Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Edward III of England/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [1].

Edward III of England

[edit]
Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-01-02

Review section

[edit]

This 2006 Featured article was nominated by an editor who has not edited since 2018 (User:Eixo --> Lampman). It was noticed of several deficiencies in January 2023; not all of those issues have been indicated on talk as having been addressed, and there are other items that should be checked. Prose and sourcing need review, there may be unaddressed items on talk, there is uncited text and clutter at the bottom of the article including collapsed family trees, vague text, extraneous detail and dated sourcing that has not been addressed. Considering the change in standards since 2006, a top-to-bottom review should be undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing my FAC coordinator hat, if the article were rewritten we would want the new version to go through FAC again. It may be neater to demote it here, rewrite it and then renominate; or was that what you had in mind? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, that's not how the FA process works. Discussion of historical FAC processes copied to FAR talk to be continued there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO a well-attended FAR can give the same level or better for cleanup as a FAC can (see the recent-ish FARs for climate change and J. K. Rowling, which were able to get levels of attention that would have been difficult at FAC). I personally don't see a reason to automatically send this back to FAC if it can get a high-quality review from multiple editors here, although obviously there are situations that would require a delist and then back at FAC some time down the road if it ever gets worked back up. Hog Farm Talk 03:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably the worst FA I have ever looked at in detail. Among the numerous other issues, one which stands out for me is the high proportion of the small number of sources I checked which did not, even remotely, support the text. I ended up not trusting any of them and unsurprised that it never formally passed FAC. Among the many other things needed, if this were to be saved, every cite would need confirming, and given that most are to aging sources I am unsure why anyone would bother. It could be rewritten from scratch in less time. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion of historical FAC processes copied to FAR talk to be continued there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles kindly labeled me as the best person for this job, so I thought I would stop by for a look. Unfortunately I am quite swamped with school this month, so I will not be assisting with this FAR at this time. I actually think it needs to be delisted and completely rewritten. It’s current state is far from comprehensive, considering the subject matter. If it is delisted, I will gladly give it a complete overhaul this summer. That would give us the chance to take it through GA and ACR to make sure the article is appropriate for those who have a more complex understanding of English history. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlimitedlead, articles can be rewritten during a FAR without being delisted; there is no time limit, along as work is progressing in the right direction. After at least a two-week wait period in FAR, the options here are to enter declarations like "move to FARC", or "hold in FAR, work progressing". If articles are moved to FARC, then whether to delist or keep is based on consensus of reviewers. You can jump in to help in the rewrite at any stage; for most rewrites, it is more typical for work to proceed on the article talk page, with more-or-less bi-weekly updates to this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, ongoing work can take the form of building a completely new article in a sandbox, correct? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; J. K. Rowling would be an example of a complete rewrite on talk (there are many, many others). Just keep the page posted on progress, keep work coordinated by letting others know where the work is happening, and when ready for a full independent review relative to WP:WIAFA, then others can be pinged in for a look. There's no time limit, and FAR Coords are patient as long as work is headed in the right direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More than happy to leave these broader articles open for an extended period to get it right Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Serial Number 54129 has been away from Wikipedia for a few weeks <grumble, grumble>, Unlimitedlead has said they are unable to work on this at this time, and GoldRingChip has dabbled some. I suggest we Hold in FAR for a few weeks in the hopes that SN will return or Unlimited will be able to engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this FAR page since its creation; I think it would be a shame for this article to lose FA status. I probably will not have the time to do a major rewrite, but if anybody wants to suggest improvements, I may be able to help. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With SN's absence, it may be necessary for someone to take the lead, although I'm hoping SN will jump back in soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making no promises here, as I've got two articles I'd like to improve first. I'll first need to read the article in-depth (I've already read it briefly, but I've not looked at the minutiae of referencing, ALTs, captions, copyediting, etc.). The sourcing, reading this FAR, seems to be the main issue. To- or over- morrow I might be able to read some of the sources to see if they verify the article text or not. Copyediting the text to achieve FA standard I also might be able to take up, although not all of it. Again, nothing is concrete yet. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia I've now found the time to look through the sources that I can freely access. Will do so now and then update you in an hour or so. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Progress is slow. Here's my first batch of reference checking, mostly of Ian Mortimer's book. I will do some of the others today or tomorrow.
Findings (accessed via the Internet Archive):
Ref 2: Simon Schama - verifies the article text
Ref 3: Ian Mortimer, p. 1 - does not verify the article text (page one of The perfect king : the life of Edward III, father of the English nation says nothing of the sort, so perhaps the "p. 1" means the book in its entirety, which I would say probably does verify it); I can't access Ormrod, so I don't know. Assuming good faith, I'd pass the sourced assertion (but the refs could do with a bit of work).
Ref 4: Ian Mortimer, p. 21 - does verify the article text
Ref 12: Ian Mortimer, p. 23 - does verify the article text
Ref 14: Ian Mortimer, p. 39 - does verify the article text
Ref 17: Ian Mortimer, p. 46 - does verify the article text
Ref 18: Ian Mortimer, p. 54 - does verify the article text
Ref 20: Ian Mortimer, p. 67 and p. 81 - do verify the article text
Ref 43: Ian Mortimer, p. 205 - does verify the article text (I would recommend the scope of the ref going from just p. 205 to pp. 203–205 though, as it gives a fuller picture; page 205 alone is slightly out of context.)
Ref 121 (part 1): Ian Mortimer, pp. 400–401 - does verify the article text - (will get around to the second part of the ref soon (assuming, of course, that I can access it.).)
That's that for now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: this is my first FAR that I've played any sort of a role in, so I'm not sure how we approach this, but I've seen other people declare their support or opposition to an FA proposal. Whilst I have only checked a small sample of the sources as of now, practically all of them do support the text, and I'm hopeful that this represents the rest of them. I think the article itself is well-written enough, and so if I can find that each source backs up each claim, and with some copyediting on each section, I would support this article as an FA. We just need to resolve some issues first. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stuck inside due to the current British heatwave, so I'm doing another round of ref-checking instead.
Ref 5: Pierre Chaplais, p. 5 - does not verify the article text (page six does, page five does not. That's a simple fix).
Ref 6: Roy Martin Haines, pp. 36–39 - does verify the article text
Ref 7: Seymour Phillips, p. 9 - does verify the article text
Ref 8: Anthony Tuck, p. 52 - does verify the article text
Ref 13: Anthony Tuck, p. 88 - does verify the article text
Ref 87: Anthony Tuck, p. 133 - does verify the article text
Ref 102: Anthony Tuck, p. 138 - does verify the article text
Ref 124: Encyclopædia Britannica, Antwerp - does verify the article text
Not much, but going through each individual book and reading the relevant material takes a while. I'll need to pick up the pace if I want to complete all 128, though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim O'Doherty templates like done and not done are not used at FAC and FAR as they cause errors in archives; could you pls remove them above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty: Per discussion above, the article is almost certainly going to be effectively re-written from the bootstraps up; there's no point in checking source-text integrity now when the text itself is liable to immediate change. SN54129 18:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why the text needs to be "effectively re-written". As long as the sources are good and everything's accurate and well-written, we should be good, no? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on the article talk page that started this FAR is also illuminating—"The worst FA I've ever seen", I think Gog called it, and being restricted to checking the internet sources is, well, restrictive. And proscriptive, for that matter  :) nice idea though, and feedback on the process is always useful. SN54129 18:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to diagnose all the sources either today or on Tuesday, which should be at least a good starting point. I seem to be alone in thinking the article, with some general fixes, could breeze past any FAR, as I do think it is, in balance, a high-quality article. I admire GtM as an editor, but I think that "the worst FA" is maybe a bit of an exaggeration, and we shouldn't be WP:TNTing this article just yet. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I couldn't get around to it today. I guarantee that I will review at least some of the sources tomorrow. Apologies for my "flakiness". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize; thanks for the effort so far! @Serial Number 54129: are you still planning to work on this? With @Unlimitedlead: also opining it fails to meet comprehensive, should we continue to hold in FAR for your (SN) work along with Tim O'Doherty'? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, sorry to make you grumble! My hiatus is over, so yes, I was going to work on it this afternoon (UTC) if that suits peeps? SN54129 12:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to work on some further source-checking over the weekend. If I just check one or two refs from each source, that should mean that every ref from that source verifies the text (it's not as if there'll be huge discrepancies between the same source). I can also work on some copyediting; if you'd like me to do that, just ask and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Not sure if I'd be able to do much on expanding the article's comprehensive field of view, so I'll defer to other editors on that front. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling

  • Fixing refs format, which is yes kinda poor.... make that "very poor". § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing publisher location
    • Davis, Virginia (2007). William Wykeham. Hambledon Continuum. ISBN 978-1-8472-5172-5.
    • Holmes, George (1975). The Good Parliament. Clarendon Press.
    • Jones, Dan (2013). The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England. Viking. ISBN 978-0-6700-2665-4.
    • Ormrod (2012). Edward III. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3001-1910-7. OL 25170147M.
    • Phillips, S. (2011). Edward II. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3001-7802-9.
    • Prestwich (1983). "Parliament and the Community of the Realm in the Fourteenth Century". In Cosgrove, A.; McGuire (also see below, missing pageneums)
    • Purcell, M. (2017). The Country House Library. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3002-4868-5.
  • Missing pagenums for book chapter
    • Prestwich (1983). "Parliament and the Community of the Realm in the Fourteenth Century". In Cosgrove, A.; McGuire
  • Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);
    • Berard (2016). "Edward III's Abandoned Order of the Round Table Revisited: Political Arthurianism after Poitiers". Arthurian Literature. 33: 70–109. [But.... are those Arthurian Literature sources journals or books? the template is cite journal... which may be wrong]
    • Myers, A. R., ed. (1953). English Historical Documents: 1327-1485. Vol. IV (1st ed.). London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.
    • Rogers (2002). "England's Greatest General". MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History. 14 (4): 34–45.
    •  § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 02:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, and as I suggested to Tim above, since this is undergoing a rewrite, it's jumping the gun to start working on the refs. Cheers, SN54129 11:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, publisher locations aren't always needed. Nikkimaria can explain better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Thanks SN & Sandy. Unwatching. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 17:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(And not @Ling) Mind you, I'm getting a bit tired of the fixation with refs on this page. What's all that about? As I've said here, there's no point doing them until the page is "complete" (in so far as it ever will be, of course), and in the meantime, it's a load of WP:COSMETIC busywork. That interferes with the actual important stuff, also re. WP:CITEVAR. Can we knock it on the head until the prose is finished? SN54129 14:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: SN54129 13:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GoldRingChip, I suspect that SN would really like to move forward with the article rewrite here, but citation and ref improvements may be impeding that work at this point. Would you mind holding off until SN has had a chance to rework the content as needed? There is no time pressure at FAR, which means there is plenty of time for clean up once content is more settled. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia and Serial Number 54129: Sorry for getting in the way. I'll hold off as long as you'd like. Hope the FAR process goes smoothly. Cheers. —GoldRingChip 13:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldRingChip: thanks for understanding! One thing we tend to do at FAR is to ping in involved editors when ready to move to the next stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you GoldRingChip for being so understanding and I should've talked to you first, sorry. I just hate edit conflicts when I've written a thousand words. They... scare me  :) Pledge1: you can do what you want to the refs when I'm done, and Pledge2: that should be in a day or too; I can't go over 9,999 words, or it'll make Buidhe cross  :) Thanks! SN54129 18:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's my opinion that it isn't the 9999th word that counts but every one. An article that is 9,000 words but could be 8,000 words is equally bad as one that's 10,000 words and could be 9,000. (t · c) buidhe 00:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. SN54129 14:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 what are your thoughts? Is this saveable, are you aiming towards saving the star, or should we be thinking of progressing to FARC? If you are planning to restore the article to featured status, what is your time estimate ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, well—I guess there's aways more I could do! but having by now added either 33% or 48% of the text in the space of around 10 edits, I'm not sure there's much more I really should. It's now comprehensive (previously missing sections on his family, personality, legacy, his mistress—almost everything that historians still talk about except the war!). In the course of doing so, I practically re-sourced the thing, going from 122 references to 257 and from using 53 sources to 114. Got rid of the genealogical charts, although that's catnip for fanboys, so god knows how long that'll stay out. I think it's fair to sat that most of the ta;lk page complaints have been sorted, and possibly a few from the original FAC too (!!!). I could probably tweak a bit more—there's a few 'Further reading' I was going to scan, and I think the sons/daughters needs finishing source-wise. And I can't reasonably copy-edit myself; Gog will tell you you wouldn't want that even if it was sensible! Unfortunately, I'm away next week; will have access to ye olde laptop, but might be too hit-and-miss for much beyond minor edits. TLDR, I'd say it was 95% done, and the only important thing was that Gog a collaborative colleague skim through with a copyedit. Oh, also quite I'm capable of doing the literally three things that need to be done to tidy the refs, but I suppose the Lords of Citation Banditry will have to be let loose at some time. What we all think? (Thanks for the ping BTW! I hadn't actually forgotten about Eddie3, but I admit getting distracted by a project as yet invisible to all...) SN54129 19:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having been so thoroughly volunteered i shall get around to this, but it will have to wait a while. I am away for most of next week and when back I suspect that the FAC queue will be both large and pressing. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While having a quick skim of what I am letting myself in for I made the mistake of reading two paragraphs on the military side of Edward's reign. A horrible farrago of OR, unsourced statements, statements which flatly contradict the source they purport to be based on, comments so vague as to be meaningless and language so technical as to be all but impenetrable. And that just in two short paragraphs and based on sourcing where I know what it says without actually pulling the book off the shelf. Serial Number 54129, could you do something, anything, with the tosh in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences of "Sluys" while I am away, else I shall be tempted to back off and re-recommend that the whole thing be blown up. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blast! I assumed that the military stuff was the little that could be relied on safely as I believe that some of our Hundred Years War stuff is already of decent quality ;) but I'm also away next week (not with Gog!) so after that, yeah, I'll carry on—but we'll need this time. And i didn't mean to press gang you into copyeditig my stuff Gog but you've got form when it comes to making silk purses out of my pig's ears :) SN54129 21:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A likely tale! Yes you did. Leave it, it is probably best for me to gut and rewrite it all in one go. I was just kicking against the pricks. Given that I have already taken 29 military articles from Edward's reign through FAC - I have just counted, I was a little taken aback - I may be able to cover a goodly part by cut and pasting from stuff I know to at least accurately reflect the source. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I will hold off on having a look until you all say it's time. Please give a weekly update if you remember. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if both/either of you think at this stage it would be easier or faster to rewrite off-FAR, and resubmit to FAC, you can declare "Move to FARC", where others will proceed to vote ... but in the time that takes, you may have already rewritten it. Your choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come what may, I shall be rewriting the military aspects of the article in sandbox and incorporating as little as possible of the existing article, hopefully none - I don't trust a single word of it. Once I am happy I shall gut the article and replace with the new text. Then ask SN and the rest of the FAR team to run their eyes over it. I don't envisage starting for 10-12 days and I'll give you weekly updates once I do. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it; thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not getting back on this. Unfortunately I will not be able to do any work on it for the foreseeable future. (I have not even been able to get work done on my own articles for the past couple of months.) Apologies if I have raised hopes, but can I put this back into the FAR process. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 see above, without Gog's work on the military bits, do you think we need to proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC to keep the process moving forward. SN has not responded and moving to FARC does not preclude further improvements towards a save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Sandy, I must've missed that ping; I've been reduced to minimal editing at the moment (only 50 edits in two weeks?!) and I doubt I could improve on Gog's military stuff. I'm more of a socio-politico bod with an econo-prosopographical persuasion  :) SN54129 18:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - believe SN has now done enough to retain the star. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started to review this and I do have concerns. I was making notes on some confusing chronology in the "Background" and "Early life" sections, but then the first two citations I checked (refs 14 and 15 in the numbering as of this post) had verification concerns. They aren't fatally wrong – the general ideas are supported if not the exact wording – but it makes me want to check more of the refs in addition to the commenting on the prose. So I'm posting this as a placeholder for more detailed comments to come. --RL0919 (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Has RL0919's concern been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: That concern is not fixed, and now that I've gone deeper into the article, there are other issues. Since I have extensive comments without even going thoroughly through every section, I am going to follow your example and put them on the talk page here. --RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there does not seem to be any ongoing activity to address issues raised here, I guess I need to say Delist unless someone is going to take up the banner. --RL0919 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, and in consideration of my earlier position, I'm not sure now that the military stuff needs much of a rewrite; it is reasonably covered here and is comprehensively covered in several other articles. UNDUE and FA?#4 are the considerations here, and while the HYW needs coverage, broad focus must be on the king and his reign, not just events taking place around it. While foreign campaigns defined much of the reign, the article's real weakness was in domestic coverage and general historiography, which I think has been satisfied with addition material. Serial 19:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SG comments :

I'll put my other nitpicks and stupid queries on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Z1720
[edit]

In an effort to get this out of FAR, I am going to review this article. I will make edits as I read, and feel free to revert if anything is not helpful. Comments below:

  • Why are the sources listed in "Further reading" not used as inline citations in the article?
  • The "Background" section confuses me: usually biographies start with the person's birth and their family background. I think this information can be interspersed within the article at its relevant points or removed. I don't think we need as much information about Edward II as the article provides.
  • I cut a lot of information from the article. Many of the quotes repeat information already in the article and make this article read like a university essay instead of an encyclopedic article. Also, there is sometimes information that is not directly related to Edward III. While WP:SIZERULE only recommends a split of the article if it is less than 9000 words, this article could use a serious trim. Remember that the longer the article is, the less likely it is that a reader is going to read the text.

I'm going to stop there because I want to read others' thoughts about the cuts to the prose I have made so far. I hope that editors will continue the work of cutting the prose, and I am happy to continue making cuts if editors agree to it. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by JimKillock
[edit]

I'll drive by review to say this article doesn't yet have any coverage of Edward III in relation to either Wales or Ireland. It may be that his policies didn't centre on either, but it won't be the case that he did nothing of consequence for either of these territorial possessions. Scotland of course is featured because of wars; I would check the range of literature consulted for alternative perspectives, including that of the evolution of the four countries' relationship. These are quite well-developed. I could take this on, but note I've got a simultaneous job regarding Edward I above, so this may take a bit of time (I should finish I before III). For wider reference, this might point to an issue when relying on biographies to guide what should be included as per WP:DUE; biographies perhaps think from the perspective of their readership, or their subject, or tend to address what the field thinks are "traditionally accepted" areas that are relevant to discuss; this can lead to excluding perspectives present in other literatures that regard the figure as relevant to them. --Jim Killock (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist I am formally making this declaration because progress on the article has stalled and there hasn't been responses to the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: the list of minor niggles below may seem unimportant individually, but when summed they indicate an article that is not FA standard.
  • Misuse of hyphen in the lead
  • Footnote 'a' makes no sense. He adopted the title in 1337, but didn't assume it until 1340? I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.
  • Background section is repetitive of the next section and reads clunkily to me.
  • Citation overkill in the Early life section
  • Inconsistent formatting of 'de facto'
  • Was he "crowned as Edward III"? Regnal number#History says ordinals were rarely used before the Tudors.
  • It is unclear whether opinions attributed to scholars such as Bothwell and Ormrod are majoritarian or otherwise. Nor is it clear why attribution is necessary for these opinions.
  • No source for "this parliament represented a watershed in English political history."
  • Confused chronology: the default on the Florentine loans is mentioned before Edward's taking up loans from Italian financiers.
  • Repetition: same content covered in the sections "Creating a new nobility" and "Six new earls and the first three English dukedoms created".
  • Comprehensiveness: David II was captured, but we are not told his fate. The death of Edward's eldest son is rather glossed over. "his principal interest was architecture", but the only building mentioned is relegated to a brief footnote. The creation of the English dukedoms is explained in the text, but not the transfer of French duchies to his eldest son in 1362. How did Edward III regain Aquitaine from his son in 1372 (this is neither cited nor mentioned in the main text but is stated without explanation in the succession boxes)? DrKay (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Edward_III_of_England/archive1&oldid=1226989297"