Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gilbert Foliot/archive1

< 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 SandyGeorgia 02:23, 18 May 2009 [1].

Gilbert Foliot edit

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk and Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I've done the research, and I feel this is a complete account of the man's life. He wasn't really a "bad boy" but he was certainly in dispute with a saint. Prior, abbot, and bishop, excommunicated by Thomas Becket, writer of numerous letters and those letters are a major source for his time period. Co-nom with Malleus, as he's gone beyond the call of duty here with this monster. All suggestions welcomed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Informative, encyclopedic, and formatted in an aesthetically pleasing way. This is definitely a fine example of what Wikipedia pages should be. I've kept my eye on this for a while and the improvements were outstanding. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I ever go bald, it will be because of pictures in Wikipedia articles. Thank you Awa, you're a gem (even when you're dragging me kicking and screaming through image liscencing) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a few comments and suggestions for further tweaking:-
  • (Lead): "...translated, or moved, to the..." As "translated" is wikilinked, do we need the further explanation "or moved"? It's a personal view, but I think the insertion, with its commas, spoils the prose flow (go on, tell me I put this in during the peer review)
  • This one, I prefer to leave in. I tend to agree that it breaks the flow somewhat, but if the reader doesn't know the term, it breaks it even more if they have to click to another article to understand the sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Same section): Perhaps a word of explanation as to why Matilda was the "Empress"
  • (Bishop of Hereford): "In early 1148, Foliot accompanied Theobald of Bec to the Council of Reims, even though the archbishop had been forbidden to attend by King Stephen;[33] he was presumably with Theobald when the archbishop used a small fishing boat in his escape from England to the continent." Identity of "he" not clear. Suggest you replace with "Foliot"
  • (Same section): Suggest a brief explanation as to why Henry became head of the Angevin party although Matilda was still living.
  • There isn't anything "concrete" that says she renounced her claims, but by mid-1148, the barons and earls that had previously listed her as their overlord were listing Henry instead. Put in a quick explanatory footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Same section): I wonder whether "Böker claims..." might be better wording than "Böker argues..."?
  • (Bishop of London): "He objected on the grounds of Becket being too worldly..." You need to say what he objected to, e.g. Becket's candidature, Becket's appointment or, probably, just "to Becket, on the grounds of his being too wordly"
  • Changed to "He objected the king's choice on the grounds of Becket being too worldly,..." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Same section): "This was contrary to the customary and normal procedures, but Becket and his supporters pointed out that there were some situations in which it was possible to excommunicate without warning,[90] although Foliot claimed the present situation was not one of them." Three ideas in one sentence suggests it should be split, thus; "This was contrary to the customary and normal procedures; Becket and his supporters pointed out that there were some situations in which it was possible to excommunicate without warning,[90] although Foliot claimed the present situation was not one of them."
  • I've rearranged that section slightly, along the lines you suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Death of Becket): "Foliot and Becket seem to have been on amicable terms until 1163,[100] but their relationship seems to have soured after that date.[101] Becket returned the sentiment..." The souring of the relationship sounds like a mutual thing, so saying that "Becket returned the sentiment" doesn't sound right unless you are saying specifically that Folot initiated the souring.
  • (Same section): Too much moderation/moderating in first line of penultimate paragraph. Suggest change to: "Foliot was mainly a force for moderation in the quarrel between the king and the archbishop, urging restraint on Becket and curbing the king's attempts to impose the Constitutions more rigorously."

Otherwise a fine article presented with exemplary care. Brianboulton (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - for an interesting, well-written and referenced article. Just one nitpick; could the nominators check the usage of "himself" for redundancy? Graham Colm Talk 21:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll let Malleus do that since he was trying to claim he didn't deserve the co-nom... make him feel useful... (snickers) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an effort to be useful I've removed all but one occurrence of "himself", as I think Graham is right. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I renamed the article's second "References" section "Works cited" to distinguish the two. I was hesitant—I'm usually BOLD but also familiar-and-a-half with Ealdgyth's FAC source checks, and Ealdgyth might know something I don't. --an odd name 04:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent and informative article on a little known cleric. Nit-pick: "In 1139 Foliot was elected Abbot of Gloucester,[1] blessed by the diocesan bishop on 11 June 1139" Since he was a "mitred abbot", should it be that he was "consecrated" by the bishop? Not sure, just checking. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Parliament then, so no "mitred abbots". The source specifically says "blessed" in it, not consecrated (which they use when appropriate), so blessed is correct. Fasti Ecclesiae uses blessed also. (I honestly don't know when the mitred abbots started being consecrated, it's long after the time I studied.Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable enough for me. If it's what the source says, then that's what the source says. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia is becoming the place to learn about Medieval English bishops. Lesgles (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article, no problems I can see. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2009 (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/Gilbert_Foliot/archive1&oldid=1088118358"