Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/House of Plantagenet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

House of Plantagenet[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

House of Plantagenet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has undergone significant rework since failing at FAC back 2013. The key challenge was then about separating the history of the period from the storyof the family. @Sabrebd: did some great work stripping out the history into the more generic articles of the period and I have beefed up the family content. It is certainly better than what it was as a GA but is it good enough to be promoted? Two subsequent peer review haven't provided anything significant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review: All the images appear to be freely licenced without any real problems but nowhere in the previous nominations or review do I see anyone asking about the alt text for images. Most images do not have alt text so you should fix that. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your effort but alt text is supposed to describe the image to people who have poor or no sight so the name of a person may often mean nothing to them. Think about it in their terms if you were having a text reading application read the file information. You need to describe in simple word what the picture shows. There is an instructive page WP:ALT which I hope helps you. ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second attempt at the alt txt - I think it is better but didn't really find WP:ALT helpful. I think a text reader would now explain these clearly but I'm not blind so what would I know. I am now off to Calabria for a couple of weeks so there may be a delay in my future responses in that period. Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: I had a larger review typed out, but the browser gobbled it up, sorry, so just a couple of comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)—don't you just hate it when that happens? :-)Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • watch for overlink. If you install this script, it will highlight the terms that are potentially overlinked: User:Ucucha/duplinks;
  • Thanks for the tool, very useful and now done for all visible text. Thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography there is probably no requirement to include page numbers for books unless citing a specific chapter
  • in the Bibliography, for the foreign language titles, please include a translation. This can be included in the cite book template using the "trans_title=" parameter
  • this sentence probably needs a citation: "Two further failed invasions supported by Margaret using Perkin Warbeck pretending to be Edward IV's son Richard of Shrewsbury, and Warbeck's later escape, implicated Warwick, who was executed in 1499."
  • for the works that are too old for an ISBN, there is probably an OCLC number available, e.g. "The History of France, from the final partition of the Empire of Charlemagne to the Peace of Cambray". You can search for OCLC numbers at worldcat.org

Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to comment on the content, but I'm happy with the changes that have been made since my review, so I've added my support. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

  • There is a contradiction in the first paragraph. You say the Plantagenets ruled England from 1154, and then that they were preceded by the Angevins. But the Angevins ruled from 1154, so saying that the Plantagenets ruled from then denies that a separate Angevin dynasty existed. This is a view taken by some historians, as you explain below. As you have a section on Angevin kings, you appear to take both views, which seems confusing. The New Oxford History of England and ODNB both regard Henry II and his sons as Angevins, not Plantegenets, and there is a Wikipedia article on the Angevins, so it would make more sense to me to start the article with Henry III. (Apologies if I am raising a question which has been discussed previously.)
  • No need to apologise Dudley, as you might guess this has caused immense debate and no real consensus. In the end we agreed that both views were valid—that the Angevins were distinct and also they were also part of this dynasty. Afterall Henry III was the son of John and Grandson of Henry II but there is a distinct change of political paradigms following the loss of Anjou. I have tried to reword para 1 to take your point into account and also make this clearer. Do you think it worked? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  • You describe Angevin Empire as a moniker. Moniker means nickname, which does not sound right. Why not just name? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, amended to your suggestion—I think this slipped in during a copy edit. Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Through Henry's fourth son, John, a line of fourteen English kings was produced." I would delete as superfluous and not strictly accurate. Richard I did not derive his claim from John.
  • "This was not necessarily due to the conscious intentions of the Plantagenets." This seems an indecisive comment. Perhaps "only partly due".
  • Some of the second and third paragraphs of the lead, especially on the major buildings and the economy are not supported by citations in the main text so far as I can see.
  • "Towards the end of the Plantagenet dynasty, England was in a pitiful state. The English economy was in ruins". It was a bad time for the upper classes, not for the common people. A demographic history I read (many years ago, so it may be dated) argued that the fifteenth century was a good time for the peasants, when the Black Death and subsequent plagues created labour shortages which allowed them to demand higher wages and get rid of feudal restrictions.
  • This is true. However, while the peasants had done well, overall the economy was in a crisis known as the Great Slump (15th century). C.S.L. Davies describes this as a deep commercial crisis caused in part by the loss of France, piracy and poor relations with the Hanseatic League. Higher wages and lower prices hit the landlords and employers hard e.g. the income of the duchy of Lancaster fell by a third between 1400 and 1470. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  • Your text gives the impression that everyone was doing badly, and your comments are not referenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra paragraph added to Lancastrian section to describe the state of the economy and also to differentiate between the peasantry and the economy as a whole This is supported by three separate references. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  • Plantagenet. According to ODNB on Henry II the term did not come into common usage among historians until the late 17C, which is worth mentioning.
  • "The birth reduced the risk that the king's realm would pass to his son-in-law's family" Why should the crown have passed to Geoffrey's family if he did not children by Matilda?
  • There was no precedent for a female monarch. If the couple assumed power Geoffrey would be King. If Matilda then predeceased him without heirs he would remain king and the risk would be he remarried and fathered a dynasty. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  • The article sometimes uses US spelling - rigor and quarreled.
  • "But Henry I quarreled with Count Geoffrey and Matilda about the succession." How quarreled? Did he not want Matilda to succeed?
  • He didn't want to hand over any power while he was still alive. Amended. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  • Henry's children - why mention Eleanour's marriage and not those of other children?
  • "Becket was an inept politician, whose defiance alienated the king and his counsellors." Is this the general judgment of historians? It is hard to believe that an inept politician could have become Henry's right hand man.
  • "Henry II gathered his children to plan a partible inheritance: his eldest son, William, would inherit England" Presumably eldest son Henry?
  • "'s Great Seal of 1189]]On the day " Typo.
  • "On the day of Richard's coronation, there was a massive slaughter of Jews, described by Richard of Devizes as a "holocaust" This is wrong. There was a riot at the coronation, but no slaughter. There were massacres in 1190.
  • This matches the source - Richard of Devizes said the Jews in London, who were destroyed that day. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  • Devizes is a long way from London and Richard may have received exaggerated reports. Gillingham in ODNB on Richard describes it as a riot, Carpenter in The Struggle for Mastery as one of a number of slaughters of Jews at that time. They both agree that the culmination of the attacks was the massacre at York the following year. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard was captured by Leopold while returning." Leopold had left the Crusade because Richard had humiliated him.
  • "On his accession, Edward I sought to organise his realm, enforcing his claims to primacy in the British Isles. At the time, Wales consisted of several princedoms, often in conflict with each other. Under the Treaty of Woodstock, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd ruled North Wales as a subordinate of the English king, but he exploited the English civil wars to strengthen his position as Prince of Wales, maintaining that he was "entirely separate from" England." The chronology seems confused here. Llywelyn must have exploited civil wars before Edward became kin.
Tidied. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  • "When Gaveston returned again to England, he was abducted and executed after a mock trial.[83] This brutal act drove Thomas and his adherents from power." "This brutal act" is POV.
  • "He is generally believed to have been murdered at Berkeley Castle by having a red-hot poker thrust into his bowels" This is dubious and based on Weir. It is not mentioned by ODNB, which says he was probably murdered but may have died of natural causes.
  • Not really dubious - he is widely believed to have died like this, although I have caveated this now to reflect the lack of evidence. Changed the cite to Schama, could equally have used Lee or Winston Churchill is the history of the english speaking peoples. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  • I do not know who you mean by Lee and Schama and Churchill are not medieval specialists. Phillips in ODNB does not mention it, as I said above, and Prestwich in Plantagenet England p. 219 says "very possibly". It is "widely believed" by popular and non-specialist historians. Experts are more cautious. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lee was quatercentary Professor of history at Wadham College, Oxford Uni. I have changed generally to popularly. The point of the sentence is that if any "fact" about E2 is generally known it is this, not whether it is based on historical fact. It was always clear as written that there was no evidence. The sources are perfectly adequate to support popular belief. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  • Carpenter in The Struggle for Mastery, p. 525, describes Edward II as "the most hopeless king to sit on the English throne", which might be worth quoting. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though removed from power, Isabella was treated well, living in luxury for the next 27 years.[" A bit odd? What else could Edward do with his mother?
  • " destructive chevauchées" A bit euphemistic for attempting to weaken the enemy by a scorched earth policy.
  • "Henry asserted that his mother had had legitimate rights through descent from Edmund Crouchback, whom he claimed to have been the elder son of Henry III of England, set aside due to deformity" - according to Weir - not mentioned in ODNB on Henry.
  • Quite widely sourcable - I have added another (Schama) to support. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  • Widely sourceable to popular and non-specialist historians. It is not mentioned by Harriss in Shaping the Nation or in ODNB on Henry. No doubt such a claim was made, with or without Henry's approval, but experts do not consider it significant enough to be worth mentioning. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You comment is not completely accurate, in fact Ian Mortimer (historian) describes it as so well known that it isn't worth repeating the detail. There are at least three contemporary chronicles that detail this. However, I have amended and sourced a reference. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  • "Many saw it as a punishment from God when Henry was later struck down with leprosy and epilepsy.[" ODNB says that this was disproved in the 19C when his body was examined and no sign of leprosy found.
  • "Humphrey's wife was accused of using witchcraft with the aim of putting him on the throne" Again wrong and based on Weir. According to ODNB on her she was accused of treasonable necromancy for employing fortune tellers who predicted that Henry would suffer a dangerous illness, but not of trying to put her husband on the throne.
  • Your revised wording is: "Humphrey's wife was accused of the reasonable act of using witchcraft to predict the kings death which would have put him on the throne, and Humphrey was later arrested and died in prison." This has a typo and is still not right. She was not accused of using witchcraft to predict the king's death but employing fortune tellers who predicted a dangerous illness. It is also still cited to Weir, even though it presumably is not what she said. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting article but I do not think it is ready for A Class. There is too much reliance on Weir, who does not seem a reliable source. I also think it has too much general history covered in other articles, but this is obviously a difficult matter of judgment. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weir is a thorough researcher if not an historian and is largely used for births, death, marriages only all of which are a matter of record rather historical interpretation. I've replaced the cites on the two pieces of history you challenged. What would help and be appreciated is if you could give some more detail on the general history you think can be excised. @SabreBD: did an incredible job of removing history from this and into England in the Late Middle Ages - details can be found at Talk:House of Plantagenet/Archive 2#Split Article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Dudley Miles:—I'll aim to get to a response on these next week. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still doubtful about the heavy reliance on non-specialist writers such as Weir, with 27 citations. This is not my period and I have not read Weir, but judging by your citations she seems to adopt the most sensational interpretation, which is not always accepted by medievalists. What does Hchc think? 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed all references to Weir's book on the Wars of the Roses and the book from the Bibliography. I have left those related to her Genealogy on the same basis as back on the 5th August — it largely used for births, death, marriages only all of which are a matter of record rather historical interpretation. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]

Support, but a few further quibbles on re-reading.

  • In the bibliography Jones, Dan is out of alphabetical order.
  • "Henry perceived many similarities between himself and England's patron saint, Edward the Confessor, due to his struggle with the nobility." I am not sure how important the struggles with the nobility were as a reason for Henry's devotion. According to ODNB it was because both were orphans and men of peace, which sounds more likely.
    • Dudley, my reading is that something like "including his struggle" rather than "due to" was meant ... I'll make that change, but feel free to change it around, guys. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the cost of materialising the claim was prohibitive" Materialising the claim does not sound right to me. Making the claim good? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm copyediting this morning, I'll make that change if it's acceptable. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

  • I'm not sure what position the reviewers are taking so far, but I enjoyed the article, and I copyedited down to Angevins. Please ping me when we get another support and I'll finish up. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I see the support this morning, I'll start back up. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just changed all instances of "subsequently" (but not subsequent) to "later", because that seems to be the most common meaning at A-class and FAC. The problem is that "subsequently" is highly ambiguous ... so if something else was meant, please replace the word "later" by what was meant. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't fix all of them because there are too many to fix: use a pronoun, or a more general noun, in cases where it's not necessary to repeat a noun. (For instance, there are paragraphs where "Henry" is repeated four or five times more than is necessary; "he" or "the king" would work.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will probably get some static at FAC over the formatting of lists of heirs. I'll leave it alone.
  • "Many Lancastrians asserted that his mother had had legitimate rights through her descent from Edmund Crouchback, whom it was claimed was the elder son of Henry III of England, set aside due to deformity.": This information is repeated from where Crouchback is first mentioned.
  • "preferment": oxforddictionaries.com doesn't list the meaning in the given context.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Dank:—much appreciated. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Norfolkbigfish: You've got two dab links that need fixed and a lot of images are lacking alt text. Please address these issues forthwith, if you would. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/House_of_Plantagenet&oldid=679576726"