Talk:Isabeau of Bavaria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleIsabeau of Bavaria is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 24, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 15, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 8, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
June 30, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Name "Isabeau"[edit]

Why was she called "Isabeau"? I thought the French version of Elisabeth was "Isabelle". --88.72.54.25 (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Affair[edit]

Altering text on the relationship with the duke of Orleans for NPOV. Durova 22:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Maria of Hungary[edit]

I cannot understand why someone doubts Isabella's descent from Arpads. It is true enough and genealogies all show the same, without any contention. See for example [1] and other pages there. Maria bore Eleanor of Anjou-Sicily who bore Isabella/Elisabeth of Aragon-Sicily who bore Stephen III of Bavaria who sired this Isabella, who was baptized as her Sicilian grandmother's namesake. Maed 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt her descent from the Arpads, I doubt the detail which appears here concerning Elizabeth, Maria Arpad of Hungary's mother, and not at the page on Maria herself. If it is verifiable, it should appear there; if it isn't, it shouldn't appear here. The website mentioned says Maria's Cuman grandfather was called Zayhan. See what I mean ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. be kindly very specific in the future when asking for citations. The facts are verifiable enough: Maria's mother was called Elisabeth when queen (no idea whether she had an earlier Cuman first name, it is possible, though perhaps not important here). That Elisabeth was daughter of a Cuman chieftain, who and whose tribe were driven to Hungary due to incursion of Mongols to wgat is now Ukraine. The chief's Cuman name is rendered variably: Kuten, Kuthen, Zayhan, etc. Elements are same: K sometimes close to Z, u/(a)y, th/t/h, e/a, ends always with -n. Probably you understand some things about rendition of medieval odder names, from immigrant languages, when even languages through which renditions take place, evolve in pronunciation (k becomes s or somesuch - as in Latin). The Cuman chief, though sort of exle, was important enough in feudal Hungary that the then king allied with him (and several loyal magnates) in pursuits to keep other, restless, Hungarian magnates in some order. Alliance was sealed through marriage of their two children. Cumans had a specific culture compared to Hungarians: some (possibly biased) sources accuse them of licentiouness and abetting several vices. How surprising. How nationalistic and xenophobous. Among native Hungarians, resentment was present, and both Elisabeth's husband and son later as kings faced accusations based on their "Cuman" habits and even paganism. The son, Ladislas IV, was nicknamed as "the Cuman", and pope declared a war/crusade against him sometime in 1280's, using alleged pagan habits as excuse. Cuman tribe is sort of Kipchak people. The page about Maria's family: [[2]]. I have not very much against, if you wish to burden this page with different renditions of the chief's name, though I would rather suggst that they are presented in his own page or at least nearer there, and only one variant used in this article. Maed 22:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Isabeau's father links to the page on her grandfather (Stephen II) rather than her father (Stephen III). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spondylla (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name change to Isabeau[edit]

I've reinstated this for two reasons: 1., because Rachel Gibbon's research is quite good and she's a reputable scholar; 2., because it becomes important later in regards to how Isabeau was treated in the chronicles of the time and the ways in which her name was used. I have the material to develop those points, based on Tracy Adams' book (listed in the sources), but am at the moment too busy to finish developing. There will be a large expansion of this page though, in the near future. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point, but it should be rephrased. Her name naturally went from Elisabeth to the French version of the same name. When, for example, Piroska of Hungary married the Byzantine emperor, her name was changed to Irene. That was a name change. In Isabeau's case, it was merely a "translation" of the name. For example, Isabella of Austria started using the Danish "Elisabet" upon marriage, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is known as Isabel by Hispanophones, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency let's put it back to Isabeau throughout, and leave out the name change sentence. I'll add something about it when I flesh out the section about the civil wars, her relationship with the Burgundians and the anti-Isabeau propaganda. I haven't finished researching this material yet either, so best to let it be until then. As you say, it might not be necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small thing[edit]

You have the potential for a very good hook in the lead, at the moment it reads "it resulted in the disastrous event known as Bal des Ardents". Needs to be explained and drawn out. I lkeave a few hints at the drama, to get people to want to read more. Ceoil (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to be rewritten - I've added quite a lot since I wrote it and still more to be added. Feel free to have a go at it if you'd like - I always have trouble with leads and so wait until the end to write them. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grand, might just do that. Put on my Brit tabloid sub editor hat, and go with it :) Its great to see so much work here though, really enjoying seeing the page develop. Ceoil (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Troyes[edit]

"Under the terms of the Treaty, Henry V's son, at that time only 9 months old, was named heir to the French throne. The infant, with the Duke of Bedford his regent, would be raised as French in Paris and ascend the throne on Charles VI's death. Isabeau was to live in English controlled Paris." The articles about the treaty and Henry V contradict this. They say Henry V was heir designate and Henry VI ascended because Henry V predeceased his father-in-law. Which is it? Surtsicna (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll re-read to make sure it's not wrong. I haven't looked at the other articles. BTW - just a head's up, but I'll be putting back the lead image. It's important to show that she was depicted in art through the centuries, as is also shown in Murasaki Shikibu and the Christine Pizan image seems best to work in the section about Pizan. No reason to have the same image twice. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: I've re-read the source and I'd like to keep this as it is because this is a biography of Isabeau and not of Charles VI, Charles VII, Henry V or Henry VI where I think the specific details are more relevant. What's relevant here is that she went with her husband, signed, and later lived in English occupied territory. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remain convinced that a contemporary depiction would be a much better choice for the lead image, with the fantasy portrait from the 19th century being suited for the Reputation and legacy section. That part of the article actually discusses how she was seen "in the 18th and 19th centuries". There is room there for two images, though the one that is already there is a bit irrelevant. As for the treaty, I have to disagree more strongly. No matter whose biography this is, it should not present factually incorrect information to the readers, especially if it is going to be featured on the main page. If the details are irrelevant, they should be removed rather than distorted into inaccuracy. Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More problems with the paragraph: it claims that "Isabeau accompanied Charles to sign the Treaty of Troyes in May 1420" and that, "under the terms of the Treaty, Henry V's son, at that time only 9 months old, was named heir to the French throne". Henry V's son had not even been born yet. Henry VI was born in December 1421, a year and a half after the treaty was signed. In addition to correcting this grave mistake, we should also note the relationship between Isabeau and the two kings of England. It is important to note that they were not random strangers; Henry VI was Isabeau's grandson. Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be featured on the main page. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed your response at the nomination talk page. I hope you will not give up on bringing it to FA quality. Surtsicna (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It fails WP:WIAFA on two counts: prose and it's no longer stable, so no sense in continuing at this point. Last night I went back through the sources re the Treaty and all I'd change is the that the treaty was secured w/ the marriage. Charles, at that time, was still living and retained the crown. I needed to work earlier today and when I came to fix, it had been changed, so let's leave it as it is for now. The Treaty of Troyes is uncited and is the place for the details, and at some point I might tackle that, and then return here for a full clarification based on sources. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments[edit]

I prepared some comments for the FAC, which I see has regrettably been closed. This article is not a "peace of crap", it is quite good, it just needs a few eyes to run over it. I hope these comments will be of use, and please let me know when it returns to FAC

Lede
  • "her coronation ceremony was honored with a lavish entry into Paris" Really, it was Elisabeth being honored, not her ceremony. Suggest a slight tweak here.
  • I would suggest a brief phrase to explain how it was the King, who had departed from Court, was in harm's way at the Bal. For the sake of those who only read the lede :) Perhaps a phrase like "temporarily recovered" would be suitable.
Lineage
  • "on the event of their first New Year" perhaps "occasion" rather than "event"?
  • As Tuchman is no longer with us, alas, should she be spoken of in the present tense? I consider this a matter of editorial discretion, so whatever you want is good, just bringing it to your attention.
  • Literary present tense is a hard habit to break. Reworded slightly and thinking about this one Truthkeeper (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coronation section is an excellent read.
Charles' illness
  • The second sentence of the second paragraph should probably be split.
  • "took light," perhaps "set the (whatever it was, perhaps decorations) afire"?
  • "that Isabeau wanted to distance herself from her husband and his illness" I don't see the difference between this and abandoning him. Perhaps a clarification? If it was political?
  • "What distressed [Isabelle] above all" The brackets indicate to me that this is an insertion for the reader, so possibly it should be Isabeau? (I'm sure the Monk referred to her by that name but this is for the modern audience, I would think. Forgive me if I misunderstand your intent here.
  • Haven't a clue what my intent was and not sure it's my edit, but thanks for catching and now fixed Truthkeeper (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Court politics and intrigue
  • "A delegation from Florence approached her seeking political influence in the Gian Galeazzo Visconti affair" This reads a bit oddly, suggest the middle be rephrased to something like "approached her hoping she would use her political influence for them in the …" or something like that.
  • "In the 1390s, Isabeau unsuccessfully conspired" Conspired seems unduly negative given what seems to have been a useful attempt to heal divisions in the Church. Also, what "council"?
  • Have clarified this, but not sure whether it's now too complicated. Info re the council could be shoved to a note if you think that might work better Truthkeeper (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[their son the] dauphin" perhaps "dauphin (their son)" ?
  • "split the loyalty" Unsure what this means.
  • You may with to clarify if the Dauphin was kept separate from the Queen after the incident you describe. You may want to mention his age.
  • Mentioned his age - will have to go to sources to find what happened after the kidnapping. Adding: Can't answer this right now. The source is an ILL book and long gone, and I didn't take notes about what happened after the kidnapping, but it's a good question so I'll re-order the book. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orleans assassination
  • ""avenge" the crown of the alleged adultery" perhaps delete "the crown"
  • Need to go to sources, but I believe the reasoning was that he was killed because he had besmirched the crown/monarchy. This goes to the justification used in the second assassination so seems important. Am thinking about this. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The capitalization of "dauphin" seems inconsistent in this section
  • Fixed, but need to review usage of common/proper nouns throughout Truthkeeper (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " proclaimed that all feuding members" perhaps "urged that"
  • Need to go to sources, but there was an actual proclamation about this Truthkeeper (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Civil war
  • Clearly the attempt at defusing tensions in the previous paragraph didn't work. I suggest that an introductory phrase such as "Despite Isabeau's efforts to keep the peace" or some such
  • I take it Touraine and Tourain are the same person? Perhaps a bit of smoothing here.
Fixed Truthkeeper (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cap "constable" once, and not the other time you use it
  • "In April that year Dauphin John died. Another shift in power occurred when Isabeau's fifth and last son Charles became dauphin." since these describe the same event, basically, perhaps they can be combined into one sentence.
  • "Isabeau at first assumed the role of sole regent, but quickly changed her stance; by January she was ceding to John as sole regent." mildly awkward. Perhaps "Isabeau at first assumed the role of sole regent but in January 1418 yielded her position to John."
  • "entry into Paris" would "triumphal entry into Paris" be better?
  • Don't think so according to sources. Looks as though it was a political move to show who controlled whom. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He wrote in 1420 about Charles VII that he had " perhaps instead continue the previous sentence with "writing that his son had"
  • "For many centuries" perhaps "for many years" as we are still working on the sixth century :)
  • After this she was accused of giving away France until late 20th century scholarship re-assessed her role - so yes, for centuries, but this might not be the right place for it. Thinking about it Truthkeeper (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their daughter Catherine" clarify whose.
  • "Henry VI, was declared king of France" perhaps "was proclaimed king of both France and England" Not that he had much luck in either :)
  • "who had at his own court as a favorite, the "poisoner and wife-murderer" and former lover whom he had drowned." This implies the favorite was dead, suggest a slight tweak.
  • English-occupied is hyphenated, but English controlled is not.
Reputation and legacy
  • I'd like to see the whom tag cleared up.
  • "The accusation of adultery was rampant" I would make this plural, accusations of adultery were rampant
Patronage
  • The capitalization of ronde-bosse seems inconsistent to me, although this is way out of my field.
Children
  • "traveled with them" I gather her travel was the moving force, so perhaps "had them travel with her"

That's all. Excellent work. Please pardon my ignorance in any of these comments. I look forward to supporting when you return it to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for these helpful comments. I've fixed the ones I can without having to get into the sources. Will work on the others during the weekend, hopefully. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, happy to have been of help. Thank you for the kind note on my talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. You've uncovered a few gaps that need filling so I'm waiting for a book to wend its way through ILL and then I'll get back to this. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

I've taken another look through. I'm about two-thirds done and made a number of edits directly to the article; please take them as suggestions. It is very much improved and I think after you get a couple more people to look through (perhaps a peer review) will be ready for FAC. I had some things I hope you will clarify:

The second paragraph of "Charles' illness" is ambiguous as to whether the "first" illness was the one in which he killed the four knights or if it is the one just described. Some mild adjustment might be in order.

  • Can you supply some means of avoiding the double use of "tax collectors" in the political factions section?
  • How the 1405 crisis was settled, and Isabeau's role in it, seem a bit nebulous.
  • The assassination by Orléans seems to go back and forth between he admits it, he denies it, he admits it. I would have the denial immediately after the event, then his admissions.
  • The second paragraph of that section has too many uses of "alliance" and "allies" and similar, suggest that synonyms be inserted where possible.
  • "after Orléans' son (Charles, Duke of Orléans) publicly reconciled," Reconciling is not something which happens in isolation, it should be "with someone" or "to something".
More shortly, but I suspect not too much more.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done all of the above except the 1405 piece, which tripped you up before. I'm working from a densely written source that's not easy to parse and having some difficulty with that section. Will re-read this afternoon and give it another try later. Also, yes, though I don't like taking up precious resources at PR, I think this one needs to go there. It's a bit complicated and I've never done a piece like this. Victoria (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least I'm consistent! More
  • " Dauphin Louis, Duke of Guyenne" I don't see a link in text for him, though he is linked in infobox.
  • "In retaliation Charles of Orléans denied funds" Retaliation for what?
  • "After 1415, both factions tried to gain control of the 17-year-old Dauphin but had to get past the Queen" Rather vague, and at last report they were on opposite sides of the conflict, presumably not on speaking terms.
  • John's age on becoming dauphin might be helpful. Also Charles.
  • You are making a case that Isabeau was not responsible for the Treaty of Troyes. It might be helpful if you said why she felt compelled to sign it. Right now, all we know is that she was sent a persuasive envoy. Does not make her look good.
  • " entry to Paris. She entered the city" Repeated form of word, but I know the significance of an "entry" so didn't want to mess with it.
  • the Dauphin, writing in 1420 about Charles VII" Since you have not stated that the Dauphin succeeded, perhaps "about his son"?
  • "For many centuries, " We are not quite at the "six" mark. Perhaps "several"?
  • "Gibbons finds incredible because Joan of Arc may have been born later than Orléans' assassination." "incredible" is a pretty strong term for what follows from "may have been" I suspect something more's needed here.
  • "were made the earlier dauphins perhaps died of unnatural causes, that daughters had been poisoned," I think the term "murder" is OK to characterize both activities. Why not "where made that she had murdered her children for political advantage" or similar?
  • "referring to Isabeau and Joan of Arc." If this was from before the period when Joan became famous, should it not state something like "referring to Isabeau, and prophesying Joan of Arc"? If not, should it not be made clear? Given that Joan is alive during this period, I think this should be made clearer.
  • "She is today more likely to be seen as to have assumed an unusually active leadership role for a queen of her period, albeit that she was forced to take responsibility as a direct result of Charles' illness." This sentence does a lot of dancing around points and should be made more direct, say something like "seen as much more having ruled as queen than did other consorts of that time, though she was forced into that role by Charles' illness"
  • "and has been subverted depending on whether she was depicted as good or evil." maybe "and depictions of her vary depending on whether she was to be portrayed as good or evil"
  • "to her sorcery and spells" to avoid the repetition later in the sentence, perhaps change "to witchcraft". And that's all I have--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got most of them. I've hedged on the Treaty because I think that article needs work - it was more complicated than Isabeau's involvement, which is what I want to focus on here - but will read a bit more about it and decide how to present here. Also, I haven't had time to re-read the source re children dying of unnatural causes, but from memory, it seemed that the source hedged quite a bit. I'll get back to that bit. Still some work to be done here, but thanks a lot for these comments - extremely helpful! Victoria (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

"Miniature showing King Charles VI at the hunt. Queen Isabeau and her retinue are shown riding palfreys. Possibly from Enguerrand de Monstrelet's Chronique." - don't we know one way or the other? Commons seems clear it is, & there is a chunk of text that must be identifiable. Also it looks to me more like another pic of his first attack on his courtiers, as there is no animal shown, & they seem to be walking along a road rather than hunting. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is Monstrelet, and fixed. The description mentions (in German) at the hunt, and I'm inclined to believe that. The miniatures I've seen of the attack show him in armour as it occurred during a campaign - or rather on the way to a campaign. Thanks for noticing, and I'll dig into a bit more to pin down. Adding: accessing the digital libraries in foreign language universities is a bit harrowing, but I do think we need a better source link for this. I found some at Leiden, but not this particular one. Will look more later. Victoria (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More: the file claims it's from the Musée Condé but I'm not finding it in their online collection; nor can I find it on the source link provided on Commons. Bridgeman art has a copy of it but I seem to have lost access to Commons with my name change, so not quite sure what to do about this. Victoria (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are using an image of the dead queen to represent her in the infobox?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit[edit]

Hi Victoria, just leaving a note to say that I've done a light copy edit of the first few sections up to and including "Political factions and early diplomatic efforts". It was all minor stuff, and most of it boiled down to preference. I wasn't sure whether you preferred King or king. I saw both, so started removing King, but then I realized there were more with caps than without, so I went back and re-capitalized.

I also moved the two images in the "Charles' illness" section, to place them next to the events in the text, but that means both images are near the top of the section, rather than evenly spaced, so you might prefer to move them back.

I also wondered whether some instances of contemporary should be contemporaneous to avoid confusion. For example, "contemporary historians" in the "Political factions" section refers to modern historians because you mention Gibbons, but elsewhere you use it to describe chroniclers of the period. Perhaps use modern, rather than contemporary, when describing historians today, or contemporaneous when describing the chroniclers?

It's a wonderful article, extremely interesting and well-written. I'll try to go through the rest of it over the next day or so. As always, feel free to revert anything. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether File:Isabeau of Bavaria1.jpg would be better in the lead. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah, yes, I had that image in the lead for a long time, see this earlier version, but swapped it per comments during the PR/FAC process. I might rejig the images for the TFA.
Thanks a ton of the copyedits! I tried to take a stab myself last week and was halfway into a full rewrite before pressing the cancel button. It is a complicated bit of history and I've not been tending it well, so if you come across any confusing bits or rough patches, please don't hesitate to post here. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That image does look good in the lead. I looked through previous discussions, and saw that you had found this one, which would be wonderful too. I've emailed the website owner to ask if s/he knows who the copyright owner is.
I found a sentence I wasn't sure about, the final one here:
"According to Tuchman, Isabeau had a farmhouse built in St. Ouen where she looked after livestock, and in her later years, during a lucid episode, Charles arrested one of her lovers whom he tortured, then drowned in the Seine.[56] However, historian Desmond Seward attributes this same episode to the disinherited Dauphin, who went on to become Charles VII. He kept at his own court as a favorite the "poisoner and wife-murderer" and former lover whom he eventually had drowned."[57]
Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've tweaked but it might need more tweaking. A man believed to have been Isabeau's lover was drowned; Tuchman says at the behest of Charles VI, but Seward writes that one of Charles VII's favorites, who had been Isabeau's lover, and a murderer, was drowned at the Dauphin's behest. We might be able to do without that bit, but I found it vaguely interesting.
Re the image - yes the one from that website, [3] is the best. Thanks for taking the initiative to find out about it - that hadn't occurred to me. My reasoning for the image of the funeral cortege is that we don't know what she looked like and much about her was based on propaganda; that image at least gives the impression that she had a royal funeral.
I'm thinking that for TFA we might have to go with File:Isabeau de Baviere (detail).jpg. I dislike the crop, am using the full miniature it's cropped from in the appropriate place in the article (and without the crop her chamber and ladies-in-waiting and Christine de Pizan are visible). I ran into an issue on Murasaki Shikibu where I'd chosen a lead image that was from a later century (keep in mind Muraski Shikibu was 11th cent) that became a huge long issue. I'd prefer to avoid a repeat of that, and though the crop from the Harley mss. depicts her as overweight and with the overly extreme hairstyle and headdress, it is one of the earliest, and most probably fairly accurate. Also the blurb will have the Harley mss. crop, so it might be best for the blurb to match the article on TFA. Pinging Johnbod to see whether he has an opinion. Victoria (tk) 02:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd crop File:Moulage du gisant de la reine Isabeau de Baviere.jpg a bit. All those C19 ones should go, or leave one. I expect we have more on commons than is in the category, & actually more interesting C19 paintings. I love this category, btw, though some are uselessly small. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering whether this portion would be good for the lead. I thought it might be nice to see some of the rest of the image, but the current version is good too. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to use the one you've posted here but did some digging about the statue. Because is was commissioned by the John, Duke of Berry at about the time Charles's uncles took over as regents (he was an uncle) I think it's important. The statue and the sculptor is documented so I've used File:Isabeau de Baviere (statue Poitiers).jpg, which isn't perfect but it's free. Whether we can use in the blurb is another matter. Will deal with that later today. Thanks for the link and thanks for nudging me about this. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got interrupted and had to log off, but meant to try a crop. Thanks for doing that. I still don't know what to do about the blurb - I tried to add the cropped version, File:Isabeau de Baviere (statue Poitiers), cropped.jpg, and aside from a very big scary edit notice about not changing images, it seems to be too big to fit in the blurb. I might just leave the blurb alone. Victoria (tk) 00:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding: I've done some more digging and I'm not 100% convinced File:Isabeau de Baviere (statue Poitiers), cropped.jpg is of Isabeau. Three statues of women are in Poitiers, the Duke of Berry's first and second wife (the second wife saved Charles VI from burning during the Bal des Ardents) and one of Isabeau. They're all quite similar but I think the one from the website is Isabeau. Anyway, so as not to run an incorrect image on the main page, I think the Harley mss. image, now in the article, is a good call and this crop showing Christine de Pisan is quite good. Victoria (tk) 01:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, it's on the main page and it looks good. If you want to edit the blurb, by the way, give me a ping. Interesting about the multiple statues. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! I got busy last week week and never got a chance to check the blurb, so if you see anything that needs to be fixed, please don't hesitate. Victoria (tk) 00:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry table[edit]

I think the ancestry table really ought to be referenced somehow, especially since a few of the ancestors don't have their own articles. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Noswall59 for pointing that out. My inclination is to agree with you. That table was in the article before I rewrote it, I never paid it much attention, and I have to admit that I don't know what the convention is for these tables. Perhaps we could truncate it so only a few generations are shown? Would that work? Victoria (tk) 18:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Victoria, sorry for not getting back to you. I am not sure what the precedent is, but I gather that it is best to have all the ancestors reliably sourced per WP:V. Her parents are already sourced in the article, but her other ancestors ought to be referenced in the table itself. I guess truncating it would not be a problem - leaving the grandparents or great-grandparents would be fine, depending on how easy it is to find sources. A great article, regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

In English she is known as: Isabella of Bavaria[edit]

The Francophones spiking English wikis again. Sigh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.162.35 (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Vlastimil Svoboda I see that you're undertaking a top-to-bottom copy edit. Copyedits are always appreceitated, but because this is what's called a Wikipedia:Featured article it has to adhere to Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style and it has to adhere to the sources cited. Sometimes, when copyediting, the meaning a sentence can inadvertently be changed so that it no longer reflects the source cited. I've seen a few instance of that happening, though haven't reviewed all the edits. If misalignment occurs between text and cited sources, then it will need repairing. Equally if Manual of style issues - small things such as linking more than once in an article or changing the style of dashes - it needs repairing. Just posting here so you know. Victoria (tk) 00:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isabeau_of_Bavaria&oldid=1213766014"