Wikipedia:Featured article review/Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor/archive1

Comments by A.Cython

It seems a well written article deserving its FA status. I cannot speak about the content, but I briefly summarize my first (superficial) impressions.

1. The lead is quite long (619 words) and several aspects can be trimmed, per MOS:LEADLENGTH: Few well-written leads will be shorter than about 100 words. The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. bringing it closer to 400ish would make more inviting to the causal reader.
2. Is it my imagination that the article overwhelmingly relies one source? 163 out of 289 citations seems excessive and potentially causing issues in WP:POV, i.e., reflecting the views of one scholar over others.
3. Family tree, please have it in collapsed state as the default because it is distracting.
4. Commas, not enough of them, especially in complex sentences making it a difficult reading.
5. The figure in section "Coup of Kaiserswerth and Anno's rule" is not well placed as it disturbs the text in the following section
6. Simplify wherever possible
   • but two of them—Adelaide and Henry—died in infancy → but Adelaide and Henry died in infancy
   • MOS:SPARETHEDASH (I found too many for my liking, others love it)

A.Cython(talk) 05:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC) Thank you for your suggestions, please find my first comments below:

• A little trimming is always worthwhile, so I have brought the lead down to under 400 words.
• Yes, roughly 55 per cent of the text is primarily based on a single monograph. I do not believe this raises any concerns about neutrality, since much of the material consists of biographical details (that is, factual information) unlikely to be disputed. The interpretative elements are supported by multiple sources, including works specifically devoted to the Salian period. Borsoka (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  The leads reads much better now. About the sources, yeah, I agree with you. I was told that to have a smooth FA review one needs not over-rely on one source no matter how reliable this source is, hence my comment. But since the current article has already passed the FA review, we can assume that there are no POV issues. Additionally, most of these citations are accompanied by citations of other sources, which helps with verification. A.Cython(talk) 20:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• I am currently working on the family tree; however, it is proving to be quite challenging.
• The image has been deleted.
• Could you please provide some examples of where commas might improve the flow of the text?
• I believe the text you quoted from the article cannot be simplified, as it forms part of a sentence referring to five children.
• There were seven dashes previously; there are now only six. I believe their use is fully in line with the cited policy. Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Borsoka has addressed my comments. A.Cython(talk) 01:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)