Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bal des Ardents/archive1

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 GrahamColm 09:37, 21 April 2012 [1].

Bal des Ardents

Featured article candidates/Bal des Ardents/archive1

Nominator(s): Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after sucking the sources dry, I think it's ready. It's about an odd event at the court of Charles VI of France in 1393. Thanks to Sarastro1 for the peer review, and thanks to Ceoil, Malleus Fatuorum, Riggr Mortis and Yomangani for help and encouragement. Note to delegates: spotchecks previously done here and here. Images are all earlier than 16th century. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just a few things (only read the "Bal des Ardents and aftermath" section):

"...the King by the quick with of the Duchess of Berry..." should "with" be "wit"?
Louis I, Duke of Orléans- consistency with names? called "Louis", "Orleans", and "Louis of Orleans" in various parts of the article, and he seems to be introduced multiple times just in this section.

Other than these, this section was well written, so good job. Clay^Clay _Clay 06:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these. I've fixed the sentence with the typo and made Orléans consistent throughout. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Ruslik0 (after reading the first two sections):
I think the text needs polishing. I fixed some problems but not sure that all.

In the sentence "who had been brought from Bavaria and at Charles' uncles." What does "at Charles' uncles" mean?

"In 1404, Philip the Bold's son, John the Fearless, had his cousin Orléans assassinated ..." However the articles about John_the_Fearless and Louis of Orléans say that this happened in 1407.

Ruslik_Zero 07:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading. I've fixed the typos and will try to find someone to polish the prose. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been copy-edited and the prose polished. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments. In the third section: The Monk of St Denis disapproved of the event in his chronicle. The Monk may have believed, as was common, that remarriage was a sacrilege and required community censure in the form of a "wild charivari". The first sentence says that the monk disapproved the event, while the second implies that he approved it. Can you clarify this? Ruslik_Zero 16:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. I've clarified that it was the pagan nature of the censure that he seemed to dislike. Does that work? Truthkeeper (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the first sentence is redundant. Ruslik_Zero 10:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded again slightly here, however I believe it's important for the following reasons: 1., what we know of the event comes from the two chronicles, one written by Froissart (secular) and the other by the Monk who was a cleric; 2., most sources devote a sentence, a paragraph, at few pages to the event, however Veenstra wrote an entire book about sorcery at King Charles' court in which he devotes a chapter to the event with copious amounts of analysis regarding the Monk's beliefs; 3., other sources also mention that the Monk's account is written from the point-of-view of a medieval cleric. Therefore, in my view, the small phrase that the Monk disliked the event because of its pagan aspect is necessary to accurately and comprehensively reflect the sources. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support its now. Ruslik_Zero 07:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. It's a much improved page because of your review. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support~~with nitpicks~~: I commented extensively at the peer review (wrong Sarastro named above, btw!!) and this already outstanding article has improved immensely since then. I have no hesitation in supporting. It is comprehensive, accessible in that it explains quite complicated ideas well for the general reader, and well written. Just a few comments and questions which do no affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"his uncles dukes of Burgundy and Berry took advantage …": Missing word here?
"reestablishing": I always assumed it was "re-establishing", but I'm quite likely wrong
"Jean Froissart wrote in the chronicles": Given that the regular reader will be unaware that Froissart's work was known as the chronicles, it may be better to italicise this and reword as "Jean Froissart wrote in his Chronicles…"
"the uncles walked in humility behind the King on horseback": Who was on horseback, the king or the uncles?
"He explains that in folkloric rituals, "The burning did not happen literally but in effigie, contrary to the 'Bal des Ardents' where the seasonal fertility rite had watered down to courtly entertainment, but where burning had been promoted to a dreadful reality."": A slight hangover from the peer review, but did these rituals actually involve ritual burning (I believe the article previously said so)? If so, maybe add a line to say so, as the quote is otherwise explaining something that has not been mentioned.
"A 15th century chronicle describes the event as una corea procurance demone (a dance to ward off the devil).": Is this referring to the rituals mentioned in the rest of the paragraph or to the specific events of the Bal des Ardents?
And the whole "Folkloric" section mentions ritual burnings, but unless I am mistaken, there was no intention (aside from the possible motivation of the king's brother!) for burning to play any part. Unless I have misunderstood (which is very possible!), this section is suggesting that these ritual burnings would have several possible applications to the circumstances surrounding the king. But, the "burning" was accidental, so I am not quite sure I see the point. Either way, this is a minor point and feel free to ignore it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support (and sorry about the user name mix-up!). I've fixed all of these but need to think a little more about the last point. What I'm trying to say is that the dance at court with the nobles dressed as wildmen shows that the latent pagan rituals were common enough, or well-known enough, to be re-enacted at court. The irony, of course, is that as Veenstra states, it became a dreadful reality. I've pulled the best quote out of that source that I can but will spend a little more time thinking about how to present this without straying from the sources. Furthermore, the sources seem to hint but don't fully state (because nobody really knows) that, as you say, there was motivation by the king's brother to make the ritual a "dreadful reality". Anyway, I've struggled with this, and will give it a bit more thought as to how to get it right. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my nitpicks in case there was any doubt; I think the Folkloric section works well enough now, and I think the "hmm, was it deliberate?" ambiguity here is fine. A really great article! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks really good to me. Just some minor issues:

In the lede, Ball of the Burning Men and Le Bal des Savages should both be capitalized. Also, since this article's title is Bal des Ardents, wouldn't it be more consistent to say the Bal des Savages?
I'd suggest replacing madness with mental illness or something similar.
In "Charles le bien-aimé", Charles should also be italicized.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The event happened over seven centuries ago so it goes by various names but all the sources I've read use the title Bal des Ardent (links to sources here: [2], [3]) with the others as secondary titles. It's a good question, so I'll add sources for the titles and I've italicized throughout. Thanks for noticing that. As for the caps - you don't mean all caps do you? That's not per MOSCAPS, I don't believe. As for the illness - am thinking about what to use for wording. Again, the sources almost unanimously refer to Charles' as being mad, not mentally ill, despite the more modern wording. Will dig around a bit regarding this. Replaced "madness" with "insanity". Thanks for reading and for the comments. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I meant italicized not capitalized. Those are words being used as words, so they should be italicized per MOS.
The Bal des Savages thing: All I mean is that, since you chose to use the English the rather than the French le for Bal des Ardens, it would make sense to also write the Bal des Savages rather than le Bal des Savages. It's not a significant issue, but it would seem more consistent.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I was a little confused. I've already removed le to be consistent. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Great job on the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I enjoyed working on it. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuchman 1997 or 1979 or 1978? Seward 1978 or 1987? Check date consistency
Missing bibliographic info for Nara 2009
FN 34: punctuation
Date for Heckscher?
Crane: check publisher name
Be consistent in whether or not states are abbreviated
Gibbons: punctuation. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria, for catching these. I've fixed them. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question This article Dutchess of Berry says she was 14 at the time; and Bal des Ardents says 15; which is true?..Modernist (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking that. Tuchman definitely says 15 and the other page doesn't have a source, so I've fixed it and added a source there. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting read TK...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! It's been an interesting page to work on. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Comments~~ reading through...queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2nd sentence of lede has colon splitting clauses, but should be semicolon or dash. Colon separates when 2nd part is list...?

The event led to a loss of confidence in Charles' capacity to rule; - "undermined confidence"?

In 1387, the 20-year-old Charles assumed sole control of the monarchy; he immediately dismissed his uncles and reinstated the Marmousets, - sounds a tad choppy to mine own ears. I'd go with " In 1387, the 20-year-old Charles assumed sole control of the monarchy and immediately dismissed his uncles and reinstated the Marmousets," as it floweth better methinks.

The above are but minor quibbles - methinks this work verily meeteth the standards of a Featured Article or prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! I've verily madeth the suggested changes. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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