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 Ucucha 14:52, 15 October 2011 [1].

Stephen, King of England[edit]

Stephen, King of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Stephen is a fascinating subject for an article - a war-time leader, who was at one point captured by the enemy until saved through his wife's successes in battle; a devout father who ended up passing over his own son in the succession - and because the article has been through several review processes, and hopefully should be up to scratch. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding as of this timestamp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've caught the pp. and I think I've changed correctly to endashes, but they look pretty much identical on my screen, so it would be worth glancing over them to make sure I haven't done something daft. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can copy the en dash character from ((ndash)) in the future if you need it. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked back; the records (OCLC etc.) show the 1884 volume as being published by "Longmans", not the more modern "Longman"; it's cited by Crouch, so I don't have a personal copy, but from what I can see elsewhere on other volumes of the period and their bibliographies, I think "Longmans" is right. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, with some help from another editor (thanks!) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Will continue to work through - thanks again! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you've got Chibnall to hand, that would be ideal; I've skimmed through it at the bookshop in Oxford, but don't have a copy here. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have corrected that instance of Duke; will keep an eye out on the rest for other linked titles as I work through. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I was having trouble finding a historian who stated the broad picture here that wasn't then "dumbing down" the presentation slightly. The paragraph needs to explain roughly how the system worked for a reader that doesn't know anything of the period, while still being rigorously accurate - any help gratefully received. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue with this later. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, it over states it. Davis notes that he had the "atendence or service of almost all of the bishops and England and Normandy, and almost all the nobles" (p.22)- King lists the nobles on 59-60 I think. I'll tweak and see what you think.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded a bit and clarified. See what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More to follow. (Yes, Sandy/Karan/etc, I'll move all the resolved issues to the talk page when they are resolved.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I've got this incorrect. The earldom is of Worcester,which I think is the correct title, but the use of Worcestershire refers to the wider region. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very close to supporting, by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slightly baffled myself! I think I've fixed them now.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's redundant I think, so I've removed it.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to think of an alternative... any ideas? Hchc2009 (talk)
    • As I understand it, most of their power came from their extensive land-holdings. Landowners, maybe? - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speak a bizarre blend of the two. Have changed.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaked. See if it reads better...Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt it is good BritEng... I've improved the wording a bit.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if rivers etc. should have capitals - I've tried to be consistent here - does anyone know if there's a formal guideline?Hchc2009 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's capitalized almost all the time, judging from a quick gsearch. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, although I'm not considering the issues that Ealdgyth has already raised. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, On ref 212, you have "pp.278–8". Should this just be "p.278", or should that last 8 be a 9? Also, the pp. ranges are somewhat inconsistent in how they're truncated. You'll have "pp.140–1" in one footnote, and "pp.280–283" in another. I can't find a specific policy regarding this type of abbreviation, but there should be a uniform structure. My preference is to write out the full page numbers to remove ambiguity. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed as per your suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was waiting for the other editors to finish their reviews so that I could be sure that I was going to bet in the right horse. Writing an entire article by yourself is very hard, even more when you have as goal to place it among the FAs. You did a great job, Hchc2009. --Lecen (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks: I checked the sources for reference footnotes 39, 47, 153b, 172, 178, 224, 239b, and 242. In each case, the article's claims were backed up in the material cited, and I found no problems with verbatim copying or close paraphrasing. However, I also found the following issues:

  • It was an edited volume, and there's one of the chapters referenced. This goes back to an earlier point by Ealdgyth, though, that a number of editors would prefer the name of the edited volume to follow the chapter reference; I've changed the formatting accordingly. See what you think.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have should have deleted the last clauses - should now link straight to the book.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reference links within the notes seems to be a very recent problem with the template - I'm not sure what's causing it (it seems to be impacting on some articles and not others). I'll look into this tomorrow, but I'm a bit puzzled. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weird ref links should be fixed, but you may need to purge the page to get it to work right. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, all working again. Do you know what was causing it? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images Most seem to be in the public domain, however some tweaking is needed.
Can you make the ones with the 12th and 13th century images link to a page with describes them, rather than just reproduces them with no text?
  • To check - is this a case of improving the description on the commons files? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More a question of changing the URLs. It is customary here that even though an image is not technically within the four walls of the article, so to speak, that reviewers are within their rights to ask for improvements to ensure the article is verifiable. Right now, I'm getting links to pages that tell me nothing about the origins of the items. The nominator is expected to, assuming the info is online, to set things up so that there is easy verifiability. I should not have to poke around web sites looking for a suitable page, that click should take me directly to the info I need to confirm the stated source and age of the image. For all I know, it was made by an artist in 2007 in Diss.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, for the lead picture, "Stepan Blois". The source link shouldn't be changed as far as I understand, because that is showing where the original uploader actually originally got the image from. Would it be sufficient to add [this additional url|http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/illmanus/cottmanucoll/w/011cotclad00006u00009000.html] to the description page, for example? (NB: implying that the original uploader had taken it from the British Library could have legal consequences for them!) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did Sandy Berger move to England? Seriously, that is fine. Drop a note on my talk page when you are done and I'll look it over and post accordingly. With luck, we can get you promoted today.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through and given links; in one or two cases I've had to give a page reference for a scholarly book that states the fact rather than a website. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as a problem. I am old enough to remember paper books. Give me five minutes--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remember them from uni - they're like an iPad, only a little more flexible and water resistant! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that this image is PD as a coin is a 3D object and its photographer has copyright rights. The other coin use looks OK, but there needs to be a license for the image and a license for the coin.
  • Agree; there's no evidence for who photographed it, so I've removed.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has a deadlink for source.
  • I've added some more details, and given an alternative link for it. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This needs straighening out to specify that Geogre's role was taking a photograph or scan of the manuscript.
Nothing major, I think?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image check. All images are in the public domain (the old ones) or are appropriately licensed (the modern ones). The ones that are in the public domain are all non-United States images and each appropriately has two copyright tags, one showing it to be copyright-free in the country of origin (a nation of the EU in each case) and another showing it to be out of copyright in the United States. I'll tell Karanacs.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone please ping me if the images are ironed out on Thursday? Karanacs (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I should be on and off all day.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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