House of Plantagenet is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article was copy edited by Stfg, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 June 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Previous copyedits:
/
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on February 19, 2014.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy
This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.
Preparation for FAR
The article was promoted nearly ten years ago, but I am not convinced that it still meets all FA criteria, so I am planning to open a FAR.
My first concern is sourcing. The article relies heavily on individual Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entries about members of the Plantagenet dynasty. This appears to contradict our policy, which states that "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources". While tertiary sources, emphasises our relevant rule, "can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight", overreliance on ODNB entries for individual Plantagenets carries a significant risk of original research and synthesis. As it stands, the article seems to reflect what editors have drawn from those biographies, rather than what scholars have concluded about the dynasty as a whole.
My second concern is scope. It is not clear whether reliable sources on the House of Plantagenet justify including extended sections on related families (such as the Tudors) or on the succession to Elizabeth I. Without clear sourcing, this may go beyond the scope that academic treatments of the dynasty support.
Finally, the article reads more as a series of biographical summaries than as an integrated evaluation of the Plantagenet dynasty. A featured article on this topic should synthesize scholarly perspectives on the dynasty as a whole, rather than primarily recounting the reigns of individual monarchs and listing their descendants.
Yes, this is an article about the family. What you are proposing is a content fork to England in the Late Middle Ages. It was decided about 10 years ago to split the existing article this way (Archive 2). That has never been an FA, and it would be nice to see it brought up to one. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not proposing a content fork. I would simply like to read about the family in an article dedicated to them. The article’s sources clearly indicate that the current page is not about the family itself; rather, it is a compilation of excerpts from encyclopedic entries about individual family members, along with material on several other families. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"several other families" who were related to them, ie part of the family. We are in a wierd definitional landscape here, as often before when you get involved. What does "the current page is not about the family itself; rather, it is a compilation of excerpts from encyclopedic entries about individual family members" mean? The period covered is four centuries, what can be said about a "family" over such a stretch, as opposed to "individual family members"? Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide academic sources on the Plantagenets that treat these other families—and only these families—as part of the Plantagenet family? At present, the article does not cite a single source dedicated specifically to the Plantagenets. Instead, it appears to rely on excerpts chosen by the editors from encyclopedia entries on individual family members. This approach prevents the article from reflecting how the House of Plantagenet is presented in the scholarly literature. A comparison with the corresponding Britannica entry demonstrates a markedly different approach ([1]). Our task here is not to assemble material according to personal preference, but to summarise what reliable academic works dedicated to the article's subject say about it. Without such sources, an article cannot be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (FACR 1c), and reviewers cannot be confident that it does not neglect "major facts or details" (FACR 1b). Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Could you provide academic sources on the Plantagenets that treat these other families—and only these families—as part of the Plantagenet family?" - this is wierdly phrased, so please explain what you mean, especially by "and only these families". "The corresponding Britannica entry" is extremely short - a long stub by WP standards - and the family tree certainly includes the Tudors to Henry VII. It's useless as a comparison, and I can't see that it is any more "about the family itself" than our article; again, you need to explain what you mean by this. Anyone who knows anything about English history under the Tudors (which I suspect may exclude you) knows all about the deadly significance in that period of having a Plantagenet bloodline. No doubt there are academic sources that treat the whole length of the dynasty, including these figures, but I doubt they say anything much different from this article. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put it simply, the family should be presented according to dedicated scholarly sources, not according to editors' own interpretations derived from selected encyclopedic excerpts. If academic sources exist that treat the full length of the dynasty, those should be cited. It may be more constructive to concentrate on improving the article rather than expressing personal views. Borsoka (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But do such sources in fact exist? You have not referred to any. There will be any number of more or less academic works on the whole dynasty, but they will inevitably for the most part treat the very different individuals, well, individually. Just like this article. The ODNB entries are written from scratch by distinguished scholars who will often have previously written a book biography of the figure concerned. Your "overreliance on ODNB entries for individual Plantagenets carries a significant risk of original research and synthesis" seems very wrong to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that your earlier assertion about the existence of such sources ([2]) may not, after all, have been supported by evidence? I have already quoted the relevant sourcing policy ([3]), which shows that the article, as it stands, does not meet those requirements, and I have also pointed to two FA criteria ([4]) that it currently fails to satisfy. The core issue, however, is not simply procedural. The article does not reflect a genuinely scholarly approach to presenting the dynasty—one could theoretically assemble a WP article on the human body by collecting material from separate encyclopaedic entries on ears, eyes, intestines, bones, and so on, but the result would not resemble the way the human body is presented in academic works. A useful parallel is the Britannica entry on the Plantagenets, which makes it clear that historians do not present the Tudors, the de la Poles, the Poles, or the Staffords as part of the Plantagenet dynasty. The mere appearance of a few Tudor figures in a family tree at the point where the Plantagenet dynasty ends does not justify creating an entire section on the Tudor royal family in an article on the Plantagenets. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My statements have been entirely consistent, and despite being asked more than once you have failed to refer to any sources (other than an EB stub, which on your account is unsuitable) that take the mystical "whole dynasty" approach you appear to think is required. The EB stub is far too short to justify any talk like "... makes it clear that historians do not ...". Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please look over the discussion again? Up to this point, I have been the one citing a reliable source specifically dedicated to the House of Plantagenet ([5]). I have also been the one referring to the relevant Wikipedia policies and FA criteria that this article would need to meet in order to be regarded as an FA. By contrast, your comments reflect your own views and seem to rely mainly on assumptions. I would be grateful if you could also refer to reliable sources on the House of Plantagenet, so that we can move forward more effectively. Borsoka (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need! While complaining that the article uses supposedly "tertiary" sources, though very high quality ones, you have only produced an extremely short and much lower quality tertiary source yourself. To this you have attributed a different approach which its few hundred words hardly demonstrate. I have asked more than once for proper academic sources which adopt the "whole dynasty" approach that you claim exists, and you have still not produced any. Please do so. As always, you proceed under a barrage of policy links, many of which, if examined, will be seen to have no relevance at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. I referred to a tertiary source (Britannica) entirely in accordance with our policy on using such works to "help evaluate due weight". By contrast, the tertiary source on which this article chiefly relies (the ODNB) contains no dedicated entry on the Plantagenets. Put simply: just as one cannot complete a Wikipedia article on the human body without high-quality secondary sources on that subject, one cannot produce a FA on the House of Plantagenet without citing at least one high-quality source devoted specifically to it. To give a simple example: could you reasonably cite a reliable source that discusses the Tudors, de la Poles, Poles and Stanfords—but no other Plantagenet descendants—when describing the Plantagenets? If you cannot provide such sources, it may be best to pause this exchange between us until they are available. Borsoka (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, and since we have been here before, if the article is mostly rewritten, I will strongly oppose it being kept as an FA at FAR. It should be delisted and go through FAC again. That is the proper process. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to its unverified scope and heavy reliance on encyclopaedic entries, even a brief review revealed several unsourced statements and at least one questionable claim (each noted in the article text). Accordingly, the article requires not only reliable sources specifically on the Plantagenets to maintain its FA status, but also a comprehensive review. Borsoka (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg)
