Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edward II of England

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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.

Article promoted MilHistBot (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward II of England

edit
Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it now covers the most current literature on Edward II, and could eventually find its way to the FA status. Edward had mixed fortunes in war; he did well during the Despenser Wars, fighting an excellent campaign, but on the other hand, when his wife and her lover invaded England in 1326, he put up a pretty miserable defence. A fascinating individual, and one of those English kings whom "everyone knows something about"! Hchc2009 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley Miles

  • "Gaveston's position as Edward's favourite provoked discontent". "Gaveston's arrogance and power as Edward's favourite" might be clearer.
  • "England was pushed back onto the defensive in Scotland". Had not England been on the defensive since Edward I died?
  • "Edward was decisively defeated by Robert the Bruce at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Widespread famine followed, and criticism of the King mounted." This seems to imply that the three things were connected. Perhaps "Criticism of the King mounted, and in 1315-17 there was a disastrous famine."
  • "Isabella allied herself with the exiled Roger Mortimer," - a bit emphemistic!
  • Not necessarily; the key point is the political alliance, not their probable sexual relationship.
  • "Edward was probably given a religious education by the Dominican friar" Who? Blyborough?
  • "his mother was keen that other of her children were well educated". A bit clumsy. Why not her other children?
  • "Edward had a relatively normal childhood for a member of a royal family." This sounds a bit strange. Perhaps usual upbringing or usual childhood.
  • "Edward grew up to be tall, muscular and was considered to be good looking by the standards of the period." I would delete by the standards of the period as superflous. What does it mean - that standards were lower then?
  • Standards of what is "good looking" certainly vary across historical periods; all we have is the contemporary opinion that he was good-looking, which could be rather different to what we would consider to be good-looking today. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1290, Edward's father confirmed the Treaty of Birgham" - I would say had confirmed.
  • "Philip IV of France" - I would say King Philip.

More comments

  • "his mother was keen that her other children were well educated". It might be worth saying that (according to ODNB) both his parents were absent in Gascony 1286-9 and she died in 1290 when he was six. (I see you say below that she died but it seems particularly relevant here.)
  • I'm not so sure. It would break the flow of the paragraph, which is about his education, and the bit about his mother being absent is in the bit preceding this. I've added a bit in about his father being away as well in Gascony. 16:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Between 1297 and 1298, Edward was left in charge of England". I would prefer the more formal acted as regent.
  • "Edward also took part in the 1303 campaign". In several places such as here calling him Prince Edward would make it easier to keep track of which Edward is meant.
  • "In 1305, Edward and his father quarreled". UK spelling is quarrelled.
  • " he continued north into Scotland and on 4 August received homage from his Scottish supporters at Dumfries." I think it would be worth saying that he abandoned his father's campaign.
  • "Later chronicler accounts of Edward's activities". Sounds a bit odd to me. Perhaps "Later accounts by chroniclers...".
  • "Edward responded by revoking the Ordinances". It is not clear what he was responding to.
  • "The bad weather continued, almost unabated, into 1321, resulting in a string of bad harvests" This seems to me doubtful. Prestwich in Plantagenet England dates the famine 1315-16. The effects may have continued until 1321, but not the bad weather.
  • Phillips notes the problems of 1314 and 1315; 1316 is described as similar to 1314 and 1316; 1317 as "better", but "conditions then deteriorated again", with "another wet autumn in 1320 and a disastrous harvest in 1321". Jordan gives the "reasonable closing date" for the series of problems as 1321/1322, and similarly stresses the poor weather up until that period. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mentally-ill man". I don't think this is usually hyphenated.
  • criticizing is usually criticising in British English.
  • "Edward first decided to attack Bartholomew of Badlesmere, and Isabella was sent to Leeds Castle to deliberately create a casus belli." This would be clearer if it was spelled out that Leeds Castle was Bartholomew's stronghold (if that it the correct word).
  • "Fleeing further north, Lancaster was cornered by an army under the command of Andrew Harclay at Boroughbridge, and captured." It is not specifically mentioned that there was a battle at Boroughbridge.
  • "became firmer about allowing French officials in the Duchy to execute their authority fully". I am not sure what this means.
  • "Edward had confiscated her children", I am not sure confiscated is the right word.
  • Any thoughts...? He took them away from his wife and gave their custody to someone else... I'm not certain what verb to use!
    • How about "had taken away"

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "William offered up 132 transport vessels". I would leave out the word 'up'.
  • Edmund of Woodstock and Thomas of Brotherton should be linked.
    • Ah Ctrl-F didn't work because you linked them as Edmund and Thomas, not as their full names. I think it would be better to give their full names on the first mention.
  • Who was Walter Stapeldon?
    • Ctrl-F didn't work because you spelled it Stapledon before!
  • I think it is worth saying that Henry of Lancaster was Thomas's younger brother.
  • " Several of the individuals suspected to have been involved in the death". I would say suspected of involvement.
  • "They gave extensively to the abbey, allowing it to rebuild much of the surrounding church in the 1330s." This seems awkward. 'They' appear to mean the monks rather than the visitors, and the abbey appears to have rebuilt the church.
  • "Michael Prestwich, for example, states that most of this story "belongs to the world of romance rather than of history". Prestwich seems to have changed his mind. In his 2005 Plantagenet England, p. 219, he says "Edward was murdered, very possibly by means of a red hot poker up his backside."
  • "Ian Mortimer's account was critiqued". I would prefer criticised. The online Cambridge dictionary does not have critique as a verb.
  • One final point on "Widespread famine followed, and criticism of the King mounted." I think you need to spell out that Edward was blamed for the famine, as otherwise the sentence looks a bit odd. Also, so far as I can see, it does not say below that he was blamed for the famine, so the point is unreferenced.

Dudley Miles (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another first rate article. A couple of queries:

  • Where was Prince Edward when Isabella and Mortimer invaded? Did he stay behind in France?
  • Is it worth mentioning Prestwich's theory that Edward's greater involvement in government in the 1320s was purely the younger Despenser acting in his name?

Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FWIW, I copyedited the article per new standard disclaimer my copyediting disclaimer.

  • "the Marcher territories. Edward and Hugh the Younger became aware of these plans in March and marched west": marched west in March to the Marcher territories?
  • "Edward's problems over the Duchy of Gascony and its troubled relationship to the Kingdom of France flared into open war in 1324": That could be clearer. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "exploited often unpopular tax revenues, prises and taking out loans": ? - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

edit
  • This is awkward: Edward had a relatively usual upbringing for a member of a royal family. If this issue has been recently reassessed and the current consensus is that his upbringing was relatively normal, then this sentence has become a non-issue, IMO, and can be profitably deleted.
  • No other issues noted in a very nicely done article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay Sturmvogel, I missed your comment in the watchlist! I'm not sure that I agree, in that I think it contextualises the paragraph for the casual reader. That said, I do tend to overly-like the detail, so if others felt similarly, I'd be happy to remove it! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the wording is a bit awkward (as I commented above). Could the word 'relatively' be deleted? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the para is fine, I just think that the first sentence and the associated note is kinda irrelevant, although you could use a cleaned up version as an intro if you truly wanted to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked as per Dudley's suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [2] (no action req'd).
    • Images all lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • Few issues with images that I could see (although I'm not an expert on these things so happy to admit I may be wrong):
      • File:Edward I & II Prince of Wales 1301.jpg may need a US pd tag
      • Likewise File:Gaveston Cornwall charter.jpg
      • File:Philip iv and family.jpg is fairly light on when it comes to information, particularly author and date information.
      • File:Trojka kralove.jpg has got issues with licencing too - think it needs a PD US tag and it seems to have the same tag twice, and there is an error reported with the pd art tag
      • Same with File:Philippe4 eduard2 ludvikNavarra.jpg
      • Ditto File:Isabela Karel Eda.jpg, File:Eduard2 arest.jpg (minus the pd art issue), File:Seal of Edward II.jpg
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
    • A couple of duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • 1303 Treaty of Paris
      • Knights Templar
      • Lincoln
      • Adam Fitzroy
    • Consider adding ISSNs to the journal articles in the references (these can be found through WorldCat.
    • Typo here: "...Edward I also faced increasing opposition from the his..."
    • Typo here: "...and formed the centre of the his..."
    • Otherwise excellent. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dudley. I think TLS is duplicated correctly here because it is both the name of the website concerned, and the publisher. The page number isn't given on the web version of TLS reviews (which is what is being referenced here, vice the hard copy version). I can check the full date issue on Friday when I get back to my laptop in the UK with my TLS password on it! ;) (but I suspect that it's on the webpage and I forgot to add it to the citation) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated the reference with the date (yep, it was on the webpage), but there's definitely no page number given. AnotherClown, with apologies for the delay, will make your proposed changes next. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look good so I've added my support - one minor issue I just noticed though: the following citation {{harvnb|Phillips|2011|pp=575–575}} looks in error (same page number twice in page range). Anotherclown (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2014 (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/Edward_II_of_England&oldid=615101466"