Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward I of England/archive2

Edward I of England

Previous peer review

Edward I of England, probably one of the most well-known kings of the Middle Ages! Although nowadays, most people only know him from Braveheart. I would really appreciate some feedback and comments here before I take it to FA. Please bear with me: this is my first major FA, so I might be a bit slow. Inviting Hchc2009 and Dudley Miles. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Hchc2009. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Refs 1 and 2. It is usual for the lead to be an unreferenced summary of the referenced text in the main article.
• "Edward joined the Ninth Crusade to the Holy Land". When?
• "condemned for his militaristic campaigns against Scotland". What does this mean? How can a campaign not be militaristic?
• "an education typical of an aristocratic boy his age, although he was especially tutored in military studies". Why "although"? It would be extraordinary if he was not mainly trained for war.
• "in old age it turned white. [His features were marred by a drooping left eyelid.] His speech, despite a lisp, was said to be persuasive". A sentence in [] should not be in the middle of a quote. You could add it as the next sentence.
• "Although the endowments King Henry made were sizeable, they offered Edward little independence. Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, had been appointed as royal lieutenant of Gascony the year before and, consequently, drew its income, so in practice Edward derived neither authority nor revenue from this province.[22] The grant he received in 1254 included not only Gascony,[5] but also most of Ireland, and much land in Wales and England,[23] including the earldom of Chester, but King Henry retained much control over the land in question, particularly in Ireland, so Edward's power was limited there as well, and the King derived most of the income from those lands." This passage is confusingly arranged. You say endowments were sizeable, but you have not yet said that Henry made endowments to Edward. Ditto Edward no revenue from Gascony, but you have not yet said he was granted it. You need first to say that Henry granted Edward ..., and then the limitations.
• "Notably, Ireland was granted to Edward with the stipulation that it would never separate from the English crown." Why was this notable?
• "the author J.S. Hamilton". This is vague. Maybe "the historian J. S. Hamilton".
• "Edward increasingly fell in with the Lusignan faction". "fell in with" is too colloquial. "became increasingly close to"?
• "like the Earl of Gloucester, though de Clare did not ultimately participate". I do not think you need to mention de Clare - you have not said that he promised. Also maybe "such as the Earl".
• " restrictions on Jewish money lending". Is it possible to explain what restrictions in a few words?
• " Charles and Louis's successor" Had Charles died? You have not said so.
• "Following Paris and Savoy, Edward stopped by Gascony". "stopped by" is too colloquial. "went to"?
• "the King also took the liberty of organizing political alliances with the kingdoms in Iberia" Why was it taking a liberty?
• "His daughter Eleanor". I would give her age.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Dudley Miles, thank you for your comments thus far. I believe I have addressed all of them except for the one about the Jewish money lending. I am unable to access the cited book, and I'm drawing blanks with my other sources. What do you suggest I do? Thanks, and I look forward to more feedback! Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• I have found a source and added a note. I also see that the Morris book has an error message stating that it is an unused source. It looks too dated anyway. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• "Through the 1267 Treaty of Montgomery, he officially obtained land he had conquered in the Four Cantrefs of Perfeddwlad and was recognised in his title of Prince of Wales." "officially obtained" does not sound right. Maybe "The 1267 Treaty of Montgomery recognised his ownership of land he had conquered in the Four Cantrefs of Perfeddwlad and his title of Prince of Wales."
• "In June, Gloucester was defeated at the Battle of Llandeilo Fawr." You have not mentioned Gloucester among the English leaders.
  • Hi Dudley, Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester was mentioned earlier in the section.
• "James of Saint George,[115] a prestigious architect whom Edward had met in Savoy on his return from the crusade". You have already covered the meeting.
• "Edward's intentions to rule North Wales". Why North Wales? Do you mean that he did not rule the south or that it was already under English control?
• "on the continent". Continent meaning Continental Europe is usually capitalised.
• "Mongol court of the east". This needs a link. The one to the Orient is too general to be useful.
• "he French occupation of Gascony would not end until 1303" You have not said that they occupied it.
  • Earlier in the section, it says, "On his diplomatic mission in 1286, Edward had paid homage to the new king, Philip IV, but in 1294 Philip declared Gascony forfeit when Edward refused to appear before him in Paris to discuss the recent conflict between English, Gascon, and French sailors that had resulted in several French ships being captured, along with the sacking of the French port of La Rochelle."
• "Edward was frequently in conflict with the Archbishops of Canterbury that served during his reign, with one 14th-century chronicler attributing the death of Thomas of Corbridge to the King's harsh conduct towards him." Citing the death of an Archbishop of York as an example of conflict with Canterbury is a non-sequitur.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, @Dudley Miles. Absolutely no rush, but just a heads up that I plan to nominate Edward I for FA sometime during the first week of January, so I will have to close this PR at that time. Hopefully Hchc2009 is able to drop some feedback, if not here, then on the FA nomination, although they appear to be quite inactive. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• "Edward then replaced most local officials, such as the escheators and sheriffs.[194] This last measure was done in preparation for an extensive inquest". Was the change made in preparation for the inquest? It seems more likely that he replaced them because he was dissatisfied with them and then set up the inquest to prove it and get details.

Prestwich 2007 p. 93 states: "It would not have been easy to investigate local government without changing those in charge, and it was surely as a necessary preliminary to the inquiry that in September 1274 the two escheators and the majority of the sheriffs were replaced."

• "an extensive inquest covering all of England, that would hear complaints about abuse of power by royal officers. The inquest produced the set of so-called Hundred Rolls, from the administrative subdivision of the hundred.[195][p] The second purpose of the inquest was to establish what land and rights the Crown had lost during the reign of Henry III." The hundred rolls comment belongs in the next paragraph, not in the middle of the purposes. Also, "from the administrative subdivision of the hundred" is unclear and superfluous.
• "The compilation of the Hundred Rolls was followed shortly after by the issue of Westminster I (1275), which asserted the royal prerogative and outlined restrictions on liberties.[209] In the Mortmain (1279), the issue was grants of land to the church." It would be better to give full titles, e.g. Statutes of Mortmain.
• Jews. You could cut down the details about foreign expulsions.
• "Edward held Parliament on a reasonably regular basis" "reasonably regular" is too vague.
• "The King now had full backing for collecting lay subsidies – taxes collected at a certain fraction of the moveable property of all laymen – from the entire population." Not from the entire population - any medieval king would have been horrified at the idea of asking the consent of the lower classes.
• "but the King responded by threatening with outlawry" presumably "but the King responded by threatening opponents with outlawry".
• "the archbishopric of Canterbury was vacant, since Robert Winchelsey was in Italy to receive consecration" An office is not vacant when the holder is abroad.
• "Edward's problems with the opposition did not end with the Falkirk campaign" You have not explained the Falkirk campaign at this point.
• "it was a failure in personnel" failures is the wrong word as one of the opponents died. Maybe changes in personnel.
• "Edward finally got his revenge on Winchelsey in 1305". It is not clear what Winchelsey had done to offend Edward.
• Scotland. You discuss this as if you have not mentioned it before, whereas it is covered briefly above.
  • Hi, Dudley, I've read that area several times and understand your argument, but I myself cannot think of a way to rephrase that area. Do you have any suggestions? Personally, I think the article flows well the way it is, but I'm happy to take your feedback. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am preparing to close this PR, so further discussion could take place on the FA nomination. Many thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Edward, however, was not able to take advantage of the momentum". Why? This needs explanation.
• "The defeated Scots appealed to Pope Boniface VIII to assert a claim of overlordship to Scotland in place of the English." "The defeated Scots appealed to Pope Boniface VIII to assert a papal claim of overlordship to Scotland in place of the English"?
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Legacy. I do not see any point in having a section and sub-section if there is only one subsection.
• "There is also a great difference between English and Scottish historiography on King Edward". Why "also"? I would delete.
• External links. The royal family and Britannica are just brief popular summaries and I think it would be better to delete them. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Dudley for your comments. I'm somewhat occupied at the moment, so I'll address them sometime next week. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Hi Unlimitedlead. Would you like me to give the article a pre-FAC copy edit? No obligation. Obviously you should feel free to to revert or query anything you disagree with, dislike or don't understand. (That's fine, it goes with the territory when you're a copy editor.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Gog the Mild. That would be great. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

First off it is far too long. If you nominated it as is I can't imagine I wouldn't be strongly objecting that it needs to be edited into a more summary style. So I would be looking to lose a couple of thousand words in the copy edit. Although I confess I haven't read it yet . That in mind, this is your no offence taken opportunity to change your mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to do whatever you feel is right, Gog. I hope the article won't get cut to less than 6500 words, though. I'll take a look once you're done and see if anything outrageous happened, although I sincerely doubt that I'll need to do that. Side note: is it okay to call you Gog? Are we on a "first name" basis? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Gog the article is 9482 words and you say that it is too long. Hchc's Henry III of England passed FA with 11324 words and Ealdgyth's FA Middle Ages is 17178 words. My article on King Edgar in my sandbox is 9385 words. Have the rules on length changed and is my article too long to pass FA? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

There are no rules. Just the MoS. For length, WP:SIZERULE. Edward I is 57kB plus captions, notes and several other bits, strongly indicating to me that it needs either splitting or summarising. I flagged up in advance that I would be looking to shrink it during a copy edit while giving the author the option to tell me to go away and stressing that I had not actually read the article.

Edgar is currently 55kB plus quotes, notes and captions, suggesting that it is stretching or over the boundary. Although again I would stress that I haven't read the article. When it was promoted Middle Ages was 87k and 14,349 words and probably as good a candidate for IAR as one is likely to find on this point. At its current 106kB it is almost certainly ready for a rigorous trim, but I am sure that we are both aware of how FAs bloat with non-summarised and/or relatively trivial information over time. Henry III at 65kB and 10,782 when promoted surprises me, although the FAC discussion doesn't seem to touch on any aspects of the prose. No doubt FACs, and probably the MoS, were different eight years ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• The map "File:EdwardICrusadeMap.jpg" has no source.
• "File:Wales after the Treaty of Montgomery 1267.svg" needs a more direct link to its source.
• "File:King Edward I penny London mint.jpg" needs a free use licence for the original coin. As does "File:Edward I of England and Eleanor of Castile, Lincoln Cathedral.jpg".

• "Edward remained in captivity until March". Which year?
• "did not surrender until the drafting of the conciliatory Dictum of Kenilworth." When was this?
• "Edward was made steward of England". Is this Lord High Steward? If so, could it be linked.
• "Crusade and accession" section: "Franks" are mentioned in the map, but not the article. What are Franks?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gog. Due to school, I don't have time to undertake a FA nomination towards the middle and end of February, so I'm hoping to push this article out to FA as soon as possible. Please don't feel rushed, but just as a warning: I plan to close this PR either tomorrow or Wednesday. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

In which case see the comments above and I shall reserve further comments for the FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)