Wikipedia:Featured article review/Joan of Arc/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC) [1].

---

Joan of Arc

Notified: Durova, WikiProject Vital Articles, WikiProject Biography/Military, WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject France, WikiProject Gender studies, WikiProject Citizendium Porting, 2021-07-25

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of sourcing concerns and bloated sections. There are citation needed templates from 2017 that need to be resolved. Multiple sources have been added to the article since its FAC, and I am skeptical that they are of the highest quality and should be evaluated for their inclusion, especially because of the vast amount of literature available for this person. There are also some bloated sections such as "See also" and "External links" which need to be reviewed, trimmed or for the See also section moved into "Legacy". I also have other concerns, which I am happy to outline in detail if anyone is interested in working to fix up this article.

This article is of interest to multiple Wikiprojects, task forces, and working groups. If one is not listed above, please add them to the list and place a notification on their talk page. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at trimming See also/ELs, but have been reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like your trimmed version has been reinstated - FWIW I would consider it clearly better. Both cutting all of the see also links which repeated links in the article body per MOS:NOTSEEALSO and severely cutting back the general reference works in the further reading section are clear improvements. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a quick glance at the book sources. I have doubts about Bloy 2021, as the publisher's website has a logo of an outhouse and describes it being the publisher for things that other publishers would refuse. Some of the source dates are also misleading - De Quincey and Gower are both given publishing dates in the 2000s, but they're really sources from the 19th century. This needs further attention. Hog Farm _Talk 19:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking over it, the sourcing needs a lot of work - it doesn't look like it reflects the current academic literature etc. Generally, the article doesn't feel FA to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC article needs considerable work to be kept as a FA. (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've begun supplying missing citations, and will continue during the coming days as time permits; I can also correct the other problems that have been identified. GBRV (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

GBRV, are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can work on it later today when I have time. GBRV (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• @GBRV: Please ping me here when you are finished your edits and I will conduct a more thorough review. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. GBRV (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  There is still uncited text, marginal sources highlighted by HeadBomb’s script, HarvRef errors, and multiple and inconsistent citation styles. And MOS:SANDWICH, which can be cleaned up if sourcing is brought to standard. Further reading either needs pruning, or those sources should be represented in the article, and External links appear to need pruning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  I’ve adjusted the images for MOS:SANDWICH and MOS:ACCIM, but concerned whether some of the image captions are overly long or should be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Is http://www.stjoan-center.com/ a high-quality reliable source? Who is this author? http://www.stjoan-center.com/military/stephenr.html Also, since he provides a bibliography, could we not better consult the original sources ? The article also uses history.com, and a non-reliable newspaper reporting on info supplied by an auction house (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/joan-arc-ring-dating-back-15th-century-sale-london-auction-1535043) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• GBRV It looks like you've been doing a lot of work on this article. This article is huge. The good news is that the material is all there, though it looks like too much may be there. I prefer to stay out of the lead editor's way, but if at some point, you'd want help, let me know. Be warned: I'd want to move the whole thing to sfn format, sort the notes and the references, diversify and corroborate references. And of course, that probably means some editing too, though this article is fortunately already well developed. (Perhaps overly so?) It seems like you are on a roll, so I'll stay out of it unless you are open to the possibility. I think you'll probably get it in great shape. I would ask that if it remains at risk due to references, that you or the FARC team keeping an eye on it ping me and I'll pitch in before delisting. If I don't hear back, all is good, and I'm not sure how much I'll be able to do until January anyway... Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Wtfiv I'll keep working on it, and can contact you if I need help. GBRV (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

GBRV Sounds good. I started templating references and moving them so they can be separated out. There's two of them. But I'll stop for now until I hear otherwise. Feel free to revert what I've done. See my comments on the article talk page for what I did as well. Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR Committee, I think GBRV is committed to salvaging the article, and is most comfortable without my involvement at this time. I asked GBRV to ping me whenever my skills may be of use in collaborative editing. Additionally, please contact me for some unfortunate reason progress stalls and it comes up for a delist vote again, and I'll put my energy into keeping it featured. It seems pretty straightforward to accessibly, reliably and consistently source. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delist still cites non-RS as mentioned by SG above (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe If the vote now needs to run its course, I'll stay out of it. Otherwise, I'd like to give it a try to not have it delisted, particularly if the references are the big problem. My work would be slow until late January, but I would work at it in the interim.) I just don't want to tread on GBRV's work. Wtfiv (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Striking vote if there is a plan for fixing up the article :) (t · c) buidhe 05:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC team, I think GBRV is committed to salvaging the article, and is most comfortable without my involvement at this time. I asked GBRV to ping me whenever my skills may be of use in collaborative editing. Additionally, please contact me for some unfortunate reason progress stalls and it comes up for a delist vote again, and I'll put my energy into keeping it featured. It seems pretty straightforward to accessibly, reliably and consistently source. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delist. There's still significant problems with the sourcing, including the use of primary sources, original research etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Please at least allow me to continue working on fixing the problems first before voting to delist. GBRV (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hold: Work is ongoing. You may ping me when the article is ready for review. Z1720 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Hold, plenty of active work underway. Please ping me when work is done and I will be happy to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  I see Wtfiv is still quite actively working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy! I am working on it, but this month my pace is slower than normal so it may take until January. It's been a bit tough since the sourcing in this article was looser than I expected. I'm also glad that GBRV is pitching in too! Wtfiv (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• A minor suggestion for Wtfiv, who I'm thrilled to see working on this. It is probably worth briefly mentioning Schiller's The Maid of Orleans at some point in the article, in addition to (and mainly because of) the four operas it inspired by Verdi, Tchaikovsky and to a lesser extent Klebe and Pacini. Aza24 (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Aza24 I think it would be great to get the operas in there! Wtfiv (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Aza24 I didn't mention the operas and plays, as there is a separate article, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, with a huge list. There is so much art inspired by her story! Wtfiv (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Wtfiv: you're doing a job of work on this, nice one! For the record, this is pretty much my area of specialism, so if you want a hand, let me know, and if there's anything specific I can get to without getting under your feet, I will—I've got most of the major scholarship. Happy New Year all! SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sandy Happy New Year!

SN54129 Happy New Year to you too! Right now, I'm at the retrial section, as I'm working forward sequentially. Just let me know what you would like to do, and I can stay out of your way while you are working on it It looks to me there is a lot of work: Retrial, Canonization, Legacy, Visions, Cross-dressing all seem to need a lot of TLM (tender, loving maintenance). If you want to pick a section (and I have no problem handing off the "Retrial" section before I dive in deeper into the research- let me know and I'll stay out of your way. If one of us gets done a section and is ready for another, we can just message each other here.

Also, if you want to edit any preceding section, please do. And, I can follow up with citation formatting as you complete sections, if you find it a hassle. Ideally it'd be great if all citations be linkable, but of course, that is just a preference on my part. (Verifying citation to text integrity- and assessing reliability of sources- has been one of the major issues.) Just let me know what you would like to do. Wtfiv (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to edit the Visions and Cross-dressing sections. GBRV (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

GBRV That sounds great! You have a good editor's eye! I have a couple of not too strong requests on those sections that I'll post on the Joan talk page. Wtfiv (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Just mentioning that the edits for the review are still underway. There's definitely headway, I think, but once more the progress may slow a bit, but hopefully its moving along well enough that it can remain part of the review process. If there is a concern, please let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: Many editors are still working on this article and improvements are being made. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi FAR committee, I think the draft sections in which I took on the lead role in editing (all but "Visions" and "Cross-dressing") are now ready for review. I am particularly grateful to GBRV for all the follow-up editing: patience as my aligning text to source modified much of the original story, opening discussion when needed, addressing issues of detail, cleaning up poorly worded prose, and the tireless copy editing.

GBRV has taken on the lead role in editing the "Visions" and "Cross Dressing" sections and is still working on them. Once GBRV feels they are ready to go, and the FAR review begins, I'll be ready and available to address any concerns raised. Thanks for your patience so far! Wtfiv (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead has a series of one- or two-sentence paragraphs which could probably be re-worked to four or five paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it is fixed: merged post-Paris activities into one paragraph; combined religious legacy with cultural legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Also merged all military activity up to the Siege of Paris into one paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that GBRV has been sock-blocked. Hog Farm _Talk 14:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  With a direct impact on the integrity of this article. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. Wtfiv how can the integrity of the article be checked? Is it only sections Visions and Cross dressing, or is there more? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Reading the Durova subpage, I happen to notice that both Williamson and Frohlick are cited in the article. Hog Farm _Talk 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  @WP:FAR coordinators: just to make sure they see this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129 you offered (above) to look in here; considering the recent development (considerable and decades old socking), your help may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  This is a 34-page PDF [2] of Williamson in Wirth.

  Williamson, Allen (2006). "Context". In Wirth, Robert (ed.). Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing (PDF). Joan of Arc: Primary Sources Series. Translated by Williamson, Allen. New York: Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies. ISSN 1557-0355. OCLC 61118807. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2006.

  The Academy for Joan of Arc Studies was incorporated in April 2005. Its president is Williamson with an address listed as Sartell, a suburb of St. Cloud (as established by Durova at User:Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship/AWilliamson sock puppets). The registered office of the Academy is in Minneapolis at an address that appears to have been owned by Wirth. This may be a self-published source (as discussed at the community ban discussion, although the connection between the address was not made there). I have tagged it as "better source needed", although I first tagged it RS, mistakenly thinking it was a non-peer-reviewed journal. Considering the earlier stunt of adding a period on to the end of Durova's user name, to make it appear that she had made some edits, we should take care to establish credentials in these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• As an aside, I've still got quite a few problems with the content of this article, and it badly needs a decent copy-edit. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)I

I'm away from my usual place dealing with personal issues, but can return to the editing around mid-week of next week. If the team is good with what I've done so far. Here's my perspective:

• I agree that Williamson and Frohlick are problematic. I'm careful about them because I also try to negotiate the concerns of other active editors.

• Removing Williamson is no problem. I too ha questions about the Williamson site. I put it in as a compromise with another editor who wanted to keep the issue about Joan's clothing preventing rape. IBut I did look the article over, and it seemed to me that it didn't misquote its primary sources. It's major contribution was the one about Joan's clothing, which I implicitly offered as a collaborative compromise for another active editor. Removing it, and leaving the issue in the "cross-dressing" section with the more reliable sources seems to me to be a reasonable solution. (But I do think there was a lot of Williamson's language in the original article, such as stating the retrial declared Joan innocent when sources state her trial was annulled, incorrectly calling the second trial an appellate court, and removing all language implying that the original trial had inquisitional powers and the suggestion that Joan was primarily executed for cross-dressing)

• I thought I minimized reliance on Frohlick. I just checked, and there's only one reference, accompanied with another source, Pernoud and Clin, who are acknowledged scholars who make a similar point. That said, Frohlick can be edited out with no problem.

• Except for the visions and cross-dressing sections, I feel the sourcing of the article is otherwise solid, though I have no doubt there is need for further editing. I am glad to begin the editing of those two sections, as I've been collecting sources on them and think that they need a great deal of work. I just wanted to make sure that GBRV had had the opportunity to edit first, as I want to ensure respect for the article. I'll begin working on these next week. (Though it means there'll be a lag before I start on the G. Fox article.)
• Finally, there is the biggest problem that I may not be able to address. I have no doubt that Hchc2009's point about copy edit is correct. As Sandy knows, I'm awful at copy editing. I leave a wake of errors behind in my editing. I get too immersed in sourcing and getting it right, and after hours of peering at prose, lose sight of the typos and grammos. That's where I particularly appreciated GBRV's critical editorial eye, even when we disagreed on interpretation and nuance.

My thought was once we get the drafting taken care of- which would be the cross-dressing and visions sections- the team comes in and makes all the needed suggestions allow the article to maintain its featured star. I'm open to whatever solution the team deems appropriate, though my own desired goal would be a solution that keeps the featured article status. To my eye, this seems straightforward if we complete the major revision on the visions and cross-dressing sections , remove the Williamson and the Frohlick (references, which is easy), and if the problems of copy-editing are not fatal to the articles integrity. Thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

If you are able to accomplish all of that, and if we don't have any socking interference, we should be able to round up people to copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that finishing up shouldn't be hard nor take overly long. Frohlick and Williamson are already deleted. (The Frohlick was just a reference to an image of Joan's signature, but it's not really needed, as it's already in the saint infobox.) That just leaves the last two sections. My major editing concern to date- and the part that leads me to work more slowly- has been ensuring that the project respects the perspective of all editors who felt passionately.

What I do have concerns about is that many of the ancillary Wikipedia articles related to Joan of Arc topics that are linked in the article reference many of the same problematic sources and make many of the same (IMO) poorly sourced and, most likely, incorrect claims. But that's beyond the scope of my commitments. Wtfiv (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv this article is the mother lode, from which the unscrupulous would desire to derive hits.

Please remember to keep Wikipedia:Featured article review/George Fox/archive2 updated, as to whether you can still work there. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the Visions and Cross-dressing sections. I think the article is now well-sourced and has a consistent format throughout. I have no doubt that there are egregious first pass (first public draft) copy edit errors in those sections. Still, please take a look and if you think the article is ready for copy editors, if it should wait until I do more cleanup, or if major concerns still remain. just let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a copyedit is needed, although most of the issues are minor typos, missing words or wikilinks, punctuation, and such.[3] @Hchc2009, Z1720, Serial Number 54129, and Aza24: I stopped after I realized I may be messing up the tenses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. Let me know when folks think the text and sources are up to FA standard and I'll happily give it a thorough review. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

FARC break

Hi Hchc2009, At this point, I think the sources should be pretty good. There's also more cleanup I'm working at (cleaning up residue of possible sockpuppeting, and cleaning up the "Background" section.) Also, I'll keep at the copy editing, which you had previously mentioned. Its not my strength and its a slow grind, but I'll keep at it to salvage the article. But my question for you, is when you glance at the article what are the major issues you'd still like to see addressed? If possible, I will do what I can to take care of them before you give it a more thorough review. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe, Z1720, SandyGeorgia, Aza24, Serial Number 54129, and Hog Farm: What issues are outstanding from your perspectives? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The number of footnotes is vastly excessive, failing the summary style requirement. Some sources such as Sackville-West, Victoria (1936). Saint Joan of Arc, Lowell, Francis Cabot (1896). Joan of Arc, Mackinnon, James (1902). The Growth and Decline of the French Monarchy., etc., it's questionable if they are HQRS. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead is too long for optimal readability and should be shortened to meet MOS:LEAD (t · c) buidhe 02:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yikes. There are 2,600 words in footnotes; that's an entire article. Wtfiv, how did this come to be ? I have to agree with the terms vastly excessive.

SandyGeorgia Regarding footnotes: I've removed most of the Latin quotes taken from Quicherat. (The Latin quotes were added to ensure that uncited quotes were verifiable. Many quotes originally in Latin were being cited as English-language citation without attribution. This may be related to socking. And even some of secondary source cites are questionable translations when compared to the Latin original.) I've reduced the citations. I also removed a miscelleny of other footnotes. Using LibreOffice to verify, there are now 36 footnotes with a wordcount of 1,398. For comparison, the footnotes for Joyce come in 54 for a wordcount of 1,920. (If there is a WP tool for word counting footnotes, please let me know). So, I'd suggest this is no longer excessive, but FAR can decide this. (Personally, I like the footnotes, as they amplify controversies and interesting but subsidary points without detracting from the text.)

I disagree on the lead length; MOS:LEAD provides guidelines which, of late, have been (mis)interpreted as strict rules at FAC, to the detriment of some leads. As one of many examples of misapplication of what the guideline actually says, Modussiccandi's lead at L. D. Reynolds came into FAC at a perfectly fine summary of the article, which was damaged at its FAC, based on a misread of what the guideline actually says. I think the length about right here. The more important aspects of MOS:LEAD are that we provide a concise overview that summarizes the body and entices the reader to continue; nowhere does MOS prescribe as an absolute only a certain number of paragraphs or words. The lead is going to be the only thing someone like me will be interested in and it gives me what I need to know. I do see some words that can be trimmed here and there, but leave that to the prose masters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sample: She was captured by Burgundians troops on 23 May and afterwards exchanged to the English. She was put on trial by the pro-English bishop, Pierre Cauchon, on a charge of heresy ... could lose the date and three sentences in a row starting with she and later is implied/redundant ... something like ... Burgundians troops captured her and exchanged her to the English; the pro-English bishop, Pierre Cauchon, had her tried for heresy. I'm not a wordsmith, but this gives me the idea that word trimming and redundancy reducing may be in order throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Back on the question of 2,600 words in footnotes, as one example, why isn't this footnote just a source with a note or quote attached ? What is the distinction here between footnotes and citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• She was a warrior, whose leadership helped restore the kingdom of France.
• SandyGeorgiaThe Piccolimini quote was footnoted because an indirect quote. I tend to footnote supporting quotes (e.g., opinions, letters, trial transcripts, and indirect quotes); I tend to reserve citation template post-scripts to quote foreign text, which I try to tie to a linkable source, and provide an accompanying and verifiable English translation. Wtfiv (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

References

I will look in tomorrow; I can only look at generalities, as the topic is out of my comfort zone. Could someone bribe Ealdgyth to at least glance over this one? Like, offer her a prize Arabian horse or something ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand editors feeling a need for topic sentences, but sentences like this leave me cold:

• Joan remains a major cultural figure.

It says nothing, and means nothing, and why "remains"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple instances of the also redundancy: for example:

• She is also a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

The also is unnecessary; a review throughout would be helpful, with an eye towards Graham and Tony1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Something is off in this sentence in the lead, which could also be trimmed:

• In 1456, an inquisitorial court authorized by Pope Callixtus III investigated the original trial, which was found to have been by deceit, fraud and incorrect procedure.

  --> ?? --> Pope Callixtus III ordered an investigation in 1456, which determined the original trial was marred by deceit, fraud and incorrect procedure.

All in all, as Wtfiv asked/indicated above, a copyedit by a new set of eyes is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about a few sourcing bits here:

• " that she was secretly the half sister of King Charles VII" - is sourced to the original 1819 claim, which has been soundly rejected. (FWIW, Alternative historical interpretations of Joan of Arc suggests the significance of this claim isn't that she was his sister, but that it would have made her a bastard child). A modern source should probably be used here, and if supportable by sources, the true significance of her being a bastard child should be mentioned.

The alternative historical interpretations also cites the 1819 Caze as its first case. But the Joan article citation is more verifiable. The page number links to a freely accessible source, and the quotation in French is also directly linked in the citation, and a translation is offered in the citation post-script. The reference links to the freely available book in Google Books as well. Wtfiv (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm unsure of the quality of "Russell, Preston (2014). Lights of Madness: In Search of Joan of Arc. Savannah, GA: Frederic C. Beil, Pub. ISBN 9781499040562. OCLC 1124448651." - Frederic C. Beil at least partially does something called "assisted self-publishing". What makes this high-quality RS if the publisher is dodgy?
• Egan is a master's thesis, what makes it pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
• What makes famous-trials.com a high-quality RS?
• Shouldn't de Pizan be in primary sources, instead of the online refs?

I have not done source-text checks (which should be done, given the socking in the history), nor have I checked to make sure that more than a couple of the primary citations are appropriate. Hog Farm _Talk 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe and Hog Farm; between your comments and mine (prose, plus sourcing, plus source-to-text integrity check on a long article), I am getting the impression that bringing this article over the line is going to require a sustained effort from a number of us (similar to the surprise we got at J. K. Rowling, where we found bigger issues once we dug in). Z1720? Am I overstating the case? If this is the case, what is the plan? My prose is not good enough to do the copyediting on an article in this content area of this scope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

My thought is that it depends on the results of the spot-checking. Of the sources I flagged, Caze (the 1819 bastard claim) is only used once; Russell 2014 is only used once, and for a historical backgroundstatement that should be easier to replace; Egan is only used once, and for a historical background statement; Linder is only referenced as a translation of the abjuration in a footnote in a spot that should probably be an EL instead of part of the footnote, so at least the one's I've flagged should be easily fixable. Hog Farm _Talk 15:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So depending on what Buidhe and Z1720 say, perhaps a spotcheck should be next, before attempting a copyedit? I'm concerned about that, as there are so many book sources. (I wish the Ealdgyth bribe had worked ... ) Am I correct that library access is needed to spotcheck here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia spot checking should be simple.

• I think every book citation links to a work that is freely available and verifiable. (Archive.org needs a registration).

• When possible, a page link is provided at each citation, so that the reader can just click it to verify.
• Just a note on citations. In addition, to showing consensus, multiple sources also provide differences of context and interpretation, which is fascinating to that very small percentage of readers who want to go deeper into the sources. Wtfiv (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I would feel much more comfortable making sure the sources were right before fixing prose, since this article's socking history seems to go back some time. Hog Farm _Talk 15:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, fix the sourcing issues first and axe notes, then work on the prose. Issues are not insurmountable but they will require sustained effort to fix. (t · c) buidhe 17:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

At this point, my editing on Wikipedia is much slower and more "catch as catch can". Though I'll continue to work on the article.

buidhe I don't know what HQRS means, but I think it has to do with old reliable sources? Here's some background. Because the primary source is stable, most points in the older works have not been superceded:

• Lowell's work remains a good detailed summry of even older data from the perspective of a legal scholar.
• Sackville-West's work is a classic, which is cited throughout the literature. Though it must be used carefully, she often makes the strongest points about Joan's role as a non-traditional woman. And Sackville-West dug deeply into the literature. Sproles 1996 provides a good summary.

More importantly, when I was working through the article, almost every statement I edited was challenged, so I wanted to make sure that each change could be verified and it wasn't the opinion of one source. Now that much of that issue has been resolved, I'm willing alter this. But the citations do solidify the article and challenge any future changes to the article to rely on cited sources. Please let me do what you suggest.

SandyGeorgia The footnotes are vast because when working with GBRV, I wanted to ensure that the quotes were exact as most changes were challenged. Each change was challenged, and I wanted to make sure they were justified and cited. (As you can gather, at one point after finishing the biography, I was exhausted with making the changes and just handed it to the challenging editor.) But now, a great many can easily be removed.

The sourcing bits seem fairly minor.

• Pizan can be moved to a primary source, though it is second-hand.
• I added Egan when I found it in my research. I have no issues about citing a well-sourced thesis. I like to lead readers to such articles. But it can certainly go.
• Preston Russell was an artifact of an earlier article (and the previous "Visions" section had an unattributed quote from him, too.) I didn't have the heart to remove Russell, given he recently died in the last two years. The book seemed informal but interesting and had citations. The publisher is a minor one, the citation is a minor one too. And it could certainly go if that's the consensus.
• Famous-trials.com just cites documents. I used it because it seemed to translate things accurately based on my research and is easily accessed. I may be able to find the documents elsewhere in the depths of archive.org, but it was convenient.

Hog Farm I'd really appreciate somebody source checks! I have no doubt I've made errors along the way. I've caught and fixed a few myself, as I often click them repeatedly when editing. I do think, however, that the majority of errors made are minor. I'd appreciate those being addressed, since almost all are linked and I'd like them to be appropriate.

• I cited Caze verbatim to ensure the claim was right. I'm not big on the revisionist history section at all, but if we keep it, I want it to be verifiable. Wtfiv (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to address why this article is where it is with so many footnotes (with exact quotes) and citations. Sandy and Hogfarm have gotten to the key of why this article is where it is. When I started, I was wondering why it was semi-protected. Then I've encountered my first deep-sock work in this article. My work has been an attempt to thoroughly vacuum out the socking. Unfortunately, even as I was working on the article, I had to thoroughly support each edit for an editor who seemed committed to the sock version. Every change had to be supported by multiple authors to ensure they wouldn't be softly reverted. (For example, the overly long footnote on Charles VII attempt to save Joan, when the overwhelming consensus is that no effort was taken.) I think I've scoured out the vast majority of socking related material. However, you can see that I did keep the points made via the socking if there were reliable sources to back it up. Usually this was done in the context of presenting it as one opinion amidst others. (e.g., the cross-dressing section). Though I'm not the best copy-editor, I went through each source and tried to verify it. Keep in mind that this socking may occur again. Having solid verifiable sources, and requiring them for new edits, seems to be the best tool for challenging future attempts, which seem decades old and will probably return again.

This has started me on a secondary project. Although it is not directly related to the Joan of Arc article, I've been also working on Joan of Arc related articles (e.g., Trial of Joan of Arc,Retrial of Joan of Arc, Pierre Cauchon,Canonization of Joan of Arc). Most of the issues are related to content brought up in the investigations. Whether direct or not, much of the information is close to verbatim from same few articles and websites that are associated the sock-puppet investigations. Interestingly, these verbatim sources sometimes have English-language quotes with quotations marks for difficult to access sources in French.

Frankly, this one has been a tougher haul than I expected given the complexities of the socking, but its been educational too! As always, my posts are far too long, but that said, I'm willing to continue to help out with this article as the FARC sees fit. Just let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Feeling badly that you had to go through this :( All things considered, we probably should keep the footnotes, as the sock is persistent. Maybe just chip away at the prose for now? I'm socked in trying to wrap up some difficult issues at another FAR for at least a few more days, and always have my own list of socks trying to make my editing here a miserable experience :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The image caption's ref says "It is not impossible that this miniature comes from the collection of Georges Spetz" — but the image caption itself says "most likely an art forgery by the Alsatian painter Georges Spetz" — how is this an equivalent interpretation? Aza24 (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Aza24 Good call! I'm not sure if the footnote translation helped catch it, but that's why I like everything being verifiable. I'll remove mention of Spetz. Wtfiv (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Editing summary with respect to FAR concerns to date.

In Talk:Joan of Arc 25 July 2021, Z1720 raised the following concerns. This is how they've been addressed:

• There are citation needed tags from 2017 (Done: Most statements are cited. Almost all citations have live links, and are verifiable.
• Many Sources may not reliable. (Done: Almost all sources are WP:RS. Many, many have been added. A small number of these have been questioned by reviewers. I'm comfortable with them, but editors can remove them or others. Potential sockpuppet sites had already been addressed, and were trivial to remove.)
• References need to be standardised. (Done: all references are sfn)
• Sources in the "Further reading" section need to be evaluated, incorporated, or deleted. (Done: no further reading, all have been incorporated or deleted.)
• "See also" section is bloated and needs to be trimmed. (Done: See also has been deleted)
• There's no legacy section; see also could be incorporated (Done: Legacy section added.)

Sinking into reality noted in the same section above:

• Used French sources, not English (Addressed: There are still a small handful of French sources when English source is not available, but they are linked and verifiable. A translation of text is provided.)
• Reduce reliance on Pernoud. (Done: Pernoud's three books are still major resources, but the article no longer relies on it.)

In the delist discussion above, Hchc2009 mentions issues with:

• Primary sources (Done: there are few primary sources in citations (e.g., Aquinas may be one, but is appropriate to support paraphrase). Most have been moved to footnotes when used.)
• Original research (Done: there was a bit of this due to the sock puppet issue, these have been removed and statements now have verifiable citations.)

Other issues:

• Questions about the lead. (Addressed: It try's to summarize the article. Thank you SandyGeorgia for suggesting the lead appears adequate, and for your suggestions.)
• Questions about the number of sources. (Addressed. This article, and other Joan-related articles has misrepresented through unverifiable sourcing. Now nearly every statement has a citation, and often multiples. Everyone of these had been worked through by me, except for a couple by GBRV, which I verified after they were added. Spot checking these might be worthwhile though. I'm sure I made some errors.)
• Footnote length (Addressed: ~36 footnotes/wordcount of ~1,398. For comparison, the footnotes for James Joyce are ~54/1,920)
• Sock puppet issues. (Addressed: I think almost all have been caught by using verifiable references.)

• Unverified claims and original research has been removed.
• I've kept a number of points advocated by the sock puppet if WP:RS also support the point. But the points have usually been reduced to one perspective among others. Sock puppet sources are not used. (The three sources questioned are not part of sock puppet investigation. As mentioned, they can be removed by editors having doubts.)

From my understanding, the remaining issues raised are trimming and copyediting. (Ongoing: trimming and copyediting will continue for a while.)

Otherwise, I'm thinking the major concerns that triggered the FAR have been addressed? (Though, there is always more for editors to do!) Wtfiv (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• MOS:FIRST: ". Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere." Can the other names she is known by be moved out of the first sentence, to the end of the first para? What a mess of clutter in the first sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Some/many people will read only the first para ... a big leap is made here that omits the British and leaves the impression the French killed her: "is considered a heroine of France for her role during the Lancastrian phase of the Hundred Years' War. She was convicted and burnt at the stake as a heretic, but her conviction was later overturned." Adding something about captured and transferred to British would help ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Curious about why all Saints are not linked here, and why Baudricourt makes it into the lead ... " later testifying that she had received visions from the archangel Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine instructing her to support Charles and recover France from English domination. Her request to see the king was rejected twice, but eventually the garrison commander Robert de Baudricourt relented and gave her an escort to meet Charles at Chinon." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• What does successive add here? ") after the successive deaths of his four older brothers." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Sentence in first paragraph on Joan's death added L'Origine du monde on 6 April 2022. Seemed like a good addition. Just edited it slightly by adding "by the English".

SandyGeorgia

• I just deleted the name and nickname items. La Pucelle is mentioned in the article with references. Maid of Orleans is not mentioned or cited in the text, but if you feel it is important we could move it to the Early Legacy. I can find a reference somewhere. Just let me know. Otherwise, I'll leave it out.
• There's a footnote on why the saints are not linked. They were linked in the past, but this is one of the times the suspected sock puppet was right: Joan never specified which Saints were Margaret and Catherine. I looked it up. Many scholars assume it is Margaret of Antioch and Catherine of Alexandria. See Sullivan, 1999, pp. 88–89, who is cited in the footnote. There are links in the footnote too. But, if you prefer to link them in the main text. Let me know. Both options make sense: one is slightly more accurate. The other gives readers context.
• Baudricourt was there when I arrived. It's a critical point in Joan's story, but I agree Baudricourt shouldn't steal the lead limelight. Baudicourt is out of the lead now.
• "Successive" is gone. Wtfiv (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and made some MOS changes. Overall, I think this is ready to keep. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-Joan-reviewer comment) Imho, 'Maid of Orléans' should absolutely get a mention; it's more than a nickname as we would recognise it, it had a deliberate double symbolism; Maid, emphasising her virginity, and Orléans, where the French resurrection began. It's not a modern invention of lady novelists either; a little known French writer called Voltaire wrote a lengthy poem in 1796 called La Pucelle, or, The Maid of Orléans. Great stuff it is too—draws a direct link to the rebellion of Joan against the English with the sans culottes] against the French crown. Á la lanterne, aristos!  :) SN54129 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  SN54129, I added a sentence in her early legacy, mentioning that she was called the Maid of France. During her life she called herself La Pucelle, but Pernoud and Clin mention that the first literary mention of Maid of France is in 1630. The Voltaire is mentioned in the cultural depictions of Joan article. I usually think of his work in the context of Schiller's play, which stikes me as a kind of romantic response to Voltaire's vision. Wtfiv (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Excekllent analysis, Wtfiv, and apologies, I was only looking at this page, not 'daughter' pages  :) SN54129 16:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Also, on sourcing. There are several curious omissions; Allmand's HYW is of course great, but his Lancastrian Normandy is specifically on the Henrician period; Crane's article on the significance of clothing ditto, but she later expanded her thesis into a full-length work, The Performance of Self: Ritual, Clothing, and Identity During the Hundred Years War; surprised not to see anything from René Ambühl on the 15th C. period of the wars; and not forgetting, of course, L. J. Andrew Villalon's trilogy. Yet, Vita Sackville-West is an appropriate source while Anne Curry is an external link?! SN54129 16:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  SN54129 I replaced two Crane article citatons with citations of her book. The book is later and adds a bit, but the article is strong because it is more focused. The sources I used were used because they are reliable and can be verified by link. I didn't attempt to cover the vast breadth of the Joan bibliography, though some reviewers may feel the references is already too large. Do feel free to add any other citations you'd like to the article. I would ask that if at all possible, it'd be great to pick sources that can be link verified. This article had previously been subject to a number of citations that didn't make the claims given to them.

An accessible work by Curry et al. (2015) was added as a source and used as citation for two points. Wtfiv (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• As an aside. Sackville-West keeps getting critiqued. Perhaps because she is not an academic historian. Yet, she was careful in her biography and research, going through the source material and amply footnoting. The academic literature responds to her work respectfully, though as usual questioning some of her point of view, and it strikes me as well written. If editors wish to delete her, I think it could be done without too much impact to the article. So please do so, if you wish. But I think her biography provides an enriching perspective.Wtfiv (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Hog Farm, Buidhe, and Hchc2009: Any outstanding issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Way too many notes. I would oppose at FAC on this basis—notes should only be used sparingly because most content should either be in the article text or is not important enough to include at all. Most of these details belong on sub articles. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hchc2009 comments

From my side, although the article is much improved on its condition last year, I think there's still quite a bit to do to meet FA standards:

• The text is well below FA standard. Even just in the lead, we have phrases like "is considered a heroine of France" (considered by whom?); "Nearly 500 years after her death," - why force the reader to calculate the approximate date?; "Her request to see the king was rejected twice" - who is the king at this point? Presumably not Charles...; "Charles sent Joan, who was about 17 years old," - why tell the reader her age at this point?; "She arrived at the city on 29 April 1429" - does the exact day of the month matter for the lead?; and so on. Similar problems throughout the main text, which needs a serious copy edit.

• Heroine falls out of her legacy role explained in sections below: she is seen a symbol of France, a saint, a martyr, a heroic women. All cited. However, please feel free to substitute appropriate word for "heroine".
• 500 years changed to "Four hundred and eighty-eight".
• Joan's age is emphasized to remind readers of her youth at the beginning of her role. Please delete if not seen as appropriate.
• Specific dates are given to show the speed of Joan's Orlean campaign: 29 April to 16 July. Please delete if not seen as appropriate. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• The lead correctly notes that the first trial was politically inspired, but it doesn't pull out that so was the later investigation - as the main text highlights, the second investigation was politically orchestrated by Charles (for the opposite reasons to the first!)

• I'm not sure where the lead directly addresses the political issue. It does mention that Cauchon was pro-English. If that is problematic, please delete. I didn't catch anything else, but please reword any other sentence in the lead that states trial was political. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• The term "peasant family" in the lead is a tricky one. It is correct - it refers to the family's place in the feudal landowning system - but for many readers "peasant" is the same as "poor"... and Joan's parents were, as the main text says, relatively well off. Well worth avoiding the term in the lead - it will be misinterpreted.

  As mentioned, "peasant" correctly describes family's status. The main text qualifies their status within this class by pointing out how Joan's family was in the higher echelon of the village. But if the connotations of the word "peasant" in the lead is seen as having the potential to mislead readers, please substitute an alternative word. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  I wiki-linked peasant (a pre-industrial agricultural laborer or a farmer with limited land-ownership, especially one living in the Middle Ages under feudalism and paying rent, tax, fees, or services to a landlord) and repeated the words in the body of the article, of some means. This gives us the opportunity to enlighten our readers about the word peasant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Alleged relics" section title - several problems with this. The content of the section doesn't actually mention any religious relics, and suggests that the ring might be genuine - in which case "alleged relic" is a bit pejorative.

  "relics" changed to "artifacts". Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Describing the ring as an "alleged" artifact seems appropriate its provenance has not been established, but please feel free to substitute a synonym less negative connotations.

  This text is gone, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• "The accepted version of Joan of Arc's life has been challenged by revisionist authors." - this needs a citation that the authors then listed are considered revisionist. Is it even worth discussing Case's views from 1819, btw?

  Revisionist authors" replaced with "Alternative historical interpretations". Revisionist author link deleted.

  Case's interpretation is historically interesting and occasionally crops as a topic, but please feel free to delete if it is considered irrelevant. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Many of these sub-headings were unnecessary, and I've removed them. Also, Caze's revisionism is no longer in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Some "current voice" statements need checking for dates. e.g. "She is the topic of thousands of books." is cited to a work in the 1961. That tells us something about the state of play in 1961, but we're now sixty years down the line in 2022. Might still be thousands, or could be tens of thousands, or might be that no-one writes books about her any more (OK - we know that last one isn't correct, but you get the point...!)

  The 1961 citation supports the statement that she is the topic of thousands of books as of the time of the citation, which remains true. The more current 2014 Cohen citation in the following sentence reinforces and extends the point other media. However, please feel free to remove the sentence about the books if desired. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have added time context for the thousands of books, and will watch for similar when I do full read through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about the reliance on Sackville-West, and whether it meets the criteria for still being a high quality source (as opposed to Sackville-West being referenced in current high quality, fact-checked works - which is a different issue.)

  The article does not rely on Sackville-West in an essential way. Many Wikipedia articles reference biographies by authors who are not necessarily professional historians but are published by major houses. In addition, the references to Sackville-West mentioned in the article discuss the care of her research. discuss how she researched and sourced her material. There's no question it is an older citation. In my opinion, Sackville-West functions like the work of Thomas Carlyle's. It provides an interesting, readable alternative narrative of Joan that relies on the research, is accessible to interested readers, is historically interesting in its own right, and provides a somewhat different perspective on Joan. Yet, these citations can be deleted without major impact to the article if there is a consensus of opinion that Sackville-West's work does not merit consideration. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Frederic Harrison's "The New Calendar of Great Men" - what is the justification for this being a high-quality reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy etc.? Particularly when you read the quality of the text... (NB: the bibliography says that the work dates from 1920; the link goes to a volume that says 1892).

  Link fixed for Harrison, Swinny & Marvin. Now goes to 1920 version. Citation is also supported by Chenu 1990. Both sources support point about Joan being seen as a martyr for her faith. But please delete the whole clause "and her faith" and its citations if you feel the sources don't make the case strongly enough. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Captions on the images vary considerably and need some work: some give the location of painting, others don't; some make statements that need a source, etc.

  I didn't address caption issues as this was not mentioned in original FAR, though some have been updated in the editing process. If there were problems, please correct them. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  I am checking these on my read-through; yes, this is a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have addressed these (I hope) and pinged Hchc2009 to talk for another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Buidhe about the volume of footnotes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree about the footnote concern(s). Many big-topic FAs are full of footnotes, which are an effective way to provide extra information without ruining the text continuity—I also don't see how removing information is productive in any way. There is nothing in the FA criteria that aligns with this complaint. Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Buidhe's and SandyGeorgia's original footnote concern was addressed March 30, 2022. Previously to that time, there were 58 footnotes (wordcount ~2,600). Many were exact quotes from Quicheret's Latin text to address sockpuppet concerns. There are now 36 footnotes (wordcount 1,398). For comparison, the footnotes for James Joyce 54 (wordcount 1,920). The remaining footnotes are meant to amplify controversies and interesting, but subsidiary points without detracting from the text. Please delete any that are considered irrelevant or uninteresting. Wtfiv (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I/we have further reduced the footnotes (considerably)-- because some of the text in them was worthy of being in the article body, and the article is not overly long at this point, at 7,000 words of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I just realized that I forgot to save a recent edit of the Joan article that made some of the changes to the article mentioned in the above statements. The changes in response to the comments above have been added to the article. Wtfiv (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Creative psychopathy" is a very concerning term vis-à-vis this article

I feel it pronounces judgment upon what this visionary and creative genius was expressing by calling her psychopathic. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am extremely well-versed in DSM-V symptom descriptions and diagnoses, and I feel that it is unfair to her character to call her a psychopath. I suggest removing it entirely. I'd love comments before I do so, just to make sure I'm onto something here. The myopia of Western scientific thought as like, the ONLY way Wikipedia tends to operate, means that her uniqueness doesn't get a chance to be subjectively interpreted, which is the purpose of visionary art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anktrumpet (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It is sourced and balanced by the follow-on sentence. DrKay (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with DrKay, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv re this objection from July to creative psychopathy (which both DrKay and I disagreed with), now that you've had to remove the clarifying footnotes, with this edit, the creative psychopathy issue has to be revisited. (For the record, I think the footnote deletions are unfortunate, but que será será.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

As per the comments below. I put the footnote back in. But it is fronted by a cited claim. I will remove them if that is the consensus. Wtfiv (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Status update?

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Not sure if you're looking at creative psychopathy specifically, or status more generally. If the latter, I don't think my concerns listed further up the page have been dealt with yet. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• • Hchc2009 Are you referring to your post of 08:57, 11 June 2022 ? If so, everything there has been answered; if there is something that is still not to your satisfaction, could you please clarify exactly what that is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

    • Sandy, as per my original comments:
      • "The text is well below FA standard. Even just in the lead, we have phrases like "is considered a heroine of France" (considered by whom?)" - not addressed; "Her request to see the king was rejected twice" - who is the king at this point? Presumably not Charles...;" - not addressed; "Charles sent Joan, who was about 17 years old," - why tell the reader her age at this point?; - not addressed; "She arrived at the city on 29 April 1429" - does the exact day of the month matter for the lead?; note addressed. Similar problems throughout the main text, which needs a serious copy edit. I haven't seen evidence of this occurring yet.
        • "King" changed to "Charles", to remove ambiguity.
        • Deleted age.
        • Date removed.Wtfiv (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Joan's consideration as a heroine of France is addressed, mainly in the symbol of France section, but feel free to change the word "heroine" to symbol.
      • The lead correctly notes that the first trial was politically inspired, but it doesn't pull out that so was the later investigation - as the main text highlights, the second investigation was politically orchestrated by Charles (for the opposite reasons to the first!) - not addressed, no changes made.
        • I do not see the mention of the first trial being politically motivated. As mentioned in 21 June comments, the only point I can see is that Cauchon is cited as being pro-English. This has been removed. Wtfiv (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
        • As previously mentioned, I'm not sure where it mentions the trial is politically motivated, except to mention Cauchon is pro-English.
      • The term "peasant family" in the lead is a tricky one. It is correct - it refers to the family's place in the feudal landowning system - but for many readers "peasant" is the same as "poor"... and Joan's parents were, as the main text says, relatively well off. Well worth avoiding the term in the lead - it will be misinterpreted. - this is still in place in the lead, no changes amde.
        • This comment was addressed in 21 June 2022 . As mentioned, she is a peasant. I do not have a better word. Request was made to provide a suggestion.
        • Wikilinked peasant (to educate the masses), and added the words of some means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Is it even worth discussing Caze's views from 1819, btw? - not addressed. Caze remains an early 19th-century historian who's overrepresented in this article.
        • This comment was addressed on 21 June 2022. I think it should be addressed, but if it needs to be deleted, please do. Wtfiv (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
        • "Overrepresented"??? She's cited a single time??? Aza24 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Caze is gone, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Some "current voice" statements need checking for dates. e.g. "She is the topic of thousands of books." is cited to a work in the 1961. That tells us something about the state of play in 1961, but we're now sixty years down the line in 2022. Might still be thousands, or could be tens of thousands, or might be that no-one writes books about her any more (OK - we know that last one isn't correct, but you get the point...!) - not addressed, no changes made.
        • This issues addressed in 21 June comments. If you choose to delete it, please do. Wtfiv (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

        I added time context to that, and will keep an eye out for similar when I start my read-through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

      • I'm a little concerned about the reliance on Sackville-West, and whether it meets the criteria for still being a high quality source (as opposed to Sackville-West being referenced in current high quality, fact-checked works - which is a different issue.) - no changes made, remains overused.
        • This comment was addressed on 21 June 2022. I feel Sackville-West is a reasonable source. She is cited ~20 times, compared to Pernoud ~120, Gies ~90, DeVries ~60, Barker ~42, Castor ~20. None of the citations are unique, though they provide useful triangulation, IMO, with other sources. All can be removed if chosen. Wtfiv (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Frederic Harrison's "The New Calendar of Great Men" - what is the justification for this being a high-quality reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy etc.? Particularly when you read the quality of the text... (NB: the bibliography says that the work dates from 1920; the link goes to a volume that says 1892). - still isn't a high-quality reliable source, remains in place in the article.
        • As per 21 June 2022 comments, link in citation was changed. However, overlooked changing link in source too at that time. Change made. As mentioned previously, please remove if you don't feel it is appropropriate.
      • Captions on the images vary considerably and need some work: some give the location of painting, others don't; some make statements that need a source, etc. - remains unaddressed.
        • I didn't work with the captions, they weren't part of the original FAR concerns. But they have been addressed now.Wtfiv (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

        I have worked on those and pinged Hchc2009 to talk for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

      • I agree with Buidhe about the volume of footnotes. - no changes made
        • I think all the footnotes add interesting content, but please remove any you feel are extraneous. Wtfiv (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Footnotes have been reduced, considerably. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    • So still oppose on the basis of quality of text/writing, use of sources, footnotes etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

      Thank you, Hchc2009. I will wait then, for Wtfiv's further responses before doing my read-through, other than to add that I disagree re the footnotes. They have been adjusted since my earlier comment, and I can't find any of them to complain about. They seem commensurate for an article of this size and with this amount of research and controversy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Nikki, I have been intending to do a full read-through for some time, but real life got messy. I am still intending, but need a solid block of uninterrupted time for full focus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll wait, then, for Wtfiv to finish addressing Hchc2009's comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Reviewers. I'd like to register that this process is frustrating. I chose to do FAR instead of FAN, as I preferred to do cleanup instead of advocating for why my version of an article deserves to be a featured article. When I joined this FAR, I cleaned up all the original points that put this article on FAR. As Nikkimaria knows, this was incredibly difficult in this article. (For example, Nikkimaria tried to remove some of the recommended reading, but was reverted. Working with the editors who monitor this cite, we were able to eventually get consensus.)

In addition, this article was also deeply embedded in a long-term sockpuppet issues (particularly vast numbers of unverifiable citations, misleading citations, and the like), I wound up leading to a fairly substantial rewrite after all. But, I did my best to keep the general forms of what was required. I've also tried to address the concerns of reviewers as best as possible. (e.g., changing the lead to four paragraphs, changing writing and format.)

But at this point, I continue to address concerns . At least ones about prose editing and style. (See all my responses in the FAR above). But I feel like I'm back at what I do like about FAN. As you can see, I feel I am asked to make changes that I feel are more a matter of perspective that I may not agree with (e.g., validity of sources, length of footnotes). I have addressed why I didn't make the changes I did, but I also mentioned that I was open to other editors making the majority of changes if they disagree.

I would request that approval of this article not be contingent on my having to make changes I may not agree with to get approval (e.g., quality of sources and footnotes). That is what I disliked about FAN. But, I am comfortable with any concerned reviewer coming in to make the changes themselves, if they feel they are improving the article. Given the amount of work done in terms of text/source integrity with multiple linked sources, addressing original concerns, and- with some help- working through the effects of a long-term alleged sockpuppet on this article- I'm hoping approval my work addressing the original FAR concerns will result in the article maintaining its FAR status. Though I am biased by my investment of effort and there is always room for more improvement, I think the article is far improved in quality even when it was listed as a featured article. Thank you for your consideration. Wtfiv (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I have started my review on talk; I expect it to take three or four days at least, and will keep commentary there in the meantime, summarizing back to here when done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe I am still working through prose and other issues, but the footnotes have been considerably reduced. When you have a chance (no hurry), could you have a look? I believe the number of footnotes is now within reason, and I'm not seeing any that are unnecessary, but a fresh look from you with an eye towards specifying anything you still see as problematic would be helpful at this stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Update. Wtfiv and I have worked through all of the article except a) the lead (leaving 'til last), and b) a few bits of the Legacy section that I'd like to re-work before tackling the lead.

I believe/hope we have addressed Hchc2009's concerns about footnotes, image captions and prose (except the lead), and Buidhe's concerns about the number of footnotes. I've pinged both of them but haven't heard back from either (Hchc2009 is not currently editing).

By next week, we should be ready for other independent reviewers to look through, and I'll ping them in when finished with the lead work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FARC break for independent review

A first draft new lead has been installed (see Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Joan of Arc/archive2#Lead draft 1) and the entire article is ready for independent review. @Aza24, Buidhe, Caeciliusinhorto, Extraordinary Writ, Firefangledfeathers, Hchc2009, Hog Farm, John, Johnbod, Serial Number 54129, and Z1720: also Drmies, who has been involved at Hundred Years' War and might have the knowledge to look at those pieces. Victoriaearle I know Ceoil is traveling, so have not pinged him; does this article interest you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I would definitely oppose this article at FAC for multiple reasons: footnotes are still excessive, lead is too long, some parts of the article have short and stubby paragraphs... but it has been improved a lot as well. (t · c) buidhe 17:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe I agree the lead could benefit from trimming, but not to such an extent that review cannot progress at this point. Re: "some parts of the article have short and stubby paragraphs", correct paragraphing is more useful than aiming for a certain length-- can you please identify specifically which paragraphs you think need addressing? I disagree that the footnoting is now excessive; could you please identify specifically which you think are either a) not warranted, or b) better worked in to the text or citations? We are to a point where specifics are more useful than generalities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead has been trimmed to a very reasonable 487 words; see Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Joan of Arc/archive2#Lead Draft 2. Joan is not a niche or pop culture topic that can be easily summarized in 300 words or less, and sources say she is one of the most studied people of the Middle Ages. On the scale of grander topics, Second Punic War (a smaller article with 6,229 words of prose than Joan at 7,530) recently passed FAC with a 672-word lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that nearly all the footnotes should be cut or integrated into the body. Furthermore, after examination I found issues with original research. Examples:

• "Joan testified she preferred her banner to a sword and never killed anyone." If this isn't covered in secondary sources I would say it's irrelevant/UNDUE

  Banner footnote deleted.

• "Biographer Frances Gies states that when Joan's family was ennobled,..." if there's a substantial dispute about the ennoblement, it can't be stated as fact in the main article text (see WP:WIKIVOICE).

  Footnote deleted. The sole source discussing the distinction between the granting of a coat of arms and ennoblement is Bouzy in a French Journal published by the Bulletin annuel de l'Association Connaissance de Jeanne d'Arc [Annual Bulletin of the Association for Knowledge about Joan of Art], a now defunct journal. All other sources mention ennoblement. Will go with them, rather than elaborating issue with whether the family name was changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfiv (talk • contribs) 22:13, August 17, 2022 (UTC)

• Lightbody 1961, pp. 133–134 argues that the claim that Joan was executed without a secular sentence may have been due to the biases of the rehabilitation trial. — if it's just one source from 50+ years ago saying so, it's clearly UNDUE and should just be eliminated

  deleted Lightbody's point.

• For "None of these explanations has strong support, and each has been challenged" needs direct support from a reliable source. Based on the note it's unclear whether this is original research, since the note just gives examples.

  added citation, deleted footnote, and modified prose. Wtfiv (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Based on other reviewers more recent comments and a editor revision, put the footnote back in for now. But if it needs to be removed it can be. Wtfiv (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Further discussion below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Most biographers agree that there is little evidence that Charles tried to save Joan once she was transferred to the English..." seems likely original research since you cite a LOT of authors. Which one directly supports that "most biographers" agree with the statement? (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  Removed statement, slightly reworded to "There is no direct evidence..." Almost every source I could find that makes a pronouncement makes this one. Michelet was given as exception when working with suspected sockpuppet editor. However, a look at the link shows that Michelet is making inferences on second-hand evidence. Wtfiv (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  Four more footnotes integrated into the text. Two were examples from primary literature. Each of these now have secondary citations. The changes are here, here, here, and here Wtfiv (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of a Catch-22 in your comments (I could be misunderstanding). One of the (many) reasons one would legitimately use a footnote versus a citation is to explore and clarify those instances where scholars hold different views, even if/when only one of them, who is credible, disagrees. Unless I am misunderstanding, you are evaluating footnotes as if they were citations, and rejecting the use of footnotes to clarify when the different scholars say different things. With the amount of scholarship that exists about Joan, it's hard to imagine how one could entirely omit views held by credible scholars, and exploring differences from the main in a footnote seems appropriate for those limited instances; I'm amazed that Wtfiv was able to gel so much scholarship down to less than 8,000 words, and commend the painstaking and worthy effort. But Wtfiv knows the whole body of research far far better than I do, so over to them as to how to resolve these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that footnotes could be useful in cases of disagreement. However, at least my preferred approach in such cases is to use secondary sources to state the prevalence of different views. For example, causes of the Armenian genocide states that religious and cultural explanations used to be the primary ones in Western scholarship, but have since become discredited as the primary cause, as focus has shifted to multicausal frameworks. (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

There's quite a difference, though, in the (large amount of) research about Joan (Middle Ages), and the Armenian genocide (World War I) 500 years later. Armenian genocide scholarship may be still evolving to a greater extent than Joan; with Joan, we have what we have, until/unless something new surfaces, and it is a large volume that has to be gelled down. I believe Wtfiv has struck a good balance, in spite of having to deal for a year with a disruptive sockmaster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe there are four footnotes left, and the lead is considerably shortened and well within the range of what passes FAC. Please let the page know where you stand, as other reviewers are waiting to proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia for the ping. I didn't realize until seeing all the recent activity this FAR was still ongoing, but, yes, have had the page on watch for well over a decade and offered some help re sourcing - way back in November maybe? Anyway, am tied up w/ a few appointments this week. Will see if I'm able to get to it on the weekend. A quick comment re the most recent and visible edit at the top of my watchlist: without having looked through the comments here so there may be a reason for the deletion, I'm a bit concerned about removing the text re the cause (or unknown cause) for the visions. We can't know what caused her visions; we can't even know whether she had them. All we can do is report what historians say, quite frankly as far back as the early chronicles, so I'm not convinced that material should be removed. Will try to dive in later, read this page, read the article, post comments, etc. I have a bit of background re Charles VI & Isabeau of Bavaria <cough, cough> (see FACs for that page and Bal des Ardents) so will make sure it all hangs together. Victoria (tk) 00:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Adding, it's back now, so yes, discussion needed. Victoria (tk) 00:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Victoria (and Wtfiv), I'm satisfied with this version of the Visions v. medical issues (reinstating the Causes footnote but fronted by a citation). (This text sits quite well with me when compared to what has been described as one of the strongest posthumous diagnoses in medicine, Samuel Johnson's Tourette syndrome, whose symptoms were so well documented by James Boswell that the diagnosis is rock solid; there is no such record in Joan's case.)

I believe Wtfiv has now deleted all the rest raised by Buidhe.

Victoria, thanks for the offer to help! Per your comments at J. K. Rowling, should I continue to refrain from pinging you ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

About to log out, will look at the various versions when I get back here. Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I had offered back in Nov or Dec, pre Rowling. I will read through and post comments, and yes, am familiar w/ the material, but not offering to do any heavy lifting. I'm following, so no need to ping now that I've put this page on watch. Thanks for getting me here with the ping earlier today. Victoria (tk) 03:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Sandy—I've got this watchlisted now, and I'll try to leave a review once Buidhe is satisfied with everything. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ now would be an optimal time; I have pinged buidhe several times in the last ten days, and there was no new feedback in today's response. Best I can tell, everything raised has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any further comments at this point. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe I believe all your comments have been addressed; could you please revisit? One footnote was kept, but reworked, per feedback from three editors who thought it should be retained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Victoria

With her permission (see her talk page), moved this section of resolved issues to the talk page, at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Joan of Arc/archive2#Comments from Victoria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from EW

This seems to be in good shape now—impressive work! Just a few comments from a non-expert; feel free to ignore anything that isn't helpful.

• Thank you for taking a look at it!

• "There is no direct evidence that Charles tried to save Joan once she was transferred to the English" – does this mean that he did try to save her while she was in Burgundian custody?

  There's no evidence, all English-speaking authors that I found discuss the point agree on this. There is one French author from the 19th century, Michelet who argues attempts were made. But his evidence is inferential and not taken up by any English-language authors. There were some French raids into Normandy and there is a letter from an Italian merchant in France to Venice who conjectures that Charles may ransom Joan. It is an older citation without any direct evidence, so trying to even indirectly address it may be WP:UNDUE. I deleted "direct". That should solve the issue

• "scholars at the University of Paris argued" – link University of Paris here instead of in the "undermine the University of Paris" sentence

  done!

• "she agreed to submit and signed an abjuration" – perhaps briefly summarize the conditions of the abjuration here.

  Done This is complicated because it is not known exactly what Joan signed. Added a footnote expanding on problem. Put the minimal items that were attested to in main text. Please take a look and let me know if you think this covers it.

• Link Callixtus III; University of Vienna

  Done

• "suggests that Joan may have been a genetic male" – perhaps indicate to what degree this theory is accepted by other scholars

  Deleted as per previous FAR discussion. Article didn't document its point well.

• Citation issues: "pp. 138–129" and "Gies 1981, p. [1]"

  Both fixed

• The trial section might flow a bit better if you outlined some of the specific charges of heresy (e.g. failing to submit to the church's authority) toward the beginning.

  Done/ Charges moved from last paragraph to first.

More soon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• "she was allowed to receive the sacraments despite having been excommunicated" – Gies 1981 (p. 219) indicates that she hadn't technically been excommunicated yet. Perhaps you could also say expressly that this was extremely unusual.

  Sentence changed here mentioning she was given them although it violates court process. Also added Harrison as reference and removed Michelet.Wtfiv (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I see I'm not the first person to be a bit concerned about Sackville-West, who according to this Oxford Bibliographies entry "manipulates facts and makes up evidence to support baseless conclusions". At least make sure that she's not the only source for any statements (as in refs. 44 and 70).

  Now at citations 45 and 72, as the only source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Added Taylor and Harrison as source for 45. Sackville-West provides an interesting take that aligns with the other sources.

  72 is deleted as unneeded. Wtfiv (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• The Oxford Bibliographies entry is also somewhat critical of Warner 1981, which is supposedly "[n]ot a historical but rather an interpretive account" and is "[s]trongest on Joan’s afterlife" but contains "too much speculation and misinformation based on modern theories". Probably fine for the legacy/aftermath sections, but perhaps consider not making her the sole source for other claims? (Again, this is a non-expert review, so if I'm off-base here feel free to say so.)

  There are no stand-alone Warner citations left.

  For the describing that the stategic situation was not hopeless for the Armagnac, I added Vale. I kept Warner because her statement, because her summary of the situation (sourced from Vale and Perroy) is more comprehensive yet concise.

  One is for the claim that Joan was 17 when she met Charles, added Taylor. Kept Warner: more direct.

  Deleted Warner's stand alone claim about Joan's signature being written with the help of scribes.

  As an aside. I'm not so sure Warner (1981) is as unreliable as the review claims. Her work seems well-sourced. Her interpretations are more focused on contemporary ideas, which may be problematic, but she sources them in historical literature. The summary above appears to follow Barstow's a review of Warner's book in a journal also published by the University of Oxford Press, Joan of Arc: Heretic, Mystic, Shaman(1986) (link source provided in article), Barstow touches on similar topics but with a different interpretative model. But your point is well taken, no need to rely heavily on a source it has been questioned.Wtfiv (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC).

• Some of the book references include place of publication and some of them don't—best to be consistent.

  Removed all, not needed anyway, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Something's gone awry with the indentation on Maddox 2012.

  Fixed, [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I notice you only cite Taylor 2009 once—if that's because you don't have access to it, let me know and I can email you a few chapters. If you have a reason for not relying on it, or if it wouldn't be helpful so late in the game, that's of course fine.

I added four Taylor (2009) citations (five total). Two to complement Warner one to clarify Joan's brothers and sisters. I would have put more, but I mainly rely on sources that can be verified by a direct link, and prefer available full sources to partial ones. Taylor's book is only available as a preview in a Google eBook, so it was more limited. I did use Taylor's (2012) article four times, which is available for those who have JSTOR access. I think it catches two of Taylor's major points: That Joan's execution was military/political and that Joan did not "exhibit the attributes of a saint in her lifetime" (p. 240). I also find Taylor's thesis that Joan was coached during her trial very intriguing! Harrison implies she may have been coached by Yolanda of Aragon. Both are possible. If either has a basis beyond conjecture, it's a further testament to Joan: she's a quick study! Wtfiv (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• The long reference on Wood 1988 appears to link to a different Internet Archive book, although the short reference seems to have the right one.

• Fixed, thanks!

Looking good. I might have a few more nitpicks on the references today or tomorrow, but otherwise I'm pretty much satisfied. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv there is no indication if EW's comments above have been addressed ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like they were missed; I did two of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I missed these. I'll get on them. Wtfiv (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Extraordinary Writ, I apologize for missing your second round of comments. Please let me know if these address your points. Wtfiv (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm now going through the references with a fine-toothed comb; made a few changes; just a few points so far:

• Boal 2005 – ISBN and OCLC are from Chenu 1990

• Fixed (this diff addresses all source fixes)

• Guillemin 1973 – ISBN and OCLC are from Mock 2011

• Fixed Wtfiv (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Lace 1994 appears to be a children's book—it's used for pretty uncontroversial things, but perhaps a higher-quality source might still be better?

• Lace swapped out for Aberth. Context of War expanded. Added Perroy as French take on same event. Considered adding Curry (1993), but summary spanned pages. Wtfiv (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Matheson 2012 seems to be a duplicate of Maddox 2012.

• Matheson deleted in source. Converted to Maddox in text.

• Is there an OCLC for Murray 1902?

• Yes, added Wtfiv (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

More soon (hopefully later tonight). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Russell 2014 – the Frederic C. Beil company seems to be just one step above self-publishing (see [5]), and the book's revised edition was published via Xlibris, which is clearly self-published. Probably best to remove.
• Crane 1996 – JSTOR link goes to a different article
• Ratnasuriya 1986 – DOI/PMID/S2CID aren't right

Almost there! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

All changes made. Wtfiv (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

All my points have been addressed, so this is a keep from me: the article is now comprehensive, scrupulously sourced, balanced, and otherwise in line with the criteria. The improvement relative to the pre-FAR version is truly remarkable—thank you, Wtfiv, for your perseverance! Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Extraordinary Writ, for your extraordinary help! Wtfiv (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from BR

Wow, what a mountain of collaboration! Well done, to all who have worked to save this FA! I was invited to contribute comments, so I'll at least pitch in some copyediting sorts.

• The first paragraph of "Trial" reads "Both the English and Burgundians rejoiced that Joan had been removed as a threat. She also posed a political threat." I can't follow the flow of ideas here. I suggest the section be revised to something more like, "...but the trial was politically motivated. Joan testified that her visions had instructed her to defeat the English and crown Charles, and her success could be seen as evidence of divine sanction. If unchallenged, her testimony would invalidate the English claim to the rule of France..." and the part about the English and Burgundians "rejoicing" be removed to somewhere it fits better chronologically. Likewise, in the second paragraph of the section, the fact that "All but 8 of the 131 clergy who participated in the trial were French" seems to contrast with the main thrust of the paragraph and would benefit from a contrast transition, e.g. "All but 8 of the 131 clergy who participated in the trial were French, but over two thirds were associated with University of Paris, and most were pro-Burgundian and pro-English."

• John reworked the "politically motivated" clause. And I've moved the "rejoicing" to be the first sentence of the final paragraph of her capture, which should make this portion of the trial a bit more clear.
• Built a constrast transition, as follows: All but 8 of the 131 clergy who participated in the trial were French and two thirds were were associated with the University of Paris, but most were pro-Burgundian and pro-English. Wtfiv (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• The first sentences of "Visions" are repetitive: "Joan's visions played an important role in her execution. Her statement that she had returned to heeding her visions was the fatal reply that led to her execution." This can be condensed, e.g. to "Joan's visions played an important role in her condemnation, and her admission that she had resumed heeding them precipitated her execution."

• Reworded sentences as follows Joan's visions played an important role in her condemnation, and her admission that she had returned to heeding them led to her execution.

• There are many run-on sentences that need commas between the clauses. Wtfiv (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• John has been doing a great job weeding those out. But we'll keep weeding.

Those are the main things that stand out to me! Keep up the great work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking a look at the article! Wtfiv (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Great work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Update on status

As John is approaching the end of his copyedit, and Victoriaearle's substantive suggestions have been addressed, I am near to a Keep declaration. Victoria is sidelined now for health reasons, and Ceoil is traveling. Where do others stand?

• Z1720, you entered a Keep declaration back in April; the article has been considerably revamped since then. Could you please revisit?

• As you can imagine, I am busy on-wiki at the moment. Since there are editors underneath this comment who are going to take a look at this, I will revisit after their reviews are concluded. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Similar for Buidhe and Extraordinary Writ; are you satiisfied now?
  • Just about—I'll give it another read-through later today and then we should be good to go. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Hog Farm if you have time, a look now would be productive.
  • I should be able to over the next couple days. Hog Farm _Talk 17:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Not gonna be able to look into this as I thought - just found out that the computer stuff is going to take up to a week longer than I thought it might, and I won't even have the kinda working computer during that time. Hog Farm _Talk 01:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
      • If I'm still needed to look at this, I probably can over the weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 13:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

        Hog Farm we have four current Supports (Victoria, Aza24, Extraordinary writ and me), as well as Z1720's earlier (April) Support. Firefangledfeathers is giving it a serious going over now. John gave the prose a solid workover, and both Ew and FFF looked at sourcing, while Victoria provided content-area knowledge, and she and Johnbod looked at images. Unless FFF finds something, we should be in shape for a potential close in Nikkimaria's next run (which would squeak this sock-plagued FAR in under the year mark); it would be optimal to hear from Z1720 re the April support before then, but if you are unable to make it before the weekend, it's not critical. Glad your computer is back! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

        Nikkimaria, don't wait for me to get to this. It'll probably be the weekend before I get to it - need to catch up on FAC coordinator duties, some annual MILHIST coordinator election stuff, and trying to get some rough prose cleaned up for something I've been pushing off for about two weeks. Hog Farm _Talk 15:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

        When is Nikkimaria's next run? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

        @Firefangledfeathers: - Generally Friday night or Saturday morning USA time Hog Farm _Talk 15:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Firefangledfeathers are you satisfied?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll have some thoughts by Sunday. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, it's Sunday ... I'm at Keep unless you have concerns; waiting :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder SG! I didn't get all the way through, but my first comments are below. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work on the article, for coordinating this, and for making me feel so valued and welcome here. I wonder if it's worth having a further discussion on images? I was aware of some discussion earlier about which images to use, and I notice that the displayed images are currently all different sizes and that some are commented out. I'm not convinced the images are in a fully finalised state yet, and I suggest that the other aspects of the article are pretty much sorted so maybe the time is now ripe for this discussion. I don't think this on its own would make me declare to delist, but I think I'd like to see this discussion before declaring for keep. If this has already happened and I missed it, I apologise. John (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Johnbod also had something to say on images; maybe we could conduct that discussion at the article talk page, so we could begin to focus here on what remains to get this FAR closed up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

PS, John, glad you feel welcome, but be careful what you wish for :) :) There's another tricky FAR up that could really use the skills you have shown here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to swing by over the weekend. John is right; the image issue isn't fully resolved. But we can continue on the talk page. Victoria (tk) 19:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the mix, and I think it looks pretty good for now. I have no preference on the miniatures, but I'd like to keep some of the more contemporary images. (See my note on two philosophies of images above)

• But would like to see "Joan in Orleans" stay on. IMO, it clinches the center of action.
• I think the Joan on trial illustration is excellent for crafting the flavor of her trial, though I admit is is a bit small if it isn't clicked on. But I think that is a picture, which if looked at, accurately backs up so much of the narrative. And I like a Joan being center stage, as it is her article. So, I'd like to keep it, if we can.
• I like the images for Clothing and Legacy.

That said, wherever the consensus goes, so I'll go. I don't want approval of images to get in the way of the FAR process. Wtfiv (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm satisfied. Good job everyone! It's another amazing save. I'll it keep on watch and try to help with tending. Victoria (tk) 21:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC) Strike momentarialy. There are some recent changes to do with the visions, clothing, prophecies that I need to take a closer look at, because I'm not totally comfortable with them. I think I came in here a bit early and didn't realize there would be additional substantive reviewing. Victoria (tk) 22:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Wtfiv please stop refactoring the page!! What happened to the comment I put here to explain the bits I'm still evaluating? And why is there a comment with my sig that someone else has written? I need to be offline for the forseeable future but wanted to try to read what's going on here because of the pings and it's all changing before my eyes! Victoria (tk) 15:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. An amazing save in extremely trying circumstances. Z1720 was at keep months ago, but may want to revisit. Extraordinary writ is a keep (above) and FFF's issues seem to be all addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, congratulations to all involved in creating on what is now a rather incredible article. Aza24 (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your much appreciated support throughout this project! Wtfiv (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Great job everyone. John (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. It's truly astonishing how much better the article is than it was a year ago. About 2,400 edits led to that improvement. Truly some of the best work on Wikipedia. I can't stop geeking out over the linked citations. Thank you to everyone involved. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from FFF

I'm not familiar with prior discussion on this, so some of these items might be the result of discussion or consensus. No individual comment is a make-or-break issue for me.

• Lead and infobox
  • The infobox image caption is a lot. Can we leave some of that content to the file description?
  • "probably aged 19" → "aged about 19" to match the body text. If the best sources think 19 is the most likely option, that should be made clear in the article text.

    Footnoted point about forgery, put c. age 19) Wtfiv (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Name
  • "Joan was not taught to read and write in her childhood, and it is believed that she dictated her letters to scribes." No citation provided. The next citation is Warner 1981 p. 94, which obliquely verifies the illiteracy and does not mention letter dictation.

    Amended. Broke this into two sentences. Each with separate reference. Even though almost every source mentions dictating letters. A statement to this effect was almost impossible to find. I chose Pernoud & Clin, as they mention the letters are dictated. So deleted mention of scribes. Wtfiv (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Birth and historical background.
  • "Joan had at least three brothers and a sister; all but one of the brothers were older." The cited sources don't give us any suggestion that there were other siblings. Why "at least"? "all but one of the brothers" is unclear.

    Condensed source, trimmed prose.

  • "This gave rise to rumors that the Dauphin was not King Charles VI's son, but the offspring of an adulterous affair between Isabeau and the murdered duke of Orléans." There's a lot of history to cover here, and this tidbit is never explicitly relevant again. Can it be cut?

    The relevance is the possibility that he trusted Joan because she assured him that God held him as the legitimate King of France ... hopefully this will be clear later in the text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

    Just checked; yes, that part is in the Chinon section. "Joan's confessor, later testified that Joan told him she had reassured Charles of his legitimacy as king." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

    When reading our article text, "reassured Charles of his legitimacy as king", my first-read explanation for "legitimacy" was tied to Charles's competing claims with Henry, due to the Treaty of Troyes. If the reassurance was more about the patrilineage rumors, we might want to be more clear. I remember reading one of the cited sources and it saying something like "you are the son of a king", so I bet there's a citation out there if we want it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

    Changed text to reassured Dauphin that he was Charles VI son and legitimate king. Both citations, though worded differently contain these points.Wtfiv (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Early life
  • I'm a semi-colon lover, but the three in the first paragraph seem excessive. Can we switch up the prose style? I noted this here but it's an issue across the article, and a pass through for sentence structure would be worthwhile.

    Reworked, in particular last sentence given a more specific context.Wtfiv (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  • "Charles had not yet been crowned": how about "the Dauphin Charles"?

    changed to "the Dauphin had not yet been crowned"Wtfiv (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  • "to the Armagnac court at Chinon" is fine but Chinon being where Charles was seems more relevant than it being home to the Armagnac court

    Changed "Armagnac" to "Dauphin's" Wtfiv (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  • "Baudricourt sarcastically refused" Was his refusal sarcastic? Both cited sources attest to something like "slap her and send her home" and neither suggests this wasn't to be taken literally. DeVries has a footnote mentioning another source emphasizing "mockery and derision". If that's what we're leaning on, we should cite that too and rethink "sarcastically".

    changed to "harshly". Wtfiv (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  • "she gained the support of two of Baudricourt's soldiers" - we have this as a result of her second Vaucouleurs visit, but the sources describe both being convinced at her first, in 1428.

    This is confusing to sort out. Even the sources elide or muddle. Part of the problem is both are the the rehabilitation trial discussing her first arrival. Poulengy claims to have known the family before Joan arrived, but the sources that discuss it say that de Metz was brought over at her second meeting. I've added another source, and reworded but by this time, she had gained the support of... The idea here is by this time is more cumulative: she had two supporters by the end of the second visit. Wtfiv (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Military leader and symbol of France
  • Domrémy was later renamed Domrémy-la-Pucelle in her honor. Worth mentioning?

    This one is tough. The French Wikipedia puts it as early as 1530, but the reference is a French topological dictionary, which puts it at 1578. But beyond the date, I've not had many leads, nor in most of the Joan resources I'm familiar with. (What seems clear is that Orléans adopted her long before her birthplace.) Wtfiv (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  • "In 1630, Edmond Richer wrote a biography calling her la Pucelle d'Orléans (The Maid of Orléans)." The source, and this article earlier on, mention this honorific dating to the 16th century. Unlike the two preceding sentences, this one stands out as a "so what?", and it's likely readers might think we're attributing the title to Richer (if he popularized it, we should say so).

    Deleted Richer. Wtfiv (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I left some more notes at work that I need to rescue. More to come. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

More notes:

• Lead and Infobox
  • "the savior of France": maybe "a savior of France"? It's had some other notable saviors.

    Done. This and all subsequent changes are in this diff Wtfiv (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  • "paved the way": I have no reason to doubt this, but I don't see it explicitly supported anywhere in the body (I may have missed it). It would be nice to have a clear statement of Joan's overall influence on the course of the war.

    This comes from the " Aftermath and Rehabilitation section." Her main effect was on morale, as is mentioned in the section, so I altered the sentence to "paving the way", which creates a dependent clause that expands on the effect of her raising morale. Wtfiv (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  • "She is portrayed in modern literature, painting, sculpture, music, and numerous other cultural works." The link style is strange here, and the sub-article includes more than just modern works. How about "She is portrayed in numerous cultural works, including literature, paintings, sculptures, and music"?

    Done. Wtfiv (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  • In the interest of cutting infobox clutter, can we remove the beatified-place and canonized-place parameters?

    Done. Wtfiv (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove away, what unhelpful info to highlight ... but some infobox warrior will come along and repopulate that crap ... you know, if we have an infobox parameter, we must fill it, right? :/ :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Right? You have me laughing! If she is beatified by the Roman Catholic Church, one would assume that Rome is the default location. Wtfiv (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, first the location (ridiculously unhelpful) was in the infobox, so we had to cite it. Then the location was added to the body because it was in the infobox. Should be removed entirely, obvious and trivia, but infobox idiocy is neverending. It will probably just come back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The call to get the citation out of the dreaded infobox- that endless source of uncited abuse, particularly for Joan- was good, but now unneeded; now gone. Wtfiv (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Coronation and siege of Paris
  • "but the divisions in Charles's court" is the first we're hearing about the divisions, unless this is referring to debate over whether to push for Normandy or Reims. Just dropping the "the" would make this seem like new info, if that's what it is.

    Done Wtfiv (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I have some more comments:

• Siege of Compiègne and capture
  • The first paragraph makes it seem like Compiègne had already been taken by the Burgundians. I think we could introduce here that it's under siege at this point.
  • "It was defeated and Joan was captured" → "The attack failed, and Joan was captured". The antecedent of "it" is unclear.
  • "the details of her capture vary between at least three different accounts": if we're not going to mention the difference between the versions, I think we can drop this. If the following details are the ones that are disputed, we probably shouldn't present them in wiki-voice.

    These points addressed here. Wtfiv (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Trial
  • "blasphemed by wearing men's clothes" is the first mention of men's clothes since her trip to Chinon. I know we have a dedicated section for it, but this moment would land better if we'd mentioned a couple of notable clothing events somewhere in the preceding history sections.

    Reworked the end of the "Early life" so now it mentions that Joan wore men's clothes for the rest of her life. This should address the charges. In general, there's no major notable events. Wtfiv (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Execution
  • Among the reasons Joan gave for wearing men's clothes, we should probably add that she said she was listening to her visions and God. This is important for later on, when it's used as evidence in her trials.

    I rather not add the claim in the main text, as the reason given emerges from the trial. Thus, it might be a post-facto justification, rather than the original reason. I think the "Clothing" section is best for taking about her testimony. Wtfiv (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

    Wtfiv, I don't intend to fight hard for this, but all of the explanations given in this section are attributed to her trial testimony, and therefore all might be post-facto justifications. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

    I agree that all the explanations in clothing are post-facto, that's one of the reasons I'm comfortable with them being there in a separate "Clothing" section. I'm open to putting the justification elsewhere, though as the text mentions she gave no reasons until she was captured. Is there a place you think is appropriate in the main narrative? Wtfiv (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

    Yes. I'm proposing something like: "According to the trial record, Joan said that she had gone back to wearing men's clothes because it was more fitting that she dress like a man while being held with male guards, that the judges had broken their promise to let her go to mass and to release her from her chains, and because her visions had told her to do so." Maybe with another citation to Schibanhoff. I admit it's a lengthy sentence, but if were to cut one of her reasons I wouldn't vote for the one that most led to her execution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

    I like what you are getting at, but the post-abjuration record can't help us connect the dots here. The assessors came down because she was in men's clothes, but she claimed she did so based on her own choice, not mentioning the voices in this context. They talked about this, and it seems she was willing to compromise on the clothes (see Hobbins 2005 p.25 for a good summary). Then, they switched tack and asked her about voices. There she said she was listening to them and they had reprimanded her. The clerk wrote "A deadly reply" afterwards. (see Pernoud & Clin, 1984., p.133 for a very pro-Joan source.) But there's no evidence when they decided to execute her that it was because of her voices command to put on the clothes. Rather the clothes were used as an excuse to interrogate her about her voices. And once she confessed to hearing voices, she gave the "deadly reply".

    Would you want to fit it into the "Trial" itself? Wtfiv (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for walking me through this. Can you help me reconcile your statements here with the article language from §Clothing, where we say "Her final condemnation began when she was found to have resumed wearing men's clothes, which was taken as a sign that she had relapsed by obeying her visions again." We cite Hotchkiss, which doesn't really support the content, and Schibanhoff, which does say "Joan's voices instructed her to resume male attire". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, I appreciate your comments, and in particular the careful thinking through of all this (And it had me correcting a page number.) It makes it clear it's not precise enough. And I particularly enjoy thinking through content (cite-source integrity) as opposed to format.

Hotchkiss p. 66 (corrected citation) states "Despite her ambivalence toward male dress in her final hours, Jeanne's return to transvestism after the abjuration gave the judges the visible proof they need to declare her a relapsed heretic. Schibanoff, p. 38 states "she wa observed to have resumed male attire in her prison cell... Joan had visibly performed her idolatry. As her inquisitors probed more deeply the extent of the relapse, they soon uncovered evidence of the invisible partner...her claim that the voices of St. Catherine and St. Margaret. [Aside, note Schibanoff's skepticism of the saints as well, the partner (singular) is her claim of voices.] So, to be more precise on this point, I rewrote the last line, which aligns with both citations: relapsed into heresy

This edit makes the role of the voices in the final condemnation properly equivocal, which may solve the problem.

Slightly more problematic is Schibanoff's claim that Joan's voices also instructed her to wear male clothing. This source seems to contradict the consensus of the secondary sources in the "Execution" section that the assessors or Joan did not directly assert that the voices commanded her to wear men's clothes at this time.(See the translation of the proceedings in Hobbins's 2005 pp. 196-198), so I think Schibanhoff may be backreading some testimony mentioned during the regular trial. The articles of accusation do make the accusation that she claims to be wearing men's clothes at the command of God.

Sharing a WP:OR thought. In terms of the abjuration, it makes sense for the assessors to to keep them separate, as it indicts her on two counts: as "her choice" to wear men's clothes paints her as willfully defying the church militant; "her listening" to the voices show that she is still under non-divine influence. But as mentioned, such an argument slides into WP:OR, so I'll avoid it. Readers can draw that out for themselves, if they see it.

What are your thoughts?

Wtfiv (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edit definitely resolves my concern. Thanks a lot! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• • "The next day ..." The sequence here is confusing. Was the abjuration "read to her again and explained"? Were the two assessors favoring abandonment just very persuasive?

    Reworded to make the sequence more clear.

• Visions
  • Can we resolve the weasel-wording in paragraph 2? Can we drop "or that they were partly produced by her interrogation during her trial", since the visions pre-date the trial? Or, maybe "X, Y, and Z write that the visions may have escalated due to the interrogation during her trial"?

    The issue is more subtle. All the evidence of her visions comes from the trial record. Huizinga, Sullivan, Taylor and Warner point out that there was no clear evidence of specific entities in her visions until the trial. Rather, Joan talked vaguely about councils. (Huizinga makes the argument most concisely in his citation.) These scholars are arguing that Joan's details about the voices are reconstructed memories or false memories or, though they don't use that wording. To remove the qualification, I've modified the wording as follows or that the specific details of her visions were created during her interrogation.

  • I think footnote g is burying some important, prominent perspectives. If there's consensus for them being in a footnote, I think we need it to come after a sentence about pushback on the medical diagnoses, not just on lack of unbiased trial data (presumably, trial data is not the only kind used for these assessments).

    I think a solution that moves the footnote into main text is worth considering, but could you suggest a way of doing it where the different issues are addressed, but researchers' names are kept out of main text? I can always align the citation if the prose is present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfiv (talk • contribs)

    Changed "explained" to "speculated to be". Does that work? Wtfiv (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

    I added a pushback sentence that points toward the footnote. I think that solution may work.

    Firmed up the wording: Joans vision have been explained as a product of creative psychopathy and vision' specific details are conjectured to have been created by the demands... Wtfiv (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

    Wtfiv I am not comfortable at all with that wording; explained gives that one claim more credence than the others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

    Pushback sentence stub resolves my NPOV concern. I think the weasel wording that stands out the most to me is "It has been suggested". I leave it to you to consider a way to summarize who holds that view. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Legacy
  • I'm not getting "the savior of France" out of the Sexsmith pages cited. We're relying on it here and in the lead.

  Corrected page number. It's on p. 129, it's Benedict XV homily "The noble nation's lively devotion to Joan of Arc, the venerable saviour of her country, will be of great spiritual benefit to her". Sexsmith also mentions Jules Michelet popularizing her as savior of her country as well on p. 127, but I didn't mention it. Wtfiv (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Source review
  • I'm reviewing a random selection of 36 citations (16 22 34 37 43 60 61 71 83 85 89 93 99 103 107 125 142 143 153 162 188 206 211 219 240 248 251 252 294 298 299 306 321 336 358 360). So far, things are looking pretty good. I intend to post any issues that aren't easily fixable below. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers Thank you for going through the sources in a way that is thorough, while being helpful in cleaning up those that were problematic. I know there's an ongoing discussion, but do you have other concerns you'd like me to address, or is the article about ready for a "keep"? Let me know, and again thank you for the positive and collaborative feedback! Wtfiv (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I have been (quite unhappily) entertained elsewhere, dealing with COI/paid editing in medical content, and have not been able to keep up here. When/if we reach the point where everyone is satisfied again, pls ping me to re-evaluate my keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for the prompt responses. I haven't finished my source review yet. Though most of the issues have been minor, there have been enough of them that a more widespread review might be worthwhile. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there are still link errors. And I'm sure there's more room to debate sources or cite-text matching. I love the idea of live links, it allows everyone to participate in the review process, but it does multiply errors and allow multiple challenges to source interpretation as every editor has access to the majority of the sources. I welcome anybody who wants to do a source review, as long as they will quietly correct the issues that are correctable, such as Firefangledfeather has done. Wtfiv (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Having finished the 36 sources, I'm feeling good about the sourcing and citations. Only lingering issues are:

• Citation 16, "peasant farmer". Vale says "daughter, not of a peasant" and Devries uses "laborers" and "farmers". I know this was discussed before, but if there aren't sources that explicitly use "peasant", I'd go for something like "farmer".

• Replaced DeVries and Vale with Gies, who states peasant on the first page. Wtfiv (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Citation 294, "by the end of her canonization trial in 1903, her visions were seen as part of that mission". Kelly doesn't support this, at least not near the cited pages. I'm missing oodles of context when it comes to Catholic canonization proceedings, so I might have missed something. The bit about Leo is fine but it's on 222.

• Updated page number. Deleted point. Left it with her mission was determined to be divine. The status of Joan's voices remain open, even within hte church.

I don't plan on doing anymore. I really mean this: it was a joy to work with such accessible and accessibly-formatted citations. Wftiv, my sincere congratulations and gratitude. It would be very helpful to me if you (or anyone) could tell me who else to thank for the effort that went into this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That's so thoughtful, Firefanglefeathers, I'd say right now, as we may be approaching the FARC finish line, SandyGeorgia and her incredible skills at cooking up an amazing stone soup deserves much credit, and whose willingness to really go through the sources and debate the nuancing of the wording when the article was stuck at an impasse was critical. John's kind and insightful editing has cleaned up a myriad of infelicities and help create an article whose prose is looking quite strong. There are always those Wikignomes, whose subtle touches have quietly cleaned things up (such as fixing different article and then updating the link here to make the it more helpful and precise.) And finally, all the reviewers of course: particularly, those of you who I felt were supporting the article through your collaborative editing: you, Extraordinary Writ, Victoria. Z1920 earlier review pointed toward the hope that this article was salvagable. And there's Aza24, whose quiet reassurance kept me going when I wanted to throw in the towel. (I had no idea what I was getting into when I started.) All of this seems a bit premature, as it looks like there is a bit more work to do (though at least if feel close to closing), but my sense of gratitude is felt now and sincere, and I'm glad you asked. Wtfiv (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A much more thorough response than I expected. I should have specified I meant "effort that went into the fully linked citations"! Thanks for the history. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the fully linked citations is a Wtfiv specialty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Further issues: Visions, Prophecies, and Sources

Victoria I've pulled out recent concerns you've raised that led to the temporary striking of the "keep", and moved them to a new section so we can track them amidst the crazy threading. (The "reply" is bouncing a lot of them.) This will allow us to ensure that the concerns are not scattered throughout FFF and the keep discussion. The very first statement was pulled from an ongoing thread. Sandy, I'm checking with you to make sure I haven't broken some rule of archive integrity. Please revert if I have. I'm wondering if this shouldn't be move to the talk page?

Visions

These sentences are now quite awkward ("Joan's visions have been speculated to be a product of creative psychopathy induced by her early childhood rearing;[301] and the visions' specific details to have been created by the demands of the interrogators at her trial.[302]". There's no way of knowing and since the people who had her put to death for having visions kept the record it's even murkier. Perhaps recast as something like "The various explanations for Joan's visions include psychopathy induced by her early childhood rearing." Likewise the bit re interrogators needs recasting. Do scholars believe she embellished to please the interrogators or that the trial record imbellishes? Victoria (tk) 00:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I like the recast, though AFAIK we need to keep the "creative" in "creative pyschopathy". My quick skim of the citations for the interrogators bit suggests they're theorizing she embellished at the prompting of the assessors. I could take a stab at some language if Wtfiv doesn't get to it first. I think separating this bit from the medical/psychological theories is sensible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Wftiv: is this thread on your radar? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers Thanks for the ping. As you can tell, I'm a bit overwhelmed with the complexity of the conversation, but it remains interesting and I want to make sure I'm not ignoring anything. Please recast. I agree that the "creative" in psychopathy has to be kept, as Henderson's point is that this is a special kind of coping, and a different expression that what we typically think of as "psychopathy", though it is related to his study of children and psychopathology. I think separating out the two could be fine.

Victoria I think some of my comments are lost in the threading too. A look at the links will show that each are implying that Joan embellished based on the demand characteristics of the interrogation itself, in the sense of reconstructive memory or false memories. Sullivan in particular, who did an in-depth scholarly review of Joan's responses to the interrogator gives the best responses. It's interesting in that each of these authors seem to agree, but come at it slightly differently. Wtfiv (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, the rewrite looks good. It feels cleaner. Wtfiv (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• We can't claim in wiki voice that Joan's visions were caused by epilepsy. It's okay to put these various theories in a footnote, but we can't make 700 yr old forensic diagnoses. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I'll take a look at the sources, but the epilepsy diagnosis surprised me. If it goes in the main text, it's best to attribute. Lots of discussion during the Vincent van Gogh push, including input from a physician, resulted in the version that still stands, see Vincent van Gogh#Death, third para. We might need consensus on how to do this.

    The goal of this section is not to make the claim that Joan has any of these diagnoses. Rather, it is to fairly register that these claims to diagnosis have been made. The final "pushback" sentence and its citation make the points you have made: (1) And there have been other researchers who have challenged these claims. (2) A 700 year trial record can't be used as a diagnostic tool. I think the end, leaves the reader in a great place to make her or his own conclusions.

    What looks like "wiki voice" is my attempt to acknowledge the claims without miring the article in the names of the people who make those claims. Please see my statement on how my design goals for the article- keep expert names out of main space if at all possible and focus on citing what is available to readers- in the post that follows.

    Ny design goals are merely personal. I accept that other editors may need to ignore those design decision if they are feel too restrictive, too inconsistent, or lead to the perception that the article is misrepresentative. As mentioned below, please feel free to rewrite this section to acheive the balance you think it needs. Wtfiv (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Victoria (tk) 18:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Wtfiv, adding to the above comment: are we sourcing only to the abstracts or the complete articles, page numbers and all? Victoria (tk) 19:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

    This section is an inheritance that I did my best to source and expand when possible. I think the epilepsy diagnosis comes from multiple sources.I just went with the representative set available. Here's a few: I'll add more as I find them.

    d'Orsi and Tinipur (2014), cited in text

    Foote-Smith & Bayne (1991), cited in text.

    Muhammed (2013) A retrospective diagnosis of epilepsy in three historical figures: St Paul, Joan of Arc and Socrates. Journal of Medical Biography

    Castor mentions Butterfield and Butterfield (1958), but I could find no citation.

    My goal is source accessibility whenever possible, so I am admittedly inconsistent on using text or abstract. If there is a linkable source that readers can use to verify without assuming we're getting it right, I go with it. If only the abstract is available, I use that, citing it as the citation "location". In a few cases, when I'm stuck using a paywalled sight, I give the relevant quote in the citation. (I realize that I didn't do so well with JSTOR. I thought my links would open to the relevant page number for readers without a subscription, but they don't.)

    Please free to rewrite as you feel is appropriate. I do request that we keep the names of experts, scholars, and academics who are not direct actors in the narrative stay out of main text. To me it is far too much an implicit ad veracundum that functions like a kind of academic advertising. ("Pick a controversial position, get your name in Wikipedia mainspace") My own feeling is that is a scholar has an opinion, it can be stated in such a way that it can stand on its own, and the person making the claim remains in the background in the citation. If we can, I'd like to maintain that style. If not, that's fine, as long as we can achieve a wording that feels comfortable for all reviewers. Wtfiv (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

    Wtfiv No, sorry, I'm unable to rewrite. It's in Sandy's, bailliwick but I thought we didn't make medical diagnoses based on abstracts only. I was simply curious if that's what was happening and know now the answer is yes. Victoria (tk) 23:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

    Some of these could be referenced without an abstract, but I'm trying to keep the article within the limitation of using publically accessable sources. But, they're not really diagnoses anyway. They are more just suppositions and hypothesis, presented in the form of diagnosis. The word diagnosis has been avoided in the section, due to almost all the evidence being based on testimony by a defendant in a trial record. These assertions are out there and part of popular culture. They've been part of Joan lore for decades, so I think it's a good idea for them to be acknowledged and addressed. Wtfiv (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

    Victoria I'm thinking further about this. I wouldn't say the points reside simply on the abstract, even for these suppositions. The extrawiki link in sfn goes to the abstract, but there is still the reference to the doi in sources. I think this is a win-win for readers.

    • This linking methodology helps readers without access (e.g., due to lack of money or lack of university, college or resource that purchases access). They can still link to verify that the source is making the point stated in the article without trusting the editors.
    • But the source reference also links to the entire article for those who have the cultural capital to leap over the pay wall. Allowing them the privilege to do a more detailed verification and to draw their own conclusions about the validity of the argument.

    When I was doing my editing for this section many moons ago, I tried to get hold of these articles so I ensure they said what the abstract summarized the argument. I was able to obtain two on them related to epilepsy: d'Orsi & Tinipur (2006); Nicastro and Fabienne.(2016) Both go into more detail. I wasn't able to verify Foot-smith and Bayne beyond the abstract. I did get access to another by d'Orsi & Tinipur (2016), a follow-up letter to the editor, which is more cautious and focused more on wondering about the genetic component. The points made in these articles seem to reflect what is what is summarized in the abstract. But again the available "evidence" is based on Joan's trial and rehabilitation. For the refutations, I was able to get hold of a copy of Hughes (2005), but not Nores and Yakovleff (1995).

    What is your preference for citation style so we acknowledge their point in the full article without taking up mainspace on conjectures based on trial evidence? Here's some suggestions:

    • Just give article name and date without page numbers, as page numbers are in the source? This would denote the entire article is referenced, I'd imagine.
    • Should we cite the article page numbers in sfn without a link?
    • For those articles I have been able to get copies of, could I try and find a summary statement in the main article, give the page number in sfn, and quote it in a postscript for those who don't have access. (Like I did for deToffel, 2016)?

    Or, is there an alternative citation style you prefer? Wtfiv (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

    Oops...only saw the history now, Victoria, where you said no reply was needed, and you're heading off for a bit.. That way we can leave it quiet so Nikkimaria can do whatever magic is required. We can pick this up later, it doesn't impact the article at this point. Wtfiv (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Prophecies

• Footnote d appears to be taking a side in an academic debate. We've framed some historians' (Gies, Harrison) points as assumptions and are highlighting another's (Adams) as the correct view. Is this a consensus view of modern historians? Can we rephrase to avoid taking a side? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Firefangledfeathers, this is based on a remark I made here. To point the blame squarely at Isabeau of Bavaria goes against the revaluation of her by historians in the past couple of decades. I believe it's important not to use wiki voice to give absolute credence to a specific so-called prophecy (there were several, depending on pamphleteers representing various political parties) which may or may or may not have existed but made its way through to the hagiography of Joan to the detriment of the Queen of France. If that makes sense? Victoria (tk) 21:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Adding, will take a look at Adams and post her sources. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Okay, adding more. I extended the comment here. Looking at Adams, she says re the prophecy ... "a specific example cannot be tracked down. The Maid herself is said to have stated that France, having been lost through a woman [this was said about Isabeau] would be restored by a virgin. The statement is reported in Joan's Process en nullite in 1455." Adams goes on to say that Joan proclaimed to her uncle, Durandus, that she was the savior of France, who took her Vaucouleurs based on her [Joan's] belief she was the virgin to save France. The text I quoted and paraphrased is cited to the testimony of the uncle and the Process en Nullite. (Sorry, I'm rushing and haven't bothered with the proper accents on the title.) In other words, I'd oppose if we stated in wiki voice that this was a well-known prophecy that definitely indicates Joan/Isabeau. Victoria (tk) 21:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  • In most of the sources, the Woman is thought to refer to Isabeau. Here's a quick sample: Pernoud, 1962, p. 44, Taylor, 2009, DeVries, 1999 p. 40, Lucie-Smith 1976 (Lucie-Smith- and others- put it with an Eve/Mary (vs. woman/virgin) twist), the ancient, venerable, and legally-minded Francis Cabot Lowell p. 88, Castor, 2015, p. 234, the sometimes snarky Guillemin, 1973, p. 36, Warner, 1981, p. 26-27, and even Barstow, 1986, p. 47, who strongly objects to almost all of Warner's points, still agrees on this one, and the oft-berated Sackville-West, p. 72 gives the Latin quote from the rehabilitation trial by the witness, Durand Lassois. In other sources, the prophecy may not be mentioned, but I haven't seen an alternative provided.
  • An earlier FARC reviewer who worked on the Isabeau of Bavaria article, wanted mention of the other side, as Adam's work on Isabeau aims to rehabilitate her reputation. I saw the point and put it in. Any suggestions how to word it in a way that's fair and respects the other reviewer? (Without citation stacking, of course.)

  Wtfiv (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  "[A]ims to rehabilitate" isn't exactly the right way to put it. Anyway, I don't feel well enough at the moment for this, but many of those sources are older. Knowing where the "prophecy" originated is important in my view. The FARC is reviewer, btw, is moi. Victoria (tk) 22:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't want to name the reviewer as I wanted the focus to be on the point not the person who raised it. My reply stated that I thought the point should be considered despite the large consensus view. Wtfiv (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  The problem here is that the prophecy isn't discussed in terms of origin, but in terms of how it was seen by Joan and her colleagues at the time, which falls out of Durand Lassois testimony. Wtfiv (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, had to go offline for a while and will be going offline again shortly. Yes, the propaganda in Paris called Isabeau the woman who gave away France. On the day the Treaty of Troyes was to be signed, the king, Charles VI, experienced one of his bouts of incapacitating mental illness and had his wife Isabeau sign. It was an unpopular treaty, to say the least, giving a royal daughter in marriage to the King of England, Henry V, and stipulating the issue from their marriage would inherit the French throne, rather than their son Charles. Both king and queen considered their only surviving son (at least four sons (sorry doing this off the top of my head) had died) unfit for rulership because of the Assassination of John the Fearless, his father's, Charles VI's cousin and the royal duke of Burgandy. At issue here is not who is who in the prophecy but rather where it orginated. Adams indicates there's no evidence of that prophecy before Joan's short period of attempting to put the disgraced dauphin on the throne. If so, we shouldn't put the prophecy in wiki voice. I've not had the opportunity to check, but do the other sources say the prophecy proceeded the advent of Joan's period of activity? Victoria (tk) 23:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Adding; have now looked at most of the links Wtfiv supplies above, almost all are quoting Joan herself.Victoria (tk) 00:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree. I suspect the whole "prophecy" was a bit of Valois propaganda to weaken the popular validity of the Treaty of Troyes though blaming a woman. Just like the Burgundian-English tried to discredit Charles by accusing Isabeau of adultery. But here, I think the issue is that the propaganda was seen by Joan and her cohort, and less one of historical origins. I'm open to any solution that satisfies both FARC editors.
  • (As an aside, I know many editors don't care for the older sources. We need not rely on them, and I usually accompany them with another more recent sourcebut personally I think the analyses of these older sources- particularly when managing historical resources that are fairly stable- are not invalidated by time. But I feel they can still provide rich insight. For example, Lowell's legal thinking shines through many of the issues in the article. Pernoud too, her thorough analysis of the documentation is meticulous. I'm convinced her work is one of the the ur-sources for many of the "newer" versions. But that's tangential to the central point of our discussion. And there's plenty of newer sources that still insist its Isabeau. The issue is to word it to the satisfaction of all.)

  Wtfiv (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Here's a possible solution that I've put into the article: The prophecy is assumed to refer to Isabeau, who signed the treaty of Troyes, but but it is unclear if it originally did. Feel free to offer others. Wtfiv (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It was actually Armagnac if I remember correctly and certainly pro-dauphin/Charles (VII) propaganda. But that's beside the point here to an extent. The point we need to get correct is this: Our article says "During Joan's youth, there were two prophecies circulating in the French countryside. One promised that a maid from the borderlands of Lorraine would come forth to work miracles, and the other was that France had been lost by a woman, but would be restored by a virgin.[59][d]". Fraioli says "There were in the time two prophecies in circulation that may have predisposed Joan or her potential supporters in her favor. The first promised that a maid would come from the Lorraine borderland 'who would work miracles'. The second, according the Joan's relative Durand Laxalt she herself used to convince him to take her to the dauphin". The second one purportedly is the one about (paraphrasing) "France lost by a woman, saved by a virgin" doesn't seem to exist before Joan mentions it.[6] Tracy Adams says on p. 47 that an "explicit example" of the prophecy cannot be tracked down. (Sorry, no link, the book is next to my laptop). That's what the note should emphasize. Unfortunately I misread it earlier. Victoria (tk) 01:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I tend to blur Valois/Armagnac, which is sloppy, due to my "Joan" lens in this article. After all the Armagnac, like the Burgundians, would ally with wherever the power gain was. Though the Armagnac pretty much stuck with Charles after Joan. Anyway, the "virgin" myth issue is addressed below. Wtfiv (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep talking this through, but I do think Wtfiv's "possible solution", already implemented, is an improvement. Enough of one that it's not a FA-stopper for me. Link to Adams for anyone else following this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

There's no doubt it refers to Isabeau. The point is that Joan seems be the only person to have heard of that specific "prophecy" about a virgin saving France. It would be nice if there could be consistency between the two articles. But I'm too tired at this point to care. Victoria (tk) 01:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry! As I read Adams p. 47, she seems to be saying that the prophecy did exist before Joan, or the Treaty of Troyes. The thing she seems to be doubting is specifically whether its a reference to Isabeau, or whether it would have been seen that way by 15th century French people, including Joan. Am I misreading? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm the person misreading - hadn't noted the page range. Page 47, beneath the section header, 2nd para: "However a specific example cannot be tracked down". Then an explanation (repeating myself from above) that that specific prophecy can only be traced to Joan herself. The subsequent pages explain the evolution of the prophecy in the next few sentences, question whether Isabeau is meant, and on page 49 the section ends with "...that Isabeau was commonly slotted into the prophecy is not supported by the evidence". In that case it's probably ok. I'll change the page range on the Isabeau article. Btw - I commented re visions above but didn't ping. Not sure if anyone noticed. Victoria (tk) 01:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• It sounds like the solution will work?
• Joan's reference to a virgin saving France is sourced to the "Merlin prophecies". I think Warner, 1981, p. 25 does the finest job of summarizing. Barstow, 1986, p. 48 mentions it in passing too. Gies, 1981 p. 31 and Harrison, 2014 p. 7 gives a larger context. I like Harrison's description in terms of addressing in terms of the misogyny of the time, though she does not mention the critical idea of "virgin". (It just struck me that Taylor, 2009 may have something more to add Taylor's elaboration focuses on Marie Robine of Avignon.) This conversation opens up further role of women's voice at this time, which is fascinating.. But all of this amplifies beyond the scope of this article, I think, which sets up the the "woman" for a contrast to the "virgin" or "pucelle".

Wtfiv (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Victoria Firefangledfeathers, Reworking prophecies a bit more to achieve a version satisfactory to all. This nuances the prophecies floating about: The Merlin Prophecies and Marie Robine. Then mentioning Joan sharing a saying (sources support this wording). No implications of a larger sense in the culture, given lack of evidence. Footnote still present, but just addressing the word "woman". Here's the text sans citations: During Joan's youth, there were prophecies circulating in the French countryside that promised a maiden from the borderlands of Lorraine would come forth to work miracles, and that an armed maiden would come to save France. Joan implied she was this promised maiden, reminding the people around her that there was a saying that France would be destroyed by a woman but would be restored by a virgin. Footnote is same as before with change to first words: The woman is thought to be...

Does this work? Wtfiv (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's better to pin to a particular prophecy. It's better to pin to Marie Robine of Avignon's prophecy, who met w/ Charles VI and and "told him [Charles VI] that the realm of France would suffer greatly and sustain numerous calamaties ... In particular she saw large plates of armor presented to her. She was terror-stricken, fearing she would be forced to wear armor herself, but was told not to be afraid, that she would not carry weapons. But after her there would come a maiden would be armed and deliver France from its enemies."[7] I don't think this quite matches w/ what our text says about "a maiden from the borderlands of Lorraine" (cited to Fraioli, but I can't see her note. We absolutely should not use Harrison. She's a novelist, not a historian and her book is not what I consider the best scholarly source. Since there are many sources available, we do need to be using the best.

As for the note, it's changed a few times in the last few days. The current version reads, "The woman in this saying is assumed to refer to Isabeau of Bavaria,[62] who signed the treaty of Troyes, but it is unclear if it originally did" >> this implies that it does now refer to Isabeau, whereas it didn't during Joan's time, which doesn't really make sense. The better version is this this one, saying "The prophecy is assumed to refer to Isabeau, who signed the treaty of Troyes, but the evidence that it does is not clear." Victoria (tk) 18:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

How about "Some historians write that the prophecy referred to Isabeau, who signed the treaty of Troyes.[bunch of citations] Other historians say the evidence is not clear.[Adams + anyone else]"? Based solely on Adams, I'm discomfited at the idea of presenting a bunch of historians' work as assumptions and then presenting Adams' analysis of the evidence as the wiki-voice truth. I am speaking from a position of ignorance here, and I'm very willing to hear that a major historiographical shift has happened such that everyone now agrees the evidence is lacking. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers This article had lots of "historians debate" footnotes, and FARC reviewers dinged it for too many footnotes and asides. My thought is to keep the historians in the background, if we can. Victoria has stated she's willing to let it go, and the way it is written catches the inconclusive nature of the assumption, so I think we are set.

I'm inclined to give this one up. Adams doesn't deny that historians believe it refers to Isabeau, she simply casts doubt as to whether they did at the time. Either I'm not explaining well, it's too nuanced, or, frankly, who cares? Victoria (tk) 19:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers and Wtfiv I edited the note. We should just let this go. Victoria (tk) 20:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for editing it, Victoria! Wtfiv (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers see above; I removed it. The ping to you didn't go through. Victoria (tk) 20:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Victoriaearle Thank you for the simplifying edit, but I think a clause with Adam's qualification that it is uncertain is warranted. Are you okay with adding it back? Wtfiv (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Victoria. Please take a look at this rewrite, and let me know what you think. Here's the summary:

• Two prophecies, one from Robin Marine; the other from Merlin. Both are explicitley mentioned, some of these sources have quotes or point toward primary sources.
• Removed reference to "Lorraine". Even Fraioli (2005) references it. But she, like all the other sources, do not point toward a primary source that I could find in any of the one's I'm aware of.
• I returned the caveat about the reference refering to Isabeau. I put back Adams, but found an ally in Fraioli (2000), who gently expresses doubt. So both are now citations in the footnote.
• Joan's version is not given any significance beyond her citing it to justify her calling. (Though I'd be willing to believe it is part of oral history.)
• I kept Harrison, but she's not stand alone. I think this is my philosophy of reference. I think the authors often couch things in ways that the academics do not. They also raise provocative issues. But I don't cite them alone. What I like about Harrison (and Sackville-West, for similar reasons) is the claims I quote almost always come accompanied with a source. Harrison's citations are at the back of the book, so as not to interrupt flow, but they are there and I look at them. In this case, she's pointing toward's Craig Taylor Joan sourcebook. If Harrison is seen to compromise the argument, please delete. Are we close? Or, fingers crossed, have we arrived at solution that comes close to addressing the concerns raised?

Wtfiv (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This version (permalink) is close, for me. I can't speak for Victoria, but I see her last couple of comments as signaling strong desire to stop engaging on this issue, at least for now. What gripes and grumbles I have are not enough to keep from a 'keep'. I'm a bit of princess, but I can't feel the pea under this many mattresses. I would be amenable to further discussion at the talk page in a few weeks or so, and I hope V could join. In the meantime, if anyone knows of other sources holding something similar to the Adams/Fraioli view, please let me know. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I do apologize Victoria, if I didn't respect that you were done with this. I just want to make sure that a concern got addressed that I felt still had not been adequately acknowledged. I'd like the final article to adequately reflect your concern. If my continuing to think about this is just bothersome, please revert the wording to a previous stopping point or correct, and we'll call it day for now. Wtfiv (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Wftiv, I really need to be offline for a few days, but it's best to button things up so Nikkimaria knows what's what. What you've done here is fine, if I'm following correctly. I'll probably spin it out a bit in the Isabeau page as well so as to make a better match between the two articles. Victoria (tk) 23:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• I'm not sure there's been a lot of substantive changes, but this is what the FAR is for. Let me know if there's more to change. Wtfiv (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Victoria Here's the diff between SandyGeorgia's edit near the time of your "Keep" above, and where we are now as of my signature below. Here's the summary of what I'm seeing in the prophecies, as well as the "Clothing" and "Vision" sections you mentioned.

  • Prophecy- the footnote has been changed. This is part of our ongoing discussion, this looks like it might work?
  • "Clothing" changed "sign she was listening to her visions again" to "sign she had relapsed into heresy", to hew closer to the context of the abjuration trial.
  • "Visions" has slightly more changes, but not large ones:

  • Added a "pushback" clause to the critique of the diagnoses was added. This gives context to the unchanged footnote of examples.
  • The sentences describing some of the suggested etiologies have a more active voice.
  • Taylor 2009 added as a source.

  The FARC conversation has been quite lively though, and just talking about these issues feels like big changes! Wtfiv (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's a temporary striking so that I can go through the edits that have been made since. Also I was unaware of the tranche of unaddressed comments. Finally, I hadn't looked at Harrison who's recently been added as a source. I'm unclear why Kathryn Harrison has been added throughout. She clearly doesn't rise to the level of best scholarly sources given the many many other sources available on the topic. Victoria (tk) 18:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  There is no claim made that rests on Harrison's book. I added it because it is a fairly recent biography of Joan. The prose is often well-crafted and when making a claim, is well-cited. I'm not sure I always agree with Harrison's metaphors and analogies, but I tried to ensure every claim and description she makes is sourced in her citations at the back of the book. She is never a stand-alone source either. I put her in a category like Sackville-West. Sackville-West has unique interpretations and prose worth reading, even if I'm not in agreement with the interpretation. But she does ground her narrative in source material. Sackville-West often uses the primary sources; For example, she cited Durand's testimony in Latin from the nullification trial, just as Adams does. Harrison often cites secondary material. I particularly appreciate that Harrison reads Joan's story against the later mythologies (e.g., Shaw), though she is explicit when she does so, and none of these readings are cited within this article.

  A large number of biographies cite works- often as a single source citation- by people who are professional writers unaffiliated with a university. If any reviewer who feels that independent works from respected publishers, like Harrison's, should be removed, I will not argue. Please feel free to remove them. But I do request that I not be required to do so myself as a prerequisite to a "keep". Though nothing they add is essential to the citation integrity of this article, I feel these authors and their wording enrich it immensely, adding perspective and dimension through the art of their prose. Wtfiv (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thinking more. I discovered Harrison late. I realized it was one of the most recent biographies, and looking at it, I felt her use of the sources compares well with some of the others in the book, and in some cases is more careful. But that is mere opinion.

  The issue is might also be perspective. Each biography sees her through a lens. For example, Pernoud definitely sees her as a Catholic saint, she rigorously hews to the data as she knows, but will explain it- and sometimes circumpect Joan issues- in a way that is biased to that account.

  Similar, Barstow, an academic see Joan as a Shaman; J. Taylor talks more about her being socially influenced by the larger socio-political forces. Warner (who in my opinion compares very well to Barstow) rigorously sees her in her role as woman hero. I admit Sackville's West's conjectures tend toward a Bloomsbury feminism, and the provacative, sometimes overreaching conclusions she draws can get her into trouble. But when I cite her points, she is usually pointing toward primary text in French or Latin

  Admittedly, I like Harrison's writing, which added a new dimension, and I didn't feel she misrepresents what she claimed insofar as when she is referencing the facts of Joan's life. Often, I felt her explanations had an elegance that synthesized sources. But she does read Joan through the trope of comparing her to the life of Jesus. I don't think that bears on the citations, and I think it actually adds a thought-provoking perspective insofar as Joan does have that resonance, even in her early days when their was something approaching a mystery play put on about her. It almost felt like reading someone whose conjectures feel a bit like miniatures. But if this perspective is felt to bias the article too far, I respectfully understand it being removed. Wtfiv (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Wftiv, When there's time, I'll take my thoughts re Harrison to the article talk page. Not a deal breaker imo, just as issue of not introducing extraneous sources in the edit window, particularly by non-historians. Victoria (tk) 23:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I went off to deal with paid editing for three days, and lost the plot here, but I see six seven keeps scattered throughout the page. It looks like FFF is now satisfied, and Victoriaearle has reinstated her keep. But it's a mess up there ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Seven: Z1720, Extraordinary writ, Victoria (?), SG, Aza24, John, Firefangledfeathers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Victoria, it's hard to tell ... are you yet satisfied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whodunnit, but the way the medical ended up in the Visions section is excellent! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

All credit for that last edit goes to Firefangledfeathers. Wtfiv (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Updated citations in visions as proposed solution to reference ambiguity. Each citation now goes to an explicitly noted and linked page or abstract. Wtfiv (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, my comments have been split away from the keep and I've given up trying to follow or to fix. I still have some issues with Harrison but will bring it up on article talk page when I can. 17:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.