main interest was warfare, but he also had a broad range of non-military interests.
Section heading, "A new nobility", we're instructed somewhere in MOS to avoid A and The in section headings and article titles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is "earlier" needed here? The year is specified, and earlier makes us expect a different rebellion to be mentioned soon in the flow ... Gaveston was killed during an earlier noble rebellion against Edward in 1312, and Despenser was hated by the English nobility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will stop after these edits to see if I'm on the wrong track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the first two sections of the article, we are hit multiple times with the problem of popularity with the nobility; can it be somehow worked into one mention, followed by the mention of also being unpopular with the common folk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first section (Background) tells us Edward II and his court favorites were unpopular. The second section (Early life) also goes in to the territory of his father's reign and unpopularity, with "The reign of his father, Edward II, was a particularly problematic period of English history. The King had alienated several English nobles and Scottish allies by abandoning his father's war with Scotland soon after his accession, and continued to lose battles against the Scots intermittently. Also controversial was the King's patronage of a small group of royal favourites rather than his nobility generally."

Can all of that be merged to the first section, talking about his father? Then the second section (Early life) would become:
Edward was born at Windsor Castle on 13 November 1312, and was described in a contemporary prophecy as "the boar that would come out of Windsor". According to the historian Michael Prestwich, the problematic history of his father, Edward II (or some such, fill in the words) "unbalanced the whole system of royal patronage".[22] However, the birth of a male heir in 1312 ...

That is, can the first section be about the father, with content merged there, and the second begin with the son, to lower what feels like repetition of the unpopularity, etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has " Isabella of France, and her lover Roger Mortimer", but I'm not seeing their relationship in the body of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mortimer's rule and fall

One de facto is italicized, the next is not. And it feels repetitious to have it twice, although the two refer to different things, not sure how to fix.
Unclear what "this" refers to ... This was exacerbated by his execution of Edward's ... maybe change to "his suspicion" or some such?
Hated, hating, lost me ... Edward hated the "rule of the Queen his mother, and hating the Earl of March [Mortimer], for the Queen did everything in accordance with him".

War in Scotland

Reference to a peace agreement comes out of the blue? More explanation, year, link, something? Edward III was not content with the peace agreement made in his name, but the renewal of the war with Scotland originated in private, rather than royal initiative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new nobility

and also, in many families' cases, weakened by line failure. -- > ??? --> and also, as in many families ? What is "line failure" ?
suddenly to be revived"; Indeed, respect for --> lower case indeed, or full stop after revived?
Have lost track of who "he" is by this point in the narrative: "All sectors of the ruling class were willing to do business with Edward's favoured", he suggests.
Is it really necessary to quote here? Montagu had been his "closest supporter",
Can this be disentangled ? This was because it had been from among the earls that his father had created so many bitter enemies, and therefore that was the demography that Edward wanted to reorganise in his favour. -- > ?? --> Because his father had created so many bitter enemies among the earls, they were the group Edward wanted to reorganize in his favour ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RL review

I can see how the shorter version from when the review started could have been undersourced and missing some relevant points, but the article seems now to be too far in the other direction. With over 9000 words, it could stand trimming and copy editing for conciseness and clarity, and in some places consistency and coherence.

Sourcing issues

The first citation in the "Background" section (Le Baker 2012, p. 11) is a reprint of a medieval chronicle. Surely there are modern sources that document the unpopularity of Edward II's cronies. I would expect medieval sources to be cited only if the source is explicitly discussed or quoted. Otherwise a point worthy of inclusion should have some modern source. The citation currently numbered 84 (Rose 1982, p. 7) looks like it might be another instance of this.
"A contemporary chronicler described Edward as rex inutilis" – the source cited does not attribute this phrase to any "contemporary chronicler".
W. H. Dunham and C. T. Wood ascribed this to Edward's "cruelty and personal faults" – this phrase is in quotes in the source, suggesting that someone else said this. Unfortunately Dunham and Wood don't give an explicit attribution and the source cited by them at the end of their paragraph is a documents collection with much of the content in Latin.
The genre of writings known as "mirrors for princes" is capitalized and italicized in the text as if it were the title of a specific work. I don't have full visibility to the source, but from what I can see, it does not represent this as a singular work.
There are several places where the historical narrative focuses on the views of specific source authors such as Ormand, Bothwell, and Cushway. Are their views representative of modern consensus? If yes, we should be able to state the consensus in a more straightforward way. If no, why are their views being given without mention of whatever the major alternative views are? I am hoping it is the former, so that several blocks of prose could be revised to simpler language with less quoting of sources.
In a contrary but also unfortunate example, the second paragraph under "Cost of war" starts with five sentences that appear to state a view of Nicholas Rodger and then argue against it, all with no citations.
As mentioned in another editor's comments, the use of locations for book citations is not consistent. Even if you assume some locations are redundant (e.g., Cambridge University Press is in Cambridge), currently it isn't consistent even about that. Not the first thing that needs to be fixed, but still relevant once bigger issues are tackled.

Chronology and consistency issues

"Gaveston was killed during an earlier noble rebellion against Edward in 1312," - this is "Background" with no starting point established, so what is "earlier"?
"Edward had already been threatened with deposition on two previous occasions (in 1310 and 1321)." Why not just mention these things in order rather than backtracking?
Most of the "Background" section describes events that happened after Edward III's birth. If I had to guess, I would think it was written as a background for his reign, rather than for his life, but then the next section is "Early life (1312–1327)", so some of the period is re-covered there.
I'm not clear on how the views of Mark Ormond described at the end of "Mortimer's rule and fall" are supposed to reconcile with the earlier discussion under "Background" about Edward's education and access to books about military and political matters.
"However, the historian Kathryn Warner has suggested that, as William of Woodstock was also born and died the same year" – the list of Edward's issue given below this does not mention a "William of Woodstock", but does say a "William of Windsor" was born in 1348, followed by "Thomas of Woodstock" in 1355. There is no "William of Woodstock" mentioned anywhere else in the article.

Prose

Sources are described as having "noted", "suggested", and "argued" various things – some attention to MOS:SAID is in order.
"'All sectors of the ruling class were willing to do business with Edward's favoured', he suggests." Based on the citation, I assume "he" is Bothwell, but at least four other male persons have been named in the text since the last time Bothwell was mentioned. (This may be rendered moot if the material is rewritten with less quoting as I suggest above.)
As just one example of complicated prose that should be simplified, the "Creating a new nobility" section has a sentence that starts, "For the earls themselves ...", which features a colon, six commas, and a semicolon.
"This loss of manpower led to a shortage of farm labour, and a corresponding rise in wages. The great landowners struggled with the shortage of manpower and the resulting inflation in labour cost." This is one thought expressed in two redundant sentences.
In the "Crécy and Poitiers" section, the sentence that starts "Edward kept his subjects fully informed ..." does not appear to make sense as currently written.

About a third of the way in I started skimming, so the above is not comprehensive, but hopefully it gives the right directional focus for improving the article. RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]