Wikipedia:Peer review/Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor/archive1

Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominate it as a FA. Before the nomination, the article needs to be reviewed especially in regard of its prose and comprehensiveness. Thank you for your time in advance. Borsoka (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I'm going to take an extensive look at your article in the next two days or so! (Hopefully more like in the next 10 hours though) Aza24 (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

=Suggestions:= Note: I have made some grammatical and formatting fixes directly on the page. Below are some general suggestions though:

1 Background | 2 Early life | 3 King | 4 Emperor | 5 Last year | 6 Evaluation | 7 Family
 * Some of your headings are unusual for royalty, right now you have: (For the main sections)

Please take a look at some featured articles of monarchs to get some ideas but I would make some alterations such as:

1 Background | 2 Early life | 3	Reign as King | 4 Reign as Emperor | 5 Death* | 6 Legacy* | 7 Family ("Issue" instead?)

The two starred ones definitely need to be changed to those exact words, just based on the norms of other articles, but for "Reign as King" and "Reign as Emperor" there are probably different and more appropriate ways that I'm sure you could come up with to label these sections.
 * Done/Not done..


 * Thank you for your suggestions. I highly appreciate your assistance. I changed the titles almost fully in accordance with your proposals. I would not change "Last year" to "Death", primarily because the subsection is dedicated to his last year, while his death occurred in one minute. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I would briefly elaborate as to the origin of the main photo? It looks like this article's German version has the origin listed as "From a gospel book from St. Emmeram." (And your article explains it later as well) But even though it is explained later, being the main picture, a little more detail might make sense.

Lead

 * I don't think the "(a forbidden sale of church offices)" is necessary. The reader can simply hover over the word "simony" and see the definition in the preview of the article.
 * Not done. I think it is a practical approach. Yes, the reader can simply hover over the word if he does not use a mobile phone.


 * The line "Henry's conflicts with the Holy See and the German dukes weakened his position and the Saxon Rebellion continued in the summer of 1074." is confusing since it just said that he "overcame the rebellion of the Saxon aristocrat, Otto of Nordheim in 1071."
 * Done.


 * The word "rift" in the following line seems 'weak', maybe a better word/phrase could be "disconnect" or "rift in allegiance" The word "rift" just doesn't seem to adequately explain the situation, what was the rift from? Economical, loyalty or ideological differences?
 * Done.


 * Not sure about the timeline myself but if it makes sense to, just to differentiate the popes, maybe say "the newly elected Pope Gregory VII who threatened him..."
 * Done. (?)


 * Not sure what "To prevent the Pope from sitting in judgement on him at the German leaders' assembly, Henry went to Italy" means. Maybe add more clarity?
 * Done. (?)

Overall For Lead: Your lead is super solid and very well written, these are just some picky things to think about.

The only issue I really see with it is the lack of a single line at the end about his legacy, after all he is a vital article level 4. A lot of the english monarch's pages do a good job with this, Æthelstan has "No other West Saxon king played as important a role in European politics as Æthelstan, and he arranged the marriages of several of his sisters to continental rulers" at the end of his lead for example.
 * Done. (?) Borsoka (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Background

 * "They were convinced that their claim to the emperorship entitled them to act as all Christians' paramount rulers and to control papal elections in Rome" could be phrased better.
 * Done.


 * Background section looks great.

Early Life

 * Maybe explain what Henry III died of? If this is known at least.
 * Done.

King Section

 * "Her personal piety did not prevent her from controlling the appointment of bishops, but she lost control over papal elections" doesn't really make sense, why would her personal piety prevent this? Why didn't it? Who did she lose control to? There's probably a better way to phrase this that prevents these questions.
 * Done. (?)


 * The last paragraph under "First years of majority" seems kind of choppy, just take a look at it again.
 * Done. (?)


 * Why "practise" instead of "practice"? I don't see any marking in the talk page that this article is written in UK English.
 * Done.


 * "On hearing of the election of an anti-king, Henry replaced Berthold of Zähringen with Liutold of Eppenstein as duke of Carinthia and awarded Sigehard, Patriarch of Aquilea, with Friuli." Why did he do this? Maybe I overlooked some context earlier but it doesn't seem clear. If it was because of capability you could simply say "...replaced the incompetent/disloyal/unfaithful Berthold of Zähringen with Liutold of Eppenstein..." or replace the added adjective in my example with whichever word would make sense.
 * Done.

Emperor

 * Is there a reason "Meissen" is not linked to its page?
 * Done.


 * What about the Jews of Speyer or Jews of Worms, is there any page thy could be linked to?
 * Done. (there is no article to be linked to the Jews of Worms.) Borsoka (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 2nd Paragraph under "Family feuds" seems choppy.
 * Done. Borsoka (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Evaluation section:

 * Talk about the "jus spolii," is there any evidence of that setting a precedent or putting him in a bad light by future generations?
 * Done.


 * Just a guess, I'm assuming that the "Road to Canossa" is a fairly famous event, could you add a line or two here about this? Was he remembered fondly for this?
 * Done.

Overall I'd say this section needs an expansion by a paragraph or two, after being renamed as "Legacy," you should take a look at some other monarch's "legacy" sections. I'd say you could expand on the religious conflicts, while not surprising since this is the HRE we're talking about, the amount of conflicts in his reign, through 3 popes, deserves a little more attention, legacy/evaluation wise. Maybe you could even contrast him with his father, who seems to pretty a more pious, and respected man, relgiously at least.
 * Done. I did not make a direct comparison between Henry and his father. I think the "Background" section introduces Henry III and it also shows that clergymen sporadically expressed their objections against his acts already in the 1040s. Contrasting father and son would suggest that the Investiture Controversy was a sharp break, although it was rather a process, driven by several factors, including Henry's minority and the development of reformist theology. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

=Overall= This is an super impressive article, with an unbelievable (in a good way) amount of detail and comprehensiveness. The strong citing and surplus of references is also awesome. In fact, this article is definitely better than a lot of featured articles that I have seen! So the suggestions I've given are all mostly picky. The two biggest things are the naming of the categories ("Last year" to "death" and "evaluation" to "legacy") as well as expansion to the evaluation section. If you want, although this is by no means necessary, you could consider adding an Ancestry and Family tree section to the bottom of the article. Similar to the one in James VI and I, but once again this is not necessary and the article you have is already a great one!

Also, this is my first peer review, so any thoughts on how I could give better feedback, or better formatting in responses would be appreciated.
 * , thank your for your comprehensive review and for your kind words. I addressed most of your points. If not, I explained my concerns above. I highly appreciate your hard work. Your feedback enabled me to improve the article significantly. For me, your suggestions were clear and well-formatted. Please let me know if any further issues should be addressed. Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm glad I could help. Your article looks really really great now, the legacy section is super solid and the family tree is well done. Your explanations to the suggestions of mine that you didn't incorporate make complete sense, cheers! Aza24 (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Can this peer review be archived? Or are you waiting for some feedback from other editors?
 * Thank you for your query. I am planning to archive the peer review a month after it was requested. Borsoka (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)