Talk:Roger de Pont L'Evêque/GA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] GA initial review

  • General: The article is in need of a good general copyedit; the prose doesn't flow very well at the moment. If you can deal with the points below, I don't mind doing some of this myself.
  • Lead: The reference to Roger supporting a number of legal scholars is not followed up in the article. Also, the lead looks as if it needs at least one paragraph break.
    • He was somewhat of a lawyer, and seems to had a "court" of lawyers around him. But I agree it's not very well developed, so I cut it out of the lead. There is no modern biography of Roger, just his colleagues, Theobald, Becket (of course), and Hugh, so information on Roger's a bit scattered.
  • Early life: "...it is recorded..." by whom, when etc? Also, when Walter accused Roger of being "responsible" - that's an odd word in this context. Can you explain?
    • Hopefully this makes more sense now. Barlow, who is the historian that gives me this story, has so many qualifiers in the section it is kinda scary.
  • Archbishop: Why the information about Vacarius, which seems to have no connection with the rest of the article?
      • Mainly because everyone makes such a big deal about him having Vacarius? I put in a bit more about Vacarius, but if you think it's off topic, cut it. But every single book mentions that Vacarius went north with Roger, so it's important to someone out there!
    • Shouldn't curia be linked, or explained?
      • Got it, I hope
    • "At some point in his career Roger also had a son called William". I don't think the "also" is necessary. Also, having a son isn't really a career matter. And "a son called William" should perhaps be "a son whom he named William".
      • Moved it down to the death and legacy section where I usually put bishop's children. (Yes, I have a standard spot for them, they are that common)
  • Controversy with Becket: The date is 1170 not 1070
    • Love my fingers for their typing!
  • Death etc: Your date formats are inconsistent - British followed by American. And, "buried at Durham by Hugh de Puiset"? What actually did Hugh do, by way of burial?
    • I have my preferences set to display linked dates as "British" (actually US military uses it as do most American historians, at least the European historians so I'm used to day month year). Thus, I honestly don't see the inconsistencies. Fixed though.

If you can deal with the above, perhaps tweak the prose around a bit, I'll give it a bit of a copyedit & do any final fixing.Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the above, give me a day or two (we're heading out of town tomorrow, so may be able to deal with the copyedit tomorrow night or the next night in the hotel) and then I think I'll take you up on your offer. And you know, you don't have to do all my bishops, friendship doesn't demand that! I'd totally understand wanting to read someone else's different subjects! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's so little left for you to do that I've done the copyedit, and if you can just check the following small points we can sign off. I don't think you will need to consult the library. You better just check that my edits haven't altered your intended meanings - apart from the points mentioned below I don't think they have.

In the lead I've inserted Roger's "supposed" role in Becket'd death, since that seems to match the main text, but delete it if you think otherwise.
Works fine.
In Early life I've deleted "probably" from the sentence "...while Roger was probably accused...". because my understanding he certainly was accused.
Works fine
In the Archbishop section you say his powers did not extend to the "city" of Canterbury. Do you mean "see"?
No, the source specifically says "city" (you can check it, it's one of the few online sources I use), so it needs to stay city. It's weird, but that's what it says.
The beginning of the Controversy section needs a few words of explanation re the pre-coronation of Prince Henry. Could you begin the section with something like: "In accordance with the practice of the time whereby heirs were often anointed during their predecessor's lifetime,...."?
I explained it, but it wasn't the usual practice for England, it was for France, but Henry was definitely innovating here, so hopefully this explains it.

That's really all, but I sorry you cut out Hugh and his burying - that was the best bit. The reasons why I often pick up your bishops for review are a)I'm quite interested in this old stuff and b) the articles are fairly short. They occupy me at times like now, while I am waiting for the peer review process to pick up on an absolutely fascinating article of mine, on a man called Aeneas Mackintosh, an article that is just waiting to be loved. Incidentally, did you see that Shackleton's Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition got promoted to FA?

I'll complete the GA honours after you get back to me re. above. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to look at Aeneas when I get to the hotel tonight. Been busy trying to get out of town these last few days. I do appreciate you looking at my bishops, just didn't want you feeling like you had to. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review summary

Various issues have been discussed and resolved in the nomination period. The article now meets GA criteria in all respects, being in readable prose, well-referenced and neutrally presented. The subject is fully covered, the subject matter is stable, and imaging, always a problem with articles of this period, is adequate. It seems that MoS practices have been observed throughout. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)