Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Norman conquest of England

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Norman conquest of England edit

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I'd like to take it to FAC and want to make sure I've got all the proper forms down for a mil-hist article. Still working on the campaignbox thingie - but it's coming. All help appreciated - it's been copyedited by Malleus, so it's had more than just my poor prose efforts. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm working on Battle of Hastings as we speak. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated File:Norman conquest 1066.svg which has made a significant difference to the file size and usability, but the image description could use some work: File:Topographic Map of the UK - Blank.png linked and some information given as a caption; what is the copyright status of the cropped swords? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know - we could probably lose them without any great loss if no one knows. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming to this really late, but could you (Grandiose) add dots to the end of the lines? They are very indistinct in thumbnail view. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done on both fronts. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Grandoise. I'm pretty good with photographs, but actual graphic design stuff is something I suck at. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You aren't getting much of a review here. I'll be happy to look at this when it gets to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heh, I think that's the second time we've edit-conflicted at ACR today, Dan... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for reviewing this, Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few comments: - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Native resistance led to members of the English elite having their lands confiscated; some went into exile.": Would this be accurate? "Some members of the English elite who resisted had their lands confiscated, and some went into exile."
    • In the end, most of the native elite slipped out of elite status - through confiscation, exile, etc. I'm afraid that your suggested wording doesn't quite convey that if they resisted, the end result was they lost their lands (a couple rebelled twice before losing their lands, but lose them they did.). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about this? "The English elite who resisted had their lands confiscated or were forced to flee into exile." - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went with "The English elite who resisted had their lands confiscated and some fled into exile." - not all that had their lands confiscated went into exile. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like "held directly of the king"; I don't think non-specialists will get the subtleties just from the "of".
    • Changed to "from". "Held of" is beaten into medievalists in our early boot camps/classes so it's almost impossible to prevent us from writing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "langue d'oïl": would French, northern French, or northern French dialects be too vague?
    • Linguists are just as obnoxious as the historians ... they would probably object as being simplistic or too broad (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edward the Confessor ... succeeded to the English throne in 1042. This led to the establishment of a powerful Norman interest in English politics, as Edward drew heavily on his former hosts for support": I don't have any religious objection to the phrase "led to", it's just that when I ask people to rewrite it, it usually seems to fix something. In this case, "The Normans developed a powerful interest in English politics, as Edward drew heavily on his former hosts ..." would eliminate some ambiguity about where their interest came from.
    • The problem is if you say "The Normans" you imply that ALL the Normans developed this interest. It wasn't quite so, as it was only part of the Norman people (which was in a state of anarchy at the time, due to William's inheriting the duchy at a young age) which showed an interest in England - and the actual government didn't do much to help Edward, as they were too busy trying to keep Wiliam in power. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got down to Tostig's raids and the Norwegian invasion. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Hi, Ealdgyth, it was nice to meet your namesake in this article... ;-)

  • Prose-wise, completed my usual copyedit, though I found little enough to do. I'm not a big fan of "But" at the start of sentences, and always thought it was mainly an American thing, but I know it sometimes appears in Brit writing too so I'm not going to make a fuss about it... Outstanding points:
    • Recent historians have suggested figures of between 5000 and 13,000 for Harold's army at Hastings, and most modern historians argue for a figure of 7000–8000 English troops. -- What's the difference between "recent" and "modern" historians?
    • Twice more the Normans fled, these times feigned, -- Expression seems awkward, do we mean Twice more the Normans fled, feigning on both occasions or something like that?
      • How's "Twice more the Normans fled, both times feigned..." work for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Henceforth, all land was "held" from the King. -- I'd gathered from the preceding sentences that William nominally held all land, so when you say "held" from the King I assume you mean "held by nobles at the pleasure (or on behalf) of the King" or some such. As it is, "held" from the King sounds like "withheld from the King", which I presume is not correct.
      • Well, it wasn't really "at the pleasure of the king" as the tenants had the right to pass it on to their heirs as long as they behaved. How does "Henceforth, all land was "held" from the king in feudal tenure in return for military service." work for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The extra info helps but I still think "held from the King" gives the impression of "withheld from the King", when what I assume we mean is more like "granted by the King" -- would that work, in fact? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really, because the king did not grant the lands again every time someone died - nor when a new king took the throne. Feudalism is one of the trickiest concepts to explain to non-historians of the period.... it's not simple, and it's very easy to oversimplify too much and mislead. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can we say "held directly", as you do in the lead? I think that makes the meaning clearer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure and coverage look reasonable -- one-paragraph subsections are sometimes frowned upon but they seem to make sense here.
  • References look reliable, and everything is cited.
  • Image checks I may leave to others on this occasion -- assuming no issues there and subject to resolution of my queries above, I'll be happy to support this excellent effort. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images I've fixed what issues there were. Why is the first image of the body of the article left-aligned? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's where it was when I started editing the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it over because, as it is quite tall, it crossed over the next header and so the readability was compromised (given I could see no obvious advantage to having it on the left). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine for me. I removed the stamford bridge image as it was crowding things and was the least relevant here. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • no alt text on images (not an ACR requirement),
  • all other toolbox checks are green
  • the prose reads quite well. There are several uses of "however" that I suggest you should reconsider, and many of the "but"s could be "and", as the purpose of the conjunction at that point in the sentence is not to suggest an unexpected contrast, implication or exception.
  • the TOC is a bit long and creates a lot of whitespace. I suggest you collapse it using {{TOC limit|2}} at the end of the lead, that way it will only show the 11 section headings. Not an obstacle to A-Class.

An excellent, well-researched and sourced article. Well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've whacked at the "buts" and "howevers" some.. I did not really like the looks of the shortened TOC. IT's not really THAT long.... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is a great article, and one on a major topic. One question:
    • "fitzOsbern" - is this correct? I'm guessing it might just be some odd old Scottish name, but I just don't know. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's actually Norman - means "son of Osbern" and is a patronymic. Can also be seen as "FitzOsbern" or "Fitz Osbern" or "fitz Osbern". You'll also see it in Victorian naming occasionally. It's the origin of "Fitzhugh" and "Fitzgerald" surnames. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh, imagine that. I always assumed the Fitz___ names were Scottish in origin. Thanks for clarifying that for me. Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe (I can't put my hands on a sure reference for this, so take it with a grain of salt) that the "Mac" is the Scottish version. Just like "ap" is the Welsh, I believe. For more on "fitz" see... Fitz. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It looks good to me here are some specific notes but I don't see anything that would make me think its not A-Class material. I would recommend expanding some of the short sections before going to FA though.
  • Lede summarizes the article and doesn't contain information that does not appear elsewhere. It does not contain references.
  • All data is referenced
  • References are clean and well formatted.
  • I ran the article through AWB and no errors or typos are identified.
  • Well written and clear
  • Good Structure and has a logical flow
  • Good use and placement of images
  • Good references, no untrustworthy references or websites.

Great job! Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Norman_conquest_of_England&oldid=556504569"