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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

House of Plantagenet[edit]

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

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a Good Article that covers an important subject in the Plantagenet family. It examines their impact and importance and covers the significant events and changes that impacted the members of the families explaining in some way why they acted as they did. Without this nomination it is hard to see the article will be challenged enough to improve further Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - suggest to install this useful tool User:Ucucha/HarvErrors and check harvard citations for consistency (errors will be highlighted in red). The article has several cases of missing bibliographic entries or mismatches between the details of "Footnotes" and "Bibliography" (author's first and last name and year of publication need to be exactly the same). I'll try to read the full article and give some more comments later. GermanJoe (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I thought we had cleared these up when we worked through the citations. Thanks for the tool - I'll get to it.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Most of Caroline phase first paragraph needs citations, as do the second and third paragraphs of Lancastrian war

Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN34 is missing pages, as are FN 68, 103, 106

All done apart from StubbsNorfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Stubbs replaced with more relevent citations Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Foreign-language sources should be identified as such

Done - thanks for the tips Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lawless: BiblioBazaar is a reprint service - what is the original publishing info?

DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books

Locations removed for consistencyNorfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check alphabetization of Bibliography

Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ISBN for Mate?

Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Smith: formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on these next week, thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns A) I've still got concerns over a point raised in the GAR:

• ":::There's no "right" answer, of course, but I think that to meet the GA standards the article should also note the alternative definition - not least because it the one used by the British monarchy itself! Possible sources would include the Royal Household's own website, here; J. S. Hamilton's "The Plantagenets: History of a Dynasty", introduction, para 1; "Angevins and Plantagenets" in John Cannon and Anne Hargreaves' "The Kings and Queens of Britain"."
• I still think the article is putting forward the Henry II start date for the Plantagenets as the only definition, rather than one of two.

Thanks, good point Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I've used the royal.gov.uk citation you gave and added to the lead the alternative of four distinct houses. I've also referenced the death of John as the end of the Angevins in some eyes. I think it was left like it was due to one particularly vociferous editor - much more balanced now. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B) I'll work through at least the earlier periods:

• "Henry saw an opportunity to reassert Plantagenet authority over the Church in England" - I don't think that this is supported by the cited source (Schama). Schama notes on that page that Henry, an "Angevin king", wanted to reassert the rights of Henry I (a Norman) over the Church; there's nothing about his own/future dynasty here.

Amended to reflect this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " In response to please Henry three of his men murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral." - worth looking at Barlow (1986) "Thomas Becket", here; Barlow's probably the standard text, and it's not quite that simple/ Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to reflect this was probably misadventure (and cited) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The chronicler Gerald of Wales borrowed elements of the Melusine legend to give a demonic origin to the Plantagenets, and several early Plantagenet kings are said to have claimed such a heritage for themselves." - this is cited to Warren, p.2. What he actually says is Henry II's "were prone to joke about the story", which isn't quite the same as claiming to be demonic. Incidentally, Warren talks not about the Plantagenets, but the Angevins.

Amended to reflect this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Benjamin, Marcus (1910). Appleton's New Practical Cyclopedia. University of Michigan." - I'm not convinced that this is a "high-quality reliable source" for medieval history any more.

Removed and replaced with link to King of Jerusalem Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "When Stephen was captured and declared deposed because there was no precedent for a ruling queen rather than a queen consort, Matilda was declared "Lady of the English"." - there are some mild grammar issues here (Stephen wasn't deposed because there was no precedent), but also it's also not quite right - see Marjorie Chibnall's biography of the Empress, p.102, for an explanation of the issues surrounding the title.

I've rewritten this to match the history more precisely. The title is not explained but I've removed the assertion.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "After the consolidation of the English lands, Henry II considered further expansion to find a fiefdom for his brother William FitzEmpress. The Catholic Church blessed a campaign in Ireland that would bring the Irish church under papal control, but plans were delayed until Dermot of Leinster was allowed to recruit soldiers in England and Wales for use in Ireland. Henry became concerned that Dermot's knights' success would give them independent power so he visited himself. This enabled the recognition of his overlordship by the native kings and the appointment of John of England to the notional first Lordship of Ireland." - worth double checking the sequencing here against Astley (whom, incidentally, prefers to label the English monarch the House of Anjou from 1154 to 1399!)

Rewritten to reflect chronology - what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Henry II recognised that his vast holdings were unsustainable and planned for partible inheritance common in the feudal system." - I'd be keen to see the first part of this cited. The second half needs clarification - partible in inheritance was common in some parts of Europe, but not all.

Rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " Philip II of France attempted to destabilise his mightiest subject and encouraged the sons not to wait for their inheritance. They rebelled in the Revolt of 1173–1174." - John didn't rebel.

Rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " The younger Henry rebelled again, but died of dysentery before Richard and Phillip took advantage of a sickening Henry II with more success." - the events are separated by many years (Young Henry died in 1183, the rebellion in the second half in 1189, but it reads as though one followed closely on the other).

Rewritten to reflect chronology Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Richard inherited all the Plantagenet holdings in 1189. His English coronation was marked by a mass slaughter of the Jews, described by Richard of Devizes as a "holocaust"" - I'm not sure "marked" is the right verb here.

Changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Richard had little interest in governance and rarely spent time in England beyond that necessary to raise revenue to support his military adventures. " This needs a stronger citation; the Victorian concept that Richard "ought" to have spent time in England or that he conducted "military adventures" is a little old fashioned.

Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He is reported to have said "I would sell London itself if only I could find a rich enough buyer"." - this needs qualification: is this taken seriously by modern historians?

Removed - doesn't really add anythingNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " According to Roger of Hoveden, when Richard was released, Philip II warned John "Look to yourself, the devil is loose"." - again, needs qualification - is Roger regarded as a reliable source?

Removed - doesn't really add

• " Philip II of France had been dividing up the Plantagenet realm with John of England." - could you double-check against the cited source? If memory serves, John allied himself with Philip, but didn't go about dividing up Ireland, England, Normandy etc.

REphrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The French lands selected Richard's nephew Arthur, while John succeeded in England. " - I'm not sure this is accurate. Brittany went with Arthur, but Normandy went for John.

Added detailNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The contested succession and resultant rebellions by the Norman and Angevin barons" - I don't think that the contested succession was a strong factor in the Norman baronial revolt.

Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "and led to the de facto end of the Angevin Empire, even if de jure it lingered until 1259" - um, Gascony wasn't exactly held de jure! I'm also not convinced that the French King regarded as lingering de jure at all! :)

Agreed - changedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "John's defeats in France weakened his position in England, resulting in his vassals rebelling and enforcing the treaty called Magna Carta, which limited royal power and established common law." - I don't think that John's vassals did enforce the treaty called Magna Carta; it famously wasn't enforced by either side under John.

Agreed - rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " leading to the First Barons' War in which the barons invited an invasion by Prince Louis." - the "rebel barons" invited the invasion. The loyalist ones didn't.

Agreed & changes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some historians consider the Angevin monarchs end and Platagenet monarchs" - check the grammar here.

Grammer fixed and cited to match the lead giving alternative definitions of dynasty or dynasties (see above) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Plantagenets exhibited typical antisemitism" - all the Plantagenets? Or just Henry III?

Rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Henry saw such similarities between himself and England's then patron saint Edward the Confessor in his struggle with untrusted advisers that he gave his first son the Anglo-Saxon name Edward and built the saint a magnificent still-extant shrine." I don't think the bulk of the literature would include the "struggle with untrusted advisors" clause here.

Agreed - changedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Henry III could not motivate his barons to support a foreign war to restore Plantagenet holdings on the continent - they would not supply the men and money required to do so. Facing a repeat of the situation his father faced, Henry III reissued Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest in return for a tax that raised the incredible sum of £45,000." - I think Henry did motivate them; isn't the £45,000 the money that was spent on the reinvasion of Poitou?

Yep, rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "This was enacted in an assembly of the barons, bishops and magnates that created a compact in which the feudal prerogatives of the Plantagenets were debated and discussed in the political community." - the prerogatives of the Plantagenets weren't debated; I think the argument swung on the pre-Plantagenet legal situation, in particular Edward the Confessor.

Agreed & rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " Matthew Paris wrote that Richard responded to the price by saying, You might as well say, 'I make you a present of the moon – step up to the sky and take it down'. " - missing speech marks

Done

• "Henry's extravagances left a longer lasting legacy in his building projects including Westminster Abbey, Windsor Castle and the town of Harwich. " - I'd look for a direct cite for "extravagances".

Checked and apart from warfare costs seems he wasn't - added detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " regarded as the first Parliament worthy of the name because it was the first time cities and burghs sent representatives" - regarded by who? The "model parliament" idea is quite old-fashioned now; see Carpenter's article on Henry III's parliaments.

Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Edward, having pacified the realm, left England to join Louis IX on the Ninth Crusade, funded by an unprecedented levy of one-twentieth of every citizen's goods and possessions." -movable possessions... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll start working through these (or at least the easier ones) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - give me a shout if I can help at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't know about this article. It seems to function as the main summary article on English history over the period when the Plantagenets ruled, and therefore attempts to both cover the dynasty itself and the general history of England. This is a far from ideal way of doing things, which no doubt the nominator inherited. Both aspects of the article suffer from the inappropriate dual function. In an ideal world we would have a history article England under the Plantagenets - not an unreasonable periodization - that covered the history properly, rather than just wars, dynastic politics, and some other stuff like the Black Death. Then this article could cover better the full ramifications of the family, including the few left after 1485. The history side seems to be almost entirely restricted to the 100 Years War once that gets going, and rather peter out after 1389, except for the Wars of the Roses - nothing else seems to have happened in England 1389-1485. Some of the sources used are rather embarrassing, & not acceptable at FA level, although the article is so summarized I doubt the actual text would need changing if for example a better source than "Morris, John E (1910). Great Britain and Ireland: A History for Lower Forms. Cambridge University Press" was used for "In 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, deposing and exiling Balliol"! "Marshall, H.E. (2006). Our Island Story: A History of England for Boys and Girls. Yesterday's Classics" - a reprint of an ancient childrens' book, is used once & should go too. Most sources used are fine. As things are I can't see myself supporting this at FA, not least because while it functions as a general period article it is uneven and too narrow in that role, though I appreciate the work the nominator has put in. I'd advise splitting it into two, and building those up. Sorry! As a GA I think it is fine. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you think it stands up at GA at least, Johnbod. I have addressed the citations you raised above anyway. You are correct in assuming this article was inherited in the state where it covered both the family and the period and it has undergone some contested change since (it once got to twice the size which explains the feeling of summary) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think this article is fantastic. It is very coherent and the level of detail is superb. It's such an interesting read and you have improved it even further than a month or two ago. It clearly explains the start and end of the line and gives the reader knowledge about the history of the dynasty without being too complicated or needing to know about it more professionally or with expertise.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- As this review has been open a month and a half without achieving consensus to promote, and has been quiet for the past week, I'll be archiving it shortly. Given the last Peer Review appears to have been some years ago, I'd suggest going through that process again before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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