This is a former featured article that has already been on the main page. It was delisted after a featured article review in 2007. Since then, it has been re-written with a view to re-promotion. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
SupportComments: On the first read-through, it looks like your usual excellent work. I'll post more comments section by section as I go through:
Minor point: I might combine that opening sentence with the paragraph that follows.
"He supported controversial ecclesiastics..." I know what you mean here, but controversial can mean a lot of things. If it can be done succinctly, it might be good to add a word or two about why they were controversial, maybe a link to High Church or Arminianism.
Maybe make clear that his baptism was Protestant. People unfamiliar with the history might not know when the state religion of Scotland switched from Catholic.
"arrested at the door of the House" Were they inside the chamber, or outside?
They were sitting in the chamber when they were summoned to the door in the usual way, as if to meet a visitor. At the doorway, the messengers arrested them. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I see. probably best left as is, then. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I think "demonstrated" is more correct than "accentuated" in the last paragraph, but that might be my personal preference only. Don't change it if you disagree.
On the royal forests: it was my impression that people had been encroaching on the boundaries for years, and Charles was just reasserting the old metes and bounds. Absurd, sure, but legal. When you use the word "enlarged," it sounds like he made the forests bigger than they ever were.
" Laud used the two most feared and powerful courts in the land". The lay reader might not understand why one court is feared and another isn't. Maybe add that they were secret (at least Star Chamber was, I think) and staffed by judges more accountable to the king's whims (although this was not untrue of all courts, as Charles's sons would show). Unless you think it would take to long to explain.
The problem here is that the view that the courts were unrepresentative is a rather old one, from the Whig interpretations. Sharpe, for example, (in a view shared by Kenyon and others, so it's not just one of Sharpe's fringe ideas) points out that Star Chamber was well-respected and popular until the 1630s. Plantiffs preferred to bring their cases there. Hudson's Treatise, written shortly before Charles's personal rule, argues that the court, far from being arbitrary, was fairer and cheaper than other courts, and it was admired by Edward Coke (no royalist). The view of many modern historians is that the court grew unpopular because it punished gentlemen and paupers alike, instead of letting gentlemen off lightly, and because it was associated with Laudianism. I have moved the "feared" so that the article reads: To prosecute those who opposed his reforms, Laud used the two most powerful courts in the land, the Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber. The courts became feared for their censorship of opposing religious views, and became unpopular among the propertied classes for inflicting degrading punishments on gentlemen.DrKiernan (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, that sounds good. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I made one passive-->active voice edit. Revert, of course, if you think it changes the meaning of the sentence.
"Charles took the unusual step of summoning a great council of peers". Was this instead of a Parliament? That was my impression, but it's not clear here. I thought that Charles was trying to use Plantagenet-era precedents of convening a proto-parliament in place of the modern version, thinking it would be more amenable to his will.
I have attempted to clarify. It's a little difficult to ascribe motives to Charles because the sources are not agreed. The counter-view is that Charles never excluded a parliament and was prepared to summon one to obtain sufficient money for his campaign. He asked the privy council for advice and they unanimously recommended calling a great council, but were not (in the first half of September) agreed on summoning a parliament. DrKiernan (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, if the sources don't agree, there's not much we can do. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Why did Charles sign the Triennial Act? Seems against his character. Was he trying to compromise?
The Infanta thought Charles was little more than an infidel, and the Spanish at first demanded that Charles convert to Roman Catholicism as a condition of the match - avoid using "charles" twice in the one sentence.
The reigns of Elizabeth I and James I had generated a large fiscal deficit - not fond of "generated" - maybe "led to", "resulted in" or somesuch.
Notwithstanding Buckingham's short lived campaigns against both Spain and France, there was in reality little economic capacity for Charles to wage wars overseas. - "in reality" redundant methinks...
I wonder if some of the material in the first para of teh Legacy section can be expanded a little.
Finally, any information on how Kevin Sharpe's view differs from that of other historians I think would be very helpful
Overall, looking on track - personally I'd prefer a para on portrayals in films etc. but I can see from other monarchs this is generally left as a see also segment at the bottom, so won't let this be a deal-breaker as the article is quite long. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Otherwise
My key concern was that I found the Civil War section rather too short. Even bearing in mind that this should be summarising events, this is arguably the most critical part of Charles' life, covers a span of five years and what is almost a single paragraph struggles to describe it sufficiently. As a result, it was unclear from the text why Charles lost his war or indeed what his role during the wartime years were. Compare and contrast with the length and detail of the Trial section or the Bishop's Wars section (both also backed by main articles), and you'll see what I mean.
Yes, I'd been telling myself that I needn't expand that bit because of the other articles available: I hadn't thought to compare it with the other sections. Changes made. DrKiernan (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
More minor points:
The first, single sentence para in the lead looked odd (and with five paras, runs counter to the general guidance in the MOS). I'd advise combining the first two paragraphs.
Middle two paragraphs merged, thus also addressing some of the points below. The first paragraph should define the topic rather than summarise his early life. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
"After his succession, Charles engaged in a struggle for power with the Parliament of England, attempting to obtain royal revenue while Parliament sought to curb his royal prerogative." - something about this didn't read smoothly to me. I think it is the "engaged in" - could this just be "Charles struggled for power with..."? - and "attempting to obtain royal revenue" - I'd argue that "attempting to raise royal revenue" might be more natural.
"and thought he could govern according to his own conscience. " - "could" or "should" here?
"Many of his subjects opposed his policies, in particular his interference in the English and Scottish churches"- I'd question where "interference" is a POV term here (Charles would have seen this as a justified "intervention" by the head of the Church).
"such as Richard Montagu and William Laud, whom Charles appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, " - I think this can be read two ways (either that both were appointed Archbishop, or that just Laud was)
"and failed to successfully aid Protestant forces during the Thirty Years' War."- "and unsuccessfully supported Protestant forces"?
After his defeat in 1645, he surrendered to a Scottish force" - repetition of "force". Could be "army"?
"Eventually, Charles apparently conquered his physical infirmity, which might have been caused by rickets, and grew to a peak height of 5 feet 4 inches (163 cm)." I'm not certain you can actively conquer a shortness of stature?
Height split off as a footnote. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
"Even so, he was not as valued as his physically stronger and taller elder brother" - valued by who? (I'm guessing his parents)
"The Infanta thought Charles" - Again, the first mention of an infanta, and the reader may not know that this is the person that Charles is being possibly married to.
"Infanta" is introduced in the first paragraph of the "Heir apparent" section. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
"to the king's marriage to a Roman Catholic" - the MOS would have this as "King's marriage", as its a substitute for Charles's name (see WP:JOBTITLES)
I wrote that part of the guideline  because lower case was being enforced but there are occasional circumstances where upper case is almost always used. It was not my intention to instigate the enforcement of upper case in all circumstances. How unfortunate. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
"hoping for the capture of the Spanish treasure fleets" - worth linking treasure fleets?
"Notwithstanding Buckingham's short lived campaigns against both Spain and France, there was little economic capacity for Charles to wage wars overseas." - I think "financial capacity" rather than "economic capacity", given the context (unless the economy of England, rather than Charles's ability to levy taxes, was the handicap).
I'd encourage OCLC references for volumes without ISBNs.
The Higgins, Charlotte article needs capitalisation of the title (it should be " "Delaroche Masterpiece Feared Lost..."). Similarly "Lockyer, Roger" in additional reading needs the capitalisation fixed on the second half of the title. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
It's lower case in the source. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The MOS (as I found out recently!) is specific that "In the English titles of compositions... every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words..." - MOS:CT has the details. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we disagree over the interpretation of the MoS here, but it's only a minor point, and wouldn't stop me supporting the article at FA. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
File:Charles_I_AR_Sixpence_722625.jpg: need licensing tag for coin as well as image (should be PD)
File:DelarocheCromwell.jpg: source link is dead
File:The_children_of_Charles_I_of_England-painting_by_Sir_Anthony_van_Dyck_in_1637.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The original file from the dead link has been overwritten by a new file from elsewhere. Source of the new file added.
Swapped for a higher resolution file. DrKiernan (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
Sorry, my edit summary when I removed "now" was completely wrong; it doesn't require the present tense, but it usually requires some kind of blow-by-blow narrative: first this happened, then that, now that. In the same sentence, "strong enough to make the journey" is repeated from the sentence two before this one. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe Brueghel spelled his name that way from 1559 onwards.
I had a quick scan of the citations and sources myself and nothing untoward stood out. It looks to me however that you need to install Ucucha's Harv Errors script, as everything in Further Reading is problematic. I believe you can solve the errors in this case by altering the templates to Cite Book instead of Citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorted. Thank you for looking at the sources. DrKiernan (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, last thing that I forgot earlier, pls make sure you've run the duplink checker -- some of the repeated links might be justified by the space between them in a longish article but others perhaps not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like this is being addressed so will not hold up promotion. FTR, I was considering reviewing this in earnest at one stage but decided that it had enough eyes on it, and a quick spotcheck of prose the other day revealed no clangers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)