Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House of Gediminas

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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

[edit] House of Gediminas

I hereby nominate this article for featured article. Article was written by user:Renata3 and with kind copy editing help from user:Novickas, article is ready for this procedure. Article is already reached GA status and all FAC criteria are met, in my view. Article deals with important issue of Lithuanian history, namely one of the most famous Lithuanian ruler's royal house, who's heirs once ruled Center and Eastern European states. In article, mostly used published works, including and English encyclopedias and academic publications; extensively referenced and comprehensive. Illustrated with maps and graphical representation. Please express your opinion as well. M.K. 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support as nominator and reader. M.K. 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm leaning towards support, because this is essentially a genealogical article and as such provides a mine of carefully pieced-together information about who was who in this family. This is very valuable.

• ...but after Jogaila signed the controversial Treaty of Dovydiškės with the Teutonic Knights, Kęstutis seized Vilnius and became the Grand Duke in late 1381. A few months later he was imprisoned in Kreva and died there. Does this not rather simplify and shorten the matter? Jogaila was not able to strike back as quickly as implied here, I suspect. Checking the source given was disappointing, as I don't feel that Rowell, p. 69, backs up the text as it should.
  • Brittanica [1] has a summary of the events, which took place in 1381 and 1382. Will put this in tomorrow. Novickas 01:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, Kęstutis seized Vilnius in late 1381 (don't have a month), Jogaila seized power back in June of 1382, and Kęstutis died on August 15. Everything happened in less than a year. I added a source (just it won't help you much - it's in Lithuanian). I put in more precise date, but I don't feel like elaborating is a good idea: it's not the focus of the article. Renata 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your cutting "a few months later" helpfully removes the impression of this being a brief conflict. By "shorten the matter", I did not wish to imply that I thought more detail was needed; merely that the events appeared telescoped. The treaty was supposedly signed in 1360, so one imagines the confrontation did not begin with Kęstutis's seizure of Vilnius. One has to be most cautious of the sources here, I feel: our reading is coloured by Vytautas's own report to the Teutonic Knights much later. We assume that this treaty, for which Vytautas (through Wigand) is our source, was the problem. But Vytautas may have been trying to justify his father's usurpation.qp10qp 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1360? You mean 1380? Nutshell: Jogaila came in power in 1377, signed the treaty in 1380, was deposed in 1381, seized the title back in 1382, fought against Vytautas in 1383, and reconciled with Vytautas in 1384. A copy of the treaty survives (see img). Renata 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant 1380. (First rule of prognosticating about others' articles is that one always makes stupid mistakes!) qp10qp 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• striking a personal union. This doesn't seem idiomatic to me; it has echoes of "striking a bargain", which is certainly what Jogaila did. But it might be better to state what happened more clearly.
  • I did not want to focus on grandchildren. The main focus of the article is Gediminas, his origins, siblings, and kids. Grandkids are mentioned very very briefly. So I don't feel like elaborating on Jogaila-Vytautas conflict is a good idea. There are better places for this. It's enough to point the reader where. To that extend I added another sentence This Polish-Lithuanian union, in different forms, survived until the third partition of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795. Renata 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Striking" was my main query, and now the that is gone, the matter is clearer, I believe.qp10qp 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• "ca." Outside of brackets, this might be better as "about".
  • Changed. Renata 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine.qp10qp 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• After 1345 he became the Grand Duke of Lithuania and co-ruled with his brother Kęstutis. This could need a note of explanation, as it might sound contradictory to those unfamiliar with the arrangement. It might also be worth saying a word about the theory alluded to that a tradition of co-ruling may have long existed; as it is stands, that is left hanging. I believe Rowell dismisses this theory.
  • Yes, Rowell dismisses the theory. There is this sentence Their successful collaboration is celebrated in Lithuanian historiography, and gave rise to a theory that the tradition of co-ruling in Lithuania arose as early as 1285. in Kęstutis' paragraph. Any ideas how to phrase the co-ruler blurb in Algirdas' praragraph? The theory is rather complex and I am afraid it might confuse more than explain. Renata 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest appending something along the lines of the following footnote to that sentence about the theory: "The nature of this Lithuanian dual rule is difficult to define precisely. According to the historian S. C. Rowell, p. 68, it "reflects political expediency; it certainly does not meet the formal definition of diarchy as 'rule by two independent authorities'...those two leaders were not equal: the grand duke in Vilnius was supreme".

In the Algirdas paragraph, I recommend covering all angles by saying something to the effect that Algirdas and Kęstutis ruled Lithuania in partnership, Algirdas as grand duke and Kęstutis as duke of Trakai. qp10qp 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I will see what I can do over the next few days - need to read up first. Renata 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall, smart work. The article earns its place as a first stop for Gediminas's genealogy.qp10qp 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, thank you, that's very kind. Renata 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. One can only judge this article on what it intends to be, a body of information about who was who in Gediminas's immediate family. This sort of article is invaluable for anyone who wants to gain a handle on medieval history. To give an example of the value of this work to Wikipedia, take this character Žvelgutis, son of Vytenis, whom I had never heard of. He has been fished out of a footnote in Rowell and used in this article to help provide a possible reason why Gediminas succeeded his possible brother Vytenis. It appears as if similar acts of mosaicing have been performed to bring many other minor relatives of Gediminas into the light and into context in this article for readers of Wikipedia.qp10qp 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I won't have time to familiarize myself with the article until tomorrow, so no opinion for the time being. One could make a sound argument that it should be merged with Gediminids, an established term for the family. That article has six interwikis; the House of Gediminas has none. I hope to make substantive comments in a day or two. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: I will wait for the comments. However, the article Gediminids has a much wider focus: the whole dynasty from 1285 to 1572, while this article has a much narrower focus: just the immediate family of Gediminas (1285-1380). I plant to write House of Kęstutis (actively gathering info) and House of Algirdas (someday). Renata 21:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. But two things: (a) In "Daughters", the sentence "In addition, the Synodik of Liubech mentions Lithuanian duke Gomantas (Гамант), who most probably is identical to supposed Gediminas' father Skomantas, or Skalmantas, and Gomantas' daughter Elena, who was married to Andrei Mstislavich of Kozelsk,[29] so it is very likely that Andrei of Kozelsk indeed was Gediminas' brother-in-law." is difficult to read. Does "most probably is identical to" mean "likely refers to"? (b) In "Sons", please clarify the sentence "There are rumors that Narimantas married a Tatar princess, but they lack sources.[19]" - rumors? like today between historians, or like 13th century rumors between medival loudmouths? --maclean 20:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.