Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William the Conqueror/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 Ian Rose 02:51, 6 July 2012.

William the Conqueror

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC), User:Agricolae

I am nominating this for featured article because after extensive work and revamping, I feel this is the best article possible for the subject. Everyone should know about William the Conqueror - his invasion of England in 1066 is one of "those dates" that even Yanks can remember. But there is a lot more to William than his invasion of England, and this article tries to put him in context of his entire life. After numerous copyedits, an extensive peer review process and lots and lots of work (including the most excellent family tree charts by Agricolae, who has no idea I just co-nom'd him for this... surprise!) This is what it looked like when I began work this January. It's doubled in size and the sourcing has been greatly improved as I've done a complete reread of the two main biographies of William to update the sourcing. I've also incorporated a number of other works on the Conquest and the time period, but the major sources remain the scholarly biographies of William. This is a wikicup nomination for me, but it's been a labour of love for myself as well as all my wonderful helpers. I present - William the Bastard who became William the Conqueror, a rather dour but extremely important historical figure. (As a bit of trivia - this is my 51st FAC... scary thought!) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As a bit more trivia, I make it your 53rd. Scarier still... Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * You're good down to William the Conqueror, where I stopped in the Peer Review. Starting from there. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I finished up. Work like this makes me proud to be a Wikipedian. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 24 June 2012 (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, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a great article and I have checked it for prose quality. There is one minor reservation I have which is currently being discussed in article talk. I am confident I will be able to support once that issue is resolved. --John (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless for now I oppose; it's a procedural fail per criterion 2 at present unless it makes an effort to comply with SEASON which is part of MoS. --John (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've replied on the talk page - WP:SEASON is not as categorical as its being presented here. As a note, editors besides myself have weighed in on the talk page of the article, and so far all agree. Note also that I did compromise on one section where complying with SEASON didn't alter the meaning of the sources too much. The sources do not allow me to get more precise than a season nor is the season unimportant - we're discussing military campaigns with these three contested points and using "early in the year" instead of "spring" does alter meaning of the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per discussion on the article talk page, a brief explanatory note re. the sources' employment of seasonal references has been added by Ealdgyth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments by Johnbod
 * Pretty much there, though I had to add a lot of links, but:
 * "...his personal piety was universally praised by contemporaries". Hmmm! I doubt most of the English felt this way, and the legends surrounding his visit to Durham suggest that the then-powerful voice of St Cuthbert-from-beyond-the-grave agreed. The English view of William only survives in a few comments in the ASC etc, & later remarks and legends, but it is most unlikely that even the English clergy felt like praising William for anything much.
 * Bates, in the ODNB, states "William's personal piety was consistently praised by his contemporaries." I can only follow my sources - he doesn't qualify this by nationality - in fact Bates then states that Gregory VII praised William. There's no doubting that the English didn't much like William - but its worth noting that Wulfstan of Worcest, later a saint, continued to serve William after the Conquest. If you have some secondary source that shows that a contemporary condemned William's personal piety, Im more than happy to include it, but I haven't turned this up. Note this is personal piety - not his political actions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Later English sources stated that Harold had been elected as king by the clergy and magnates of England." I see modern historians rather turn up their noses at the term Witenagemot, but if ever there is a moment to use or at least link it, it is surely here?
 * This is why I've avoided using Witangemot - neither of my main sources uses the term, nor does the ODNB article on Harold use the term. As you point out, most recent historians do not use the term, so I've avoided it likewise. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason to avoid a piped link. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If my sources don't use a term, why should I link to it? General sense is that the "witan" was not really a "institution" rather something more like the curia regis which replaced it - a term used to refer to the various councillors that the king could call upon for advice. Our article is a bit out of date on scholarship - still relying on a lot on older sources. Note that Maddicott's work on the origins of the English parliament basically does not use the term Witan throughout - he feels that it gives the wrong impression of some sort of formal institution. Thus, this is why I've avoided the term or avoided linking to it. If our article didn't spend so much time on 100 year old views, I might be less bothered to link to it, but ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the article we have on the topic, whatever its title, and the more modern view is fully expressed via John Maddicott and others, though I agree the article is not internally consistent in this respect. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Hastings... where he built a castle as a base of operations". Isn't what he did better described and located as say re-occupy & dig a ditch round the existing Roman fort at Pevensey Castle, no doubt reinforcing & gating it in wood? If there was a castle at Hastings it must have been a very temporary structure in wood, which probably should be said.
 * Oh. Gods. Can we avoid the vexed question of what exactly William built at Hastings and whether he brought it over with him or built it fresh or what? My source doesn't say anything beyond the basic "he built a castle" and the debate is probably best covered at Pevensey Castle's article... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * caption to death of Harold pic: "although whether this is an accurate depiction is unclear"; isn't it more that "which of the two wounded figures is meant to represent Harold is unclear". To be pedantic, it is not a "tapestry" (main text), not being woven, but an "embroidered hanging" say. "but that may be a later reworking of the tapestry to conform to 12th-century stories in which Harold was slain by an arrow wound to the head" - really? Huscroft suggests that the arrow in eye figure was reworked? All sorts of strange suggestions get made about the piece; does this have decent art historian references?  What sources I have seen say is that both figures are original but the identity of Harold is unclear - he may be intended to be the figure felled by the knight.
 * I've just replaced the pic with a generic one depicting combat at Hastings - easier than getting into the minutiae of which person is Harold and did they arrow get added later and all that - this would be better covered in either the tapestry's article or in Harolds - (I do plan to rework Harold's article soon).
 * The new one is an especially poor quality image though. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Prose points seem to crop up after 1070. This sentence could surely be improved, perhaps by splitting: " While William was in Normandy, Edgar the Ætheling returned to Scotland from Flanders, and the French king, seeking a focus for those opposed to William's power, proposed that Edgar be given the castle of Montreuil-sur-Mer on the English Channel, which would have given Edgar a strategic advantage against William, but he was forced to submit to William shortly thereafter, and returned to William's court."
 * I've broken the sentence up into two... let me know if my break point works for you or if we need to do more radical surgery. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Revolt of the earls. This rather confused narrative doesn't bring out the ethnic dimension very well. "Ralph was originally from Brittany and still held lands there" - except that he seems have been born in Hereford, & is probably better described as "Anglo-Breton". Whereas Roger was a Norman who had come with William, & Waltheof one of the few remaining English lords in place. Better to say that clearly than all the detail of the fighting.
 * But ... we don't know that Ralph was born in Hereford. The ODNB here states that he was at least part Breton - his mother was Breton, and that he spent most of his life before 1066 in Brittany. Our article on him is based on the old DNB, and can't be relied on. I have, however, added a bit on Ralph and Roger and Waltheof's backgrounds to help bring this out. The fuller details of their motivations and backgrounds would be best in their own articles or in the Revolt of the Earls article ... the main reason for the details is that William was secure enough to stay in Normandy while the revolt was supressed and only arrived later to deal with the Danes and then go back to deal with Ralph. Again, I'm following my sources ... which don't bring out the "ethnic" element that much... although we have no contemporary motivation ascribed to the rebels, most historians seem to think it was the loss of their father's authority that motivated them - at least Ralph and Roger. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Although Orderic Vitalis describes it as starting with a quarrel between Robert and his two younger brothers, William and Henry, including a story that the quarrel was started when William and Henry threw water at Robert, it is much more likely that Robert was feeling powerless." Are these mutually exclusive?
 * The impression I got (which is just that, an impression) from the sources is that they dont' believe the quarrel story. Orderic wasn't above embellishing his narrative with stories to liven it up... this may be a point here. Bates definitely "poo-poos" the story of the quarrel between the brothers (mainly because of the inclusion of Henry into it, he was quite young at the time) but does think that the details of Robert rebelling are mostly correct. This is why I phrased things this way, do you have a suggestion for a better way to make it clear that the quarrel story (which is moderately famous) is likely embelished? I'm open to better phrasings. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Similar: "William also visited Wales during 1081, although the English and the Welsh sources differ on the exact purpose of the visit. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that it was a military campaign, but Welsh sources record it as a pilgrimage to St Davids in honour of Saint David." It would surely be entirely typical for it have been both, combining business with piety in the usual way, as at Durham. "main/original purpose" perhaps.
 * I've added a bit here. Bates is the only biographer who really touches on this little episode, but he sees it as more military in character - taking advantage of shifting power bases amongst the Welsh. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "most of the native Anglo-Saxon aristocracy had been replaced by Norman and other continental magnates." - a considerable understatement, surely. "Almost all" would be more like it.
 * Depends on how you define aristocracy - it appears that many of the thegns (who after all were the majority of the "nobles" even if not quite as high of status) were not dispossesed. They remained, but were pushed down the social scale. Many of them appear to have intermarried with the incoming Normans over time ... a lot of work has been done recently on this subject - which is covered a bit more in the Norman conquest of England article. I've tried to keep the high points of the effects of the conquest here in William's article, but effects that he was not directly involved in (such as intermarriage or the like) are better covered in the conquest article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "His seal, of which 6 impressions still survive, stressed his role as king but separately mentioned his role as Duke, and was made for him after he conquered England" - to be pedantic, I imagine this is his final seal; he must have had an earlier one before 1066.
 * You are correct. I have emended accordingly. (I do not think we have any examples of his Norman seal... but I couldn't say that for certain...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Administration. Nowhere is the fundamental change of the replacement of Old English by Norman French as the language of administration and justice mentioned; this should be here and in the lead. The feudal system is not my thing, but did not William impose a fully continental version on the more tentative A-S one? All personal landholdings were now held from the king, which not been the case before, no? Or has Michael Wood been bullshitting all these years?
 * Again, this is where scholarship has changed somewhat. Now there isn't as much emphasis on "imposing a continental version of feudalism" on England - in fact, there is a significant school of historians that now sees the whole concept of "feudalism" as it was formerly taught as a late medieval invention. Much of this is covered in the Norman Conquest article - it appears that William's administration originally used Old English for a while and that it was only later that it yielded to Norman French. I've been somewhat influenced in what to cover here and what to place in the Norman conquest article by what Bates covers in his biography of William in the ODNB - Bates never mentions the change in language once in William's article. Bates says of the whole "feudalism thing" the following: "Until very modern times, it was generally argued that William's power in the English kingdom (and as a result the strength of the kingship that he passed on to his successors) was based on the systematic introduction of what was too facilely termed ‘feudalism’; the quotas of knight-service agreed between William and his tenants-in-chief and the bishoprics and chief monasteries of the kingdom were seen as the basis for a new kind of feudalized kingship which allowed the king to bind his chief subjects to him by oath and service and to exact so-called feudal incidents, such as reliefs, wardship, and aids. Although the introduction of service quotas and the collection of reliefs and the like were undoubtedly a feature of post-1066 kingship, the core of William's authority resided in the monarchical legacy of his Anglo-Saxon predecessors, and, in particular, in the numerous rights and revenues he had inherited from them, in the all-encompassing power of the king's peace, and in the extensive jurisdictional powers he held." Current historical thought sees William as much as a continuer of English government as a replacer of it. I have added a "main" template to the "consequences" section of the Norman conquest article to help direct folks to the fuller explication. One thing I've been trying to avoid is going well over 11,000 words. We're already well north of 10,000 - trying to avoid stuffing too much that was not directly related to William's life into his article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "some such as Richard Southern claiming that the Conquest was the single most radical change in European history between the Fall of Rome and the 20th century" - not some minority claim by Southern, as implied, but pretty much the traditional view of English historians for centuries.
 * Most English historians would say that it was the most profound change in English history, yes, but in European? That would be quite a stretch - there are a lot of "important dates" in European history... that's what Southern is arguing that it's the most radical change in European history, not just English history. Personally, I'd have to go with the French Revolution, myself... talk about about-faces! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, Archbishop Matthew Parker saw the Conquest as having corrupted a purer English Church, which Parker attempted to restore." - Not sure this point from the world of Reformation polemic is worth mentioning.
 * It crops up repeatedly in all my sources - thus I mentioned it. It's not my personal concern but ... if so many folks mention it, we probably should also. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps we should also say that modern church historians don't take this view seriously. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not bothered by the WP:SEASONS point. At all.
 * Overall, I have to say I was rather disappointed by this; there's a lot of wood but some of the trees are missing. It's rather a dry read that is somewhat short of the bigger picture, and the drama of his career. Until I added a link to a note there was no mention of the wider context of Norman expansionism, in Italy at the same time, and very soon after in the Crusades. The magnitude of the change brought by the invasion to English life and culture is under-played. The endless military campaigns rather predominate, but perhaps it felt like that. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is partly because I've tried to keep the overarching meta impact of the conquest in the conquest article - not in William's article. It's a biography and we should cover his life. And he spent most of his life on military campaigns. Yes, the Norman conquest of England article is also being scheduled for FAC - I plan to work on Harold's article also when I can find the time. As for William's impact on the norman conquest of Sicily - he was a minor and fighting for his duchy during the main events in Sicily - he had little concern or impact on them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a case of "William's impact" but of William as a part or example of a wider historical trend, the wider picture that is rather missing here. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review, I always appreciate your attention to detail and ability to make me look at things with fresh eyes. I'm not dogmatic on anything above - if you can thing of ways to meet my concerns while also satisfying yours I'll be thrilled. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Not entirely content on some points above, but certainly a very thorough & well-sourced piece. Looking forward to Harold & the Conquest! Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Bayeux_Tapestry_WillelmDux.jpg needs US PD tag
 * File:Williams_dominions_1087.jpg needs US PD tag
 * File:Norman_Conquest_1066.gif: what's the source of this image?
 * File:Acrdwnch.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All fixed, I believe. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC) And thanks for the review. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What I thought I'd do is pretend I was one of those spot-checkers (good on source quality, facts accurate to source, no paraphrase, no copyvio). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All ODNB sources except Bates "William I (known as William the Conqueror)" spotchecked, (ie: Barlow "Edward (St Edward; known as Edward the Confessor) (1003x5–1066)"; Williams "Godwine, earl of Wessex (d. 1053)"; Thompson "Robert, duke of Normandy (b. in or after 1050, d. 1134)" ; van Houts Adelida (Adeliza) (d. before 1113)"). Barlow good.  Williams good.  Thompson good. van Houts good.  Checked for accurate description, paraphrase, copyvio, source quality.  Source quality in general is fantastic.
 * Minor: is footnote [58]a mispositioned? It appears to support the entirety of that sentence.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the other source also supported that info - the weirdness was likely a function of my way of building an article - which is to read a bit of source material, paraphrase, and insert where it belongs in the article. This can mean that things are sourced to one source when they can often be sourced to other sources ... I've moved it since it was rather ugly. Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 *  Comments Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds reading through now.. .queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 *  Physical appearance and character - I'd say "Physical" is redundant here - what other type of appearance is there? And succinct headings are good.....
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ' 'it is much more likely that Robert was feeling powerless.'' - "powerless" to me means "weak" - I think a word like "frustrated" is better here as he wanted (but did not have) lands etc.
 * Bates (and Douglas) both argue in terms of Robert's power .. not frustration. I think I'd rather stick with powerless here... but I'm not that bothered if you insist. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting context/usage I guess - ultimately I am a neophyte in the area, so am happy to leave it given the specific context. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately I've only found very minor quibbles - no deal-breakers I can see. Nice read. Prose flowed well enough that I forgot I was copyediting....and just read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Great article, Ealdgyth, though I'm not sure I can trust myself to support anything without having passed FAC at least once myself. I found one detail a bit confusing: I suppose footnote "a" means that "He was known as 'the Bastard' only in non-Norman sources" rather than "He was known only as 'the Bastard' in non-Norman sources"? Waltham, The Duke of 10:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can trust you to support things at FAC ... where you been? - Dank (push to talk) 12:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page. Waltham, The Duke of 01:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording to "He was only described as "the Bastard" in sources written by non-Normans." which should be clearer. Thanks for looking it over! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clearer, thanks; a professional pedant would claim that the grammatical ambiguity remains, but one has to be looking for it to find it. Waltham, The Duke of 01:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - well written and comprehensive. Even the footnotes are fascinating; having read through the article there's nothing I can comment upon - well done, good to see such a thorough article on such an important figure in English history. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - covers the literature well and is nicely written. Enjoyed it. As a *very* minor point, the bit that goes " Edwin (of Mercia), Morcar (of Northumbria), and Waltheof (of Northampton)" might read better without the multiple brackets (e.g. "Edwin of Mercia, Morcar of Northumbria..."). Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Supporet I peer reviewed this and find it meets the FAC criteria. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.