Wikipedia:Peer review/Isabeau of Bavaria/archive1

Isabeau of Bavaria

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for FAC and welcome outside perspective and more eyes.

Thanks, Victoria (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi! Victoria has invited me to comment, so I dropped by. The first thing I have to note is the lead image. The 19th-century fantasy portrait is hardly the best choice. This is a contemporary depiction and surely must be better than the 19th-century one. (Besides, the colours are brilliant!) I've taken the liberty to replace it; if you object, I won't mind discussing it further. Anyway, I've done some minor corrections as well. If I find any issues, I will write back. Good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• " Before the wedding, Isabeau negotiated a treaty with John the Fearless in which she clearly defined family hierarchy and her position in relation to the throne." How exactly did she do that? Did she describe herself as wife of the king or as mother of the future king? Surtsicna (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've added a note to explain that John the Fearless' rank, as cousin to the king, was documented as lower than his father (brother to a king) and Louis, Duke of Orleans (brother to a king). Victoria (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi! Victoria has invited me to comment, so I dropped by. The first thing I have to note is the lead image. The 19th-century fantasy portrait is hardly the best choice. This is a contemporary depiction and surely must be better than the 19th-century one. (Besides, the colours are brilliant!) I've taken the liberty to replace it; if you object, I won't mind discussing it further. Anyway, I've done some minor corrections as well. If I find any issues, I will write back. Good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Surtsicna, thanks for posting here. I disagree about the image, but as you brought it up earlier on the talk when I tried taking to FAC before, decided to hash it out here. I've found this image of a contemporary statue that I've be willing to use for the lead image; however, I don't know much about the website that's hosting the image and have to assume their information is correct - which could be an erroneous assumption. I very much would prefer to use the Harley manuscript image where it is now for the following reasons: the crop shows a partial image of a much more important and intimate scene, complete with the queen and her ladies in her chamber, and of course with Christine de Pizan presenting a book as a New Year's gift. It seems to me, per MOS:IMAGES, that particular scene illustrates the text to with which it's paired, done intentionally. I'd also like to hear from others, because my preference is for the 19th century image. Thanks.
• Oh and one more thing: I won't revert again, as it destabilizes the page and I'd very much prefer to maintain stability there so as to bring to FAC. I have currently in my possession a source that's overdue from an interloan library so it needs to go to FAC soon, or be left as it is, unreviewed. Victoria (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Lineage and marriage
  • "lavishing her with gifts" – oughtn't this to be "lavishing gifts on her", or alternatively "showering her with gifts"?
• Coronation
  • Touches of WP:OVERLINK perhaps: "knights" in particular.
  • "Rue de St Denis" – I don't know what it was called in 1389, and I defer to your superior knowledge, but I know it as the Rue Saint-Denis (and, ahem, it isn't burghers lining the street these days)
  • Does the quoted source really give the plural "fleurs-des-lys"? I think the usual plural is "fleurs-de-lis", but if the source uses the former spelling, so be it. Worth a blue-link, too, perhaps. And the direct quote should be cited.
  • "Pageants" – blue link really wanted?
• Charles' illness
  • Second para – more overlinking, I'd say: "wild men" and "ball"
  • "the Little queen" – does the source really capitalise the adjective but not the noun?
• Court politics and intrigue
  • "councilors" – an unfamiliar spelling: perhaps a US-v-UK difference. Just checking.
  • "She was described as "small and brunette, or tall and blonde"" – citation needed for this direct quote.
• Political factions
  • "enacted by the King's" – perhaps just "enacted by his…"?
  • "as his bouts of illness" – I think you need "the King's" or "Charles'" here
  • "between the Orléanist and Burgundians" – Orléanists plural?
• Orléans' assassination and aftermath
  • "was driven by greed, planned" – is there an "and" missing here?
  • "As Henry V had passed earlier the same year" – what had he passed? I think plain "died" is much preferable
  • "per the terms of the Treaty" – on the old principle "prefer good English to bad Latin" I'd ditch the "per" and say "as laid down in" or some such
  • "improbable because Joan of Arc may have been born later than Orléans' assassination" – more than nine months later, presumably
• Reputation and legacy
  • First para: "a viewpoint that began to shift in the latter half of the 20th century"; second para: "historians reassessed her reputation in the late 20th century"" – repetitious
  • "She goes on to say that de Sade knew the charges against Isabeau to be groundless because "he scolds the 15th century chroniclers for failing to report the [full] story of the adulterous queen"" – I don't quite follow this; the quotation reads as though Sade believed that the queen was adulterous.
• Patronage
  • "She also exchanged" – it's a long time since the last mention of Isabeau's name, and it's wanted here, I think, rather than "She".
  • " Countess of Hainault…" and "John, be sent to Hainault" – Earlier on you call it Hainaut. It would be a kindness to English readers if you used the same spelling here, as we think of Hainault as a place on the London Underground, and one has a mad fleeting image of Isabeau travelling on the Central line.
• Bibliography
  • "No ISBN for Hedeman?

That's all from me. I enjoyed this article, and learned a lot from it. It's a pleasure to read, and you've managed to make the complicated cast of characters distinguishable from one another, which can't have been easy. Please let me know when you take it to FA. – Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the close reading. A few replies here:

• source gives the plural "fleurs-des-lis" > haven't clue why I spelled it "lys"
• I've decided to keep the link to pageant but modified slightly, only because medieval pageants, I think, were somewhat different. Certainly different than what a pageant is in the US. Same logic applies to ball, but made consistent w/ Bal des Ardents
• Dunno if Engvar or not, but in the US a councilor sits on a council; a counselor gives counsel - usually legal or personal.
• Hedeman is an e-book and I've tweaked to show that. Can't find and ISBN.

• Otherwise I think I got everything. I'll let you know when it goes to FAC. Thanks again and thanks for the nice words. The cast of characters turned out to be more complicated than I expected when I began this seemingly simple bit of writing. Victoria (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"the Merovingians from Charlemagne"

Does your source really say "the Merovingians from Charlemagne"? I am mainly concern because no royal family in the world can accurately trace their descent from a Merovingian king. The Carolingian only have some obscure connections written down centuries after the Frankish kingdoms that Pepin the Short had ancestors who may have been Merovingians. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 1#Merovingian bloodlines. Do you mean to say Carolingian? The Wittelsbachs' fame like all noble families in Europe comes from their power not their descent from Charlemagne, and a family's fame via ancestry usually comes from its nearest famous ancestor not if or if they didn't descend from Charlemagne since virtually all royals and nobles by her time had some connection to Charlemagne even a Count of Supplinburg who became Holy Roman Emperor. The Wittelsbachs were famous because they ruled Bavaria and because Isabeau's great-grandfather was the Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. The source says: "The Wittelsbachs of Bavaria had a long illustrious heritage; they were descended from the Merovingians and Charlemagne, and Elisabeth's great-grandfather had been elected Emperor as Ludwig IV in 1314." (page 52) Source: Gibbons, Rachel. (1996). "Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of France (1385–1422). The Creation of a Historical Villainess". Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Volume 6, 51–73

Just to add, I consider the source credible because Gibbons won a prize for this particular piece - can't remember which off the top of my head, but can look it up. I don't really know what to say, if you disagree, but we should sort it out so as to keep the article stable. Thanks for asking. Victoria (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Any price-winning author can use a faulty secondary source and make a mistake on a really miniscule part of his work and still write a good book. The fact is summed up by User:Ghirlandajo in that discussion I linked above: "Christian Settipani in Les ancêtres de Charlemagne has offered a plethora of lines of descent from the Merovingians to the Carolingians, only to conclude that none of them should be regarded as certain. There is too little documentation from the Dark Ages to substantiate any line of descent. Any genealogical reconstruction of a Merovingian descent still involves a good deal of speculation."--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Also could you incorporate the gallery at the bottom into the article or remove it? I personally dislike the gallery template since it just clutters the article, but that's my own opinion.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Can you give a suggestion as how to reword?
• Do you mean to remove the picture gallery of the children? Victoria (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe change it to "Hers was the ancient and well-established Wittelsbach family, descended from Charlemagne, and she was great-granddaughter to Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV."...removing "Merovingian" and the quotation marks. I find the "descended from Charlemagne" unnecessary too, but I will leave that up to you since that isn't a descent that is debated. Also, yes I think the gallery of her children should be deleted or integrated into the article like the rest of the images.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks, I've used the suggested wording. Regarding the picture gallery: I recently boosted the size of and perhaps that was causing a problem. I've put it back to the smaller size. I would incorporate if the section were larger but it's impossible with that amount of text to image ratio, so the gallery is the only solution. I would like to keep it because the images are free, show the children, and some are examples of quite good miniatures by well-known artists, e.g, the Fouquet. I'll be nominating this for WP:FAC fairly soon (you'll notice when the template is added to the article), and you're welcome to comment there about it. Perhaps some of the other reviewers, or even the reviewers here, have an opinion. I'd prefer to get more input before changing the images. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I was truly surprised at the suggestion that the gallery clutters up the article. I think it does just the opposite, and is a welcome inclusion. As to the screen size, I have been advised by a Wikipedia luminary that there are so many different sizes of screen, from hand-held devices to wide-screen laptops, in use nowadays that you can't cater for all of them, and it is probably best to stick to default sizes. Tim riley (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)