Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry III of England/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Henry III of England

Featured article candidates/Henry III of England/archive1

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Henry III, one of England's longest reigning, but probably least successful, kings. Revolts, retreats, holy relics - his reign had it all. It has been through GA and ACR reviews, and I believe it reflects the current literature on the King and his reign. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. If he's considered less successful than Aethelred, John, Edward II, Henry VI, Mary I and Charles I, he must have been putting in some real effort :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very brief note: I saw this sentence in the lead: "Henry died in 1272, leaving Edward as his heir". Surely, Edward was the heir before Henry's death, and then became his successor; he was not "left" as his heir? Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very true! Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Given the number of citations to the ODNB article, why not use a short citation for it?
I believe the city in which Brill is located is Leiden, not Leidin
You include both "London" and "London, UK" - either is fine but should be consistent
"Boydell Press" or "The Boydell Press" or "the Boydell Press"? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to keep the handling of books versus on-line sources consistent. The people of Leiden would agree with you, changed! London and Boydell standardised. Thanks Nikki! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim I made a few notes as I read through, but taken against the quality of the article as a whole, they seemed too trivial to bother with. I'm happy to support this impressive piece of work, even though you have unaccountably failed to mention Melbourne Castle (; Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Jim - no article is compete without a link to Melbourne Castle! :) Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ - looking good. A few queries..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't think I'd use the word "fiasco" in the lead as you use it in the body of the text.~~

~~Henry had four legitimate, younger brothers and sisters~~ ~~- comma looks funny to me here...I think I'd leave it out....~~

~~Hubert de Burgh, a former Justiciar~~ ~~- shouldn't "Justiciar" be lower case here?~~

b~~ut Henry became increasingly ill: concerns about a fresh rebellion grew and the next year the King wrote to his son.....~~ ~~- should this be a semicolon rather than a colon?~~

Unlike many other medieval kings, Henry did not feature significantly in the works of William Shakespeare, and in the modern period he has not been a popular subject for films, theatre or television, having only a minimal role in modern popular culture ~~- try and avoid two "popular"s in the one sentence....~~

~~The war soon descended into a stalemate~~ ~~- funny juxtaposition of verb and noun. I think I'd change the verb to something like "stalled" or something?~~

Changes made as suggested - thanks Cas. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Article looks pretty good to me. A bit puzzling that the article refers to "Sir Maurice Powicke's two major biographical works on Henry", but makes no use of them. I suggest considering moving some of the notes into the text, but am not fussed about it. The article is fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye. Powicke's work is mentioned in the historiography, as it was an influential work in the post-war years. Due to more recent research in this field it is dated now, though, and wouldn't really be what I'd expect to see a Featured Article using extensively as a source. Will take a look at the footnotes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, there was one done against the current set of images here at ACR. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helps, yes, but I think I'd like to see Nikkimaria, GermanJoe or another specialist double-check here -- will request at WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

A number of captions could use editing for grammar, particularly punctuation - for example, the "first coronation" caption might be better phrased as "A 13th-century depiction of Henry's first coronation in 1216"
File:Heinrichus_tercius.jpg needs US PD tag
File:Henry_III_penny.jpg needs separate licensing for coin vs image
File:Henry3ostatky.gif: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made to files. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.