Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/John, King of England/archive1

Comments from Ealdgyth
Moved from main page, all resolved.

Lead:
 * This is rough "John unsuccessfully attempted a rebellion against Richard's royal administrators whilst his brother was participating in the Third Crusade. John was proclaimed king of England after Richard died in 1199, and came to an agreement with Philip II of France to recognise his right to the continental Angevin lands at the peace treaty of Le Goulet in 1200." There needs to be some sort of connecting bridge between these two sentences, as it is right now they are disjointed
 * I've given it a go. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, disjointed "John spent much of the next decade attempting to regain these lands, raising huge revenues, reforming his armed forces and rebuilding continental alliances. John's judicial reforms had a lasting, positive impact on the English common law system." *I* know that the judicial reforms were done because he was trying to raise money but this isn't clear to the non-specialist from what you've put in the lead.
 * Again, see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You've got King Philip II and Pope Innocent III, but Prince Louis, can we make this consistent?
 * Sorted.


 * Okay, you quote Jim Bradbury rather than Turner or Church? wouldn't we be better to quote a biographer of John rather than a biographer of Philip Augustus (and a military historian at that). When I read that sentence, i went "Who the heck is Bradbury??"
 * If you discount Turner's reissued book in 2009, Bradbury is the author of the most recent academic chapter/article on John's personality (in Church's edited 1999 volume) that I know of, so he seemed an obvious choice for a quote on his personality. Ironically, i think Bradbury's views are also more representative of the wider academic spectrum (including the non-biographers of John, such as Gillingham and others) than Turner or Warren, John's recent biographers. Happy to discuss further. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Childhood:
 * I'm okay with this reasoning, but I think a quote or two from Turner or Warren wouldn't hurt either. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really really should mention that Eleanor was the divorced (okay, annulled) wife of Louis VII...
 * Fair one! Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Early life:
 * (6th paragraph) You've got Pope Lucius III - consistency
 * Hopefully sorted now. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard's reign -
 * Longchamp was more importantly Bishop of ely rather than papal legate (and his legatship only dates from June 1190 to spring 1192 (see here which is AFTER longchamps appointment as chancellor). Probably better to call him Bishop of ely than Papal legate, otherwise you risk giving the impression that he had no power base in england of his own.
 * Changed as per your suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Accession:
 * Make it clear in the text that Arthur is the son of John's elder brother, right now, Geoffrey is just linked without any explanation.
 * Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Angevin law favouring Arthur as the heir of Henry's eldest son.." wrong. Geoffrey isn't Henry's eldest son. Geoffrey was elder than John, but younger than the other brothers. If Geoffrey had been the eldest son, Arthur would have been a threat to Richard, which Arthur wasn't.
 * Yep, a typo. Caught by another editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, you left out the great story where Hubert Walter and William Marshall debate whether to make John or Arthur king!
 * Unfortunately, yes! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "As a result commanders of the period were increasing drawing on larger of mercenaries." larger what of mercenaries?
 * Sorted ("numbers") Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Kingship:
 * "These processes meant the royal courts had a more significant role in local law cases, previously dealt with only by regional or local lords." I think there is something missing in the second clause - do you mean "which had previously only dealt with by regional or local lords."?
 * Sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "John increased the skills and independence of local sergeants and bailiffs, and created local coroners." Okay, several things wrong here - one, how the heck did John increase the sergeants and baliff's skills??? Secondly, the coroners appear to have arrisen in 1194 (during Richard's reign) when Hubert Walter ordered them sent out. See the ODNB article on Walter - in this, McLynn's wrong. Most historians consider the reforms during the period while walter was chancellor to have owed at least as much to walter as to John, but somehow you've not even mentioned walter in here...
 * This process is a good example of why wikipedia is better than many published books! I've clarified the bailiffs bit, but he doesn't give any more detail. I've done some digging, and found what McLynn was referring to on the coroners, and explained that a bit more, and added the additional reference in. It was a new class of borough coroners, apparently. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really uncomfortable ascribing all of the administrative improvements solely to John, quite honestly. I should be home Monday night and will see what else i can dig up. There is a range of opinions on who is behind what administrative changes, and I'd feel better with a more nuanced approach here. (and there were a number of other changes which had a great deal of improvemtns also.) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, from Turner - page 55 "John's reign marks a watershed in this progress towards administrative monarchy, with much more systematic record-keeping. It is doubtful that the king himself deserves much credit beyond his giving consent; it was most likely due to his chancellor, Hubert Walter, archbishop of Canterbury." Bartlett England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings agrees - on page 200 "The Chancellor at the time of the innovation (i.e. the recording of outgoing correspondence which increased the efficiency of the government) was Hubert Walter, archbishop of Canterbury, and there is every reason to assume that he was personally responsible." General consensus seems to be that John was not solely responsible for the adminstrative innovations of his reign. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I deliberately hadn't suggested that John was responsible for the improved record keeping, because that's clearly not the case (I'd gone for John having "inherited a sophisticated" system of records). I've underscored that with the Barlett reference though to make that even clearer. See what you think.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal household:
 * "There had been a trend since Henry II for these posts to be filled by "new men" from outside the normal ranks of the barons." actually this trend dates back to Henry I
 * Ah, misread Turner slightly. Corrected. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Continental policy:
 * "following the death of his mother, Eleanor..." when did she die?
 * Clarified in text. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "William de Briouze" or "William de Braose"? Pick one and stick with it, you're using both for the same person.
 * Sorted.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Historian Lewis Warren describes the result as the "emergence of England as a maritime power"." don't other historians disagree? (I'm not at home to go looking through my books, but I'm pretty sure there is disagreement on whether John's reign would be considered the start of English naval power...
 * I'm not sure on this one. On the one hand, I'm not exactly convinced personally by Lewis Warren's argument (but for reasons that are OR!); further more, plenty of historians place the origins of the navy in other period. On the other hand, I haven't got a reference that disagrees with Warren (in the sense of saying, "no, John didn't do this", as opposed to saying "Pepys was responsible", or "Nelson is the key figure" etc.) I'm inclined to leave it as it is, as a direct attributed quote, unless we've got an opposing argument to cite. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll dig into this some more when I'm home Monday. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything else here .. this is one of those subjects that is so subjective. I'd work to make it clearer that there is disagreement amongst historians and leave it at that. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried some different forms of words, and can't get it work; given that neither of us think that Warren is right here, I've just removed it, and I think it reads well enough without it! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You should note that Otto Welf was John's nephew...
 * Worked in. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dispute with the Pope:
 * You have Pope Innocent III - but elsewhere Pope Innocent III - consistency
 * Sorted.


 * "From the 1040s onwards, however, historian Richard Huscroft has described how successive popes had put forward a reforming message that emphasised the importance of the church being "governed more coherently and more hierarchically from the centre" and established "its own sphere of authority and jurisdiction, separate from and independent of that of the lay ruler"." I have an issue with this - the way it's phrased, you're implying that Huscroft's the one arguing for a new interpretation of this period, which isn't true. I think what you're wanting is "From the 1040s onwards, however, successive popes had put forward a reforming message that emphasised the importance of the church being "governed more coherently and more hierarchically from the centre" and established "its own sphere of authority and jurisdiction, separate from and independent of that of the lay ruler", in the words of historian Richard Huscroft." which clearly attributes the quotation without implying that Huscroft's the only one arguing this. You're not going to get any dissenting historian's on the view that the popes were reforming during this period.
 * Agree - I've tied myself in knots getting the author's name in. Changed as per your suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "John wanted John de Gray, the bishop of Norwich and one of his own supporters, to be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury after the death of Walter.." is it Arcbishop and Bishop or is it bishop and archbishop??? consistency.
 * I think I've got all of these right now, but may be worth checking. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Failure of 1214 French campaign:
 * First - wouldn't it be better as "Failure of the 1214 French campaign"?
 * Sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Prince Louis but you usually don't include the title in the link... consistency
 * Done.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pre-war tensions:
 * "Stephen Langton, the archbishop of Canterbury" ... but you've capitlized similar constructions of Archbishop of Canterbury ... consistency
 * Done.

Death: Historiography:
 * "Modern historians assess that by October 1216..." do you mean "assert" here? It doesn't make much sense otherwise to me.
 * Changed.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Tudor historians were generally favourably...." can we get some sort of link or chronological date for the non-historians among the readers? Same for "Victorian period"
 * There's a 16th century mention in the previous sentence, so I've gone for wikilinking Tudor. I've given the Victorian bit a 19th century note for clarity. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, I have to think it a bit odd to use Bradbury, Gillingham and McLynn to pull out quotes from, without doing quotes from Church or Turner or Warren on John. I'd expect to use the actual biographers more than the non-biographers.
 * I'd gone for Jim Bradbury, because he's the author of the most recent academic piece on the personality of John. McLynn is the most prominent "unreformed" historian, so is the obvious counter-reformist to quote. Gillingham has written a lot about John, although he majors on Richard. I'll have a look for addition Turner or Warren quotes later.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have a few concerns that need to be addressed before I'm ready to support. I'm traveling so it'll be a bit longer than usual between responses, but it shouldn't be more than a day or so at most. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers! I'll try to address thse tomorrow night. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First lot done. I'll cover the others tomorrow. Cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Up to date with the above I think. Very happy to discuss the two points on quotes further.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck most, the others are going to need me to check a few books first. Will do Monday night or Tuesday morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers - any help you can give on the two remaining issues very gratefully received! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)