Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John, King of England/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 SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011 [1].

John, King of England edit

John, King of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article review because King John is a challenging medieval figure for a wikipedia article: his reign excites strong feelings amongst many academics, with historical views changing significantly over the years. He was, however, a fascinating ruler at a critical moment in British history. I expanded the article significantly a couple of months back after a lot of work in user space; since then it has had a GAR and a much needed copyedit. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end with full-stops
  • It would be helpful to explain what the different colours represent on some of the maps
  • Source link for File:Philippe_Auguste_et_Richard_Acre.jpg is dead
  • Licensing tag on File:Isabelle_d'Angoulême.jpg is not appearing correctly
  • Source link for File:Original_7_streets_of_Liverpool.jpg is dead and thus proof of licensing is not present
  • File:Penny_john.jpg has an incorrect licensing tag, as a coin is not a 2-D work of art - see here for information on correct licensing

Sources

  • Earwig's tool found no copyvio; manual spotchecks not done
  • Johnson or Jonson? Rowland or Rowlands? Elliot or Elliott? Check for transcription errors
  • Check alphabetization in Bibliography
  • Be consistent in whether years in shortened citations are in parentheses or not, and don't provide the year there when it isn't needed for disambiguation
  • Be consistent in whether punctuation appears before or after quotation marks in chapter titles
  • Check formatting for Coss and Harris bibliography entries
  • Probably more helpful to provide a state abbreviation rather than "US" for American publishers
  • Journal articles should have page numbers and need not repeat the year. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've altered the one caption I think is a full sentence.
  • Colour explanations given on the two main maps.
  • File:Penny-john.jpg altered accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Original_7_streets_of_Liverpool.jpg - I've tracked down the author (born 1869) but although he stopped publishing early in the 20th century, I can't prove date of death, so copyright could still be extant - I'll delete the image later.
  • File:Philippe_Auguste_et_Richard_Acre.jpg - although the record on is correct (the original archive source being the "Grandes Chroniques de France France, Paris, XIVe siècle Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Français 2813." - which does exist) the old website link is, as you say, dead, and I can't find the actual image itself on the new Bibliotheque website. I can find the same image elsewhere on the web, however (e.g. http://www.dinosoria.com/chateau_gaillard.htm). Do you know what's the next step for me getting this right? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the old site available through a web archive? Check out WP:LINKROT for some options. Failing that, find a site with both the image and the image source ("Grand Chroniques de France"). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Found it on a web archive, and added to original file.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jonson etc. sorted.
  • Alphabetization hopefully sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortened citations done.
  • I think I've fixed Coss and Harris.
  • Journal page numbers done.
  • Consistency of commas and speech marks fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportQuery Bad King John was the subject of one of my earliest edits and certainly ought to be a featured article, and I think you've pretty much got it there. But I do have a couple of minor quibbles, and I made a few little tweaks which I hope you appreciate.

  1. "Modern historians remain divided as to whether John suffered from a case of "royal schizophrenia" in his approach to government, or if his actions captured the complex model of Angevin kingship in the early 13th century." Captured seems odd to me, would reflected or possibly embodied be better?
  2. I don't suppose your sources cover the story of the location of his birth being altered so the Queen could avoid the Fair Rosamund? If they do it would probably merit inclusion. Shame but if they don't fair enough it stays out.
  3. "As the youngest of five sons" doesn't quite reflect the fact that the eldest of the five was dead before John was born. I've made a couple of changes re this but I think there are more needed.
  4. John died of dysentery contracted whilst on campaign in eastern England during late 1216; supporters of his son Henry III went on to achieve victory over Louis and the rebel barons the following year. I thought that John's death prompted many of the Barons to desert Louis in favour of the infant Henry.
  5. Some of the links are worth reviewing, civil war for example would be better linked to an article about the relevant civil war and Toulouse to an article about the medieval county not just the city.

Thanks for your work on this, it was an interesting read. ϢereSpielChequers 21:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Captured changed - agree, it was awkward wording!
  • I hadn't picked up on the Rosamund Clifford story - I'll have a proper search through later.
  • I've had a go at softening the five sons bit.
  • I don't think John's death immediately prompted the shift in loyalties, my reading of the material suggests the defections really begin after William Marshal and Fawkes de Breate's victory at Lincoln (for which Marshal gets the long term credit, thanks to later events at Bedford Castle... ...and Marshal having the better biographer!). That said, the period is murky - let me know if you think it still needs further tweaking.
  • I've changed those two links, and will have a look at the others.
  • Glad you enjoyed the article, and thanks for the edits! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have checked the Rosamund bit. The more current biographies don't really mention this; Warren notes the suspected affair, but doesn't link it to the birth of John. I've tried a quick pull on Google Books, but I'm not finding anything other than the various tales about how much John's mother disliked her. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking in to that, and for the changes. ϢereSpielChequers 21:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Paragraph 3 of the intro reads "Although both John and the barons agreed to Magna Carta peace treaty in 1215,". It feels like there's a word missing there. Should it be "a Magna Carta peace treaty" or "the Magna Carta peace treaty" perhaps? --bodnotbod (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments, leaning support: An outstanding piece of work which I've been watching for a while (I was beaten to the GA review!), very thorough and detailed. It covers all the major aspects and is well written and seems to cover a wide range of sources. My only major issue would be the length (12,629 words), but given the enormous amount to fit into the article, I believe it is justified. However, in such a long article there are a few niggles but nothing major and I'll switch to support after they've been answered or addressed. There are a few instances where direct quotes are not attributed in the text; I've listed some here, but there were a few more. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can the growth of the Capetian dynasty really be attributed to the loss of Normandy? Or vice-versa? Not sure here.
  • The argument is from David Carpenter's volume (cited later as p.270). The argument seems to go that once the Capetians weren't having to push almost all their money into fighting the war to protect the approaches to Paris, they had a chance to do rather more on the continent. I've softened the language slightly.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph of the lead seems to cram in a lot of facts but I'm not sure they flow. The information about his excommunication seems a little out of place surrounded by the battle over Normandy. It may be better moved, but not a big deal.
  • It's not perfect, I agree, but I was struggling to find a better place to put it (the current location is the best chronological place, but doesn't fit thematically). Ideas welcome!Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was slowly growing in popularity": This suggests that people liked it rather than it became more widespread, and leads to "popularity ... popular". What about "slowly becoming more widespread"
  • " with the king hoping": noun verb-ing should be avoided.
  • "Henry the Young King was unimpressed by this, since although he had yet to be granted control of any castles in his new kingdom..." Since although seems a bit much; possibly rephrase, for example "unimpressed by this; although he had yet..."
  • "The following year, Henry disinherited the sisters of Isabelle of Gloucester and betrothed John to the now extremely wealthy Isabelle, contrary to legal custom": what was against the custom, the disinheritance or the betrothal? Why was it a problem?
  • The disinheritance - have tweaked the text accordingly.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John seized the opportunity: went to Paris, where he formed an alliance with Philip" Does not quite make sense. Missing he after the colon?
  • " He allied himself with the leaders of Flanders, Boulogne and the Holy Roman Empire – a "German strategy"." What does a German strategy mean, and why is it inside quotation marks. It is repeated later in the article but still not clear what it means.
  • It's a phrase used in some of the literature, but I think, judging from your comments, that it's distracting here, so I've reworded.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " With Norman law favouring John and Angevin law favouring Arthur, the matter rapidly became an open conflict" Is it worth expanding this to say why each law favoured the two men?
  • Feudal/mercenary army section: "and proved an inflexible asset" is a bit impenetrable and I don't really know how it is inflexible, and "could provide much greater military agility" sounds a little odd. What is military agility? And while this paragraph is interesting, is it worth saying how this affected John and Philip prior to le Goulet? Did they have feudal armies? The armies are mentioned later but should be touched here or this seems disjointed.
  • I could be wrong, but was it not quite a big concession to recognise Philip as his overlord? Am I correct in saying Henry II and Richard never did this?
  • You're right, although Richard recognised the German Emperor instead. Both Henry and Richard theoretically held lands from the French crown, but never did homage. The literature seems divided on how important John's step was; some authors make more of it than others. I'm not sure I've got the balance here perfect yet.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Philip, in respect to decisions John took within his French lands." Should it be in respect of? Not sure myself.
  • I'm not certain either, but a quick "google" count suggests "respect of" is more popular! Have changed. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The king's treatment of his ally, William de Roches..." This is presumably John but it is not clear as there are two kings in operation here.
  • " the comparative military costs of materiel and soldiers": I assume materiel is a typo but didn't change it in case I'm missing something.
  • Materiel is a term for military supplies and equipment. Let me know if a wikilink in the article would help.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He attempted to convince Pope Innocent III to intervene in the conflict, but the Pope's legate was unsuccessful": Not quite clear. Did John ask the legate to approach the pope? Is this the English papal legate, and do we have a name?
  • "he decided to have Arthur killed..." Hmmm. It says in the next part that historians believe John had Arthur killed, so presumably this is what historians presume John thought? Or is there another source which confirms John decided this?
  • "including novel disseisin and mort d'ancestor": Could these be linked?
  • "John discharged "his royal duty of providing justice... with a zeal and a tirelessness to which the English common law is greatly endebted"." This quote needs attribution in the text.
  • Second paragraph of economy is a little repetitive: John, John, He, He; however, I don't really think this can be improved given the nature of the information there.
  • I've given it a go, but you're right, it's not easy. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " soldiers whose behaviour would become infamous ": Could it be specified in a word or two why they were infamous?
  • "Many barons perceived the king's household as a "narrow clique enjoying royal favour at barons' expense" staffed by men of lesser status than their own": Again needs attribution in the text.
  • " power Marcher lord with lands in Ireland": Powerful?
  • Done. (Although the image of a "power Marcher lord", rather like a Power Ranger, sprung to mind! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph of Dispute with the Pope has a couple of quotes not attributed in the text.
  • "... with the exception of baptisms and confessions and absolutions for the dying.": Is this baptisms AND confessions and absolutions for the dying, or all three only for the dying?
  • "Although the interdict was a burden to many believers...": Given that the faith (or lack of) of the population is an unknown, maybe replace "believers" with "population" or such-like, as almost everyone would have presumably be a church-goer.
  • Could a little more be said about what happened in the 1212 plot, as there are few details here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep - will put in a couple of sentences later. Many thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Richard's reign (1190–1199):
    • Richard left political authority in England... Eleanor, the queen mother, convinced Richard to allow John to return to England, which Richard agreed to before leaving on crusade." Had he left or not? Did John return before or after he left on the crusade?
    • "Mandeville promptly died" sounds very colloquial - suggest deleting "promptly"
    • "At this point Walter of Coutances, the archbishop of Rouen, returned to England; he was sent by Richard to restore order." The use of the semicolon makes it messy. Consider re-wording
    • "The political turmoil did not cease." I think you'll find it did in the end
    • " Richard declared that his younger brother... He removed his lands with the exception of Ireland... his malevontia, or ill-will, towards John" Does not sound like forgiveness to me

Hawkeye7 (talk) Support Concerns taken care of. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't work out from the literature exactly where John was when Richard was preparing for the crusade; I've tweaked the text to reinforce the key point, namely that Richard didn't mind John being there if he was as well - he just originally wanted to make sure John wasn't wandering around England without his older brother to oversee things. See if the language works better.
  • I've gone for "immediately".
  • Agree - changed.
  • Agree - changed.
  • The historical opinion is that it was forgiveness. Although it wasn't really the done thing to execute your family back then, John had committed treason, and Richard could reasonably have imprisoned him for the rest of his life. John got Ireland back, but didn't get the lands that Richard had given him to keep him well behaved whilst he was on the crusades. I've added a "but" to clarify it though! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Concerns taken care of. I've moved the detailed commentary to the talk page. Comments Excellent work, but have some concerns. Not enough to outright oppose, but more than enough to keep me from supporting at this time.

(detailed commentary moved to talk) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Heads of state in a time of war are generally tagged by Milhist; I'll do that now, but feel free to revert, anyone, if there's some issue I don't understand. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interrupting my copyediting to say a word about "whilst", and the word is: ugh. Americans are stupid, I know, but to many Americans, the word sounds Elizabethan, and therefore slightly comical. Disclaimer: my wikiproject's A-class review makes some effort to accommodate everyone's ear; we defer to the variety of English first used in the article, but we don't tell everyone else to go jump. Not every wikiproject takes the same position. - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for half if it, down to the end of John,_King_of_England#Economy, per standard disclaimer. Hchc, you seemed comfortable on previous articles when I made the copyediting edits directly, so I did it this time; feel free to revert. I'm sorry I only had time to cover half. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a team sport - no problems at all, and many thanks indeed! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. "apply law suits": "lawsuits", and I don't know what that means ... file lawsuits? collect judgments? - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his own relatively advanced education": from his own reading? - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "own" is potentially confusing; I've removed it. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reformed the English feudal contribution": reformed or re-formed?
  • I think I mean "reform", in that he updated the system that produced the soldiers (but I can see the potential issue, as re-formed might have made sense as well!) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he may have done so": requires some kind of attribution, since it calls for speculation. In some articles, I'd have a problem with the frequent use you make of "according to chroniclers", but there's a lot of dissention among the sources, apparently, and it would be tedious and distracting to say X said this, but Y said this, but then again Z said this. So ... I don't have a preference how you attribute this one, but something is needed.
  • I'm not on board with converting marks to pounds every time marks are mentioned, but I generally stay away from arguments over conversions.
  • I tend to do it because I remember when I was a kid always getting confused about how much marks meant in the history books, and at least it is constant across the period (unlike, ahem, trying to convert medieval sums into modern ones!) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The northern barons had the fewest links to the situation on the continent": ?
  • "frequently owed large sums of money to John": Did they owe money, then pay it off, then owe more money, frequently? I assumed not, so I went with "many of them owed large sums of money to John."
  • "The situation appeared promising, as John ...": to whom? I'd go with "John was optimistic, as he ...", if that's accurate.
  • I'm not entirely on board with "Magna Carta was signed in ..."; I see it without the "the" more often these days (in EB, for instance), but back in my day, we wouldn't say that any more than we'd say "Declaration of Independence was signed in ...". Magna Carta doesn't use the "the".
It was never signed actually. It was sealed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd concede that Magna Carta, as a Latin noun, doesn't use the "the", although I'll happily admit that it still seems odd when I omit it! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments No page numbers anywhere for book chapters in refs? This is confusing. Several notes repeated; could benefit from named refs (just use WP:AWB to getthem all in one whack). GlitchCraft (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'm quite with you here - none of the citation references refer to book chapters, each one refers to a specific page number (or numbers) in a volume. Is your concern that that the bibliography doesn't give the page numbers? I don't use AWB, but I'm very happy to alter any repeated references if someone can tell me which ones they are! Hchc2009 (talk)
  • For example, "Curren-Aquino, Deborah T. (1989) "Introduction: King John Resurgent," in Curren-Aquino (ed) 1989" is a chapter by Curren-Aquino in a book by Curren-Aquino. The book is the next reference down on the list. Mmmm, I would consider changing (1989) to (1989a), which would then be followed by (1989b). I would sorta also consider adding page numbers to the first reference, to indicate the page span of the chapter... I put the list of repeated cites on your personal talk page. Remember that you are not required to change them into named refs if you don't want to (except one that looks like it might be missing page numbers, but perhaps I accidentally chopped them off when I copy/pasted) GlitchCraft (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK (and thanks for the talk-page discussion). Should all be fixed now - shout if I've missed any. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "John was proclaimed king of England, and came to an agreement with Philip II of France to recognise his right to the continental Angevin lands at the peace treaty of Le Goulet in 1200." - "his" is ambiguous, and "right" too vague.
  • "famous for his opulent clothes but not, according to French chroniclers, for his taste in wine" could use a link to the relevant article in the history of fashion series - 1200–1300 in fashion, or English medieval clothing. What does the wine bit mean? He didn't drink much, or he couldn't tell the good stuff?
    • I just tweaked that a bit yesterday; the mistake may be mine. It said "taste in rich clothes ... taste in wine" before, and I didn't like the two different uses of "taste" so close together. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • same issues with both versions I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tweaked it again, to "became famous for his opulent clothes and also, according to French chroniclers, for his fondness for bad wine." It's not ambiguous now, but it could be wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems accurate to me; the French thought it was very funny that when given the run of the French king's wine cellars, John kept on choosing what were, from their perspective, appalling bottles of wine to drink.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As John grew up, he became known for being potentially "genial, witty, generous and hospitable"; at other moments, he could be jealous, ..." not "potentially" just "sometimes".
  • "John infamously offended the local Irish lords ..." is lords the right word at this date? Chiefs, princes, or something more vague might be better. Later on they are "the native Irish kingdoms", perhaps going too far the other way. Is there an article to link to?
  • I've changed to "rulers" - they were the kings plus associated lords from the accounts I've seen (the later kingdoms bit is precise I think). I've added a link, though its not ideal. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John's policy earned him the disrespectful title of "John Softsword" amongst some English chroniclers..." was this at their conference? Inelegant usage of "amongst".
  • "John accomplished this by arguing that he had failed to get the necessary papal permission to marry Isabel in the first place – " link Consanguinity here or on the next line (or is it Affinity (canon law)? Generally the article seems somewhat underlinked.
  • "John did not provide a great deal of money for his wife's household and many of the lands and revenues owed to her were never passed on by John, ..." how would the lands have been passed on? Needs a re-write I think, maybe: "John did not provide a great deal of money for his wife's household and did not pass on much of the revenue from her lands, ..." perhaps?
  • I like it, changed as per your suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Otto Welf" is an odd way to describe someone who was in 1212 certainly Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor, even if the next emperor-elect had been chosen from his rivals.
  • I suspect I picked up that from one of the authors. I've changed, as per your suggestion. 07:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "within the traditional Robin Hood narrative set" - set? =cast? "who is usually the "swashbuckling villain" to Robin." - opposed to?
  • That's it. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when other issues dealt with. The prose could do with a final run-through by somebody, but is acceptable for FA. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found numerous MOS issues on just a quick glance, particularly (but not limited to), date ranges need cleanup for consistency and endashes. Also, please review the use of the word "still" to see if all are indicated, or if they are redundant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard layout-- why isn't "Geneology" placed above See also? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers. Will try to sort these tomorrow night. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I've sorted the MOS issues. I've moved the genealogy section to where it would ordinarily be; if you don't like it there, you may wish to consider cutting the heading and adding the table alone either to the navigation templates at the bottom, or right at the start of the first section where his family is described. DrKiernan (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "stills" are stilled (still). I can resume copyeding where I left off (halfway) if you need me to. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy-editing isn't my strongest point, so if you'd be willing to, I'd deeply appreciated any help! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my support above. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 26 March 2011 (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/John,_King_of_England/archive1&oldid=1078801977"