Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reginald de Warenne/archive1

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 archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 13 June 2020 [1].

Reginald de Warenne edit

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...a rather obscure but important Anglo-Norman nobleman and royal official. By birth he was related to a large number of the nobility, and he served both his brother and the king as an administrator and official. He married an heiress and played a very small part in the Thomas Becket mess. It's been a while since I've brought an article to FAC, but hoping to be more frequent here now that we've finally finished (mostly) moving. I present you with Reginald de Warenne, who could stand in for many of the royal officials of King Henry II of England. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Must note for the record that through the agency of the fates, etc., the current version is 1216 words long. Brilliant :) serial ^# 15:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

Place holder. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With some trepidation I note that this article seems to lack anything aimed at 1b "and places the subject in context". There are no doubt several ways of addressing this, but I would have expected a background section explaining the socio-economic situation in England in the 12th century. Something on the political and religious background would not go amiss either. As it is I worry that much of the article can only be followed via constant use of Wikilinks. I also have qualms about 1a "prose is engaging": for example "... Reginald was fined just over 466 pounds by the King for the right to inherit his father-in-law's lands and become Lord of Wormegay, or Baron Wormegay. This lordship was assessed at fourteen and a quarter knight's fees ..." is likely to make sense to only a small minority of readers. Yes, there are Wikilinks, but I am not sure that reference to stub- and start-class articles to follow the basic narrative of a FAC is acceptable. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this but we're ... busy. I hope to be able to discuss this this weekend, but it might be next week. Stupid pandemic! --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I"m going to try to not sound cranky (but it's likely I will, since I just spent an hour and a half dealing with promoting FACs). If you're expecting a background section on this article... why did you not expect one on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harriet Leveson-Gower, Countess Granville/archive1, where there is not any background on the surrounding historical circumstances - nothing on the Napoleonic Wars, etc, which surely must have had some impact on the subject's life, since her husband was a diplomat? And ... on the talk page of the article, you didn't seem that upset with the prose back in January and February . Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to do improvements and stuff, I just don't want to do a bunch of stuff while other articles get a pass. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I try hard to be consistent in my checking of different articles against the criteria; although, obviously, "to err is human".

I don't think that I "get" your "nothing on the Napoleonic Wars, etc, which surely must have had some impact on the subject's life" comment. I don't see that any reviewer would expect information on anything which had "some" impact on the subject of an article. There would be no logical end to it. Congruous to not requiring information on the Napoleonic Wars I have not asked you for information on the 1167 war with France or the 1171 invasion of Ireland.

Part, to me, of "places the subject in context" is that the mythical typical Wikipedian reader might be expected to understand the article without too much recourse to checking blue links. Clearly a judgement on this is going to contain subjectivity; clearly (IMO) the further away a topic is culturally and/or temporally from what a reviewer considers our current shared experience, the more explanation will be needed.

In terms of "while other articles get a pass" can I flag up my oppose to East Knoyle War Memorial for lack of background or my effective oppose to Hyborian War for the same thing, just to mention two which are currently ongoing. (A lot of the discussion of the latter is off the FAC page.)

Yes, I did sign off on a pre-FAC copy edit of this, and I can see how that might hack you off. Apologies. I was busy personally, there seemed to be a lot of people in and out of the article, I got the impression that we were fairly early in an articles development, and I was a little reluctant to push an editor of your status and experience too much. Mea culpa. I do note that I ended with "This copy edit is proffered with no warranty, express or implied." which I have never done before, so I imagine, I don't remember, that I had a bit of a nagging feeling. I also note that I somehow missed the "Last check in".

Could we concentrate the substance of my queries? Hopefully you have read enough of my reviews to know that I am very reluctant to push my way of expressing something just for the sake of it. In my initial comments above I was inviting discussion around a couple of points. Might it help if I restarted and endeavoured to make my points much more specific to sections of text? Eg there are several mentions of witnessing documents or charters - could it be explained in line in the text what the (socio-political?) significance of this was? And so on?

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Sanders or Saunders? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sanders. ARGH! I have an ancestor who is "Saunders" and I have a terrible time not just automatically typing "Saunders"... fixed. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

The lead and background seem thin. (BTW I did complain that the Leveson-Gower article was thin on the background.)
"signing some of his father's charters as a witness.[1] On their father's death in May, William became the third earl of Surrey" The switch from his father to their father seems to me jarring. How about. "His father died in May and the younger William became the third earl of Surrey"
"Reginald was one of the main administrators of his estates until William's death in 1148" I do not have Crouch, but ODNB says he was involved in the administration of some Norfolk estates and was left in charge when William went on Crusade in 1147, which is a bit different.
Maybe also quote King saying Reginald "was clearly seen as a safe pair of hands". p. 283 Dudley Miles (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, E 40/6692 is of de Warenne. ——Serial^# 15:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to folks - my main desktop tower just ... went wonky this morning. It MAY be repairable, we're taking it to the repair guy today hopefully, but I'm going to be more out of touch for a bit. And that's the tower that has all the research files on it... so... I can't actually get to any of my research for a bit. (Yes, I have backups but ... need computer to do so. I do have a very ancient laptop and a gaming PC but will wait to start shifting to those until I know for sure the desktop Mac is belly up). --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. I'm going to archive this because it appears the next couple of weeks are going to be occupied with other people's FACs and I just won't have the time for this. I'll get with Dudley and Gog on the article talk page and we'll try to get this sorted out before returning. I don't think anyone is going to be upset that I archived my own FAC ... heh. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.