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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2016 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the family of French descent who were pivotal in later medieval English history and the contemporary view of it. Recently received a warm welcome at FAC before becoming embroiled in questions of sourcing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• I'm looking at this diff of the changes since the last time I did a prose review, in September. It's kind of slow going, because the intervening edits have a lot of typos. I've fixed a few; I'm down to "In the early 12th century, the marriage of Geoffrey V of Anjou to Empress Matilda, King Henry I's only surviving legitimate child and heir to the English throne.", which isn't a sentence. Please check the diff (from that point) for more typos before I do another prose review. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have run through the diff and done a quick copy edit on a few things. Will review again when all the responses to comments are edited in. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Magna Carta": Sometimes with "the", sometimes not. I'm not taking a position either way ... in fact, I don't personally think perfect consistency is required, but generally FAC standards require consistency.
• "agreed a treaty", etc.: I'm completely in favor (favour!) of exposing everyone, even Americans, to Briticisms in British English articles ... but I'm not convinced that all or even most Americans will work out what this means. In AmEng, this can only mean "agreed that a treaty (something)".
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. It was fine when I commented earlier (after my changes) down to where I said I stopped, and I've just copyedited from there to the end based on a diff from September through today. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Richard_II_King_of_England.jpg

• Links fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Agincour.JPG: what is the basis for the "PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR NON EDITORIAL USAGE" notation?

• To tell you the truth I don't know and have been unable to find out. To resolve I have changed this to a simpler image.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:MS_Ghent_-_Battle_of_Tewkesbury.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tag added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All my points below have been addressed and I can't find any new ones. I have made one comment immediately below but it has no bearing on my support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

• Forgive my confusion here, but I am left wondering one major thing: was the House, in the large, based in England or France? I realize this is a matter of some subtly, but it doesn't really seem to be addressed directly. The lede says "The family held the English throne from 1154" and goes on to describe their history almost solely in terms of English events. However, the maps in the body show that in terms of land, and I assume income, the majority of the family was in (today's) France. A little color here would be appreciated.

• Hi @Maury Markowitz:— could you please look at this one again because I thought this was clear. The Angevin kings were both Francophonic and largely preoccupied with French affairs. The loss of Anjou, Normandy and Maine reduced this although Henry III retained both his nominal claims until the 1250s and the Duchy of Aquitaine as a peer of France which passed in turn to the Edwards. Edward III claimed the English throne and through this the basis of the Hundred Years War. The War ebbed and flowed, during which Henry VI was crowned king of France and the family began to speak English. I think all this is in there and clear. Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my only concern here is in the lede. Britannica and most other similar sources define the Plantagenets as English. I know this isn't strictly accurate, as this article notes, but I think we still need something to indicate/sooth this confusion. Perhaps something like "Although originally from the continent, and retaining large holdings in France, they are considered to be an English dynasty." Does that make sense? I'm not sure how to word it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the lede mentions "after the Plantagenets were defeated in the Hundred Years' War". For most of those 100 years, English troops were rampaging though France, and I'm not sure they could be said to have "lost". Is it not the case they ended up with more territory at the end? A second map, like the first one in the body, might be useful - the mapping crew is a good source for this.

• No, it is not the case they ended with more territory at the end, after 1453 the only remaining holdings were Calais and the Channel Islands. I don't think a map of this would be too instructive? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "was scourged by monks" - what does this mean?

• It means severely whipped, I have ammended to this effect.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The rivalry between " - should this not be the start of a new paragraph?

• Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Conflict with the House of Valois" - the first para seems to be damaged. Actually this whole section reads oddly and could use some copyediting.

• Done—is this better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The younger Henry rebelled" - this is a different rebellion mentioned in the earlier para? If so, was Henry the Young not involved in those events?

• Added "again" to indicate he was a repeat offender Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "accept humiliating peace terms, " - to which conflict? Is this the one Younger's wife started?

• Rephrased to be clearer Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Richard was captured by Leopold" - why? it seems odd one would simply place another in captivity without a cases belli. is this over the spoils?

• In part yes, I've added some detail to help. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "was injured by an arrow during the siege" - what siege?

• Amended to a more general "a siege"—I don't think which one is of great interest.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "when Arthur's forces threatened his mother" - how, exactly? A verbal threat or military action?

• amended for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "As a result of John's behaviour" - uh, what behaviour? Winning a battle over rebels? Or did he do something to them?

• He did, more detail added to help. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was rumoured in the" is this part of the earlier narrative, or did this occur later? Is this the "behaviour" part?

• The revolt happened before the rumour, I have tried to make this clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "explaining John's sudden capitulation" - what sudden capitulation? Was there a treaty signed in here somewhere?

• I've rephrased this, no treaty at this point, just a collapse.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I have read the comments at the earlier FAC and of course I defer to those more expert than I in English history, but as an averagely well-read layman I found the article fascinating, and it seems to me balanced and well sourced. I feel I must support its promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 15:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments taking a look now. Will copyedit as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually before I do, I recommend @Hchc2009: having a look to see if they are satisfied with improvements since the last FAC as I am not knowledgeable with the area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Ealdgyth: - I'm waiting to see what those two say, as my comments last time were mostly dealt with ok, but theirs not, during the FAC. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look at this again - but my main question is ... were all the citations checked against the sources that are supposed to be supporting them? If not, its going to be very difficult for me to support this, given the problems I found last FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Largely the answer is yes. All the Jones references which was the main objection last time have been replaced and all those that you identified in your review. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern was whether all the references had been checked back against the original sources; last time around quite a lot proved to have problems when they were examined, and Eadgyth was keen that all the references had all been individually checked. I share her concern with this. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, HCHC2009. While I am wading through these, now would be the time to raise any other concerns (from any reviewer). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update—71/152 checked so far. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update—97/152 checked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update—99/ what is now 145 checked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update—110 / 139 checked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update—112 / 126 checked. 14 to go, nearly there! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y—@Hchc2009:@Casliber:@Johnbod:@Ealdgyth:—for information I have checked what I could and replaced those that I couldn't check. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, my understanding is that at present there are no outstanding comments that required addressing at this point. If this understanding is incorrect then please let me know. Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Norfolkbigfish. @Hchc2009, Casliber, Johnbod, and Ealdgyth: Can you guys take another look now? It seems to me that now that the nominator has double-checked all citations (admittedly something that should take place before FAC, not during) we need a spotcheck of a selection of sources to verify things from the reviewer perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am keeping an eye on the page. I am not an expert, so am waiting for @Hchc2009 and Ealdgyth: to take a look first. Then am happy to take it from there.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave a note on Ealdgyth's talk page but she says she is busy in RL and may not be able to give this a look.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working my way through. A few bits picked up so far:

• "the term "espace Plantagenet", Plantagenet span in English" - isn't "the Plantagenet space" a more common translation?

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• why isn't Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou linked on first use? (vice 2nd)

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "13th century depiction of Henry II and his legitimate children:" - "13th-century depiction"

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "the king's realm" - "the King's realm" (it is a specific king)

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "after the king refused" - ditto

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• consistency of how "battle of..." is capitalised

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "William had a long career at the highest political levels demonstrating the important role played by royal bastards as well as his competence in administration, diplomacy, and war typical of leading figures amongst the Angevin elite." - very similar (feels like close paraphrasing) to the original cited text of "Longespée was a political figure of the first rank, symbolizing not only the important role played by royal bastards, but the multifaceted competence in administration, diplomacy, and war which characterized leading figures in the Angevin regime" (NB: I haven't checked other references for close paraphrasing, spotted this one by chance).

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is alleged that Pope Adrian IV issued a papal bull in 1155" - alleged by who?

Y—reworded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Duggan 2005" - missing a page number in the citation

Y—changed to web source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " The old king died two days later," - capitalisation

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "When close to complete victory, he was injured by an arrow during a siege" - an arrow, or a bolt?
• "Foolishly John disregarded his allies opinions on the fate of the prisoners" - "allies'"

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " Instead he kept his prisoners so vilely and in such evil distress that it seemed shameful and ugly to all those who were with him and who saw this cruelty according..." why the italics here and not speech marks like the other quotes?

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "These children probably included nine sons called (Richard, Oliver, Henry, Osbert Gifford..." - second bracket is missing

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "recognized as the first Parliament because it was the first time the cities and burghs had sent representatives" - do we really mean burgh here?

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Worth checking the dates ascribed to the ODNB entries. "Cooper, J. P. D. (2004)", for example, is dated as Jan 2008 for the on-line version (2004 is the earlier hard-copy edition).

Y It was a pain but all done! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now covered all these—what do you all think?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is back to the point where there are no unaddressed comments. Are there any more notes @Hchc2009:? Thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment. I am not sure that the picture of the state of England in the fifteenth century is balanced. Some of the third para of the lead with its "rampant crime" etc is not covered in the main text. It also arguably exaggerates how bad the situation was. See for example Economy of England in the Middle Ages#Agriculture, fishing and mining. It was a bad time for the aristocracy but not for the peasantry. In the main text the Great Slump is attributed to Henry VI's mismanagement, but not in the article on the slump (which is a stub article but cites a more specialised source). Dudley Miles (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the comment, Dudley. I have removed the unsupported statement regarding crime in the lead as it doesn't really add much. On the subject of balance there are two factors to consider. 1) The question of timing. The cited source Davies notes that "The state of commerce is rather more bleak if we narrow our perspectives to the years around 1450….a deep commercial crisis in the years 1440-70". The link given, Economy of England in the Middle Ages#Agriculture, fishing and mining, doesn't have much to add on this as it largely concerns the 13th and 14th centuries. 2) The article does acknowledge improved financial conditions for the bulk of the population. However, the economy and economics is about aggregate demand. The bulk of commercial activity was undertaken by the aristocracy and wealthy and it is clear that this did go through a sharp depression as Hicks notes "A savage slump of c 1440-80 beset most parts of the economy……war had plunged the government deep into debt and the depression had slashed its income". I hope the lead is now more balanced and the context makes the body less controversial. It is an article about an aristocratic family rather than England afterall. What do you think @Dudley Miles:. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had a further dig and this article marries up quite well as it stands with England_in_the_Late_Middle_Ages#Economy. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now Enough has been done, imo, and the article meets the FA criteria. My comments are above. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- I tend to agree with Johnbod that it's about time to promote this but first: I don't have time to check but can we assume that everything in the Family tree, List of members of the House of Plantagenet, and Titles subsections is covered by the cited material in the main body of the article? I ask because there are no overarching, and very few individual, citations in those subsections. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the Titles section on the grounds it was selective (e.g. didn't even include the duchys of York and Lancaster), didn't really add any further information of note and if completed would probably have justified and entire list article all to its' self. The family tree is all covered in the article and so is the List but I have added overarching citations to Weir's genealogy to both to make sure. @Ian Rose:—if further citations are needed I could work through Weir's work adding theme page by page but I am not sure that adds anything, what do you think, Ian? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks, I think that should do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 22:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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