Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Isabeau of Bavaria/archive2


 * 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 User:GrahamColm 10:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC).

Isabeau of Bavaria

 * Nominator(s): Victoria (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting story about a medieval French queen. The first nomination was unfortunately withdrawn because of a real life scheduling conflict. Thanks to for copyedits and a push to finish this. Thanks to for many useful suggestions, and to  for the peer review. Victoria (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Support – My comments at PR – all pretty minor – were addressed thoroughly. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. The prose is a pleasure to read, the article is well proportioned and thoroughly referenced, with a good range of sources. I commented at PR and repeat here that the skill with which the nominator has made clear the goings-on of a large and complicated cast of characters is very impressive indeed. – Tim riley (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tim, for the support and kind words. Thanks, too, for your comments at PR. Victoria (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments: This is an attractive article on a subject of which I was previously more or less ignorant. I have a few issues from my reading of the earlier sections; perhaps you would consider these while I continue reading:
 * From the lead


 * "Isabeau was sent to France when she was around 15, on approval to the young French king who liked her enough to marry her three days later." Three days later than what?
 * I think the lead needs an additional sentence summarising Isabeau's later years. At present the lead tells us she was imprisoned, and that after 1407 she "lost influence". That leaves the casual reader somewhat up in the air.
 * "...concluding that much of her reputation was unearned" - this presumably refers to her depiction as adultress and spendthrift, so I would clarify, e.g. "much of her negative reputation" etc.
 * There is a slight inconsistency concerning Isabeau's age. Her birth year is given as c. 1370 and we are told she was "was sent to France when she was around 15". That's fine, but in the main text she is "about 16" at the time of her 1385 marriage, which doesn't quite tally.
 * Other points


 * " Charles, then 17, rode in the tourneys at the wedding, was an attractive, physically fit young man, who enjoyed jousting and hunting and was ready for marriage." Does not read smoothly - something to do with comma placement, I think. It is really two statements: "Charles, then 17, rode in the tourneys at the wedding. He was an attractive, physically fit young man, who enjoyed jousting and hunting and was ready for marriage."
 * Barbara Tuchman being a relatively comtemporary historian, I think the "literary present tense" should be used, e.g. "Tuchman describes"
 * Yes, agree with this and it was so until the suggestion in this section on the talk to change. So I changed. Will re-think it. Victoria (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as the excellent Wehwalt says it's a matter for editorial discretion I'll say the same. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's such second nature to me and I prefer it, but sometimes take it a bit far. Yomangani once kindly commented that perhaps Froissart doesn't require literary present tense. Anyway, I've tweaked again. Victoria (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Froissart described the King's next illness as so severe that he was "far out of the way; no medicine could help him", although he recovered from the first attack of illness within months." If I am understanding this correctly, you are introducing the King's "next illness" before dealing with the aftermath of the first attack, from which he recovered within months. I am assuming that the events of the Bal des Ardents took place between his first and second illness – am I right? Is the attack mentioned at the start of the third paragraph the same as that described by Froissart as "far out of the way"? Some clarification required, with perhaps a little reordering of prose.
 * As a reader I find it a bit confusing after the "illness" section to jump backwards in time to the start of Charles's reign. I am not sure what the answer is here; possibly to bring forward the first part of the "Court politics and intrigue" section to before the "Charles's illness" section? Perhaps Tim would give a view? I also wonder whether "Court politics and intrigue" is a sufficiently inclusive heading for a section that covers everything up to Isabeau's death long after she had left the court.
 * It hasn't struck me as a difficulty during my previous perusals, but I'll re-read carefully and report back here. Tim riley (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Later: I see what Brian means, but I hadn't noticed it until he pointed it out, and I didn't find it distracting. With such a Byzantine narrative something's probably got to give here and there, and if it's chronology rather than subject area here, so be it, I'd say. I see you've juggled the paras round somewhat, but in truth I didn't notice the change when I reread just now, which is, I think, a good sign. Tim riley (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See my comment below to Brian in terms of deleting some of it so as to adhere to a more chronological order. I'll play around with it a bit today, but it's tricky because Charles' illness began when she was 22 and persisted until his death. I wanted to show that she was capable of taking on some of his duties and thus the backwards jump - but again not sure it's necessary. Victoria (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if you have completed your rearrangements of material; certainly the overall structure looks sounder now. I am happy to go along with Tim's view about the chronological issue but I'd like to complete my readthrough before declaring. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I'm done. It seems better now, and did need a bit of sorting. Victoria (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

These are presentational points rather than major criticisms. I will read the rest of the article and if necessary post further comments. I will also do a sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian, I think I got most of these, and some were good catches. I've resectioned - was never quite crazy about the sectioning anyway. I'm thinking about what to do in regards to the Visconti incident which is considered her earliest diplomatic foray. I've never been crazy about the placement either but couldn't see a way around. After reading your comments I considered taking it out altogether, thinking it wasn't terribly relevant, but on re-reading see that I have it here because to some extent it sets to the stage for the ensuing factionalism. That said, I'm still not convinced it's necessary. For now I'll leave as is, but if you think it would better without, I wouldn't mind trimming that paragraph. Victoria (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Re structue: I've reordered a bit, changed the verb tenses a little. But I think that's the best I can do because these were long-lasting and overlapping events. Victoria (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources review: All sources look reliable and of appropriate high quality. A couple of minor points:
 * Does "np" mean "no page"? If so, I wonder why no page can be given; the ebook for Seward seems fully paginated
 * In the bibliography, the Adams book alone does not give the state in the publisher details.

No other sources issues (spotchecks not possible) Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed Adams. Very odd about Seward - I can't see page numbers. And I find it very annoying to be honest. If anyone else can, then please perhaps add to the article or the talkpage and I'll add. Victoria (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The British Library has a copy of the cited edition of Seward. I can toddle round and check the page numbers if we think it's necessary. Tim riley (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim it's very kind of you to offer. I've ordered a copy from the main branch of my library and will have it in hand in a few days. Victoria (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I rather misled you above. It is the  Hedeman ebook that is fully paginated, link here, so the page no. for ref 18 should be easly found. The Seward ref has a chapter ref; page no. will have to await the library copy. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My fault, I forgot about Hedeman. Fixed now. Victoria (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: Seward has arrived and page numbers added. I want to thank Brian for this catch, because although the text is the same as the g-book version, with the missing pages on g-books it's impossible to know where one is in the book and I was way off! Good book though. I'll enjoy reading it. Victoria (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on prose. I had an informal peer review/copyedit. I think it's ready this time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt, and thanks again for reading and the comments. Victoria (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Images
 * All look good from a copyright perspective at a quick glance, but the metadata is patchy - I'll try and go through and clean up at least the BL ones (I may be able to get sharper scans for some). Two questions:
 * a) The first image in "Political factions" is not very clearly captioned. Almost all other images have a sense of when they're from; this probably needs an approximate date for completeness.
 * b) Starting with a nineteenth-century image seems a bad idea when we have some more contemporary images below. I know none of them are portraits proper, but an idealised one from six hundred years later isn't very representative! (Apart from anything else, medieval clothing is not my speciality, but her hat seems possibly anachronistic...) Andrew Gray (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the metadata - not anything I know how to do now and with a recent change in username am locked out of commons. File:Charles VI Bal des Ardents detail.jpg is an image of a woman wearing a hennin at Bal des Ardents, and here's another (the woman wearing a hennin standing with the king on the balcony on the left side is certainly Isabeau), so no I don't think it's that out-of-date. I like the lead image for the following reasons: per MoS it faces the page; it's a free image; and it shows that even in the 19th century she was the subject of art. In the body of the article I've tried to add a mix of artwork over the centuries showing depictions of her – it seems to me important to show that she was still the subject of art, even centuries later. See Murasaki Shikibu for a similar concept. All that said, I'll leave the lead image issue to consensus. If consensus is to change and we can find a good alternative, that's fine. As for the BnF image, the record description is sketchy, but will add that it's presumably a 19th century print. Thanks again. Victoria (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the tags and replaced one image. I also tracked down File:Izabel Bavor.jpg and correctly identified the century in the caption. There are 18 images; 15 are four or five centuries old. The others are 18th and 19th century. Is metadata required for images? Victoria (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Image update - I've checked all the source links, replaced a few so the permalinks are available, tweaked a few file descriptions on Commons, and fixed the captions in the article. Victoria (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for leaving a comment and vanishing - busy few days! The metadata isn't required but nice to have; I'd hoped we could find MS numbers for most of them for Commons, but it's proving very difficult (a lot are credited to the BL's Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts but aren't actually in there).
 * On the hats... the Bal des Ardents image is c. 1470, which is about eighty years after the event. Our article suggests that the "conical" hennin came in around the time of Isabeau's death, so it's not terribly anachronistic but is a little bit off. The best alternative I can find is probably commons:File:Christine de Pisan and Queen Isabeau detail.jpg - it's contemporary, and if not from life probably by someone who'd seen her, but she's unfortunately looking the wrong way. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a crop from this image, in the article and well-captioned. This image File:Michelle de Valois in 15th Century artwork.jpg is the only I couldn't identify, but last night was able to match it to a portrait in a Flemish triptych. Have sent a query re trying to identify the specific triptych and will then update that link as well. The British Library tends to vary the images available for view - but I've done the best I can. Will work on it a bit more today if you feel it's necessary to identify folios as well. Victoria (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding: which have you found that aren't actually in the British Library? Victoria (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The one that really threw me was the coronation image, but it turns out this was a BNF image which had been later listed as coming from the BL for some reason - I've relabelled it. "Entrée d'Isabeau de Bavière dans Paris.jpeg" took me a while to track down but I've found it now (Harley 4379). I think that's them all at least linked to the holders.
 * I don't think it's needed to list folio numbers etc, but it's good to include if we can do it easily :-). Happy to support, with a caveat about preferring a contemporary lead image if we can find one. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Isabella of Valois muz otec.jpg now goes to a dead link. Record for it is here,, and description here. Anyway, thanks for tidying and for the support. Victoria (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The file description for File:Entrée d'Isabeau de Bavière dans Paris.jpeg (the entry) is at the British Library here and . The Commons entry, now goes to a dead link. Shall I correct those? Victoria (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One dead link fixed (it needs to be Royal MS xxxx rather than Royal xxxx, which I forgot about), and the other removed - for some reason Harley manuscripts aren't currently in the main catalogue. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks again for the review, tidying and the support. Victoria (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Despite her patronage, and championed by contemporary author Christine de Pizan, Queen Isabeau was perceived as a spendthrift": Not sure about this ... perhaps some of that perception was because of, rather than despite, her patronage of the arts (and makers of pretty things). How about this? "Although championed ..."
 * "was ready for marriage": I guess this is fine if it means he was actively looking for a wife; if it means something else, I don't know what.
 * "one of the dancers' flammable costume": ... costumes
 * "Charles suffered second ... attack": ... a second ...
 * I'm completely stumped by this. I tried a search, but not sure what I'm looking for. Quotes within quotes? I don't think I've used those. Victoria (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See "... bothering me.'" ...", and WP:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, couldn't find that. Fixed now. Victoria (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, couldn't find that. Fixed now. Victoria (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Charles' bouts of illness continued unabated until his death, creating a pattern in which the two, who may have still felt affection, exchanged gifts and letters during his periods of lucidity and Isabeau distanced herself during the prolonged attacks of insanity.": Any objection to this? "Charles' bouts of illness continued unabated until his death. The two may have still felt mutual affection, and Isabeau exchanged gifts and letters with him during his periods of lucidity, but distanced herself during the prolonged attacks of insanity."
 * Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. A great read. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support Dank. Except for the template, I think I've fixed them all. Re Charles and marriage: I've reworded slightly, but yes, per the source, he was excited, impatient, etc., and though he hadn't met Isabeau wanted her the moment he saw her. Much, of course, can be read into that. Victoria (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Further comments (Brianboulton)
 * "She was described as 'small and brunette, or tall and blonde' ". These are obviously two distinct descriptions, and it may be as well to clarify: "She was variously described as 'small and brunette', or as 'tall and blonde' ". Likewise the subsequent description would read better as: "...either she was 'beautiful and hypnotic', or she was 'so obese through dropsy that she was crippled'. "
 * Please check this: "As early as the late 1380s and early 1390s, before Charles' became, Isabeau's demonstrated she possessed diplomatic influence..." Words or phrase missing?
 * It might be worth noting that Isabella was seven years old when she was married to Richard II, or readers might wonder how 26-year-old Isabeau managed to have a married daughter. Also, the phrasing "years later" suggests a rather longer time than was in fact the case.
 * "These appointments however split the power between Orléans and his royal uncles..." Please clarify "his".
 * "Charles trusted Isabeau enough by 1402 to allow her to arbitrate the growing dispute between the Orléanists and Burgundians, giving her control of the treasury." I guess there are two different things here: (1) Charles allowed her to arbitrate the dispute and (2) Charles gave her control of the treasury. The use of "giving" makes the second thing a result of the first, i.e. by allowing her to arbitrate he gave her control of the treasury. Perhaps instead of "giving", "...and also gave..."
 * You say "John the Fearless ordered Orléans' assassination" but give no further details of this event. Surely a date, a location, and who did it should be given?
 * Note: the linked Orleans article gives the date as 23 November; is there any reason why that information can't be given here?
 * Because none of the sources I have at hand had the actual date, but I have found in an online source and added.


 * "Some months later, Charles rescinded the pardon." This statement seems oddly orphaned; I can't see any obvious connection between it and the rest of the narrative.
 * "while his daughter Margaret was married off to Isabeau's son, Dauphin Louis, Duke of Guyenne." I don't think "off" is appropriate. I assume that this is the same Dauphin much discussed in the previous paragraphs. Why only now is he given his full name, and wikilinked?
 * "Isabeau at first assumed the role of sole regent but in January 1418 yielded her position to John." Clarify which John - the last John mentioned is the Dauphin who died in April 1417.
 * Standardise Dauphin/dauphin. At present both occur.
 * This is tricky and I think might be an Engvar issue. Chicago Manual of Style says to capitalize only if used in conjunction with the proper name, i.e. Queen Isabeau, and if in apposition - i.e, the queen named Isabeau - then to use lower case. Fowler, on the other hand, says if the title is used to substitute for the name to capitalize, i.e, the Queen. Personally I'd decap them all, but they keep being changed so have done the best I can here. The sources too are inconsistent and in direct quotes prefer to use the form already there.
 * I agree that in quotations you need to follow the form in your sources. In your own text the main thing is to be consistent. In the great majority of mentions you use "Dauphin" with the capital. In three cases (one in the lead, two in the main body) you use "dauphin". For consistency you need to bring these into line with the others. (NB this comment got lost in an edit conflict). Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize about the edit conflict. I've made these consistent, I believe. Turns out I may not be available tomorrow, so if I've not got all of them, please feel free to fix.


 * "King Charles immediately disinherited his son for killing the Duke of Burgundy, bringing an end to the civil war..." What ended the civil war, the disinheriting or the killing?
 * I don't know. The sources I have at hand only say it ended then, but will see if I can pin this down more. Presumably with the duke dead, the dauphin disinherited, the king incapacitated, not much impetus to continue the war was left, but that's my interpretation.
 * Gibbons spells out that it was disinheritance, so I've modified there.


 * "However, historian Desmond Seward attributes this same episode to Charles VII..." Would this be the same Charles, the disinherited dauphin? This should be clarified.
 * 26 pounds (weight) - give metric equivalent
 * Link St. Denis?
 * Linked previously; thinking about this.


 * "Of her six sons, three died young with her last living son, Charles VII, surviving to adulthood." That leaves two unaccounted for, and "last living son" is odd phrasing. Possibly: "Of her six sons, three died in infancy and only her youngest son, Charles VII, survived to adulthood."
 * "Catherine of Valois, Queen of England, (1401–1438) married Henry V of England, taking Sir Owen Tudor as her second husband." That wording reads as if she had two husbands at once.
 * "John, Dauphin of France (1398–1417), and Duke of Touraine (1398–1417)..." Repeating the dates is confusing, makes it seem like two people.
 * "She disliked when her sons were sent to other households..." "Disliked" needs an object
 * "Michelle" or "Michele"?

You will see that I have made a number of fairly minor edits to the prose. I think you have done a good job in largely disentangling a hugely complicated network of family alliances and feuds, made all the more exaspearating by the similarities in names, and have produced a readable narrative. The points I have listed still require attention, after which I will be happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (PS: please ping me when you are done, as I am somewhat distracted at present and am not watching pages) Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these Brian, many good catches here. Two I've commented about; the others I think now fixed. This is one I think I was faintly mad to take on when I realized how complicated it was, but thanks to 's encouragement stuck with it. I'm pleased with how it's shaping up and very thankful for all the help provided by the reviewers along the way. This is why I strongly believe in the review process. Victoria (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have inserted a couple of further observations into the list above. Also, I have picked up one more thing which I missed on my earlier readthrough: In the "Political factions" section we have "He took possession of Jean, the Dauphin, and returned him to Paris" . This is in 1405, so who was "Jean, the Dauphin"? Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a mistake. I've removed it. Victoria (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Support: A sterling effort; further tweaks might bring about minor improvements, but not to an extent that justifies withholding of support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and again so much for this review. The article is much better for it. I'll continue to tweak. Victoria (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Support, with the exception of the lead picture. I think a 19th century representation of the subject is a poor choice, given the wealth of more contemporary works used elsewhere within the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * HI, thanks for the support. It would be difficult to get a good crop of her from any these contemporary images facing the text: hunting, coronation, entry, one of the women at the dance, troyes. So I"ve decided to use, the funeral miniature that faces the text and is colorful. Hopefully that will solve the problem and I welcome feedback. Victoria (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that looks much nicer! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh good. Thanks again. Victoria (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to me...Modernist (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support! Victoria (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.