Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House of Lancaster/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 not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

House of Lancaster

 * Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a junior branch of what later became known as the House of Plantagenet, as the most powerful nobles in England bar the monarch they played a significant part in the medieval history of England but apart the Wars of the Roses this is largely forgotten, as is much on the background apart from the three Lancastrian monarchs. Hence it is a bit of a backwater on Wikipedia that perhaps deserves a greater prominence. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Minor note: Right off the bat, I see several large paragraphs that could be broken up for easier readability (in particular the lead and the section entitled "Duchy and Palatinate of Lancaster"). Thanks,  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Extra paragraph spacing added to both, thanks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Support All my points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The map indicates the extent of the earl's lands, but does not indicate that it is shaded in grey, and what "Maddicott" is supposed to mean is unclear (a book that is not in the bibliography it seems). Caption improved and reference added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC). Various issues with this image seem intractible so I have removed it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Suggest outdenting Henry VI so he has his own section. Better yet, combine with the following section. Combined with following section - Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) any magnate with sufficient power and Plantagenet blood could consider the throne I don't think "consider" is quite the right word here. Changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Isn't the picture of Agincourt in the wrong section? - moved - Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Could you elaborate on Henry IV's elevation to the throne, and on Henry VII's claim? Done - what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) The article says that the last of the Beauforts (who?) were killed. But Lady margaret Beaufort was still very much alive. Edmund + added last "male" Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember something similar when Ted Kennedy died. His sister Jean apparently didn't count. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review (in addition to the issues raised by Hawkeye7)
 * Agincourt caption needs editing for grammar
 * Why does only one table image include a caption? Caption removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Thomas_of_Lancaster_posessions.png: what base map was used to create this image? Contentious map removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Schlacht_von_Azincourt.jpg needs US PD tag Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Siege_orleans.jpg needs US PD tag and source info Image removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Edmond1.jpg: the PD-Art tag refers to a 2D work, which this is not Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * File:JindrichLancaster.jpg needs US PD tag and should include a separate licensing tag for seal vs photo of seal Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Johnofgaunt.jpg: source link is dead
 * Is this really a problem? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You should have a source that can be verified - is it possible to retrieve this through an archiving service like archive.org? Nikkimaria(talk) 16:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Found verifiable source Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * File:King_Henry_IV_from_NPG_(2).jpg: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." Same with File:King_Henry_V_from_NPG.jpg Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * File:HenryVIofEngland.JPG: first source link is dead. Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are we using an image of Crouchback for both he and his son? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternate image added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose at this stage
 * It's always great to see a general medieval article at FAC. At this stage, I think there is a fair amount of work to be done on it it though, and would recommend taking it through an ACR or similar before FAC. Part of this is copyediting issues.


 * This is now on the list for ce Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Examples from the lead and the first section include:
 * Wikilinking. Why aren't Earl of Leicester etc. linked in the lead? Or Thomas? etc. Later, Count of Champagne and Brie etc.
 * "Founded by Edmund Crouchback the second son of Henry III of England." - doesn't feel like a complete sentence. Also, was it founded by Edmund? Or is he just declared to be the first in the dynasty?
 * "to wealthy heiresses of his subjects. " - can you have an heiress of a subject? It felt like an odd phrase. And aren't the heiresses subjects as well?
 * Grammar on apostrophes. " the three Lancastrian monarch’s legitimatised their reigns"
 * " and Henry VI of England and (II of) France" - the "(II of)" felt rather ugly here.
 * "The House became extinct on the execution of the son of the last Lancastrian King" - the son was...?
 * "The counties containing Thomas of Lancaster's main possessions..." - the map seems to be using the county boundaries from before the 1970 reforms. South Yorkshire is now a county in its own right, which probably doesn't help the clarity here.
 * "After Henry III of England’s royalist forces" - I don't think he had any other forces than royalist ones.
 * "Earl Ferrers (Derby)" is this the full name of the title? It read a bit oddly - I've heard of Earl Ferrers, and the Earl of Derby, but not Earl Ferrers (Derby). The titles are synonomous Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It feels like there are commas missing - e.g. " Her daughter, Edmund's step daughter Joan I of Navarre was queen regent of Navarre " - shouldn't this have a matching comma after Navarre? (this is a pattern elsewhere)
 * "Thomas and Henry served in the coronation of his cousin, King Edward II of England" - repetitive linking of Henry. Also unclear who "his" is in this context.
 * "Thomas became was one of the Lords Ordainers" - "was" seems a mistake here.
 * "this was seen by Thomas as an end it itself" - "in itself"
 * "Edward' s Queen Isabella of France" - capitalisation of Queen. Spare space after the apostrophe.
 * " pursuing and capturing the king " - "King" should have a capital here
 * "Following Edward’s deposition and murder" - there's a LOT of literature around Edward's death. I certainly wouldn't mention any murder without a lot of qualification.
 * "Parliament" - capitalisation changes later. Also worth linking on first use.
 * "However faced with Mortimer’s increasingly dictatorial rule in 1328 and 1329 Henry led the opposition before Edward was able to assume control." - I'm not convinced that Mortimer's dictatorial rule was precisely the problem, or that Henry was leading the opposition on behalf of Edward - worth having a look at the literature around this in more detail (Dan Jones isn't the right source here for a FA, in my opinion).
 * More generally, I'd be querying why there isn't more in legacy section on the impact on the arts (e.g. Shakespeare's plays). It would also be good to know when the term "House of Lancaster" is first used historically Hchc2009 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Shakespeare paragraph added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose I can see you've put a lot of work into this important article, for which you should be commended, but I'm afraid it has a ways to go. Suggest having someone at WP:GOCE give its prose a good copyedit (didn't see Hchc's comments when I posted this, so there may be some duplication).


 * Founded by Edmund Crouchback the second son of Henry III of England. -- fragmented sentence, and this is only the second sentence of the lead
 * Edward III married all his sons to wealthy heiresses of his subjects.  -- (not sure what "of his subjects" is supposed to mean here)
 * The lead is missing important links, such as John of Gaunt, Henry, 3rd Earl of Lancaster, and House of York
 * Some take as the founding of the Royal House. -- another fragmented sentence
 * The House became extinct on the execution of the son of the last Lancastrian King and the murder of the King himself by supporters of the House of York in 1471. -- it isn't really clear which king you are referring to (many will know you mean Henry VI, but for those who don't, suggest naming him again)
 * The first See also link should go near the bottom per WP:LAYOUT, the other should be deleted WP:ALSO
 * Edmund was created Earl of Leicester on 26 October 1265, Lancaster on 30 June 1267 from which the House has been named, Count of Champagne and Brie in 1276 by right of his wife and Earl Ferrers (Derby) in 1301. -- should be split up for easier readability
 * Why the links to specific individuals at the beginning of each section if they're already linked below?
 * Edmund's second marriage to Blanche of Artois placed him at the centre of the European aristocracy. She was the widow of the King of Navarre. -- seems fragmented, you could probably combine them
 * Her daughter, Edmund's step daughter Joan I of Navarre was queen regent of Navarre and on her marriage to Philip IV of France also queen consort of France -- needs a rewrite (try to avoid repetition of daughter and queen; also, consider adding punctuation)
 * When Edmund's son Thomas married the heiress of Henry de Lacy, 3rd Earl of Lincoln he inherited the further Earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury becoming the most powerful nobleman in England -- needs a comma or something
 * Thomas and Henry served in the coronation of his cousin, King Edward II of England on 25 February 1308 with Thomas carrying a great sword and Henry the royal sceptre -- don't you mean "their" cousin?
 * Why is a book about 1330 England being used to cite something for during the reign of Henry IV of England? I have the Mortimer book in front of me and don't see anything that supports their corresponding sentences, unless I'm missing something?  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for the kind words - I think I have been through and covered most of the points. Will have another look at this next week Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Note -- As far as FAC's concerned, I think it's a bit late in the day for a copyedit to be made to this article, and I'm inclined to archive this and recommend, as Hchc2009 does, that you take it through MilHist ACR or Peer Review before renominating here. However, I'll give Hchc2009 and Ruby2010 a chance to revisit their comments/opposition before going that route. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems fair enough Ian. Both feel that a ce is in order and it is late in the day for this review. I was hoping that this process would enable improvement to the article on an interactive basis if it was required for FA but this doesn't seem to be case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, FAC isn't really supposed to be about major improvements, although it does admittedly seem that way a lot of the time. Anyway, as there seems to have been no further activity since I last stopped by, I think we'd best call it a day here. My suggestion would be to pursue the ce and work on any outstanding issues from the FAC reviewers, then go for PR or MilHist ACR before revisiting FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.