Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Stephen, King of England


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen, King of England

 * Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I'd like to take it onto FAR, as I did with John of England, and it would be improved by further comments from the community before then. Stephen of England was one of the key military leaders during the Anarchy, and the article contains a lot of military, as well as political, history. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A minor point but stylistically, the image of the sinking of the White Ship is 13th. or early 14th. century. The caption faithfully mirrors the original wikicommons file but it would be well to check another source of dating for this manuscript. Monstrelet (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! Edmund King's biography gives the date as 1320; I've updated the article and the image description.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's always a hard call to ask a writer to change prose that's accepted and even preferred by academics to something more accessible ... but won't more readers understand "by marriage" than jure uxoris? Perhaps you could link to jure uxoris.
 * "the event left the succession of the English throne open to challenge": the event in general, or the drowning of William Adelin? - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points, have changed accordingly. Edit summaries look good. Many thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Continuing. This is one of those articles where I'm not going to feel comfortable supporting on prose ... it's way outside my competence.  But hopefully I can make myself useful.
 * "labelled by the Victorian historian John Round as the period of "the Anarchy".": I removed this from the end of the lead section; feel free to revert. My thinking was that either the term caught on, in which case it's only necessary to mention it once in the lead (as you do) without explanation, or the term didn't catch on, in which case it shouldn't be in the lead.  I have no objections to any of this text appearing below the lead (I haven't looked for it yet). - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're always good value to have around on an article Dank! Cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, and it's a pleasure to read. - Dank (push to talk)


 * Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Stephen,_King_of_England. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A big article in more ways than one, well done for even attempting it. Some minor concerns.
 *  Comments  Support


 * 1) In the Bibliography some books nee ISBNs: Bennett, Matthew. (2000), Blacburn, Mark. (1998) ,Chibnall, Marjorie. (2008) Crouch, David. (1998), Dalton, Paul and Graeme J. White. (eds) (2008), Gillingham, John. (1994),Greeen, J. A. (1992),Helmerichs, Robert. (2001),Holt, J. C. (1998),King, Edmund. (2006),Round, John H. (1888) (or OCLC),White, Graeme. (1990),White, Graeme. (1998),White, Graeme. (2000) and White, Graeme. (2008)
 * I think these were all okay: Bennett is an article in an edited volume by Dunn; the listing for Dunn (ed) in the bibliography has the ISBN. Same with Blacburn, Chibnall, Crouch, Gillingham, Green, Helmerichs, Holt, King, Round and White. (e.g. "Crouch, David. (1998) "The March and the Welsh Kings," in King (ed) (1998)." corresponds to "King, Edmund. (ed) (1998) The Anarchy of King Stephen's Reign. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198203640.", which has the full details of the edited volume.) Dalton and White have already got an ISBN in the bibliography. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (I did mispell Green though, which I've corrected!) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Some books require publisher and location details
 * I couldn't see any missing these, but I may be mistaken! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) The ISBN for Stringer, Keith J. (1993) may be wrong as its not being recognised (blue link)
 * Corrected, should work now. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Citation 240 needs the publishing date added (July 22, 2010)
 * Corrected. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Citations number 1 4 and 9 King (2010), p.5 can be combined under ref name
 * Normally you'd be absolutely correct, but in this case they can't, because for citations 1 and 9 "King (2010), p.5" is part of a single, combined reference (e.g cit 1 is "Davis, p.1; King (2010), p.5.", cit 4 is "King (2010), p.5.", cit 9 is "King (2010), p.5; Davis, p.5.") Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Same with numbers 45 and 49 King (2010), p.46.
 * The same issue. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Same number 77 and 78 Davis, p.27.
 * The same issue. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) King, Edmund (1998) is listed in the bibliography but only King (2006) and (2010) appears to have been used.
 * As per above, its an edited volume referred to elsewhere in the bibliography. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) White is listed four times in the Bibliography 1990 1998 2000 and 2008 citation 174 does not have a year added, suspects its 2008 as that one is not used elsewhere.
 * As per for King, but the year missing was 1998, corrected. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers - will get onto these later! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have commented above and made various changes. See what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Need to check refs for consistency. In refs but not notes: Abel, Bates, Browne, Dalton. in notes but not refs: Davies, p.27; Dyer, p.4; White (2000), p.78.; White (2000), pp.76-7.; Coss, p.81.; Coulson, p.69. – Ling.Nut 01:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As per the above reply to Jim Sweeney, if you have a look in the refs, you'll note that Abel, Bates, Browne and Dalton are all edited volumes, and that the chapters referring to them are all in the article.
 * Davies - should have been Davis, fixed.
 * White (2000) is already in the biblio: "White, Graeme. (2000) "Earls and Earldoms during King Stephen's Reign," in Dunn (ed) (2000)."
 * Coss and Coulson - well spotted (have added in).
 * Many thanks, Hchc2009 (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
 * First off, this is an excellent article, I just have a few nitpicks.
 * Some areas need citations. For example, "Eventually a truce was declared, and William Clito died the following year.", and the second and third paras in the White Ship section need citations. Please make sure the material in every paragraph is completely covered by citations.
 * "He was extremely wealthy, well-mannered and liked by his peers, but also considered a man capable of firm action." - this doesn't make sense to me - "but" implies a contradiction between being well liked and being capable of firm action (perhaps more clearly, all of those qualities appear to be positive for a candidate to rule a country, "but" should be reserved for contrasting positive and negative qualities). Should probably be "and" instead.
 * Images all look good, copyright-wise. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Will try and fix tomorrow, have got the books out! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've run out of time before I need to undertake some work-based travel; I'm back in a couple of days, but they'll be easy to find references for then. Thanks again, Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, there's plenty of time. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Should all be fixed now! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking good - I did find a couple other lines that need citations, though:
 * Henry of Winchester was a major advocate of this principle...the rights of the church in the succession section.
 * Stephen's brother Henry wanted the post, but...papal legate instead in the initial years section.
 * After that, everything should be ok. Parsecboy (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support
 * No dabs, external links check out , and the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
 * Images lack alt text, but its not a requirement of ACR so its up to you if you want to add it (no action required).
 * The Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase (no action required).
 * I'm a little confused by this phrase: "Further attempted negotiations to deliver a general peace...", could you mean: "Further negotiations attempted..."?
 * Yep! Changed, thanks for spotting. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Overlinking of Henry Fitzempress. Anotherclown (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Will have a hunt for the overlinks later.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Which ones do you think are overlinked? It's linked twice that I can see, but that instance is within the MOS, as there is a substantial gap between the lead and the first mention of him in the main text. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it is linked 4 times in total: once in the lead, twice in the body of the article and once in an image caption. I agree that it would be acceptable to link in the lead and at first instance in the article, but probably not 4 times surely? If you are having trouble finding them click the edit button and do a CTRL-F search for " |Henry Fitzempress]] ". Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I impressively searched for "nowiki etc." before remembering to remove that bit! Dough... I'm removed one of them, which leaves the lead, the main text, and an image caption. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats the one. Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters).
 * Why isn't Battle of Lincoln, forex, capitalized as a proper name? Similarly, why isn't King of England in the main body properly capitalized?
 * The capitalization on "king" is a tough one. I have tried in some articles to lowercase "king" or "president" consistently (except when before the name, of course), and usually I get reverted.  OTOH, there are clearly some parts of the text where "king of England" is right.  These days, I tend to leave it alone unless I've got a strong case either way. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look through on the Kings and kings! I don't tend to capitalise "Battles of..." though, as most of the academic works I read don't treat them as proper names. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Standardize spelling of the name of Stephen's mother. The caption for the second image down from the infobox calls her Adelin.
 * Will check through later - thanks for spotting.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see any utility to the (more...) after the King of England in the infobox, but maybe that's standard for articles on English kings.
 * I agree with you - it was added by another editor, and I'd assumed it fitted a Wikipedia style of some sort.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "uneffected"
 * Changed.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Capitalization issues in many titles in the bibiliography. Please review
 * Will do.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully caught them all.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is just a suggestion, but you can handle collections of essays by adding |chapter=article title |author=article's author. That might cut down the number of entries slightly if you're only using a single article from a book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.