Talk:Robert of Jumièges

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Robert of Jumièges has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
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. The image in the infobox needs to place in context with a caption. For example, something along the lines of "Robert of Jumièges, as depicted in..." The two non-Pope images should do the same ie. "Statue of William the Conqueror in... (city X)" and "King Edward the Confessor as depicted in..."
Y Done I removed the Edward the Confessor image, because there is no source information on its file on Commons. Given the length of the article, three images work fine. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. The "See Also" section should probably removed, as neither of the links are directly relevant to the subject of this article (indirectly, yes, but, for example, on the pages of NES games themselves, it is generally discouraged to link to List of NES games)
Y Done While working back and forth on these articles, I find the 'see also' links very handy when working with large number of bishops, but they are easy to remove once we get the articles past the stub stage.

Ealdgyth | Talk 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not required for GA and is inconsistant with other GA Archbishops of Canterbury. I have readded the see also link. -- SECisek 00:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


  1. All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
Y Done Merged. Unfortunately, most of what is known about Robert is here in the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. "It is interesting to note that in refusing to consecrate Spearhafoc, Robert was following his own interests, going against both the King and Godwin." (Priest and bishop) This sentence should be rephrased, as it is up to the reader to decide what they find interesting, not the writer to tell them what they should find interesting.
Y Done Reworded. Let me know if this still makes sense. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. "It seems likely that it was intended for Edward and Edith to divorce, for it must be remembered that the Life of Saint Edward is a hagiography and intended to show Edward as a saint." (English royal succession) This sentence is not phrased encyclopedia, as it addresses the reader indirectly (for it must be remembered that...) It also seems to contradict the last sentence of the paragraph, which says "More likely, Edward, at the urging of Robert, wished to divorce Edith and remarry in order to secure the English succession." A better transition between the two ideas might help the uninitiated (ie. me) to better understanding the theories.
Y Done Reworked the whole paragraph, hopefully to better express what the sources are trying to say. This is a case of the initiated knowing TOO much, and having issues trying to explain it simply. (grins) Ealdgyth | Talk 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. "Ian Walker puts forth the theory that..." This scholar needs a little context (no more than a sentence). Who is Ian Walker and why is his opinion qualified to be in an encyclopedic article about Robert of Jumièges? Same with David Douglas later on.
Y Done Explained who they are.

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 23:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Going to address Angus' thing down there, and wait on Secisek to finish playing with pictures, which he does so much better than I... Ealdgyth | Talk 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Did we pass? -- SECisek 00:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The middle paragraph of "Priest and bishop" is only two sentences long, and thus needs to be expanded or merged. I would have just done this myself, but I didn't want to tamper with the image that's sitting between the two paragraphs. As for the See also section, I still disagree that it should be there, per WP:ALSO, which says "A good practice is to treat subjects in a "See also" section as topics that could be worked into the article, which I don't believe entirely works for the current things in "See also." Having said that, I can accept SECisek's logic in that it's not require for a GA pass, though I might recommend it if you intend to work on this for FA status. So if you fix the middle paragraph of the section, it should be good for a GA pass! Cheers, CP 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Y Done And there we go.
Looks good to me! Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Chambert?

Is that right? I thought (and Barlow's Edward... and Higham's Death of Anglo-Saxon England seem to agree) that he was unflattering surnamed Robert Champart. If that is right, does anyone have handy an explanation of how he came by it? As it happens, we don't have a champart article, but fr:champart would take no time at all to translate. Or is there somewhere it could be redirected to right now? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

DNB also says Champart was a surname, although they inclose it in []s, so its an 'alternate' name. Here we go "His nickname ‘Champart’ apparently derives from a term denoting a share of a crop paid as rent" I'll add that in. I'll add that into the article, you up to doing the French translation? Ealdgyth | Talk 00:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
It's in, and I think we're ready to let CP see it again. Anything else? Ealdgyth | Talk 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, one thing more. I think when I was googling Robert I saw some things that suggest a link between the new church at Jumièges, started when he was abbot there, and Edward's Westminster, started when he was Bishop of London. Does the DNB connect Robert, Jumièges, and Westminster? Here's an example. I promise that's the last one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
THis is what DNB says, and I think it can wait until I find out which scholars are suggesting which way the influence goes :"Probably in 1040 he began work upon the magnificent abbey church of St Mary, which was perhaps a model for Westminster Abbey, although a reverse influence has been suggested" Seems like there are a lot of qualifiers on that sentence, to me. I'll try to get a copy of that year's issue of the Battle Conference Report, but it'll be a while before I can track it down. I'm not planning on stopping work on Robert boy, ideally some of these ABCs will go to FA. I think Theobald and Stigand could do so pretty easy. NOt sure there is quite enough on Robert, but we'll see. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Well done, everyone. Ealdgyth, what is next? -- SECisek 01:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)