Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward III of England

Edward III of England
Self-nom. I believe this article fulfils the criteria for a Featured Article. I have skipped the peer review, as I understand this to be optional ("you may wish to..."). Eixo 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Object : Looks well-developed, but I'm concerned about a couple things:
 * The density of citations in the Biography section seems low&mdash;is all the material there tied to a specific reference? Sometimes it's not clear.  For example, the first citation&mdash;does it refer to the entire "Early life" section, or just to the sentence it follows?  If the latter (which would be the natural assumption), the rest of the section needs to be cited as well.
 * The prose needs work:
 * "At Michaelmas (September 29) 1376 he fell ill"... date in the middle doesn't make sense
 * "After recovering briefly"... this isn't the right adverb for that verb&mdash;something like "after being recovered for a brief period"
 * "He was succeeded by his ten-year-old grandson, King Richard II of England, son of the Black Prince, who had predeceased Edward the previous year." The subject of "who" isn't immediately clear: try something like "He was succeeded by his ten-year-old grandson, King Richard II of England, since his son, the Black Prince, had died the previous year."
 * I'm not a fan of statements like "already mentioned", etc.; usually they're unnecessary
 * "Other legislature of importance"&mdash;should be "legislation"
 * Several "there are"/"this was" type sentences; eliminate these boring things.
 * Using &amp;mdash; instead of &amp;ndash; would be nice.
 * Hope these comments are helpful! --Spangineeres (háblame)  05:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting. Most of what you mention are lesser issues with the language, and I've taken care of that as I saw best. As for the citations, my take on this is that citing the most basic historic facts - such as dates and events - is overkill. I've reserved the citations for statements of historical interpretation, and some of the more peripheral facts. I've added a few more citaitons in the 'Biography' section, if there is anything you find controversial, please put a 'citation needed' tag on it. Still, I'd like to point out that this article is infinitely much better footnoted than most, if not all, Featured Articles on similar subjects. Eixo 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See User:Spangineer/inline citations for my take on inline citations&mdash;someone attempting to verify this article or writing a paper on this guy will want to know more or less where each piece of information comes from, as opposed to having to read all those "general references" to figure it out. Granted, this is better than many FAs, but standards are higher now than they used to be. Besides, why stop at "above average" when "excellent" is within reach?
 * Sorry about the confusion with dashes; the mdash should be used to separate clauses, and the ndash or hyphen should be used in ranges of numbers. I believe I've fixed all of these; if you prefer spaces around the dashes feel free to do a search/replace to fix that, or I can.
 * Regarding prose&mdash;it just feels verbose and boring. I don't think the distinction between active and passive verbs is a "lesser issue with the language"; rather, it is of utmost importance.  I've trimmed alot of fluff and passivity out of a couple sections; I hope you agree that it's an improvement. If you do, I'll continue. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the effort you (and also Hmains) put into this. Thanks a lot! I feel the level of citations is good enough at the moment, but as I said, if there is anything you feel needs referencing, pleace let me know. Eixo 23:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Problems I can't figure out:
 * How are these sentences connected? "An attempt by the king's second son, Lionel of Antwerp, to subdue the largely autonomous Anglo-Irish lords in Ireland failed. The decade following the Treaty of Brétigny was one of relative tranquility in France, but in April 1364 John II died in captivity in England, after unsuccessfully trying to raise his own ransom in France."
 * I've tried to clarify it.
 * "The parliament was called to grant taxation" Grant taxation to who?  Normally taxes are imposed on the public.
 * No. As I've explained in the "Parliament and taxation"-section, there was a clear consensus that taxes could not be levied without the consent of the community of the realm, represented by parliament.
 * I've never before seen the structure "grant taxes". A government can impose taxes, collect taxes, or distribute tax revenues.  I'm not sure which of these three "grant" is attempting to communicate.  It seems like parliament is imposing taxes (or perhaps "legislating new taxes"), so I changed a few of these.  Feel free to change them, but please add clarity. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  04:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The expression "grant taxes" is quite common for the historiography of this period, try doing a search on Google Books. The king would make a request, parliament would - almost invariably - decide to grant it, the king would appoint collectors, collect the tax and use it as he saw fit to protect the national interests. Every levy of the kind I have described had to be granted individually. The term "grant taxes" is used because parliament represented - with full powers - the community that was to pay them. I believe this is sufficiently explained in the "Parliament and taxation"-section. Eixo 12:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "were dismissed from their possessions" Is this supposed to be "were dismissed from their positions"?
 * Slip of the pen (or key). Thanks for catching it!
 * This doesn't make sense: "Nevertheless, the labour shortage had created a community of interest between the smaller landowners of the House of Commons and the greater landowners of the House of Lords." What exactly is a "community of interest"?  It implies cordial relations, but that's inconsistent with the competition among landowners mentioned previously.
 * Well, in spite of competition, there was agreement among the landowning classes that wages should be kept down through the use of legislation. Maybe I could have made this clearer, but I'm not sure how, without becoming overly verbose. Eixo 18:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll probably find more as I continue through this. --Spangineeres (háblame)  02:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing: "Commons" is short for "House of Commons" and should thus be singular, correct? I changed a few of these, but there may be more that I didn't catch. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  04:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When written with a capital 'C': yes, and as such I guess singular is correct. I think you got them all.
 * In addition to the one immediately above (from yesterday), what about these:
 * "the new order carried connotations from this legend by the shape of its symbol." (I'm not sure what the "symbol" is&mdash;presumably the round table, but what's the analogous thing in Edward's time?)
 * Both the table and the garter are round, I've elaborated on this.
 * "the fear of a French invasion helped strengthen a sense of national unity, and nationalise the aristocracy that had been largely Anglo-French since the Norman conquest." Is this equivalent with "the fear of a French invasion helped strengthen a sense of national unity, especially among the largely Anglo-French aristocracy?" (minus the Norman conquest detail).
 * Not exactly. When the aristocracy became nationalised, this strengthened national unity between them and the commons. The point is that there was no longer an Anglo-Saxon general population governed by an Anglo-Norman aristocracy - they all became English.
 * "the vernacular" is English, right?
 * Yup, just trying to vary the language a bit.
 * I toned down the language in the "absurdity" part&mdash;I think it's sufficient to say that modern scholars reject the claim. More than that might border on POV.
 * Fair enough, I probably got a bit carried away there.
 * Overall, now that I've thoroughly read the article, I'm impressed. Interesting guy, great article. Address these last points I've raised and I'll support. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool! Eixo 10:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, I think that although the comments above are right, this article, as it said, represents a reliable source of information about one of the most important kings in the history of England. As a student of English language and literature, I should say this issue is complete but some stylistic changes in form and content are adviceable. Try not to include the same verbs refering to similar actions, I'll rather recommend to enrich the prose, think about synonyms and do not mix tenses.--Gustavo86 03:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look into it. Can you mention any specifics? Eixo 12:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll indulge in some nitpicking, although I'm inclined to support. Edward was "naturally more of a soldier than his father". Why "naturally" ? Is "David Bruce" how he is called in English historiography ? David disappears to France, the Scots having been subjugated, only to miraculously reappear in time to be captured at Neville's Cross. Nothing on Wales, where I believe Edward was quite successful and not even a mention of the Statutes of Kilkenny, which were surely of more importance in the long run than the Statute of Labourers. Finally, I seem to recall Joan's death putting a spoke in some of Edward's Spanish plans, but that doesn't seem to be included. All in all pretty good. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, you raise some valid points: "naturally" is not my word, I agree it's strange, I'll change it back. "David II" is probably better, and that is also the name of the corresponding article. I'll clarify the issue of his return. I don't believe Edward III ever campaigned in Wales, could you be thinking of Edward I? I've mentioned the issues with Ireland, but I'll put in a special mention of the Statutes of Kilkenny. As for the Spanish adventures, I've delibarately left that out. It is mostly the Black Prince's project, and I think it belongs better in an article on him. Hope that makes you happy! Eixo 11:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. -- Stbalbach 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Ghirla -трёп-  13:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Object: It is very good.  I  loathe the hideous and enormous info box, full of information that should be easily accessible in the first few lines of the lead, and a great deal that should not.  Why on earth does it have to say "By the Grace of God, King of England and France and Lord of Ireland" in the info box, at least consider removing that. Apart from that the page is well written informative and good except he was also known as "Edward of Windsor" yet there is no mention of the great castle he completely rebuilt over 24 years of his life see, add something about that, consider at least reducing the size of the infobox, does it need the second box below with much the same information, with the successor and predecessor again being repeated in the final box at the foot of the page. This is overkill, change some of this and I will happily change to support. Giano 15:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur %100 about the ugly, amateurish (childish) "info boxes". We need a new Wikipedia project that is made up entirely of Info Boxes (Infoboxpedia.org) and remove any actual text or prose for those lacking the attention span to read. Many of our articles are turning into info box graffiti war zones. "What I really think" out of the way, I don't think it's fair to hold a FA hostage over a much bigger problem that can't be solved here, given current "standards", there is no way this article will ever be elected without an IB. -- Stbalbach 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Stbalbach is right: the debate over infoboxes does not belong here. There is no way that this article can single-handedly go against the standard for every English monarch article. I will look into the other concern. Eixo 18:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Giano and Stbalbach; and have you considered how narrow it makes the main text at the top, especially for those without a wide monitor? -->
 * Object—1a. Needs a prose-audit throughout, for logic, flow, control of the level of detail, and referencing.
 * Second sentence in the lead: "His reign lasted for 50 years, longer than any English monarch since Henry III, and until George III." You're packing two statements into this sentence, but the grammar doesn't work for the second one.
 * "He was responsible for the restoration of royal authority after the disastrous reign of his father, Edward II." Ambiguous: did someone make him responsible? No, so reword—"He restored ..."
 * "He transformed England into the most efficient military force in Europe and can, to a large extent, be credited with the birth of the English nation." England was a country, not a military force. I'm uneasy about the sweeping statement at the end of this sentence.
 * "Edward’s later years, however, were marked by international failure and domestic strife, largely as a result of the king’s inertia and eventual bad health." "The king's" is not a cohesive back-reference; make it just "his".
 * "... his reign oversaw ... the ravaging of the Black Death." Sounds as though it was part of his master-plan. "Development/s" occurs twice in this sentence.
 * "A temperamental man, he was also capable of great clemency. He was, in most ways, a conventional king, and his interests lay mainly in the field of warfare. Highly revered in his own time and for centuries after, Edward III was denounced as an irresponsible adventurer by later Whig historians. This view has turned, and modern historiography credits him with many achievements." This twists and turns, is vague, possibly POV (certainly unreferenced), and jumbled. What we need here, at the end of the lead, is a more constrained, focused, broad overview of the reign that experts won't find easy to pull holes in. Tony 15:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, please see the project talk page. Eixo 11:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your fixes of my points above; however, a copy-edit is required throughout. Tony 12:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm... no way to know it from this page, but it looks as if this nom was successful (there's a FA star on the article) --Dweller 12:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)