Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman conquest of England/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 User:Ian Rose 00:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

Norman conquest of England

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... after lots and lots of work, I believe it's ready for prime time. It's had several copyedits, I've reread sources I studied in college as well as reading a whole slew of new sources, it's had an image review, and it's been through GAN as well as a mil-hist A class review. I've been slowly working on this topic with hopes of an eventual featured or good topic on the Conquest, but for now, I hope you enjoy reviewing the article as much as I enjoyed editing it. (I'm sure several of my usual collaborators will be overjoyed with this nomination, as it means I'll quit bugging them about doing stuff on the article.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ealdgyth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * No citations to Campbell
 * Why the double parentheses on subscription-needed notations? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Campbell is removed. The double parentheses are because I use the format field for those notations, since they have their own template. I've been doing it that way for at least two years. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided (minor tweaks done during FAC-preparation). GermanJoe (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * "At dawn on 25 September Harold's forces reached York, where he learned that the Norwegians were at Stamford Bridge. The English then marched on the invaders and took them by surprise, defeating them in the Battle of Stamford Bridge.": It's possible to remove the repetition here, if you want to. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now reads "At dawn on 25 September Harold's forces reached York, where he learned the location of the Norwegians." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "northwest", "south-west": We're generally going with the hyphens in BritEng. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "laudatory and full of praise": I'm not aware of the difference.
 * "If Anglo-Saxon England was already evolving before the invasion, with the introduction of feudalism, castles or other changes in society, then the conquest, while important, did not represent radical reform.": It seems to me that that doesn't work, since there's general agreement that Anglo-Saxon England was already evolving before the invasion.
 * Needs to be read with the preceeding sentence to make it clear that we're talking about the degree of change. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. Really good stuff. - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and all the help with various prose bits and stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments: I've read down to the end of "English resistance" and hope to read the rest in the next day or two. Minor issues only. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "leaving many of his forces in the north": How many forces did he have? This reads slightly off to me. I think "left much of his force there", which is used later in the article, is better.
 * Went with "leaving much of his force in the north" Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The image of "Harold's death" is perhaps a little misleading. While opinion, as indicated in the text, is divided over how Harold died, there is also uncertainty over which figure/figures is/are Harold in that section of the tapestry; would it be better to have the whole "Harold Rex Interfectus Est" sequence as the image?
 * I have vauge memories that there was a reason I didn't. I suspect that the whole sequence is not available in a good quality image, but I'd have to do some checking. I'd rather go into the whole detail of who is whom in that image at Harold's article (which I've started revising...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, not a huge deal for me, but this may be something that gets picked up later, especially if this goes on the main page! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As the papal legates are mentioned, is it worth mentioning that William's army had the support of the pope/the papal banner?
 * But ... did they? Blargh! I just realized that this historians tidbit is in William's article but not here. Have added a bit to the "Norman forces" section. It boils down to .. it wasn't likely ... only one source reports the papal banner idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "William also oversaw a purge of prelates from the Church, most notably Stigand, who was deposed from Canterbury": Is "purge" a little harsh? Was anyone other than Stigand deposed? And while Normans were doubtless appointed to the key roles, were they not introduced as fairly gradual replacements than appointed in one fell swoop? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, it was a purge. When Stigand was deposed, new appointments were made to Winchester (which had been also held by Stigand), Lichfield (Leofwin was deposed), Selsey (Æthelric II was deposed in 1070 and the see later moved to Chichester), and Elmham (where Stigand's brother Æthelmær of Elmham was deposed in 1070 and the see moved to Thetford) as well as to Canterbury. In 1071 a new bishop of Durham was appointed after the imprisonment of Æthelwine (bishop of Durham). Barlow describes the period as "the purge of the episcopate in 1070-1072". When you combine that with the new appointments to York, and Dorchester (Wulfwig died in 1067 ... the see moved to Lincoln in 1072) that came from deaths, and remember that there were only 2 archbishoprics and 13 other bishops in the entire country... (The bishop of Wells had been appointed by Edward the Confessor and was a continental, not a native Englishman. Likewise the bishop of Hereford had been appointed by Edward but was a continental native, not Anglo-Saxon. And the same held true in London, where William the Norman was bishop until 1075. And Herman (bishop) who remained in office at Ramsbury was not a native either. ). The only native English bishops to survive 1072 still in office were Wulfstan at Worcester. And Wulfstan was widely regarded as a saint in his lifetime... so the chances of his being deposed were slim and none. It appears likely that the abbots were even more purged, but our data is much more spotty on them so it's hard to know how much change there was. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'm convinced. Although I'm sure it was Barlow who made me think the other way! It may just be my faulty memory... Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's Barlow though... always opinionated but ... capable of changing his mind at times. (He's not my favorite historian, in case no one had ever guessed...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

More comments: Looking really, really good. I'm not quite sure how you do it. Last few comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "but William claimed ultimate possession of the land in England over which his armies had given him de facto control, and asserted the right to dispose of it as he saw fit.": Am I correct in remembering that this was a change to what was in England before? Or to Norman custom? I'm sure there was a change somewhere which I wonder if it is worth highlighting and making explicit?
 * It was a change, probably. Probably not worth getting into as this is one of those problems that is beloved of historians but leaves most non-historians totally clueless and baffled. Whether it was a change or if it was really as stark as the legal scholars would have you believe is something that delights specialists but really isn't germane to the actual effects of the conquest. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "and the loss of English control over the Catholic Church in England": Do we need to specify Catholic, as there was little alternative at the time?
 * Technically it's "Catholic" as the usual split with Orthodoxy is held to be 1054, but there really isn't a good choice to link to otherwise. I could pipe the link, but it's not inaccurate to call it Catholic either. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Most medieval governments were always on the move": I wonder if "on the move" is sufficiently formal? Itinerant? Mobile?
 * Is it too informal though? Do we really need to use big words just to be "formal"? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Domesday survey: I seem to remember that this was also based on existing Anglo-Saxon machinery, although that may have been a theory rather than generally accepted. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Domesday was based on the shire, but it used a sworn jury and returned each shire's records arranged by feudal holding, so technically it did use a bit of AS framework (the shire) but that was it. The sheriffs do not seem to have been involved. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support: I can't find much wrong with this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words, but the prose mostly owes its polish to User:Eric Corbett and User:John. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But we'd have nothing to polish if you didn't do the hard graft Ealdgyth. I certainly couldn't have written an article on the Norman Conquest, that's for sure. Eric   Corbett  22:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. It was already a beautiful article before we started tinkering with it. --John (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Comments
 * - is that wrong? ("week ... week")
 * Two weeks between Stamford and Hastings (about). Week to march south to London, one week in London, couple of days to Hastings from London. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tweaked the text to make this more apparent. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did Harold leave so much of his army in the north? (I may have inadvertently messed up the lead on this point)
 * We aren't sure, but likely because they had just marched north, fought a hard battle, and were utterly exhausted. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * - commanding or creating?
 * Commanding. Most of the locations were on roads or rivers or fords or in the center of towns. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. To me, this reads that the followers were all given castles to command. Is there a better way of wording it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now reads "To control his new kingdom, William gave lands to his followers and built castles commanding military strongpoints throughout the land." Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The section on the Battle of Hastings seems quite short, given the large amount of attention given to it in sources.
 * Since I've been working on (and will continue to work on to get to FA status) the Battle of Hastings article, I've for once felt we could put all the details in the subsidiary article, since it's pretty decent for a change. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I like each article to be able to stand on its own ... but if other reviewers are okay with it, I'll be happy to let it go. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Robert fitzRichard - right name?
 * Yep. Confirmed with Bates William the Conqueror also as well as Huscroft Norman Conquest. If I can find any other information on him, I'll do a link, but for now, this appears to be the only time any of my sources mention him. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just wanted to be sure, given the really odd prefix. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, you were questioning the "fitzRichard". That just means "son of Richard" and is a Norman construction. It's very common in the time period - William fitzOsbern and Richard fitzGilbert are also mentioned in this article, plus see Payn fitzJohn or a number of others. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * - semi-colon abuse. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Eric! (yells for help from Eric) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is indeed, now fixed. Eric   Corbett  20:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eric. And thank you Ed for the comments. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! I have some replies interspersed above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And I am now supporting. Great work! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Comment - taking a look now .....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Edward's immediate successor was the Earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson, the ... - loooong sentence - can we split?
 * Broke into two. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ' 'William and Harald at once set about assembling troops and ships to invade England'' - can drop "England" at the end as it is clear where they will invade.
 * If you insist, I'll remove it, but we did digress a bit before this, so I think saying "England" helps return the reader's thoughts to the subject at hand. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ok. not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Norman army's crossing was delayed, either because of unfavourable weather or because of the desire to avoid being intercepted by the powerful English fleet. - we've just stated this in hte previous section, so maybe we can remove it and just say the word "belated" somewhere.
 * Removed the whole sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An estimated 8000 Normans and other continentals settled in England as a result of the conquest, although exact figures cannot be established. - again ,repeated information. I think I'd lose the sentence.
 * Here, the duplicated information is widely separated. I'd prefer to keep it duplicated, but will remove if you insist. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ok. not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I presume you've already looked into this but I did wonder whether there were other aspects of societal change - religion? also, which names became less common. Any other cultural things vanish or appear?
 * Religion stayed the same, the main change in the church is the replacement of the upper levels with Normans. The main changes took place in the upper levels of society, very little changed in the lower levels except the disappearance of slavery. As for the less common names, there wasn't a set of "common names" in Anglo-Saxon England, the naming pattern was different, so there isn't really a list of names we can give that became less common. I've tweaked it a bit to have a link to Germanic name to make it clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ok - I am not an expert in the area so will take your word for it :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking pretty good overall and on target for a shiney star....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Reflects the specialist literature on this topic well. A great article. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Comments 
 * Great article! I only have a few minor questions:
 * In footnote b, you say that Edgar was "of direct descent from King Edmund Ironside". Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, but is there an "indirect descent?"  If "direct descent" here means "patrilineal descent," maybe it's better to say just that, since Edgar was the only male-line descendant left in 1066.
 * Now reads "who was a patrilineal descendant of King Edmund Ironside" Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In footnote d, what does "sworn brother" mean? That they swore oaths to support each other?
 * I have not the slightest idea. The source just says "sworn brother"... so that's what I said. I would imagine they swore some sort of oath... whether of support or just bloodbrotherhood isn't specified. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's it. Excellent article on an important subject -- good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate note -- I reviewed and supported at MilHist A-Class so I think I might recuse myself from closing this one. Normally I'd review modifications that had taken place since last I saw it but quite a lot has changed so I won't do that either except to say that I performed a cursory check for dab or dup links and found none. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.