Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William de St-Calais

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:13, 26 August 2008 [1].

William de St-Calais edit

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk


Monk, bishop, administrator, traitor and king's advisor, William de St-Calais had a hand in Domesday Book, advised both William the Conqueror and the Conqueror's two sons, and is the subject of the first account of a state trial in English history. As to the nuts and bolts, I've done the research, it's been through GA, PR and a thorough copyedit by User:Brianboulton and User:Malleus Fatuorum to remove my redundancies. Please rip it to pieces so it can improve! (I know that Confraternity leads to a disambiguation page, but it also gives the definition at the top. There is no plain confraternity page at the moment). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images —This is part of a comment by Awadewit (of 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

this would appear to be the work. The description line says 11th century, by the way. I hesitate to play around with things on Commons, that I didnt' upload. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a wiki! I have added the necessary details from the link. Awadewit (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author of the page would be unknown, yes. Domesday book is very definitely past the copyright stage, but I'm unclear on where the photograph of this came from. That aspect of copyright is beyond me. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the "unknown" to the author field. You could ask the uploader where the image came from or you could search out a source yourself on the internet. We have to have a source for the image, though. (Images are like quotations that way.) Awadewit (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cheated. I just deleted the picture. It was superflous anyway. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note in halting German for the uploader. We should have a source for that image, whether we decide to use it in this article or not. Let's see what happens. Awadewit (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source myself (it is clearly not the original - file is too small), but it is something in the meantime. Hopefully the uploader will come by. Anyway, you can restore the image to the article now, if you want. Awadewit (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess the author was the original uploader, Jungpionier? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, too. I have added the name to the image description. Awadewit (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Durham Cathedral plan.jpg - This image needs a description and an author (did Greenwell draw the plan and write the book?) Also, including Greenwell's birth and death dates would make it easy to verify the PD license.
This would appear to be the first edition of the work, published in 1879. William Greenwell would appear to be our author, so 1918 as a death date. This appears to be about the man. I'm guessing it's probably PD, but UK rules on that are funky, so I'll leave it to the experts. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a description to the image. Please check it for accuracy. The google books link is for the fifth edition, so I did not include that information. Awadewit (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the rest of the article later! Looking forward to it! Awadewit (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded none of those to Commons, so no clue on any of them, quite honestly. If I need to remove them, I will, but not having done the uploading I'm kinda hampered. I just take my pics from Commons, when possible, so that I can avoid as much as possible image headaches. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not all that reliable, I'm afraid. One has to check everything and generally improve on what is there - is just like the 'pedia. Awadewit (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankee for going where I feared to tread. Promise to bring my next FAC to someone else for an image check and fix before it comes here. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support-Great job! Dabomb87 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —This is part of a comment by Dabomb87 (of August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't page ranges in inline citations need en dashes? Same with the year ranges in the book titles.
You know, I bet I forgot to have the dash bot run over this... going to do it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it's been run. Should be all correct en dashes now. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links checked out with the link checker tool.
  • "Although St-Calais is generally referred with the epithet of Saint Calais or St-Calais, the main source for his life, the monastic chronicler Symeon of Durham, does not call him such." referred with the epithet-->referred to as. How is the monastic chronicler Symeon of Durham the "main source for his life"?
Changed to "the monastic chronicle of Symeon of Durham" .. which is what I assumed you were getting at? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments This is a very clear, well-researched article. I didn't know anything about St Clair before I read the article, but I could easily follow it. A few small nitpicks:

  • We no longer have to link dates - might you think about delinking the dates in this article?
    • Because I'm not Tony and I hate having to fight to keep them out. It took me forever to get them IN when that was the case, I can only handle so much MOS minutiae before I go insane. Since we're not required to remove them yet, I'm saving my energy for the things I gotta do and will leave the tilting at windmills to Tony (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following William Rufus' accession to the throne in 1087, St-Calais was considered to be the new king's chief advisor. - Why "was considered to be" rather than just "was" or "became"?
    • Because the sources say that he shared the position with others, and although the chronicler's called him "justiciar" that position didn't really exist at the time. It's very muddled, and I'm covering my butt with the experts in the field, who would shoot me if I came out and said "was" (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps say "considered by scholars to be"? Awadewit (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done! And thanks for the suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the imprisonment of Odo of Bayeux, Pope Gregory VII complained to the king about this imprisonment, and about the fact the king was not allowing papal letters to be delivered to bishops without royal permission. - wordy
    • Can I yell at Brian and Malleus for not catching another example of my extreme wordiness? I'll work at fixing this. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't yell, I really tried. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I guess I had better not alienate my copyeditors (who I GREATLY appreciate!) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to "After the imprisonment of Odo of Bayeux, Pope Gregory VII complained to the king about Odo's imprisonment. Another papal concern was the king's not allowing papal letters to be delivered to bishops without royal permission." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Describing the Domesday Book a bit more for readers who don't know what it is would help round out the article.
    • (whimpers) Did you know Domesday Studies is an entire subject that multiple historians devote their careers to? (And can you tell I'm not one of those historians?) Will work on that.
      • Oh, yes, I realize the difficulty. It's like when I have to explain the French Revolution or the Enlightenment in a sentence or two. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed to "St-Calais also served as a commissioner in the south-western part of England for the Domesday Book, which aimed to survey the whole of England and record who owned the lands." which I hope is enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some historians, including W. M. Aird, have suggested that St-Calais felt that the division of the Conqueror's realm between two sons was unwise, and that reuniting the Normans and English under one king was the reason St Calais joined the rebellion - wordy
    • Changed to "Some historians, including W. M. Aird, have suggested that St-Calais felt that the division of the Conqueror's realm between two sons was unwise. Reuniting the Normans and English under one king has been suggested as the reason St Calais joined the rebellion." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once the castle was back under the king's control, St-Calais was released, and left for Normandy,[1] but no more was heard of his appeal to Rome - Is this a "but" or an "and" moment?
    • Not sure, what do you think?
  • Durham had security issues, as Malcolm Canmore, King of Scots, raided and invaded the north of England on a number of occasions. - "security issues" sounds a bit colloquial
    • Heh. Well, we could always call them "problems with hordes of screaming blue-painted warriors from the north" but... I think some of our Scots editors might object. Will reword. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to "Durham's location in the north left it insecure, as Malcolm..." which hopefully works better. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later, an English noble, Robert de Mowbray, who was earl of Northumbria challenged the bishop's authority in the north. - When?
  • The dream then informed Boso that this was a warning that St-Calais would soon die. - A bit awkward - didn't something in the dream warn Boso?
    • Will double check this. Might have lost something in the CE's. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, something was lost. The original source calls it a "Dream guide". Can you think of a way to word that that doesn't sound New-Ageish? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lol - Dream Guide. "Spirit guide" doesn't sound much better, does it? How about just "guide"? Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changed it to "Boso's guide in the dream..." which is wordy, but accurate. I swear, this stupid dream thing has occupied more of my time. If it didn't get mentioned a LOT in the sources, I'd have cut it, but someone thinks it is important ... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The construction technique of combining a pointed arch with another rib allowed a six-pointed vault, which enabled the building to attain a greater height - greater height than what? Comparatives must have a comparison.
    • Greater than the churches built before. Will put that in. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to "attain a greater height than earlier churches." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Further reading" section is cited in a different style than the "References". It would be nice if they were all in the same style.

I look forward to supporting this article soon! Awadewit (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I see from the edit count that I am the second greatest contributor in terms of number of edits. I must stress that I have done none of the hard work in preparing the article, my efforts being those of a humble copyeditor and occasional phrasemaker. I also did the peer review. As with other Ealdgyth articles, this one has been impeccably researched, and is a credible account of a largely forgotten but once influential figure in English history. I am sure that there are minor fixes that could improve the article further, but I'm not going to withhold on those grounds. Impressive work. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support—hmmm, this is very good; great story, well cited, it seems! Could do with just a little scrutiny of the text—spot checks here suggest a little room for polishing:

  • Possibly unnecessary uses of commas in a few places, particularly towards the top; no big deal, though.
    • I'll keep looking for them, but I tend to be somewhat "liberal" with my comma usage, so I'm not the best person to be finding them. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recently-released" (no hyphen after "-ly", says MoS).
  • "have suggested that St-Calais felt that the division of the Conqueror's realm between two sons was unwise"—the second "that" could go. "Suggested" × 2.
  • "the only bishop that did not actively aid the king"—people take "who", not "that".
  • "From his actions, it appears likely that St-Calais did rebel, whatever his statements to the contrary, although northern chronicles maintained his innocence." I don't like "although", wedged between two statements in harmony with each other that both contradict "his actions"—I think you felt that problem when writing it, and yes, it's hard to solve. Here's one way, although you may not like it. --> "St-Calais's actions suggest that he did rebel, whatever his claims to the contrary and affirmations of his innocence in northern chronicles." If "affirmations" is not right, see a thesaurus (that's what I did). Just one more quibble: a few sentences before, it refers to his "at first claiming he had never actually rebelled". This is getting fuzzy now. And if "actually" is necessary to the meaning, it needs fleshing out.
    • Took your suggestion, it does fit the sourcing, thankfully. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "St-Calais was brought before the king and royal court for trial on 2 November 1088, at Salisbury.[36][38] Before the trial, the king seized his lands. At the trial, St-Calais held that"—"Before the trial ... At the trial". Try: "... Salisbury, before which the king ...". Tony (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC) PS "claiming" is back-referred to as "statements"—I'd repeat it as "claims". I've taken the liberty of creating a tutorial exercise out of this (see 1e). Hope you don't mind. Tony (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And no, I don't mind you using my writing as an example. I'm actually honored! (grins) At least my writing errors are not basic baby steps... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • and done! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony. I will fix those in the morning, when I trust myself to edit safely. Too tired tonight to not make a hash of it. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_de_St-Calais&oldid=1145606252"