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

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 kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [1].

---

Edward I of England

Notified: Unlimitedlead, Dudley Miles, Ealdgyth, Usernamesarebunk, Lampman, Hchc2009, GoldRingChip, Gog the Mild, Surtsicna, Nev1, Mike Christie England, WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Scotland, Ireland, Jewish history, Middle Ages, Military history WikiProject English Royalty diff for talk page notification

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because, during the FA process the article went through, three large areas of historical research were omitted. Thus currently it does not meet the criteria that the article needs to be:

• 1.b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context and
• 1.c well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature

I have since addressed one of those, but had no feedback. I intend to address the other two but would like to ensure my work is reviewed as I do so.

The areas that were not addressed during the FAC process were

1. Anglo-Jewish historical research: Edward's actions are a large subject of discussion in this literature, which contends that he has particular significance for the history of antisemitism and for English identity, which incorporated an antisemitic element as a result of the expulsion. (These topics were notably missed in Prestwich.) These issues have now been addressed to a minimum level by myself but need a check for FA standards.
2. Welsh history: Edward I is of particular significance to Welsh history. Edward is typically seen by Welsh medievalists as a coloniser, someone who did immense damage to Welsh society, culture and self-confidence, which produced a lasting anger. These items need expanding in the "Legacy" section at least. The literature on Edward I from a Welsh perspective was unfortunately contended not to exist during FA review.
3. Irish history: The literature on Ireland was not consulted; Ireland is not covered in the article at all, except to mention Edward governed it and it provided him income. Themes include the early takeover by Edward and some squabbling with his father; Edward treating Ireland as a revenue source and little else; corruption and incompetence in the administrators Edward appointed and repeatedly sacked; over-taxation to meet his war demands; speculation over food exports during the Welsh and Gascon wars; problems emerging from the Edwardian weak administration including a revival of the fortunes of the Gaelic areas' leadership, leading to regular wars in the period and following centuries. Thus although an absentee landlord, current Irish historical research sees him as signficant for the difficulties of Ireland that continued in the centuries following.

Additionally, a check should be made regarding Scottish sources and perspectives.

These areas should also be looked at:

• Religious views: the article may not fully capture the nature of Edward's devotion. It covers his piety as actions, rather than as a belief system. There is commentary about his and Eleanor's piety giving them a sense that they were doing God's work, which makes sense as Crusaders, and explains better his sense of certainty while doing morally reprehensible things.
• Relations with Eleanor: particularly, the support of and the psychological impact of the loss of Eleanor and some of Edward's key advisors around 1290 is often held to have impacted the latter part of his reign. This doesn't seem to be discussed. Also, Edward encouraged Eleanor to accumulate land wealth to reduce the call on his own funds, which was an important change for future queens but impacted a lot on domestic relations with the landed classes who were being dispossessed; it limited what he could do with taxation and was a driver in his policies towards the Jews. This is now touched on this but it could do with discussion earlier.

The reasons for several of these areas being missed appear to include an over-reliance on Michael Prestwich's biography. It received significant academic criticism for missing several of these areas, and being overly concerned with war administration and finance; which I have noted on his Wikipedia page.

Key texts that need consulting include:

• For Wales, "The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063-1415" by RR Davies from 2001, and A History of Wales by John Davies.
• For Ireland, "A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534", which contains a dedicated chapter on Edward's Lordship, "The years of Crisis, 1254-1315" and a further chapter on the wars that were provoked in the period "A Land of War", both by James Lydon. There is by Robin Frame, "Ireland and Britain 1170 to 1450", and other works

As mentioned, I would not like to see this article demoted and I am willing to do the work on Wales and Ireland particularly, and anything further on Anglo-Jewish matters. There is a question on structure for that section also. A point may emerge around article length and there may need to be cuts to meet FA criteria. This I would certainly need help with.

If it is better that I simply work on these areas, complete that and bring the article back to FAR afterwards I can do that. But I haven't got much feedback on the page and feel reluctant to do more work without a little guidance.

Jim Killock (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm late to this party, but I would argue that Edward I and Wales is a very complex, nuanced topic and goes beyond Edward merely provoking hatred and lasting damage etc. David Stephenson's recent studies are a must, imo, somewhat updating and revising his old mentor RR Davies. Then there is my own modest offering (cough, not that I am trying to flog books on here...) 2A06:5902:3A03:7900:1D13:60A2:4605:AAA0 (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Very happy to take a look at further sources; I can definitely take a look at David Stephenson's studies for anything clearly missing. If we have your name we can look at anything you have written as well. Jim Killock (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - it is David Pilling, Edward I and Wales. Stephenson's book on Powys and his recent Medieval Wales: Centuries of Ambiguity are go-to for this subject. I have some comments on Ireland as well, still nagivating these Wiki pages. 2A06:5902:3A03:7900:A13D:765:F9A3:95A5 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks David, I have Centuries of Ambiguity and your volume as it goes, I'll give these a read and see where I get. Jim Killock (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment by KJP1

My view is that a FAR, a year after the article's promotion, is not needed. If I can try and summarise, you think there are three areas where something/more needs to be said;

• Edward and the Jews;
• Edward and Wales;
• Edward and Ireland;

and two areas that may need a bit more coverage:

• Edward's religiosity;
• Edward and Eleanor.

My suggestion would be that you write brief, sourced, paragraphs on each of these, covering the additional points you think need to be made, and place them on the article Talkpage. Then, see what other involved/interested editors think. I stress brief for two reasons - firstly, your comments to date are rather long and this may discourage editors from engaging with them; secondly, there are always challenges around what to include, and not include, in an FA. Edward reigned for 35 years and packed a lot in, as well as being quite busy before his accession. Therefore, you're never going to be able to cover everything. Indeed, we already have spin-offs, e.g. Conquest of Wales by Edward I, Edict of Expulsion etc. and it may well be that further spin-offs, Edward and the Jews / Edward in Ireland etc. could be an answer. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with that but I'd note the main reason for non-engagement AFAICT is probably that the main editor is in semi-retirement and no longer working on the page. There will be existing pages for all these topics, but for an FA standard, the page has to reasonably represent all the relevant literatures, AIUI, ie, other parts might need trimming, if it came to a question of overall length. As now the article arguably violates NPOV, through omission of some of the more uncomfortable aspects of his reign.Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• I suspect that the OP has found sufficient deficiencies in the article to justify a trip to FAR. Per policy, if they attempted any major changes they could be reverted, while the talk page is quiet enough to suggest it would be an unprofitable exercise.
  In the meantime they have built a solid case. They have identified fundamental omissions which don't only breach WP:FA? but Wikipedia policy and pillar also.
  More broadly, it highlights the problem with a lack of expertise at FAC. There may not be always much we can do about that, but we must accept the consequences of it all the same. While the review of this article received an at first glance thorough examination, with the exception of a couple, most of the reviews were for prose and spelling and the source review lightweight. The latter, at least, could have e highlighted gaps in the scholarship.
  Still, it's not too late. I'm sure we're all grateful to JimKillock for highlighting these issues and for expressing willingness to step up to the mark and address them. Cheers! ——Serial 12:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Either way, FAR or Talkpage, it would be immensely helpful if JimK could provide suggested paragraphs for inclusion, which would look to address the said omissions. I think that would greatly assist other editors in assessing the issues, and how they might be addressed in the article, having regard to weight, length etc. KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I will crack on with this for sure. It may take me a few days to find time to start; altogether I would think probably 3-4 weeks are needed for me to find spare time to look at all the things I've mentioned. The Wales paras are the easiest for me. Jim Killock (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No hurry and no problem! Edward I is not my period, but I do have some experience of compressing prose into tight, FA, pargraphs. If I can help at all in terms of reviewing the prose, I'd be delighted. Serial is your man for reviewing the content. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for the kind words and offers of (potential!) help. Jim Killock (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1@Serial Number 54129Ping in case you are able to help: I've linked to the work I have already done for checking re Anglo-Jewish policies, and drafted the changes regarding Wales from Welsh sources below. Jim Killock (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

JimKillock - Not forgotten this, just busy irl this week. Will take a look at the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Edward's Jewish policies: text check

Moved to talk page to simplify feedback

Wales I: Edward I of England#Conquest of Wales

Moved to talk page as mostly resolved

Wales II: Edward I of England#Legacy

Moved to talk page

Next steps

I will try to write up the section on Ireland next, once I have Davies 1998 British Isles book. I have access to the two volumes on Ireland, Frame 1998 and Lydon 2008a mentioned. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Re Ireland, I would also recommend Beth Hartland's essays on the governance of Ireland in Edward's early reign. Hartland doesn't seek to overturn Lydon's criticisms, but points out that Edward did make more of an effort with the lordship prior to the Scottish wars, albeit at a remove. 2A06:5902:3A03:7900:A13D:765:F9A3:95A5 (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This is useful thank you David. Jim Killock (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1

With apologies for the delay in getting to this, a few comments. A caveat to start, Edwardian history is definitely not my period, and thus what I'm not able to judge is the weight that would be appropriate to give to the differing views on the Jewish and Welsh (and subsequently Irish) issues. That said:

• In general, the suggested additions to the Jewish/Welsh issues seem quite reasonable.
• In relation to the Jewish issue, we now have two, well-sourced, paragraphs, featuring a range of views. These seem reasonable. I'm not myself quite clear on the connection that is being drawn between the tomb of Little St Hugh and the Eleanor Crosses. The text says "is likely to have been an attempt by Edward"; it seems to be suggesting more than just a stylistic similarity, but some form of connected political aim. Is it possible to make it clearer?
  • The background is that they were built in the same style by the same craftsmen working for the Royal household. This has led historians to pick up on a linked political purpose, as both are political objects. Since Eleanor had an "unsavoury" reputation regarding Jewish loans and land seizures, it is most likely that she was being associated with the cult of St Hugh, in order to "clean up" her reputation, as someone who venerated a Christian child supposedly ritually murdered by Jews. However, although the evidence is quite clear, it is also historians making educated calculations, not a matter of simple fact. At the same time, Edward's promotion of the cult is absolutely established and his purpose entirely clear. I'll take another look as the point re Eleanor is a difficult point to convey. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Checking, I had placed this information into an end note, regarding the link between the Eleanor crosses and the tomb design. I could edit the main body, to say something like "creating a visual association" or "probably to associate Eleanor's memory with the cult". --Jim Killock (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• What I can't judge is whether the emphasis given to this issue by historians would warrant it being a separate section. It would, of necessity, still be quite brief. That said, a 4.4. would not seem too problematic?
• Wales - moving the coverage of the 1287/1294 rebellions further down seems reasonable, and creates a better chronology. The other changes don't seem controversial to me.
• Legacy - losing the sentence on contemporary English views of the Welsh campaigns again doesn't seem controversial, it's not directly sourced. Where I would diverge from JimK is in ditching Morris and having only the views of Welsh historians, Davies/Davies. Include them, certainly, but not exclusively.
  • Just quickly on this: the current "Legacy" structure is "views on Edward, from an older English; modern English; Scottish; Welsh; Ango-Jewish perspective", rather than dealing with aspects of his reign.
  • I think more fruitful that pro contra on each aspect may be to bring the question of Edward and the English Crown as either an English or British phenomenon, and the associated power dynamics into focus, as this has been an area of active discussion (there's 3-4 histories written like this, not yet consulted, noted below). The question raised by Morris (was it justified) isn't really discussed in the literature (much?) AFAICT, it was just used as a proxy answer to "Do we have information about Welsh historians' view of Edward?" as a reviewer noted this was missing. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• And I would tweak the clause "R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', being 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King'" to read something like "R. R. Davies considered Edward's repeated and 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', to have been 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as king'".

• Character - following on from the above, it would seem reasonable to reflect something of this in the "Character" section. It doesn't currently have anything on how he was/is seem from a Scottish/Welsh/Irish perspective, and that would be useful to have. But it would again need to be quite brief.

I hope that editors with much greater knowledge of Edward will be able to chip in, particularly on the issue of DUE which buidhe notes above. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this @KJP1. I'll wait some further feedback before making edits. Jim Killock (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Nikkimaria; I have been busy with other things but want to do the Ireland section next. This won't be so much work as looking at Scotland, and the British context, both of which need me to do significant reading. I think I may as well transpose the edits re Wales at this point. Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Irish section drafted Jim Killock (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requested

I've done most of what I hope to do now, I might tidy up some Scottish points later but for me the FAR changes are done. If @KJP1 or @Serial Number 54129 or anyone else has feedback I would be very grateful. Pings to @Unlimitedlead, @Dudley Miles, @Ealdgyth, @Usernamesarebunk, @Lampman, @Hchc2009, @GoldRingChip, @Gog the Mild, @Surtsicna, @Nev1, @Mike Christie --Jim Killock (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Jim Killock, could you move your notes and resolved commentary to the review talk page? This one's getting a bit hard to follow at this point, and that may be discouraging others from weighing in. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria I've moved the notes and commentary I can move and linked to them. Hope that helps. Jim Killock (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• @KJP1: How are things looking from your perspective? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria - Sorry, missed this one. To me the changes suggested are sound, and the research very solid. I do wonder whether there is sometimes a little too much detail for our summary style. But my real problem is that I'm not a specialist in this period, and as such I cannot make an informed assessment on "weight". It really needs, another, Edwardian specialist to weigh in. And those will be few and far to find! KJP1 (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you @KJP1 @Nikkimaria. A copy edit / check / tightening of prose could be done on my changes. Someone could check for issues with source and cite styles. I'm sure there's room for some cutting. On overall "weight", this is a problematic area as the last academic biog was in the 1980s. I would caution against judging weight via biographies alone; these tend to be partial and Anglo-centric accounts while are currently also rather out of date. Other literatures deal with Edward extensively (Anglo-Jewish, Scottish, Irish, Welsh histories). The prior Anglo-centricity of the article is what I've tried to re-balance, this is not a coincidence. Jim Killock (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've posted a request to WP:GOCE for a partial copyedit on the revised sections, however there is currently a 3-4 month backlog. Jim Killock (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  JimKillock - Nikkimaria, as mentioned above, I think the problem we have is the lack of another specialist. For me, Jim's amendments look strong and well-sourced. But Edward I isn't my period, so I can't properly assess the issue of weight/due. For that, we need an Edwardian, which I'm not! KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria I am, as mentioned above, done with my changes related to prior gaps in the sources examined; I have posted a request to WP:GOCE for a partial copyedit on the revised sections, we are about six weeks into a 3-4 month wait. I agree with @KJP1 that it would be handy for an Edwardian specialist to review if available but that seems unlikely.

  Choices are therefore are to (a) wait until the copy editing is done then close, (b) wait indefinitely for a specialist to turn up; or (c) close this now. I'd opt for (a) as a quality control on the prose and just in case a specialist arrives. A specialist could always review / argue on weighting at a later date, after all that is what I did in essence. Jim Killock (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  @JimKillock, could I suggest asking @John, who is known to be a good copy editor, for a review? A six week long wait is too long imo, and that is just for copy editors to get to your request, their review might take half a month or more. After that is done, I could do prose, source and image reviews. Matarisvan (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, that would be great. @John if you are willing to help with this, please make any edits directly, I can check for accuracy afterwards. This request lists which sections need reviewing. Jim Killock (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I am travelling but I can take a look tomorrow. John (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Excellent, for ease of reference these are the sections that have been edited in this review and need a check / copy edit.

  • Conquest of Wales
  • Character as king
  • Parliament and the expulsion of the Jews
  • Administration in Ireland
  • Legacy

  Jim Killock (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, that helps. Should be able to take a look this evening. John (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've started by reading the article. It seems very good and thorough and I can see lots of edits I want to make. How much of a hurry are we in? John (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Started the first section. Some of these will be harder than others. I am not a subject specialist. John (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much. There isn't any massive hurry (we've waited since mid June for a copy edit, and GOCE would take another 8 weeks at a guess). I can check for accuracy as you finish sections, or answer any questions you have. Jim Killock (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a pleasure. Please do check my edits in case any important shades of meaning are lost as I copyedit. John (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes @John, should we take it you are done? I'm very happy with them (I've made one edit) and thank you for looking at the text throughout, as well as the new edits. Jim Killock (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome. I might take one further look if that's ok? John (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

for sure, go for it! Jim Killock (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I think I am finished now. As a Scot, I was tempted to use a different verb than "confiscated" to describe the removal of the Stone of Scone. I might say "looted" or maybe just "took". I wouldn't dream of imposing my POV though. What word does the source use? I think the article is looking good now. John (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll check in a few days; there will be multiple sources of course, and potentially different words used. "took" is neutral enough. Edward's penchant for delivering snubs of this nature is well discussed in the sources, but dealt here with at "character" / "legacy" rather than in the narrative. There, "seizure" is used. [Edit: I agree that "confiscated" is rather non-neutral / Anglo-centric; it implies that law and authority was on Edward's side when taking the Stone] Jim Killock (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@John Prestwich (cited) used "removed", also more neutral than "confiscated". Barrow uses "moved", followed by describing it as "plunder[ed]". So "took" seems right to me as it doesn't presume legality or claims of legality. I made the edit in any case. Jim Killock (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that is more neutral language, and if it is truer to the sources that's perfect. John (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Still to do; full dates for the events of the Second Barons' War as just having months is confusing. I presume he didn't erect the memorial crosses himself, but is it too clunky to point that out in the text? John (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this is clearer, thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria What is the process for closing the review? I think we have done as best we can with available resources (I think @John is done with copyedits from what I can see). Jim Killock (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The process is we need people to either say this is ready to close without FARC, or this needs to be moved to FARC. Once there's a consensus either way it will proceed according to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• As someone who has read and reread the article in the course of a fairly thorough copyedit throughout, with specific emphasis on the rewritten sections, I think this article should retain its FA status. It looks like all the concerns raised in this discussion have been addressed. John (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• I am happy that the concerns raised are sufficiently addressed and believe it should retain its FA status. --Jim Killock (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• I shall stick my neck out and also vote for retain, given that it was a fairly recent FA, and JK's edits seem clear improvements. JK has done a good job of expanding/nuancing/giving the article a wider perspective, and John's done a great copy edit. KJP1 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Jim Killock, my comments:

• Note a, ref #2: the page range we have used, 865-891 is, I think, a whole chapter. We need to cite 1-3 pages which say regnal numbers were not used during Edward's time and that he came to be known as Edward I only after his 2 immediate descendants also used the same name.
• Note v needs a citation.
• Perhaps link to justiciar? I must say that I didn't know what the word exactly meant.
• Ref #35 needs page numbers, unless we are citing all 11 pages of that source.

Will resume tomorrow, completed reviewing the Early life section. Matarisvan (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I will work on these, note these issues were present (bar note v) at FA completion, rather than in this round of changes, so fixing refs especially may take a bit of digging for me. Jim Killock (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

These are fixed. On ref #2 re regnal numbers, the information was not in the source, so I removed it. On ref #35 (now #34), I don't believe this was the source used as it goes into great detail without really making the basic points. Rather I think the narrative follows Prestwich, so I added that. Jim Killock (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jim, will resume my review the day after tomorrow. Till then, you should look at ref #7, particularly its last 3 sources, because only the first source cited in that ref is necessary. I think the titles of the 3 sourcez are cited to show that Edward was called the Lord Edward before his coronation. Matarisvan (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

These sources don't actually support the claim, afaict, so I've removed them, thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JimKillock, resuming my review:

• Add the inflation adjusted value for the £17,500 lent by Louis IX?
• "crown lands that his father had surrendered during his reign": Could we perhaps list these lands in a note?
• Link to the castles of Beaumaris, Caernarfon, Conwy and Harlech?
• Add the inflation adjusted value for the £400,000 cost estimated by Prestwich in note O?
• Link to RR Davies and Michael Prestwich in the body as done in the biblio?
• Add the inflation adjusted value for the £16,000 in fines and seizures?
• Add the inflation adjusted figure for the £110,000 lay subsidy approved?
• Add the inflation adjusted figure for the £200,000 raised through the lay subsidy?
• Add the inflation adjusted figure for the £473 in Edward's burial costs?
• Ref #352: consider removing the first two sources? Either their titles or the whole books have been cited.
• Remove the second link to GWS Barrow?
• I believe the war in Flanders has not been summarized or linked in the Early reign section, and is mentioned directly.

That concludes my prose review. I have done some little edits to the sfns myself, I hope that is alright. I will try to do an image and source review soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JimKillock, pinging you in case you haven't seen the comments above. Matarisvan (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan I've done the prices as best as possible (direct comparisons aren't very real). The link changes are done.

I haven't done the war in Flanders change as I haven't understood what is needed.

Re ref 352: the refs are for the positive works in question; presumably the other refs are later historigraphical reviews of said works, so I left these in but clarified what the refs are (the works, sources for their reception).

I think that deals with the requested changes - apologies for the delay Jim Killock (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@JimKillock: On the Flanders war point, I meant that we have not summarized or stated what Edward did in that expedition. We merely state "but it was not until August 1297 that he was able to sail for Flanders, at which time his allies there had already suffered defeat." What happened thereafter? What did he do in Flanders? We just say when he went there and when he returned, unlike our accounts of the wars in Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Matarisvan (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess the point is that Edward did not have a direct interest in Flanders, he was not invading for example, but had merely supported Flanders against the King of France, to protect his interests in Gascony (in the south of France). So Flanders isn't part of the narrative beyond that - I will check the narrative to see if this is sufficiently clear. Jim Killock (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Then I don't have any other points to raise, though you should clarify that Edward played no active role beyond supporting the count. Also, I would recommend you get reviews from @UndercoverClassicist and @Tim riley, both of whom I reckon would have a good command on English history. I will soon do image & source reviews, hopefully within a month from now. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan Bear in mind that you are reviewing the whole article which was meant to be thoroughly reviewed 18 months ago - please do check what they did so you avoid any duplication.

• Image review
• Source review

Both of us have found issues with sources tho so I don't discount that there may be others. On images, File:Edward I of England and Eleanor of Castile, Lincoln Cathedral.jpg was remodelled to depict Edward and Eleanor in the 1800s, and there is no evidence that it was originally meant to depict them. I've failed to find goo sources about the depiction either way, so it should probably be removed. Jim Killock (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood how FAR operates, but this does seem to be turning into a full-on FAC Mark II. KJP1 (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

David Pilling

Flanders is very complicated - Prestwich didn't cover it adequately, imo, or Morris, or anyone, really, since many of the actions of Edward's allies on the continent are described in non-English language sources. It is absolutely true to argue, as the likes of Prestwich and Lyon did, that Edward's expensively assembled allies did next to nothing: most of them did in fact fulfil their contracts and fight the French. Also worth pointing out that the cost of the Anglo-French was 1294-1307 was more than Wales and Scotland combined. 2A06:5902:3A03:7900:F965:6D55:5008:D11E (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops that should read 'absolutely untrue'! 2A06:5902:3A03:7900:F965:6D55:5008:D11E (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks David, this is very useful, let us know where we can get a bit more information and we can add these points. Jim Killock (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It might be easier if I added some content to the Wales & Flanders sections - I don't know how the editing process works on here, do new comments have to be submitted for review? Davidpilling56 (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Davidpilling56 and welcome to Wikipedia! You could just add text to the article, but as it is your first go, as this is a "Feature Article review" process to deal with the article's shortcomings (as Edward I's article is meant to be Wikipedia's best work, a "Featured Article"), you could draft your first change(s) and we could review them here. As you are a professional archivist and historian I'm sure you can get this right :) Then after your first go, you could notify us of the nature of the changes, and then just edit the article directly.

The main requirements of Wikipedia's policies are:

• Neutral Point of View (NPOV)
• that material is referenced to the exact pages in reliable (ie professionally published) sources where the information can be located (formatting these is something you may need help with)
• that material is brief and appears in proportion to how the subject is treated in English language literature about the topic (ie, about Edward I)

For Flanders this probably needs to be quite short as the.literature doesn't focus on this aspect of his career; I imagine that French and Dutch literature talk about this a lot more when dealing with him. We should apply a bit of flexibility IMO as basing proportions solely on English language sources might be a practical decision but it does cause the possibility of bias from a global standpoint, which does of course go against Wikipedia's core NPOV policy.

On source formatting, if you provide the source details I will help you with formatting the short ref and long ref for the blibliography.

I am in this edit creating a section in this review for your comments and work. Jim Killock (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, appreciate it. I'll try and put something together in the next few days and post drafts on here, as you say :) 2A06:5902:3A03:7900:F418:7623:2F2B:21E5 (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Look forward to reading :) Jim Killock (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Have just added a draft for Flanders in my edit section - see what you think :) Davidpilling56 (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

[ Draft moved to Talk page ] This section has been edited by David to explain the scale and impact of the Flanders campaign, and that it was not a flat failure. Note that information about the actual cost needs adding and the the figure previously give (£400,000) is removed as likely incorrect. Jim Killock (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@JimKillock, it has been 25 days since your last comment. Have you managed to work on David's suggestions? I see that there have been no edits after you added the sources suggested by David. This FAR has been open for almost 11 months now, and if you can incorporate David's recommendations in 1-2 weeks, I can do the image and source reviews in a couple of days. Overall, then, we should be able to wrap up this FAR before the month ends, or at least move to voting. Matarisvan (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

David and I made quite a few changes yes. I haven't yet had time to read the two books David suggested as additional context for Wales. When I do, I don't think this will result in major changes, but rather some nuance about the range of experiences of conquest and collaboration. Otherwise it is already done.

David did also raise further potential work that could be done regarding Edward I on the continent. However this is beyond my ability to do much on, as it would require consulting French sources. This would be a good idea to do, but doesn't to my mind affect whether the article remains at FA.

Regarding voting, some of that has already taken place! In my view, the main issue is source checks as these were not done especially thoroughly at FA time, so we might find some problems there. I don't think you need to do an image review, these are the same as at FA and were done competently, excepting one image which I have removed. Jim Killock (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@JimKillock, I did some biblio formatting, I hope that is alright with you. Some changes I can suggest:

• Add location of publication for Barrow 1983 and Parsons 1984.
• Remove Besançon, de Matons 1918, Frantz 1899, Guiart 1828, MS E 101/ 155/2/2, Rymer and Sanderson, Trivet 1845 and Walter's Chronicle; because these are primary sources, which you haven't used otherwise in this article. Instead I would suggest you use David's recently published article in place of all these sources: [2].
• Standardize publisher names: we have instances of using both Clarendon and Clarendon Press, as well as Hambledon and The Hambledon Press. You should consistently use just one.
• Standardize the capitalization of titles: Per WP:CT, you should either use title case or sentence case. Since most of the sources here are in title case and only a few are in sentence case, I think you should use the former.

Once these are done, I can commence the source review. Matarisvan (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, is it ok if I make the required edits here while @JimKillock is offline? Matarisvan (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, I made the edits needed. Can we move to voting now? @JimKillock is still offline, but I think I could resolve any issues raised. Matarisvan (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get perspectives on whether the article meets the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep. I did an extensive prose and biblio formatting review of the article, and believe the article passed on both counts. I think it now is much more comprehensive than when Jimmy started out with his rewrite. Matarisvan (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Although there's only one keep declaration in this section, I note three retain declarations in the review phase and no unstruck delists. Closing this as a keep after nearly a year of discussion and improvements. Thanks all. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

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