Wikipedia:Peer review/House of Plantagenet/archive2

House of Plantagenet

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a Good Article but failed to progress to a Featured Article. Since reaching good article status it has gone quiet on the editing front. It would be good to refresh it and resubmit. The fundamental challenge (as with all House of/dynasty articles) is differentiating between content about the House and content about their impact. I think the Plantagenets made England by their actions good and bad and their inactions and this belongs in this article. Others disagree on the basis the article should be about the family. So an impartial review would be good. Help, please :-)

Thanks, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead comments from Nikkimaria

Some duplicate linking going on - for example, the houses of Lancaster and York are both linked twice in just the lead
"comes from a 12th-century nickname of Geoffrey" - this comes before you explain which Geoffrey you're talking about
"Richard III's death in 1485 (at the Battle of Bosworth)" - parentheses aren't needed
"From Magna Carta onward, the role of kingship transformed under the Plantagenet—driven by weakness to make compromises that constrained their power in return for financial and military support" - this is rather awkward as written
"was to help shape a distinct national identity and re-established the use of English" - why the shift in tense?
"from a realm ruled from abroad, into one of a deeply engaged and mature kingdom" - grammar
Churchill quote should be followed by colon or other punctuation, not a semi-colon
"development of Early modern Britain" - why that capitalization?

Based on the lead, I would suggest a thorough copy-editing and WP:MOS check for the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Been added to the list for ce, thanks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. - Dank (push to talk)

All of this is from the paragraph following the lead:
"They were Counts of Anjou since 870.": That's not right ... I'm not sure what's right, something like "Their family line held the Countship of Anjou from 870." - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The male line of Ingelger became extinct": Species become extinct, not families.
"a Count": "a" usually means the noun that follows isn't a proper noun.
"to address competition from Normandy": I don't know what that means.
"the prince drowned in the wreck of the White Ship": Medievalists will know what the White Ship was, but most readers of Wikipedia won't, so a quick description of the event would help.
"Matilda. This brought about the convergence of the Angevins, the House of Normandy and the House of Wessex to form the Plantagenet dynasty.": Matilda, joining the Angevins to ...
"and sailed to become": and sailed off to become
"The chronicler Gerald of Wales borrowed elements of the Melusine legend to give a demonic origin to the Angevins, and several of them were prone to joke about the story.": This doesn't seem connected to the rest of the paragraph (or anything else). - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle comments

Doing... I'll have a go at this. Victoria (tk) 16:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

2nd para, 1st sentence: "The Plantagenet name for the dynasty dates from the 15th century and comes from a 12th-century nickname of Geoffrey." > at this point the reader doesn't know who Geoffrey is, so it's confusing. Moving it might help because he's introduced in the next sentence.
"A common retrospective view" > wondering whether this phrase is necessary. Is the view contentious?
"a long line of 14 Plantagenet kings ruled England" > maybe simply "14 Plantagenet kings" without the "long line"
"that was later called the Angevin Empire." > later when? during his lifetime or centuries later? Or maybe drop the "later"?
"The Plantagenets transformed England from a realm ruled from abroad, into one of a deeply engaged and mature kingdom, although not necessarily always intentionally" > having trouble parsing this but I see it's explained in the next sentence. Suggest combining the two into something like this: "The Plantagenets transformed England from a realm ruled from abroad, into ~~one of~~ a deeply engaged and mature kingdom, although not ~~necessarily~~ always intentionally,[2] as Winston Churchill, articulated in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples; "[w]hen the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns".[3] "
"transformed under the Plantagenet" > Plantagenet or Plantagenets?
"The king changed from being the most powerful man in the country with the prerogative of judgement, feudal tribute and warfare into a polity where the king's duties to his realm, in addition to the realm's duties to the king, were defined, underpinned by a sophisticated justice system." > another hard to parse sentence. Maybe try something like this: "The king's role changed from being the ~~most~~ powerful ~~man~~ in the country with the prerogative of judgement, feudal tribute and warfare into a polity where ~~the king's~~ duties to his realm, ~~in addition to~~ and the realm's duties ~~to the king~~, were defined, underpinned by a sophisticated justice system." Not crazy about that though - there's too much going on in this sentence imo.
"Destitute soldiery returned from France had turned to crime to survive, while feudalism declined into bastard feudalism, where the nobility acquired private armies used to pursue personal feuds and defy the Plantagenet government." > Another long hard to parse sentence, maybe try: "Destitute soldiers returning from France ~~had~~ turned to crime to survive, while feudalism declined ~~into bastard feudalism, where~~ as the nobility acquired private armies ~~used to pursue~~ for personal feuds and to defy the Plantagenet government."

It looks like a lot of work has gone into this and it's an important article, and so worth getting through the polishing stage which can sometimes feel excruciation and endless. I hadn't read the previous comments before I started to read and make comments, but I have now, and I'd suggest maybe submitting this to the GOCE for a copyedit (in other words, agree with Nikkimaria.) In the meantime, I'll disregard the prose and read with an eye on presentation, comprehensiveness, organization, sourcing, etc. Victoria (tk) 17:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angevin origins

I'm a little lost here, but realize it's difficult to present. I have a few questions:
How did they become counts of Anjou?
Do we know the name of the sister of the last male count of Ingelger? Is she responsible for carrying the line to Anjou?
How does Fulk come into it?
Name of the prince who died in the White ship? Do we have articles about these events? If so, then links would be helpful.
Who was the rival claimant to Henry's throne?
Empress Matilda deserves a link.
The mention of Melusine and the demonic origin seems oddly placed - but I have read that the Angevins weren't terribly nice, so might be worth some development. Also explain why in the chronicles they were seen as such and the reason for the joking.
Big jump from Matilda to Richard III > maybe mention that dates so the reader doesn't have to link out.

Angevin arrival in England

Matilda named heir > wasn't that after sinking of the White ship and because Henry didn't have any other legitimate sons (lots of illegitimate sons, though)?
Clarify whether Matilda and Geoffrey were married yet - again dates are helpful.
Prose (though I said I'd ignore it!): "Henry saw an opportunity to re-establish what he saw as his rights over the Church in England by reasserting the privileges held by Henry I when Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, died, by appointing his friend, Thomas Becket to the post." Remind the reader which Henry, repetition of "saw", lots going on in this sentence!
Also, when did Becket become archbishop? The previous sentence has Henry becoming Stephen's heir, but surely some time (and many events) transpired until the Becket affair?
"When Henry II attempted to give his land-less youngest son" > explain why John was called Lackland and that he was Henry's fourth (?) son. Date for this, because the para ends in 1189, but I though this situation dragged on for a while.
And what about Eleanor? When did Henry imprison her and why?
Louis VII > explain he was Louis VII of France. Also, isn't this the same Louis formerly married to Eleanor?
Why didn't Henry II want a sole heir?
William the Lion > I had to link out. Mention that he's of Scotland.

General comment

I've read through a few more sections fairly closely and skimmed the entire article to the end and I think it needs some sort of restructuring. I have to agree with this comment from the FA. My suggestion might be to focus more on the personalities of the members of the House of Plantagenet and less on the history - which in the Hundred Years War sections strays quite a bit. I see potential here for a focused article about the House of Plantagenet, but think it needs trimming in parts and build up in other parts. The comments above should give some sense of how to build up the house members more and carry that throughout to the end. I hope this is helpful. Victoria (tk) 19:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Piorus:
the lead may be on a long side. I'd recommend copying all the cited content to the body; leads look best without any cites, and they should summarize the body of the article anyway.

Looks good otherwise, I am sure it's a GA material. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]