Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter de Coventre/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:27, 31 March 2008.

[edit] Walter de Coventre

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's gone through review and is, I think, at the stage where it can come for a proper review here. I've set the time aside at least to deal with issues, so thank you in advance for your input. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose: it badly needs a copyedit, I'm afraid. Examples...
    • "Born perhaps in the early 14th century from a family near Abernethy, Scotland...": I don't like where "perhaps" is placed there; "born from a family" seems a bit strange, but not a major problem I suppose.
    • "Despite holding these, perhaps more than five Scottish benefices at one stage, he did not return to Scotland until the late 1350s, meaning that he had been absent from his home country for more than a quarter of a century.": The quarter of a century bit at the end seems unnecessary when you've given dates. The reader should be able to figure it out for themselves easily, and it doesn't seem to be of major significance.
      • Useful, I think, to point out to the reader a logical conclusion which they may well fail to draw from a bald list of dates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "When he did return to Scotland...": there's a redundancy in there.
      Removed to Scotland. If you meant the did, I presume you didn't, there is actual a slight difference in tense between returned and did return, so that wouldn't be redundant. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "...both with the Scottish church and with the Earl of Mar.": there's a word repeated that doesn't need to be.
    • "He died either in 1371 or in 1372.": try "He died in either 1371 or 1372", avoiding the repetition of "in".
      • I considered that. Either in 1371 or 1372 is unbalanced; I find in 1371 or 1372 slightly misleading: it's not a question of an illegible digit. We know he was alive at a specific date in 1371: we know his successor was appointed in 1372. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The image captions have incorrect punctuation; see the MOS.
      • MOScruft; another instance where MOS forbids idiomatic English because of the prejudice of a couple of editors. Many writers feel sentences in captions should have periods. So also with sentence fragments.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

      • And this may be an error. The actual rule from MOS is that a fragment accompanied by complete sentences, like 19th century map of the diocese of Dunblane and its surrounding dioceses. Note that Abernethy, although physically separate from most of the rest of the diocese, was part of the Dunblane diocese. should have periods. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, you're right about that one. I should have made it clear that it was some that were incorrect. Chwech 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure lots of work has gone into this—it's worth persevering; take it to WP:LoCE for a copyedit. Chwech 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

      • The remainder of these consist largely of minor redundancies which clarify the structure of the complex sentences in which they fall. I am happy to consider them again, but I would have made all of them (although my connection with this article is slight, I did make one of them); and I do not consider they are the difference between promotion and non-promotion. We have multiple writers; our style ought not be uniform. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I still have problems, having read the article further. "Precided" (in the lead) is certainly not a stylistic choice, it's a typo. Again "14th century" should be "14th-century": there are two instances of this in the first section after the lead. "...would remain in captivity until ransomed in 1357.": why not simply "remained in captivity". Chwech 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I have fixed presided, as Chwech could have done; but finding typoes is one of the things this process is for. 14th century university education is sound American, and I suspect it is sound Scottish; putting in hyphens not required for clarity is an Anglicism. See WP:ENGVAR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I would leave would remain; it covers a different span of time than the remained earlier in the same paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
          • @ Ghwe, I'll go over it for another copy-edit. I don't think the hyphens is either US or British English or what not, or that there is any more reason to put one at 14th= rather than 14th. The article 14th century is at 14th century so I'd just leave it there. If it makes a difference between, I guess I can change them, but it doesn't seem either helpful or unhelpful. If I were to use the dashes, I'd have to change "12th and 13th century England" to "12th- and 13th-century England", which I'm sure would irritate some people as ugly. Thanks for your help and thanks very much to PMAnderson for doing my job for me. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Fair enough, message me when you're done. Thanks for responding. Chwech 15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
              • OK, went over it and gave it another copyedit. I am of course the least likely to have problems with the idiosyncrasies of my own prose, but I tried! Anyways, say what you think. Thanks again for the help. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Oppose struck, just two minor issues I can see:

  • "badly-paid" (in Benefices) - no need for a hyphen here, I think. It's unlikely that someone will mistake the wording for "badly performed by paid vicars".
  • "...the abbey have given some lands..." - should this be "had"?

Thanks for having a go, I know how difficult it can be to copyedit something you wrote yourself. Chwech 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Yes, two new things introduced from the last copy-edit. Woe is me. Fixed. Anything else? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Sorry, forgot to :) The wording isn't perfect yet, I think, but that's not my forte and the LoCE copyedit should sort it out. Good luck. Chwech 19:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support provided Deacon responds to this comment. I don't see anything that would embarass us to put on the front page, but would like to discuss the infobox.
    • Can we replace the ×'s in the info-box too? Perhaps 1361-71 or 1372 although this is where the '×' pays for itself in condensing a complex situation into standard symbols, even if it is hard on the general reader.
    • Do you really mean Consecration September 4 × August 23, 1361 or is Sept. an error? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I first met this article at PR and copy-edited it there; beyond that I have no connection with the article and little with its subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed the xes. Just about manageable there. Sept. was a mistake. There's a pencil mark on the version of my source which caused this. Anything I missed? Thanks! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Some dates need linking, eg. "On December 7, 1345, Walter was appointed"
    • Some compound adjectives need hyphens, eg. "14th century Scottish ecclesiastic"
    • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
    • Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "40 marks"
    • There is some incorrect dash usage in the footnotes and timeline boxes. Epbr123 (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Changed all accordingly except the last point There is some incorrect dash usage in the footnotes and timeline boxes. My keyboard only has one dash on it, but if you can explain and direct me to the dash appropriate, I shall fix. Thanks for your comments. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Date and page ranges need en dashes, as per WP:DASH. En dashes can be placed by either typing "–" or using the first dash icon next to "Insert" under the edit summary box when in edit mode. Epbr123 (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments

All other links check out fine. I'll try to get back later and review more in depth. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

      • Thanks Ealdgyth. I just drag such refs from a larger ref dump. I think I fixed them. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Slight support with some concerns over wordy prose. I've listed the ones I found most jarring below.

  • In the lead, the first paragraph, the third fourth and fifth sentences all start with "He..." (as well as the second phrase in the second sentence) which gets really repetitive. Consider rewording one or two?
  • Same section and paragraph, the last sentence first phrase seems awkward to me. Perhaps "Despite holding perhaps as many as five Scottish benefices at one stage, he ..."
  • "senior official business"? I think I'd say "high level ecclesiastical and political affairs" but that is a personal choice. The current wording just seems off to me though.
  • General background section, first paragraph, last sentence is a bit convoluted. Maybe "This patronage gave access to the resources, either direct..."?
  • Same section, last paragraph, third sentence. Perhaps "In the 1330's civil war raged in Scotland as Edward Balliol and his English backers fought those loyal to young David." thus cutting out verbiage and avoiding the dreaded passive voice.
  • The next to last sentence of the paragraph is also a bit awkward to me. Perhaps reword?
  • Education section. Perhaps explain what the proctor of the Scottish Nation meant at a medieval university?
  • Those were the big awkward wordings I noticed. It might not hurt to find someone to do a very thorough copyedit as there are lots of places that have wordy sections.
A very nice article on someone who doesn't give you much information to work with. I'm very impressed with how you managed to tweak out the most from the meager sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the lead, the first paragraph, the third fourth and fifth sentences all start with "He..." (as well as the second phrase in the second sentence) which gets really repetitive. Consider rewording one or two?
    • Done:
  • Same section and paragraph, the last sentence first phrase seems awkward to me. Perhaps "Despite holding perhaps as many as five Scottish benefices at one stage, he ..."
    • Reworded.
  • "senior official business"? I think I'd say "high level ecclesiastical and political affairs" but that is a personal choice. The current wording just seems off to me though.
    • Reworded.
  • General background section, first paragraph, last sentence is a bit convoluted. Maybe "This patronage gave access to the resources, either direct..."?
    • Reworded.
  • Same section, last paragraph, third sentence. Perhaps "In the 1330's civil war raged in Scotland as Edward Balliol and his English backers fought those loyal to young David." thus cutting out verbiage and avoiding the dreaded passive voice.
    • replaced with "In the 1330s civil war raged in Scotland as Edward Balliol and his English backers fought those loyal to the young David"
  • The next to last sentence of the paragraph is also a bit awkward to me. Perhaps reword?
    • Attempted a rewording here.
  • Education section. Perhaps explain what the proctor of the Scottish Nation meant at a medieval university?
  • Those were the big awkward wordings I noticed. It might not hurt to find someone to do a very thorough copyedit as there are lots of places that have wordy sections.
    • I did list it on the LoC page, to no avail so far. Maybe I can bug someone, though one hates to stretch friendships by pressuring them to copyedit. :)
  • A very nice article on someone who doesn't give you much information to work with. I'm very impressed with how you managed to tweak out the most from the meager sources.
    • Thanks! The guy is very interesting, I must say. Was a bit of a squeeze, but there we are, sometimes the momentum just carries you. Thanks for the helful comments. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Oppose sorry, the prose is poor. Here are some examples:

  • There is no direct evidence on his birthdate, his family, or their origin; he may well have come from Abernethy, Scotland, - on his birthdate? may well have ?
  • Scotland until the late 1350s, meaning that he had been absent from his home country - meaning that?
  • When he did return, he returned  ?
  • After the completion of university education, some Scottish graduates of the period would stay abroad and teach at a foreign university, or sometimes they would take service with the papacy, but most often they would return to Scotland and offer their services to the king, to a magnate or to an ecclesiastical institution - One sentence.
  • No modern historian has written any monograph about him ?

The article needs a good copy edit; it's been presented here too soon.--GrahamColmTalk 16:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • There is no direct evidence on his birthdate, his family, or their origin; he may well have come from Abernethy, Scotland, - on his birthdate? may well have ?
    • Call me mad, but I don't see anything wrong mit that.
  • Scotland until the late 1350s, meaning that he had been absent from his home country - meaning that?
    • I don't follow, but it has been changed anyways. :)
  • When he did return, he returned  ?
    •  ?
  • No modern historian has written any monograph about him ?
    • What's the problem? :)
  • After the completion of university education, some Scottish graduates of the period would stay abroad and teach at a foreign university, or sometimes they would take service with the papacy, but most often they would return to Scotland and offer their services to the king, to a magnate or to an ecclesiastical institution
    • Again, I don't have a problem here.
  • The article needs a good copy edit; it's been presented here too soon.
    • Not sure about that. Been around for a while (including a long gestation period in my userspace), FA review probably is the only place where such a topic would receive any attention. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose based primarily on prose issues. The prose is overly verbose, and should be tightened. I've listed a few examples below, but I see that more are above. Overall, though, the topic is interesting and the article appears comprehensive.
    • He should be referred to by his surname instead of his first name unless there would be confusion. In the lead, he is always referred to as "Walter", and in the body he is referred to as either de Coventre, Walter de Coventre, or Walter. (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names). I've fixed much of this in the body of the article
    • There appears to be a problem with this sentence: This patronage gave access to the resources needed to finance the considerable expenses of a 14th-century university education, particularly direct financial indirect financial patronage through presentation to benefices
    • The tables in the Education and Benefices sections are not very well formatted. These should probably have two columns - one for date range, one for event.
    • I think the article should explain what a benefice, canonry and prebend are briefly, rather than expect readers to leave the article to go find this information (but keep the wikilink so those interested can get more detailed information). Terms like this that are basic to the understanding of the article should be very briefly defined.
    • Here are just a few examples of why a thorough copyedit is needed.
      • All of the paragraphs in Education section begin with "He" or "de Coventre". These need to be varied a bit.
      • To modern historians, Walter is only the second known canon of Abernethy Collegiate Church -> "to modern historians" is redundant
      • but nevertheless agreed to appoint (provide) Walter to the bishopric - why have (provide)? Most people understand the meaning of appoint, and it's not necessary to include the official/archaic term as well
      • The Benefices section reads a lot like proseline
    • I'm confused as to why there is such detail about King David? I assumed on reading that section that de Coventre's life would have some connection to the difficulties in Scotland, but is appears that he spent the whole time in France. If the length of stay in France was connected to the difficulties, then that should be made explicit. If not, then I think most of that information about King David does not belong in this article. A very brief explanation of the troubles could be added into the later years section, when it discusses the truce, but I don't think it needs to be at the beginning of the article.
    • The sources are not cited consistently. For example, Please be consistent and used named refs when possible.
      • Watt, "Coventre, Walter de", Dictionary, pp. 114-5.
      • Watt, Dictionary, pp. 114-5.

Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. I believe that most, if not all, of the significant prose issues raised to date have been dealt with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The comment above was entered after this FAC was archived.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.