![]() | A fact from François de Vendôme, vidame de Chartres appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 April 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I feel the introduction in its present state is not satisfactory, though my attempts to change it have been rejected so I thought I would lay them out here.
Its too full of opinionated language not appropriate for an encyclopedia "brilliant but decadent" "colourful memoirs." Its overloaded with ambiguous language "apparently not a Huguenot" "seems not to have been involved" "probably have lead to his release" Its emphasis on Brantome is out of place for an introductory segment, if there's something to say about how his life has been told to us through Brantome, a lower section would be more appropriate. The long listing of the various court figures who he interacted with is unnecessary, also the doubling of the bracketing after their names with a renewed bracketing in the article body proper. Further given figures such as Aumale scarcely feature in the article body it feels strange to include them in the head
Sovietblobfish ( talk) 17:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
If you insist. Could the reference to 'decadence' be dropped at least. Sovietblobfish ( talk) 00:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi again @ Johnbod:,
That's quite a bold assertion you made in your revert. I can't say I've encountered that language much in the histories of the period I've read. Could you introduce me to your historians, hopefully some a little more recent than the 1850s work the majority of this article is based off. Thanks :) sovietblobfish ( talk) 17:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from François de Vendôme, vidame de Chartres appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 April 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I feel the introduction in its present state is not satisfactory, though my attempts to change it have been rejected so I thought I would lay them out here.
Its too full of opinionated language not appropriate for an encyclopedia "brilliant but decadent" "colourful memoirs." Its overloaded with ambiguous language "apparently not a Huguenot" "seems not to have been involved" "probably have lead to his release" Its emphasis on Brantome is out of place for an introductory segment, if there's something to say about how his life has been told to us through Brantome, a lower section would be more appropriate. The long listing of the various court figures who he interacted with is unnecessary, also the doubling of the bracketing after their names with a renewed bracketing in the article body proper. Further given figures such as Aumale scarcely feature in the article body it feels strange to include them in the head
Sovietblobfish ( talk) 17:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
If you insist. Could the reference to 'decadence' be dropped at least. Sovietblobfish ( talk) 00:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi again @ Johnbod:,
That's quite a bold assertion you made in your revert. I can't say I've encountered that language much in the histories of the period I've read. Could you introduce me to your historians, hopefully some a little more recent than the 1850s work the majority of this article is based off. Thanks :) sovietblobfish ( talk) 17:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)