Talk:Hubert Walter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Hubert Walter 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.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. "His reliance upon the knights, who now for the first time appear in the political sphere, is all the more interesting because it is this class who, either as members of parliament or justices of the peace, were to have the effective rule of England in their hands for so many centuries." (Justiciar) Maybe I'm being too picky here, but I feel like an encyclopedia shouldn't be telling its reader what they should find interesting. I think the sentence would be better reworded without the subjective judgment. YesY Done! Ealdgyth | Talk 06:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. "In 1198 Hubert, gave the monks of Canterbury who he was quarreling with another opportunity of complaining to Pope Innocent III, for in arresting William Fitz Osbern in 1196, he had committed an act of sacrilege in Bow Church, which belonged to the monks." (Archbishop of Canterbury and Justiciar) If this sentence ran anymore, it would be eligible to compete in marathons. It should be split into two sentences, as it is very difficult to read in its current state.YesY Done! Although I feel sorry for the poor little sentence, not able to run anymore... Ealdgyth | Talk 06:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. I corrected two spelling mistakes in "Under John" that were in the middle of a direct quote. If those spelling mistakes waere in the original quote, then they should be reinstated with a (sic) to denote the mistake. Otherwise, it's fine as it is.YesY Double checked, it was my crappy typing, not the quote. Done!Ealdgyth | Talk 06:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. "Hubert was not a holy man, although he was, as John Gillingham, a historian and biographer of Richard I, says, "one of the most outstanding government ministers in English History."" (Death and legacy) Direct quotes require direct citations, even if it's the same one used at the end of the sentence/paragraph.YesY Done!Ealdgyth | Talk 06:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, everything looks great. You know the drill by now. On hold, seven days etc. etc. Have fun, good luck and thank you for your hard work thus far. Cheers, CP 05:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I like to think I'm getting better at this. You caught some typos, and merged somethings, and caught one However at the start of a sentence. Only four action items this time! Yay me! Expect to see this guy go to FA, he's big enough. (And a word of warning, I just finished all 28K of rough draft on Ranulf Flambard today... be warned.) Off to work!Ealdgyth | Talk 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Great job as usual and a great GA pass. Reminds me of the days that I used to actually write Good Articles instead of just reviewing them... Good luck with FA! Cheers, CP 06:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot to mention that usually with a person "ie. John Smith" they would be referred to as "Smith did such and such" rather than "John did such and such" unless differentiation from another Smith was needed. In this case, I thought "Hubert" was fine instead of "Walter", since he was a religious figure. It may pop up in FA, I just didn't want you to be surprised by it. I'd say it's fine as it is unless someone points otherwise. Cheers, CP 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That'll be interesting for some of these bishops. Most of the "surnames" are really nicknames or places where they came from. With Hubert, I can see changing it to Walter, although that's just odd to say, because medievalists usually refer to first name or mix it. Titles are popular too. It's easy enough to go in and switch it before FA, rather than try to disturb my writing which thinks in terms of first names. Legacy of all those medieval history classes, I guess. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

At Eagldyth's request, I'm doing a pre-FAC peer review. I've made it about halfway through the article. Here are my comments so far (I'll hopefully finish on Monday):

  • This sentence is a bit awkward "Walter had been instrumental in ensuring that John became king, and it was Walter that crowned John"
Reworded. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a bit awkward "Walter accompanied the king on the Third Crusade,[8] going ahead of the king with the group that went straight from Marseille to the Holy Land, which included Baldwin of Exeter, Archbishop of Canterbury and Ranulf de Glanvill". The whole paragraph about the Crusade seems a bit choppy to me, but I think my brain is a bit too tired to identify what should be changed.
Moved some of the phrases around on this, let me know if this works better.
  • I'm not entirely sure what this means "Walter made use of representation and election as a way of helping increase royal revenues". Ok, now that I've read the rest of the section, it makes sense, but it was confusing at the time I first read it.
I just took out the sentence, it was rather oddly placed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what this means "feet of fines"
Tried to explain it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't shoot me, but I just finally managed to read Young's biography of Walter, so I'll be incorporating some new stuff into the article over the next few days. I did go ahead and explain what a feet of fine was. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I have everything in that needs to be in to be utterly comprehensive. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this took me a whole week to get back too (real life intruded), but here are my comments on the second half of the article:

  • This sentence is off to me: "The whole dispute from the time of Baldwin of Exeter, Hubert's predecessor as archbishop, flared up again, with the papacy siding with the monks and the king siding with his archbishop, and the monks ending up locked up in their buildings once more"
    • It's a little redundant, because we've already learned that Baldwin was the predecessor
    • Were the monks locked up by someone or did they lock themselves in their buildings?
    • I can't pinpoint what I don't like about the wording.
Probably you don't like the wording because I quit writing like a encyclopedist and wrote more in my "natural" irrevelant style. Drove my professors nuts, but... it's fun. Especially when you have tempests in a teapot over really wacky things like this dispute. I've taken a stab at rewording it, although I really kinda like it myself. I took out the bit about the monks ending up locked in their buildings again, and changed "sided with" to "supported" which should make it a bit more encyclopedic. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure what this means "making a speech which supposedly promulgated the old theory of election by the people for the last time."
I tried to clarify this. Supposedly, he made a speech which talked about the old Anglo-Saxon concept of the king being selected/elected by the people (or Witan). This is supposedly the last time this sort of theory was stated in a coronation speech. Hopefully the new statement works a bit better. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I reworked it into two sentences (that was an easy one!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I reread the first half and I like it better now. The new information helps bring a little more clarity to some of it. Karanacs (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further comments

There are a couple of places where things don't quite seem to make sense:

  • "W. L. Warren advances the theory that either Hubert Walter or Geoffrey Fitz Peter, instead of Ranulf Glanvill, was the author of Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Angliae, which was a legal treatise on the laws and constitutions of the English. Chrimes agrees that Glanvill was probably not the author, and feels that Walter was probably the author, without finding any definite conclusion." Chrimes agrees with who? Warren just seems to say that either Walter or Glanvill was the author. The "probably"s read rather awkwardly as well.
Warren says that Glanvill probably wasn't the author, and advances the idea that it was either HB or Geoffrey FP. (as written above) I think you need to reread that, it seems really clear to me that warren says no to Glanvill. Unfortunately, the authors are playing cover their ass games here, so probably is the best we can do. Would "Chrimes agress that Glanvill probably was not the author, and feels that Walter likely was, without finding definitely either way." work better?Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I misread what was being said. I think I may have had my attention too much on the "probably ... probably ...", which I still think is very awkward. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Does my suggestion work better? (Sorry for the crossing of posts in the ether, I just dropped a note on your talk page, sorry!) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As I just replied on my talk page, I think your suggested wording is a significant improvement. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "In 1188 he founded a Premonstratensian house of canons on family property at West Dereham, Norfolk. His uncle and other family members had favoured the Premonstratensian Order, and this monastery was located near the family lands in Norfolk." So which was it? On family lands, or near family lands?
Remnant of earlier rewrites. He bought the land, that was near the property. Clarified. The family lands actually went to Theobald. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Walter and his older brother Theobald Walter were nephews of Ranulf de Glanvill. Walter owed his early advancements to his kinsman. His other brothers were Osbert, a royal justice who died in 1206, and Roger, Hamo (or Hamon) and Bartholomew ...". This reads rather strangely to me, and I'm not sure what the point trying to be made here is. Weren't all of Walter's brothers nephews of Ranulf? As written it seems to suggest that Osbert and Bartholomew weren't Ranulf's nephews. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Remnant of a previous version where I didn't know the names of the other brothers. Maybe "Walter had an older brother, Theobald, as well as other brothers Osbert, Roger, Hamo (or Hamon) and Bartholomew. All the brothers were nephews of Ranulf de Glanvill, who helped the careers of Theobald and Hubert. Of the other brothers, Osbert became a royal justice and died in 1206, but the others only appear as witnesses to charters." Says the same thing but less awkwardly. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That certainly makes more sense to me, but what about something like "Walter was the second of five brothers. He and his elder brother Theobald were helped in their careers by their uncle, Ranulf de Glanvill. A younger brother, Osbert, became a royal justice and died in 1206. Roger, Hamo (or Hamon) and Bartholomew only appear as witnesses to charters." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Problem is we're not sure he's the second brother. We know that Theobald was older than him, but beyond that... it's not known. And count, there are six brothers (Theobald, Hubert, Osbert, Hamo, Roger, and Bart) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I modified your statement a bit, and put it in. Let me know if it's too wordy or awkward. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks much better to me. There are a few footnotes in which there's a linebreak between the "p." and the page number (at least on my 1280 x 1024 display) where I'll put a non-breaking space. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Baby display. (2560X1600 here) Thanks for catching those, though.
Hey, size doesn't matter, or so I've been told. :-) For what it's worth, I've added my support for this article, with full disclosure of course. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
There are so many places I could go with that, but I'm an old lady, I'll leave it be. Thanks for the support! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)