Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Henry I of England

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Henry I of England[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

I'm nominating this article because it has recently been expanded, and covers an important Anglo-Norman ruler and military leader. It could use some more pairs of eyes over it, however, particularly on the prose. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • with lands stretching into South and North Wales - This should probably be shortened to just Wales, unless you want to make a distinction about Central Wales.
  • There's a subtle difference, but I've simplified it. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingdom of France, etc. should be capitalized.
  • This awkward: deployed to London Some other verb is needed.
  • What's porphyrogeniture?
  • I created an article for it and linked it. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was still returning from the Crusade - was still abroad?
  • Link to Winchester castle
  • low born individuals - low-born individuals
  • Queen's chancellors? Henry and his queens' chancellors became bishops of Durham, Hereford, London, Lincoln, Winchester and Salisbury. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think queens' chancellors is right, as there were two queens and several chancellors, and queens isn't a proper noun in this context. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have been clearer. I was questioning if Henry's queens had their own chancellors because that's how I'd read the text.
  • Yep - that's correct. I've tweaked to see if I can make that clearer. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing word, I think Amaury III of Montfort many other barons rose up against Henry
  • Breteil or Breteuil?

Support Comments

  • Well I don't need a second (or even a first, if it comes to that) invitation to consider prose... ;-) Undertook my usual copyedit so let me know if I've misinterpreted anything. Outstanding points:
    • Count of the Cotentin: the second para begins "During this period, neither brother seems to have trusted Henry" -- the previous para just mentions Robert and Henry, so I assume you mean William and Robert didn't trust Henry, but that should be clear, e.g. "During this period, neither of his brothers seems to have trusted Henry" or simply "During this period, neither William nor Robert seems to have trusted Henry".
    • Should "count" be capitalised in "count of Contentin"? I guess it comes down to if it was an official title or simply your own shorthand...
    • Fall and rise: "potentially because Henry had possibly" sounds so uncertain as to be hardly worth mentioning, so perhaps you can reword...
    • "easily defensible" might be correct English but sounds odd, how about simply "easily defended" or "easy to defend"?
    • Should "treaty" in "treaty of Rouen" be capitalised? Same idea as "count of Contentin"...
    • Sometimes you say "the king" and sometimes "the King" -- not too fussed either way but should be consistent.
      • Have checked through. A couple of mistakes, now fixed. The remaining examples are probably correct, as they're talking about the generic king, not the specific King. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taking the throne: "seized the royal treasury that was being held there" -- "being held there" suggests it was a temporary measure for some reason; if not then "seized the royal treasury held there", or even just "seized the royal treasury" is sufficient.
    • Conquest of Normandy: "Henry married Juliana, one of his illegitimate daughters, to Eustace of Breteuil, and another daughter, Matilda, to Rotrou, the Count of Perche" -- I assume Matilda here is not his legitimate daughter Matilda; if so I think it needs to be "another illegitimate daughter, Matilda".
  • Whew, taking a break following Government, family and household... Hopefully more later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, tks Hc, glad to see you back here, 'cos it's a mammoth piece of work that should go all the way to FAC. All my comments so far have been addressed; will look at the rest of the article when I can and expect to support in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now continued my review copyedit to the end of the article, so again pls check I haven't damaged anything. Outstanding prose/content comments:
    • Rebellion: You mention twice in the third paragraph that Juliana attempted to kill her father with a crossbow (doesn't everyone?) -- were there in fact two separate attempts (desperate girl!) because, if not, I'd rejig the para to merge the two mentions and avoid confusion.
    • Planning the succession: "It is uncertain whether Henry intended Geoffrey to have any future claim on England or Normandy, and he was probably keeping his son-in-law's status deliberately uncertain" -- Any chance we could avoid two "uncertain"s in the same sentence?
    • You've used a mixture of parenthetic dashes, e.g. ndashes in Succession crisis and mdashes in Death -- pls make consistent (incidentally, I'd expect to see spaces surrounding ndashes but not mdashes).
  • Structure, coverage and referencing seem solid, though I'd expect to see the Ancestors diagram cited, unless all elements are sourced in the main body (I admit I haven't checked).
  • I haven't checked image licensing but assuming no issues there, and pending response to the above queries, I still expect to support -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crossbow - this may have been fixed; I can't see the second mention (although it expanded on in the footnote).
  • Uncertains cropped.
  • Ndashes fixed (I think, I often get this wrong). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB: I have a reference I could use for the Ancestors diagram, but I can't see a good way of actually adding a ref tag in terms of formatting (short of adding a reference to each name, which is going to look a bit odd. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second crossbow mention was in fact the footnote -- got confused 'cos I was in edit mode at the time, sorry. Re. the ancestors citation, see Prince William, Duke of Gloucester for how DrKiernan and I have agreed it can be done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, as per the Prince William model. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, PD-100 would be clearer I think than the current PD-70 and PD-US (the latter is vague, and I think we'd really rather not rely on previous publication since that would be more open to challenge). Those historical files need PD-Art tags as well, I think, since thy're probably photographs (rather than scans). A couple of images are already licensed like this. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which ones do you reckon need the PD-Art tags? (I've never certain how this works...) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord comment: what is the status of this review? Sturm, Ian and Grandiose, have your comments been addressed? Hchc2009, are you able to let the reviewers know what has been done to rectify any concerns? As the review has been open for around six weeks now and it is still to receive a support, I am considering closing it, but I don't want to do so if you believe you have covered off on the above listed issues. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No action has been taken on my suggestion, but I would be loathe to suggest it ought to be considered an oppose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto re. my points. I was planning to do more with this review but was awaiting responses to my initial copyedit/comments before proceeding. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Picking up where Ian left off:
  • "the two kings agreed a truce", "to agree a peace settlement": Most non-Brits aren't clear on what this means (it doesn't mean "agreed to", exactly) ... my sense is it means they negotiated a truce or settlement.
  • "this was a prestigious match with the Empire": "match" in this sense doesn't usually take "with"; "this was a prestigious match" would work.
  • "onto the defensive": on the defensive
  • "Amaury III of Montfort many other barons": ?
  • "further barons abandoned his cause": more barons ..., or the barons further abandoned ...
  • "despite Juliana attempting to kill": We're trying to avoid WP:PLUSING, so: "despite Juliana's attempt to kill". Also, "attempting" allows for the possibility of an ongoing attempt, which it doesn't seem to be.
  • "Henry appears to have deployed scouts and then deployed his troops": repetition
  • "Calixtus, declined to support Louis": no comma
  • "formally made peace on advantageous terms to the English King": ... on terms advantageous ..., and I agree with the comment above that consistency in capitalisation of "King" would be helpful, though it's not always possible.
  • Continuing. "the King being hit", etc.: Check for WP:PLUSING throughout. (It's not that PLUSING isn't good English so much as that, when editors reword it, the rewording is generally preferable, for one reason or another.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some copyediting; feel free to revert. Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have done another trawl for plussing. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
    • External links all check out [2] (no action req'd).
    • Images all lack Alt Text so you might consider adding [3] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • Images are all PD or licenced and are appropriate for the article (no action required).
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action required).
    • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
    • Possible missing word here: "Robert joined the Crusade, borrowing money from William Rufus in order to do and granting...", do you mean "Robert joined the Crusade, borrowing money from William Rufus in order to do so and granting..."? Would also suggest removing "in order" as too formal. Consider instead: "Robert joined the Crusade, borrowing money from William Rufus to do so and granting.."
    • The paragraph that begins: "Matilda had been educated in a sequence of convents..." is a bit repetitive. At least three sentences that all start the same way "Matilda...". Perhaps reword?
    • Sentence construction through out the article can be a bit repetitive with numerous sentences starting "Henry...", often several times in a paragraph. Perhaps reword?
    • "... the conversion of communities of clerks into communities of Augustinian canons..." could possibly be more simply worded as "... the conversion of communities of clerks into Augustinian canons..."
    • "That" is redundant here: "Louis demanded that Henry give homage ...", consider more simply: "Louis demanded Henry give homage..."
    • issns could be added for the journals listed in the bibliography.
    • Otherwise seems like a well written and comprehensive account (although I'm not an expert on this topic by any stretch). Anotherclown (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes made. Is there a good search engine/database for ISSNs? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gday. Worldcat.org sometimes has them, otherwise I just do a Google search. I've added them now for you so all my comments have been addressed. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers! Just added the alt text in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Henry_I_of_England&oldid=554575491"