Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Catherine de' Medici

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 00:11, 14 April 2008.

[edit] Catherine de' Medici

I'm nominating this article for featured status because I believe it meets the criteria. Many thanks to those who contributed to the useful peer review. I hope to help improve the coverage of late-sixteenth-century French history on Wikpedia (which is somewhat scanty, in my opinion). Catherine de' Medici's life strikes me as a good place to start, since she was the only member of the French royal family who managed to live for very long during the period. I have worked on this article on and off for eight months without ever tiring of it—so I hope it fits the bill. qp10qp (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I can't wait to read this article, but I must comment on the near gallery of images first. I can't read the text for all of the images! Some must go! The text is offset in all sorts of weird ways over here and sandwiched between images in unsightly ways. I know it must look better wherever Qp is, but over here it is a collage. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, how infuriating. Nobody mentioned this at peer review. OK, I've lost some of the images, and moved some others about, after switching my own preference down to a 12 font. It's a shame, because this article has a cast of characters and we have such brilliant paintings and drawings of them: I'm particularly going to miss Leo X by Raphael and Marguerite de Valois by Clouet (sobs). Could you tell me if it looks all right now on your screen? The only other thing I can think of is that I've read at MoS that images on the left under a heading can be a problem (not for me): I only have Henry III and the Duke of Guise in that position—please let me know if they are a problem.qp10qp (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support What an enjoyable article - well-researched, well-written, and beautifully illustrated! Thanks Qp, for taking on such an important figure and doing her justice! This was really so fascinating to read - I was riveted. Small things:
  • The monarchy had no control over the causes of these conflicts, which would have daunted even a mature king. - What is this supposed to mean exactly?
It's supposed to mean that the monarchy had no control over the causes of the conflicts, which arose from the Reformation and irreversibly polarised society, and that the situation would have been a tough order even for a mature king to cope with, let alone boy kings. I've changed the wording and punctuation slightly, in the hope of making things clearer. (The point itself is unexceptionable and is made by several historians.) qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
To me, the sentences still sound like the article is comparing a female leader (standing in for her sons) to a "mature king", as if somehow a "mature king" is the highest form of leader. I'm not sure I like the gender connotations here. Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, I see what you mean now. I have simplified the sentence merely to show that the situation was complex. qp10qp (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • According to a chronicler, when Catherine de’ Medici was born in Florence on Wednesday 13 April 1519, her parents, were "as pleased as if it had been a boy". - A chronicler from when?
I've now added "contemporary", and given the date of Goro Gheri's remark, which he wrote two days after Catherine's birth. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • During his childhood, Henry spent almost four and a half years as a hostage in Spain, an ordeal that marked him for life. - How did it mark him?
I've added that it left him gloomy and introverted, per Frieda.qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This proved that Henry was virile and added to the pressure on Catherine. - Be explicit about pressure!
Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph of "Dauphine" needs a cite.
Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph of "Reign of Henry III" is a little disorganized and unclear.
I've rewritten it slightly, adding a touch more explanation and chronology. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
On one occasion, in March 1578, Catherine had to lecture François for six hours about his behaviour - I don't really understand this sentence yet. Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added a bit more: Catherine did all in her power to bring François back into the fold. On one occasion, in March 1578, she lectured him for six hours about his dangerously subversive behaviour. Throughout the article I included touches that showed Catherine operating essentially as a mother. Despite what some of the pamphleteers said, I don't think she cared for power itself except on behalf of her children. And it amuses me that she didn't hesitate to yell at them and cuff them even when they were grown up. If this bit is still not cogent, could you suggest what might be added here? qp10qp (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This is clearer - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • After reading the article, I felt that the lead lacked something - it didn't give me the full flavor of the article to come. Some nuance was lost that I thought could be retained about her attitude towards the Hugenots. Also, no mention is made of her patronage of the arts in the lead.
I've mentioned the patronage there now. To me, the lead does encapsulate her attitude to the Huguenots, but perhaps I am too close to it. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It just seems like there is so much about her reputation rather than about the "actual" history. Seems odd for you. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know; I have mentioned reputation history in the leads of other articles; I suppose that is to ape the introductions to histories and biographies, which often do the same. But, OK, I have cut the Huguenot-Michelet stuff from the lead. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful job - thanks again! Powerful women represented! Yeah! :) Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to read and comment: I know how busy you are. In fact, I think you have something in common with Catherine, both being "workaholics". Except I doubt you'd massacre anyone. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at peer review and was impressed; I did a minor copyedit but there wasn't much to fix then. I am sorry to see the images go -- I have 300px as my thumbnail default and they weren't overwhelming to me. Still, I think this is an issue where you have to compromise as there are multiple possible settings for images and we need articles to look good for as many viewers as possible. Anyway, a great article, and I'm glad to support it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! I should say that all the images are raw thumbnails and deliberately do not have pixel values, which I understand is the approved approach. qp10qp (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent, well-cited article. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support With the following quibbles.

  • The statements in Daupine section, the second paragraph are opinion and need some sort of sourcing. Specifically that Henry adored DIane for the rest of his life and that he respected Catherine's position as his consort. Citing them to someone would work, or possibly that Henry kept Diane as his mistress for the rest of his life, which isn't opinion, but fact.
All sourced now. qp10qp (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Huguenots section, second paragraph. "Swoop"? perhaps trap or attack?
For me, "swoop", which is not a slang word (though it sounds like one), is the mot juste. This was the only occasion in the whole of the French Wars of Religion when the court itself (as opposed to armies) was taken by surprise. The Huguenot plan, to swoop on the royal party and take possession of the king, very nearly succeeded. It was every court man, woman, court jester, and bottlewasher for themselves, and by all accounts the whole bunch lammed it to Paris at dawn, in comic disarray. Oh, how I'd love to have seen that. qp10qp (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • When did the war that ended in March 1568 start? Was it with the "swoop"? Did I miss something about it starting?
Yes, I thought that was implied, but I've made it clearer now. qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Am glad to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The table of children needs more introduction, perhaps some prose explaining the collective significance of her children. As it is, it is left to the reader to infer that the table summarizes the lives of the "issue" of de' Medici and her husband. Is there a compelling reason to use the term "issue" rather than more familiar terminology? That section (Marriage and issue) might be retitled as well ("Children", perhaps), since there is already a section on "Marriage" and the "Marriage and issue" section is not actually about the marriage.--ragesoss (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You get those horrible and partly superfluous tables in so many of these articles. I hate the word "issue", but it seems to be the regular term on Wikipedia, for some reason. OK, I will go and change it; but in my experience certain projects will come along and change it back. qp10qp (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. I've retitled the section "children", given it a little collectivising introduction, changed it from a table to a bullet list, and removed some of the overdetailing. I've also changed "issue" to "children" in the infobox, where the children are all listed and linked too. Well, no one can say this article doesn't contain any information about her children, that's for sure. I wish I knew how to put the children list in a "hide" strip thingie, like the ancestors. qp10qp (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments pertaining to WP:MOS#Images:
    • There is a sandwiching issue in the Huguenots section.
I've removed one of the two images, although this sandwiching was invisible to me, even with a small font. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've placed it above the header, as it were—which always looks a little ugly to me. I'm surprised that with all the technical progress of Wikipedia, this problem of left images under a heading has not been solved. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - good work on a difficult article. The writing is so engaging that I can even ignore all those lowercase Dukes (Holy Roman emperor though? Have mercy!). Couple of very minor queries late on:
    • He was also healthier than them followed by those who know him well say that he has an extremely weak constitution and will not live long in the next paragraph jars a little.
He was still sickly. But the first two were invalids. I've cut the first statement, to remove the apparent clash. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • At about this time, he took to wearing death’s heads sewn into his clothes and carrying little dogs around with him in jewelled baskets - what does that tell us?
It's supposed to tell us that he was losing the plot. The trouble is that I've had to cut so much from the article that perhaps I've severed too many links in the chain of reasoning. Anyway, I've now moved this out to make way for a sentence addressing Carabinieri's abscess point. qp10qp (talk)
    • Catherine, in bed with a lung infection, had been kept in the dark. - presumably metaphorically and not as a treatment. Could do with rephrasing.
Great catch, ha ha. Changed. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • the Forty-five plunged their blades - are they called the Forty-five because that is how many of them there are? Seems a fairly busy bedchamber if so. Some explanation of where the name came from or how many of them were there for the stabbing would help. Yomanganitalk 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to "members of". To tell you the truth, I can't find out much more about them. I had thought of not naming them in the article and just calling them his bodyguard, but I think it's best to put names like this in articles, if historians choose to use them. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Linked to The forty-five guards, which took a bit of finding, but I knew we had something. I think I'll do a disam page, what with 1745.Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod strikes again. Brilliant work! Reading that, they didn't have a great record, did they? Two kings, two assassinations. qp10qp (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - I added in conclusion:" Their record on offence was therefore rather better than on defence." but Yomangan wasn't having it! Of course, they didn't have Dumas doing their PR. His question is presumably answered in that 15 were on duty at any one point, though as the King still needed guarding, perhaps some of the next shift were putting in overtime. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I hate to do this, as I see a lot of work has been put into this article, but I do feel there are a few issues that need to be addressed first. It's been a joy to read the article and it is very good, so I'll be more than happy to support once these have been taken care of:
    • I think the structure of the lead is somewhat odd. It starts out by talking about her birth, then it goes to her reign as Queen Consort, and then it goes back to her marrying Henry at the age of fourteen. I would suggest starting the article with what she is best known for, being Queen Consort of France and then having influenced her sons when they ruled France, and then giving a slightly more in-depth biography. Most articles start by saying what their topic is best-known for, so I think it would be nice, if this one would too and that would eliminate the skipping around in the lead. It would only require moving the two sentences about her birth to the second paragraph of the lead.
Good point. Done. qp10qp (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "As a result, she was blamed for all the sins of the régime, in particular for the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of 1572, in which thousands of Huguenots were butchered in Paris and throughout France." "sins" doesn't seem like the right word to me here, especially as it kind of makes it seem as if the article is taking the view that these acts were sins. How about "violent acts"? Also "butchered" seems too emotional a word to me and thus violates WP:TONE; "killed" or something similar would be more neutral. Although I find this article's language more engaging than that of most Wikipedia articles, I think in this case it goes to point of being POV.
I've changed it to "faults" of the régime and "killed". But I don't really agree that this offends tone or POV. The sources use words like this, and why should we be different? The Huguenots and Spanish did regard the Valois régime as sinful, literally. As far as "butchered" is concerned, is there a polite way of describing a massacre? Yes, "killed" is more neutral, but perhaps too neutral–after all, you can be killed by a bus, by an electric shock, by choking on a fishbone, but being woken up first thing in the morning and hacked to pieces is slightly different. Or being ripped apart by baying mobs and thrown into heaps. qp10qp (talk)
What I meant is that using "sins" in that sentence makes it seem like the article views these acts as sinful. I like "faults" since that makes it sound more like this is referring to how Catherine's opponents viewed them - to me at least.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:MOS: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." (Right-aligning them isn't an option since they look nicer with their eyes looking at the text and removing them would be a shame. My advice would be to move them to immediately before the headings) This is done in the "Birth and upbringing", the "Reign of Henry III", and the "Catholic League" sections.
Done. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Clement had no choice but to crown Charles as Holy Roman emperor in return for his help in retaking the city." Shouldn't that be "Holy Roman Emperor"?
Fixed. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "In 1536, Henry's older brother, François, fell ill after a game of tennis, contracted a fever, and died." The reference to the game of tennis seems kind of odd to me, because the sentence doesn't explain the game's role in him getting sick. I would either remove this or explain what the game has to do with it.
Clarified I hope - he got hot and sweaty and caught a chill; no showers then. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
He had a glass of water, and some think that may have given him typhoid. The tutor who gave it to him was executed on suspicion of poisoning him, but historians are unanimous in ruling that out. As always, the episode is interesting and would make a good article in its own right (and I am struck by similarities with the death of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales), but the article can't afford to be sidetracked here with any more detail. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks it's clearer now.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Henry's reign also saw the rise of the Guise brothers, Charles, who became a cardinal, and Henry's boyhood friend Francis, who became duke of Guise." Shouldn't that be "Duke of Guise"?
Not necessarily. But I have changed it. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "From that day, Catherine took a broken lance as her emblem, inscribed with the words "lacrymae hinc, hinc dolor" ("from this come my tears and my pain"), and wore black in memory of Henry." Do you happen to have a picture of this emblem? I think that would be worth replacing one of the portraits.
I haven't been able to find one. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That's too bad.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • ”In what has been called a coup d'état, the Cardinal of Lorraine and the Duke of Guise—whose niece, Mary, Queen of Scots, had married Francis the year before—seized power the day after Henry II's death and quickly moved themselves into the Louvre with the young couple” This is somewhat WP:WEASELish. Could you mention who called it a coup d’état? If this position is widely accepted among historians, something to the extent of “what many historians consider a coup d’état” would do in my opinion.
This seems referenced to me, but I have an issue as to what "seized power" means in this context. Maybe "immediately established themselves as Francis's favourites, moving themselves into the Louvre with the young couple, and excluding Catherine". Or similar. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. it's referenced, which I should think is enough. Frieda, 139, says: "The royal party moved into the Louvre Palace on 11 July 1559 and with this simple act the Guises accomplished their coup d'état without spilling a drop of blood. By installing themselves in the best apartments the new regime lost no time in falling upon the spoils of their sudden victory". Knecht, 59, says: "What happened in 1559 was a coup d'état by the Guises. They quite simply seized power while Catherine was grieving the loss of her husband and Montmorency was occupied standing guard over his body. The essential feature of the coup d'état was Montmorency's exclusion from central government". Other sources use the term, but I think a double reference was enough.
In my opinion, this was a classic bloodless coup d'état, in which one government was ousted by another, using timing and surprise. Authority in France at this time was invested in the king. Since this king was a weak boy, power now passed to whoever controlled him. This was the Guises because Francis was married to their niece. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
My point is that if this view is primarily held by these two people, then it would be worth directly attributing it to them in the prose. If this view is widespread among historians, then that should be mentioned. I just think that "has been called" is kind of vague - at least that's my interpretation of WP:AWW.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Why is it "Edict of Saint-Germain", "Edict of Amboise" (in the "Reign of Charles IX" section), "Edict of Pacification", "Edict of Toleration", "Edict of January", but "edict of Amboise" (in the "Huguenots" section) and "edict of Beaulieu"? Shouldn’t there be some kind of consistency in the spelling of edict?
Just mistakes. I write all in lower case and have to go through a list and edit for consistency, but I forgot to put "edict" on the list. Thanks for pointing this out. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • ”On November 25, 1579, she wrote to the king“ Shouldn’t that be "the King", since King is merely an abbreviation for "King of France" in this case? The same thing goes for "The king's actions effectively ended her days of power." and "He called her not only the mother of the king but the mother of the state"
I disagree. "King" is not an abbreviation of anything. There are two schools of thought on this, each backed by different publishing houses and style guides. I use the capital for King Philip and King Philip of Spain; Philip, King of Spain, and King of Spain (the last two with reluctance); I use lower case for Spanish king, the king, etc. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought there was a universal rule on that, but never mind then.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "The Spanish ambassador told Philip II that the abscess was about to burst." Maybe there’s something I’m not getting, but what abscess is this referring to?
metaphor for the political situation. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added a note of context, based on the original comments by the ambassador: "Puisque l'abces n'a point crevé comme on s'y attendait, les choses demeurent dans un si mauvais état qu'il sera difficile d'y apporter remède". This was written in May 1588, with the Armada imminent, the Catholic League in control of northern France, and Henry III off self-flagellating. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In the genealogical table, her middle name is spelled as Romula, while in the opening sentence, it is given as Romola. Is there a reason for this, or is this merely a typo?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent spot. Changed. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very well written and referenced. Some points:
  • Yes, these lower case emperors, dauphins etc should be sorted.
Dauphins are tricky, and the books vary. I have capitalised them now, and changed the source for the Brantôme quote (because different sources capitalise it differently) to come closer to consistency, but it still has "king" and "Dauphin" in proximity. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If possible, the pics should be desized per MoS. Maybe a couple of short one-row galleries between sections would help with the overflow?
    There are no sizes specified on the pics. Yomanganitalk 13:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Honest, guv. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The complicated narrative tends to take over, and Catherine's elusive personality does not really come through, nor is her "black legend" developed after the lead.
It's difficult. Catherine herself and her times are elusive. I've just been reading Mack Holt's book on the wars of religion, and he starts by saying, "please don't expect me to do more than scratch the surface here". Although the article is long, it is bare-bones stuff for such a long life. On the legend, I tried to indicate in the text where there are differences about her and show the way she was portrayed by the Huguenots. I am, however, planning a separate article on her reputation, mainly based on Sutherland's study of all that. On her personality, I was reticent, because she is contradictory and it would be so easy to lead the reader by emphasising one character trait or another (when she had so many and the sources are so biased). qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Did she have no permanent allies, confidantes or sidekicks?
No. It was family, family, family to her, and she was the big boss in that family, to say the least. She was sustained by a very strong office, though the secretaries did not really step out of the shadows the way they did in England, or the way Sully did under Henry IV. I think the reason is that that it was her role to be the chief executive. You don't have a Cecil because she was, in effect, the Cecil. She did team up with de l'Hôpital in the early compromise policy, but studies have shown that she made all the decisions and that he shouldn't be given the credit for originating the policy. And she got rid of him before long, because she thought him too weak. qp10qp (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Support I've read this article a fair few times; on user and main space. And its a very fine page. Exemplary. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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