Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 June 2020 [1].

Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor edit

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 11th-century Salian emperor best known for his "Walk to Canossa". He is also one of the best known German monarchs, because his conflict with Pope Gregory VII gave rise to the Investiture Controversy. Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Zwerg Nase edit

Just at a glance, I'll go through it more thoroughly in a bit:

  • Please take a look at WP:CAPTION. Captions which are sentence fragments should not end with a period. This happens quite often in this article.
  • Done.
  • In the bibliography, there is quite a lot of information missing, like publishing locations, ISBN numbers, language parameters (Althoff for instance should be noted that it is in German). These need to be filled out.
  • Done/Not done. Sorry, I neglected the "Further reading" section. I never add publishing locations, because it is not useful information, but it consumes time and data-storage capacity. I deleted three works from the "F~~urther reading" section because I did not find them. Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not an expert in alt texts, but maybe you could clarify in the alt descriptions which of the images are photos and which are paintings and so forth?
  • Done.
  • In the lead, third paragraph, there should be a comma behind "Gregory VII".
  • Done.
  • Maybe it could be noted in the lead which house Henry comes from?
  • Done.

More to come. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your preliminary comments and thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little more:

  • There are three footnotes pointing to "Boyd 2020", which produces an error because the book in the bibliography is not formatted properly.
  • Done.
  • Early life: Since "King of Germany" is an established title, I think king should be capitalised here.
  • Done.
  • Under guardianship: I feel like the situation with Antipope Benedikt X needs to be explained a bit further, the article gives no mention of what the consequence was of two men being elected pope, especially considering a similar situation arises some paragraphs later after Nicholas' death.
  • Sorry I am not sure I understand your concern. Could you explain it. Thank you.
@Borsoka: Well, I read the paragraph and was confused over what happened after both Giovanni and Gerard were elected pope. So I think it at least needs a footnote that Giovanni is now considered an Antipope under the name Benedict X. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thank you for the clarification. Borsoka (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archbishop Anno needs to be wikilinked in the article body, not just in the lead. In the image caption as well.
  • Done.
  • "Béla died unexpectedly" - in battle or of natural causes?

Sorry this is taking so long, will go through the rest of the article later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • First years of majority: "although the Pope needed Henry's presence to overcome his enemies" - why?
  • Done.
  • Also, if Henry was the one who initiated the synod that elected Honorius II, but had since accepted Alexander II, who are the latters enemies now?
  • Done. (Honorius' Italian supporters)
  • Saxon Rebellion and Investiture Controversy: "Otto was summoned to "purge himself of that charge in single combat" early in August 1070" - From what I read later, he did not do so?
  • Done.
  • "Liemar, Archbishop of Bremen, Udo, Archbishop of Trier," - why is one wikilink just the first name and the other with title?
  • Done.
  • Road to Canossa: "and ended with the dramatic warning: "descend, descend!" - maybe make it clear that this was a demand for the pope to abdicate
  • Done.
  • Civil war: "A treatise was published in Henry's defence which emphasised his hereditary claim to his realms." - by whom?

More to follow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Family feuds: "but modern scholars have regarded her statements as an effective propaganda tool against Henry" - does Robinson say that most scholars have this view or is Robinson the only one to say so?
  • Yes, Robinson writes: "Her public statements at the synod of Constance and the council of Piacenza have never been taken seriously by modern scholarship...because of their knowledge of the nature of eleventh-century propaganda."
  • Restoration: "While in Mainz Henry ordered an investigation into the missing property of the Jews" - I think there should be a comma behind Mainz

I think that's it from me... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can now support, very well done! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and for your comments. Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 edit

Placeholder to look in: The topic's pretty close to my Adrian IV, so should be interesting. SERIAL# 17:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Heinrich_4_g.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Kaiser_Heinrich_IV_springt.jpg, File:SalamounUhry.jpg, File:Hugo-v-cluny_heinrich-iv_mathilde-v-tuszien_cod-vat-lat-4922_1115ad.jpg, File:Rudolf_von_Schwaben.jpg, File:Clement_III_-_Antipope.jpg, File:Ewangeliarz_emmeramski_4.jpg
  • Done.
  • File:HRR_10Jh.jpg is tagged for disputed accuracy
  • Caption modified to reflect the debate.
  • File:Castello_di_Canossa_(RE)_-_panoramio_(1).jpg needs an explicit tag for the structure
  • Deleted.
  • File:The_funeral_of_the_Emperor_Henry_IV.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
  • Deleted.
  • File:Henry_IV_and_Bertha_of_Savoy.jpg is mistagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Aza24 edit

Support - based on my earlier readthrough in PR, (and a quick read through now) this is a super solid and informative article. Aza24 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 edit

  • Let's get rid of the typographical errors: "annointment" should be "anointment", "annointed" should be anointed", "exlude" should be "exclude", "bloodstrained" should be "bloodstained", "instal" should be "install"
  • Done.
  • US-isms: "center" should be "centre", "favoritism" should be "favouritism", "northeatern" should be "north-eastern", "maneuvered" should be "manoeuvred",
  • Done/Undone. The term "maneuvered" is part of a quote.
  • Some odd wording: "denied to invest", "Rudolf of Rheinfelden and Berthold of Zähringen left the royal court giving rise to rumours of an aristocratic plot" - comma needed after "court"
  • Done. (?)
  • "long-awaited" should be "long awaited", "oath-breaking" should be "oath breaking"
  • Done.
More to come... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review. I highly appreciate your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the age of six, Henry succeeded his father unopposed." Hold on. succeeded his father in what capacity? Not as emperor. Not as King of Germany; the lead says he succeeded to that title when he was four.
  • Done. (?)
  • "Agnes appointed a wealthy aristocrat, Rudolf of Rheinfelden, to be duke of Swabia" Capitalise "Duke".
  • Done.
  • I do not think so. I have not read texts connecting the two marches.
  • "His advisor, the monk Hildebrand, was determined to strengthen the popes' autonomy" Should be "pope's".
    • I think plural is the proper form: Hildebrand wanted to strengthen the position of the Papacy.
      Perhaps that would be a better wording then: "His advisor, the monk Hildebrand, was determined to strengthen the autonomy of the papacy."
    • Done. (Thank for Srnec for it.)
  • "The Pope held a synod which issued a decree, In nomine Domini, establishing the cardinals' right to elect the popes." Weren't they doing this already?
  • No, previously the popes had been elected by the Roman clergy and people, at least in theory.
  • Done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done.
  • Henry ignored Godfrey's last will and granted Lower Lorraine to his own son, Conrad. Who did Godfrey want to get the appointment?
  • Done.
  • destroyed Rome. Suggest "sacked Rome"
  • Done.
  • Burchard of Halberstadt unexpected death -> " Burchard of Halberstadt's unexpected death"
  • Done.
  • Conrad disappears after he was deposed. Only the chart at the bottom tells me he died in 1101.
  • Done.
  • Thank you for your review and support. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec edit

I'll start with the lead and see if I can keep it up. Srnec (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Henry decided to recover the royal estates that had been lost during his minority. Better to say "recovered" if he did in fact recover them or "endeavoured to recover" if he did not.
  • Done.
  • He insisted on his royal prerogatives relating to the appointment. Why not just say "royal prerogative to appoint"?
  • Done.
  • I don't think disconnect is the right word in paragraph 2, but am unsure what is.
  • Done. (?)
  • I replaced all instances of Lombardian with Lombard. Is there a reason the former was used? I think Italian would also work fine.
  • Thank you. I changed the term in some sentences.
  • I'm a little uncomfortable with Landfrieden (or, imperial peace) since that is not a translation of the German. Robinson, p. 319, gives the translation you'd expect (territorial peace) and contrasts it with Reichsfriede (of 1103!).
  • Done. Thank you: I mechanically copied the wl.
  • others describing him as an exemplary monarch. It is obvious why and to whom he is a villain, but this sentence should ideally give some inkling of why and to whom he is exemplary.

Continuing... Srnec (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. (?)
  • I find the capitalization of Church throughout a bit odd, especially in any case where it could be replaced by "ecclesiastical" without any change in meaning.
  • Done.
  • I just noticed now that of all the things linked or mentioned in the lead, the Investiture Contest isn't one of them.
  • Done.
  • Germany, Italy and Burgundy were no more than collections of semi-independent territories, each administered by a prelate or a lay aristocrat, under the Salian monarchs. I'd tone down "no more than". I've read sentences like this a lot on WP and in RS, but they always strike me as misleading.
  • Done. (?)
  • Pope Victor II who had come from Italy to Germany. For what purpose did the pope come?
  • Done.
  • royal ministerialis (or unfree servant). I know it's what the source uses, but is that the best gloss here?
  • I think yes - it is relevant and reliable info.
@Borsoka: It is true, yes, and a gloss of some kind is needed. But if I put myself in the shoes of a non-medievalist, I ask "how is an unfree servant different from a slave?" and if I click the ministerialis link it suggests something more than a mere scullion. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. (?)
  • She paid little attention to Burgundy and Italy, but he insisted on her royal prerogative to appoint bishops and abbots to the vacant German sees and monasteries. Is the change from she to he intentional?
  • Done.
  • Godfrey the Bearded took possession of Spoleto and Fermo in the Papal States. I have reworded because I don't think the term "Papal States" is appropriate here and the probability of a royal grant is relevant.
  • Thank you.
  • His advisor, the monk Hildebrand. Should Hildebrand be linked here?
  • Done.
  • The paragraph beginning Andrew I of Hungary faced his brother's rebellion does not mention Henry IV. The Hungarian stuff in general is placed chronologically but does not seem to fit well. Béla I of Hungary wanted to make peace isn't related to the preceding paragraph.
  • Yes, but these events will influence Henry's life in two years.
  • I don't find the use of or in parenthetical glosses necessary.
  • Done.
  • The article is relentlessly chronological.
  • Yes, it is. First of all its main source, Robinson also follows a chronological order. Secondly, chronology is the most neutral way to present historical events. We could hardly deviate chronology, because events ocurring in paralel influenced each during Henry's life (conflicts with the dukes, with the Saxons, with the Popes and with the neighboring countries).
  • Thank you for your comprehensive review. I am grateful for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not comprehensive yet... Srnec (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adalbert of Bremen, in concert with the King's young friend, Werner, seized church property and took bribes for royal appointments. They persuaded the King to grant monasteries to the most powerful prelates and princes to appease their envy. I find this rather opaque. Why was church property seized and on what grounds? Envy of what?
  • Done.
  • Prince Richard I of Capua who had acknowledged the Popes' suzerainty in 1059 rose up against Pope Alexander II and invaded the Papal States. How would you feel about Patrimony of Saint Peter or Roman Campagna in lieu of Papal States? At the least, I'd go singular Papal State (and link it, since I nixed the other link).
  • Done.
  • Otto fled to Saxony From where?
  • Done.
  • Agnes returned to Germany Last we saw her she was in Germany.
  • Done.
  • If there's enough for an article, Gregory of Vercelli deserves a red link. For Adalbert of Worms see the German Wiki.
  • Done.
  • His plan to lead an armed pilgrimage, however, clearly ignored the secular rulers' widely acknowledged monopoly to take up arms in the defence of Christianity. Who was Gregory envisioning in arms?
  • Done.
  • Most German aristocrats and bishops hurried to Breitungen. Most implies a majority, is that correct?

More below. Almost there... Srnec (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • He appointed a new legate No name?
  • Done. (His name is unknown.)
  • A treatise published in Henry's defence. Published at this juncture?
  • Done.
  • <!--Nineteen---> Italian, <!--seven---> German and a lone Burgundian. Is there a reason we don't want to number the Germans and Italians out loud?
  • Done.
  • Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Henry again in late 1084. Was he "re-upping" his excommunication of 1080? What's the deal here?
  • Done.
  • "the king", "the pope", "the emperor", etc. in running text do not need capitals
  • Copyeditors follow a different approach: when the text refers to a given king, pope, emperor, they use capitals. I cannot decide what is the correct approach, but I adopted the copyeditors' method.
  • promised the royal crown to him Could we not say "promised to crown him king"? Or what exactly did they promise?
  • Done.
  • Hermann of Salm sought Henry's permission Was he giving up his claim to be king? Or was he merely asking for a truce of a kind? And why did he want to go to Lorraine?
  • Done.
  • forcing her to seek refuge in the mountains Could we link the mountains? Apennines, I presume?
  • Not done. I think you are right, but the cited source does not name the mountains.
  • Bretislav II, Duke of Bohemia. Last we knew Bohemia was ruled by King Vratislaus. A short explanation would be useful.

And finally...

  • Robert II, Count of Flanders, allied with Bishop Manasses of Cambrai against Walcher whom Henry had appointed as bishop of Cambrai. We need background here, since there are two bishops of Cambrai. (Should Walcher get a link?)
  • Henry V invaded Lorraine. I'm not sure this is the best characterization. Robinson says, "He entered Lotharingia with 'a great army', intending to drive his father from his refuge." To me, "invaded Lorraine" suggests that the duke or the aristocracy of Lorraine either did not recognise Henry V or had rebelled. But is this the case on 22 March?
  • Yes, the Lotharingian aristocrats were in rebellion against Henry V.
  • Eupraxia was also a first cousin of Philip I of France. I haven't found a source which makes this connection, but I am noting it here since it was the first thing I thought of.
  • Yes, and she was also a first cousin of Henry's lat brother-in-law, Solomon. My sources do not mention these connections. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has no major lacunae. It seems very inward looking and we get little sense of foreign policy (beyond papal). Perhaps that is the nature of Henry IV's reign, perhaps that is the nature of the sources, perhaps an editorial decision. The only thing I know about that is barely touched upon is his relations with southern Italy: e.g. what happens between para. 2 and 3 of §3.6 (pp. 218–219 in Robinson). Obviously the article cannot cover everything in detail. Its strictly chronological construction is choppy at points, especially the middle sections (3.3 thru 4.1). Sections 3.1 and 3.3 are quite long; 4.1 would benefit from a picture. But I'm not holding any of this against it as regards FAC. I actually found it pretty readable, but then this is my kind of history.
  • 1. I think the nature of Henry's reign is responsible for the lack of information on foreign policy. He did not have much time to deal with other issues than his conflict with the Papacy, Relevants events are mentioned: his intervention in Hungary and his alliance with the Byzantine Empire. 2. I added info on the Treaty of Melfi. I assume this is the only relevant issue relating the Normas that was not covered. 3. I made some copyedits, However, I am still a great fan of chronology. :) 4. I shortened the two sections. 5. I added a picture. Finding proper pictures is quite difficult. Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now gone over the whole article and have no objection to it as an FA. Srnec (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • There is a harv error showing via one of the ref checking scripts: "Harv error: link from CITEREFBoyd2020 doesn't point to any citation."
  • Done.
  • Henry III emphasized the priestly nature of kingship, attributing it to the kings' anointment by holy oil. I'm not sure if "it" refers to kingship, or the priestly nature of kingship. Do you mean that Henry felt that a king was not a king without the anointment?
  • Please reconsider. I think the sentence clearly refers to the priestly nature of kingship.
    OK -- on rereading I think it's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archbishop Hermann crowned Henry king in Aachen on 17 July 1054: I assume this is king of Germany, but I think it should be stated.
  • Done.
  • The Hungarian envoys and Henry's representatives concluded a peace treaty: I was surprised by "peace" treaty; were they at war? Unless we need the details, just "concluded a treaty" might be enough.
  • Done.
  • The reformist clerics elected Bishop Gerard pope in Florence in December 1058. The previous paragraph says they decided to elect him in 1057 and he was designated pope. What exactly is the sequence? If prior to December 1958 Gerard is not the pope then I think the earlier paragraph needs to be rephrased; if he was pope before December 1958 this sentence is confusing.
  • Done.
  • The article is very long; it's not too long to be an FA, but please do think about cutting a little. I would not oppose over this.
  • That same month, Peter Damian completed a treatise...: can we say who Damian is? A churchman of some kind, presumably?
  • Done.
  • Respect for the monarch also declined in Germany. The retainers of Abbot Widerad of Fulda and Bishop Hezilo of Hildesheim ignored Henry's commands when an armed conflict broke out between them in his presence at a church in Goslar in June 1063. Separating these two sentences makes it appear that the evidence for the first sentence is more than just the incident in the second sentence; is that the case?
  • Yes. Henry was often ignored in this period.
    How about making it clear that the second sentence is not the only evidence for this, e.g. by adding "For example, ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • After Anno went to Italy to recognise Alexander II as pope at a synod in Mantua in May 1064, Adalbert could strengthen his influence with Henry. I'm not sure I understand the intended meaning here, but if I have it right, I'd suggest rewording as "Anno went to Italy to recognise Alexander II as pope at a synod in Mantua in May 1064, and in his absence Adalbert was able to strengthen his influence with Henry."
  • Done.
  • Lampert's report is not fully reliable, but Anno was ousted from Henry's court If Anno's ousting is more reliably sourced than Lampert's report, I'd make this clearer; perhaps "Lampert's report is not fully reliable, but it is known that Anno was ousted from Henry's court".
  • Done.
  • Prince Richard I of Capua rose up against Pope Alexander II and invaded Roman Campagna. Can we put a date on this? E.g. "Late in 1066,...".
  • Done.

More to come, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I am grateful to you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Henry had hired Egeno against Otto: suggest "had paid Egeno to accuse Otto" as being more direct, if Bruno the Saxon's account is specific enough to support saying this.
  • Done.
  • Henry placed them in the German princes' custody on 12 June 1071. I'm not sure who is meant by "German princes". Is this just a synonym for "German aristocrats", which you've used earlier?
  • Done. (dukes and bishops)
  • When Archbishop Adalbert of Bremen died...: this sentence is out of strict chronological order. I assume this is because the whole paragraph is about Henry's financial relationship with the church, but that's not very clear. Can we add some connective tissue to make this point?
  • Moved.
  • Henry released Otto of Nordheim in May 1072, but Magnus of Saxony remained imprisoned: am I right in thinking that this sentence has nothing to do with the remainder of the paragraph? I assume it's placed here to make the narrative strictly chronological, but it's disorienting. Could we append it to the paragraph two before, where it can become the second half of the sentenc starting "Henry placed them..."?
  • Moved.
  • Pope Alexander II decided to investigate and summoned all German bishops who had been accused of simony or corruption to Rome. As far as I can tell we don't report the outcome of this; what happened? Did the bishops go to Rome? What was the impact, if any, on Henry of Alexander's investigation?
  • Done. (The Pope died soon.)
  • The appointment of low-ranking men to royal offices outraged the German aristocrats. This has already been mentioned at the start of the section, specifically with reference to the Saxons; do we need both references? Is the later mention an expansion of the outrage of the Saxons to the rest of the aristocrats?
  • because it was not in line with the 1059 decree on papal elections: the only reference to 1059 in the article that this might refer to is the Treaty of Melfi, but as far as I can tell that's not what's intended. Is there a possible link, or perhaps a footnote?
  • He ordered the Saxon aristocrats to assemble at Goslar on 29 June. The Saxons asked Henry to redress their grievances, but Henry made no concessions and withdrew from Goslar to Harzburg. Otto of Nordheim soon convinced the assembled Saxons to take up arms for their liberties. It's only with the third sentence that it becomes apparent that the Saxons did in fact assemble at Goslar. I think this should be clearer. Here's one possible rewording: "He ordered the Saxon aristocrats to assemble at Goslar, where on 29 June they asked him to redress their grievances. Henry made no concessions and withdrew from Goslar to Harzburg."
  • Done.
  • What was the resolution of Regenger's accusation? Was it simply ignored when he died? If so, is it really worth mentioning?
  • Done.
  • Henry did not intervene in the conflict, although the German prelates under investigation were his staunch supporters: I don't follow this: the only investigation mentioned prior to this is the accusation of simony against Herman 1 of Bamberg.
  • Done.
  • He also threatened Henry's five advisors with excommunication... This phrasing makes me wonder if this is a reference to the (at least) five that were excommunicated the previous year; is that the case? If there is a connection to be drawn I think it should be clearer.
  • Done.
  • They acknowledged the Pope's decision about Bishop Herman of Bamberg's deposition, and the Pope charged Siegfried with holding a reforming synod in Germany. I don't understand either half of this sentence. What was the Pope's decision, and what does "deposition" refer to? Do you mean "decision to depose Bishop Herman of Bamberg"? If so, what's the force of "acknowledged"? Do you mean they agreed to it, or agreed not to oppose it? And what was improper about a reforming synod held in Germany? And is it relevant to an article about Henry IV?
  • Done.
    OK on the first half, but why was holding a "reforming synod" a bad thing in Gregory's eyes?
  • It was not. Maybe the last edit clarified the issue? ([2])
    Yes, that explains it -- the way you had it wasn't wrong, but "charge" is ambiguous so I think this wording is better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his response, Henry asked the Pope to keep their correspondence secret because he thought that most German dukes were keen to maintain their conflict I don't understand this; can you clarify?
  • Done. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I still don't follow. Why would the correspondence have been a problem to Henry?
  • I deleted the sentence. It is not highly relevant and Robinson does not explain the isse. Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not relevant to this FA, but I am curious about the mention of bishops hurrying to Breitungen as if to fight; were the bishops the heads of militias that were numerous enough to matter in battle? Did the bishops themselves arm and fight?
I do not know whether the bishops were armed on this occasion. I think bishops commanding armies became common in the following century. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done through the end of the "Saxon Rebellion and Investiture Controversy" section; more probably tomorrow. This is a fine article; I'm finding little nitpicky points of narrative to ask about, but the details are all there and the writing is plain but clean. I'm really enjoying reading through this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Henry used force to prevent the negotiations: a bit vague, especially given that we've just said the kings were absent.
  • Done.
  • The new legate, whose name was not recorded: if the implication is that Cardinal Bernard has been replaced, I'd make that clearer.
  • Done.
  • because both Rudolf and Henry were forced to abandon the battlefield Looking at the article on the battle it seems that "forced to abandon" is not quite right; it was at least partly a misunderstanding by Rudolf at the end of the battle.
  • Done. (The text deleted.)
  • Wibert was installed as pope: I think "Clement was installed as pope" would be less confusing, since in the previous paragraph he's referred to as Clement, not Wibert.
  • Done.
  • Given how important Gregory is to the story, I think his death should be explicitly mentioned. Currently we only find out he is dead when we mention his successor, Victor III, more than two years later.
  • promised to achieve his election as king: of Germany?
  • Done.

Now done through the end of the "Family feuds" section. More tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And finally:

  • Conrad was abandoned by his allies and died unforgotten in Tuscany. Presumably a typo for "forgotten"?
  • Done.
  • He granted Robert II of Flanders the crusaders' spiritual privileges for their fight against the Emperor's supporters, promising the "remission of sins" to them: a bit difficult to parse. How about "He granted Robert II of Flanders the "remission of sins" (the same spiritual privilege granted to crusaders) for his fight against the Emperor's supporters"? And I see you have "their fight", which I've changed to "his fight" since the subject appears to be Robert -- or did I miss your intended meaning?
  • Done. "His" is fine.
  • Already exhausted, Henry sent a letter to his son: is this literal exhaustion (of troops, resources, support...) or figurative, as in despair?

That's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most points struck; just two left with questions, above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I think both issues were addressed. Please let me know if I am wrong, Borsoka (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand either point, but perhaps I'm missing something. Can you give a quick explanation here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All the issues I raised have been fixed. I'm not competent to judge the content but the material is well-organized and presented in clean prose. I think there's a tendency to use strings of short simple sentences, particularly where the information is coming from more than one source, and I've made some copyedits to join short sentences into longer ones, to make the prose flow better. More could probably be done along those lines but there's nothing wrong with it as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tnak you for your support - and also for your comprehensive review and edits. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I see an image review, but no source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: can I ask you to review the sources? Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not usually participate in these things. What does a source review entail?
All of the sources listed pass WP:RS and the less topical ones (Andersson & Gade and Pflanze) are used appropriately. Do we need Pavlac and Lott, and are articles in that work not attributed? I notice Weinfurter's Salian Century is absent. It is actually a rather short bibliography given the topic, but with a modern biography in English (Robinson) there isn't much need to go searching. I didn't look at further reading. Srnec (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt answer. I deleted the sole reference to Pavlac and Lott (because it does not verify info in the sentence that is not verified by other source) and moved their work to the Further reading section. Yes, I purportedly failed to use Weinfurter, because I would like to use it in other articles close to the subject, such as Salian dynasty - I prefer to use different sources in related articles to avoid systematic PoV issues. I am convinced that Weinfurter does not contradict any statement in the article and his most relevant views are covered. His excellent work is now mentioned in the "Further reading" section. Thank you for noting his absence. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Henry_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor/archive1&oldid=963647243"