Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Burnell/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:04, 14 November 2010 [1].
Robert Burnell edit
Robert Burnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it's a comprehensive coverage of yet another obscure bishop/archbishop wanna be! He's been hanging in the wings for ages while I waited to get one more article from the library, but I have received the article, and worked it into the wikipedia article, so we're now pretty much complete. Burnell's actually more important than he looks, he was one of King Edward I of England's trusted advisors, and oversaw a lot of Edward's legal and administrative activities. Another bad boy bishop, he's got a mistress and kids hanging out in the shadows. I've had it looked over for prose by a number of folks, including Malleus. CorenBot's tool shows nothing violationish, and he's clean on disambigs and everything I can think of. I present you with Robert Burnell, one of the most obscure bishops you've never heard of but really should have. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing comments and nitpicks
- Greenaway or Greenway?
- Be consistent in whether "volume" is capitalized or not
- "Fryde. et al." or "Fryde, et al."?
- Citation 45 should correspond to the first reference (title is different)
- "Burnell did not accompany the prince on in late 1270" - accompany him where?
- Boydell Press or Boydell & Brewer?
- Be consistent in including or not including publisher location
- "Cambridge" or "Cambridge, UK"? Be consistent
- Be consistent in how states are abbreviated
- Page numbers for "Correspondence of Robert Burnell"?
- DOI for Jordan? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got all of them except for the page numbers on the Correspondence (I haven't run that article down yet, but from reading references to it, it's a primary source (i.e. the letters themselves, not anything discussing them)) and the doi for the Jordan. I have run the article through the citation bot thing a number of times, and still no doi for Cistercian Quarterly Studies ... they are a bit more obscure than most journals. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport: Nice article, impeccably researched. A few prose issues:-
"Burnell did not accompany the prince on in late 1270..." Did not accompany him on...what?"During the regency Burnell supervised a parliament, dealt with raids on the Welsh Marches and a trade conflict with Flanders." This sentence doesn't quite parse - "and resolved a trade conflict" would do it.There's a poorly placed "however" in te first paragraph of the "Chancellor and bishop" section"from 21 September 1274 until Burnell's death" sends us back to the lead to recall when he died. Suggest add "in 1292".The phrase "and also played a significant role in the legislative work enacted in Edward's reign" is redundant. You have just said that "Burnell played a leading role in the legislation introduced by King Edward", and "The king's major legislative acts mainly date to Burnell's tenure..."The sentence beginning "Burnell was also responsible..." is overlong, needs splitting up.The words "in support of the king" in the penultimate para of "Foreign service" can be inferred."In these writs..." → "Through these writs..."?
Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a wonderful article. Sources and images seem to be in order. I had a look at it a while back, and read it again after Malleus went through it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Read through the entire article, and just about all of it is great.
The one little issue I had was that I had trouble understanding this sentence: "he witnessed documents in Rhuddlan in 1282, and subsequently at Conwy and Caernarfon." Does this mean that he saw the signing of the documents, or is their another meaning I'm not picking up on?Not enough to prevent my support, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- It means that he signed the documents to confirm that he had witnessed the other parties signing them. I can't speak for the US, but it's standard practice here in the UK that when you sign a legal document like a lease, for instance, a witness also signs it to confirm that they were present when it was signed. "Witnessed" is the standard way of describing that. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's standard for US as well. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It means that he signed the documents to confirm that he had witnessed the other parties signing them. I can't speak for the US, but it's standard practice here in the UK that when you sign a legal document like a lease, for instance, a witness also signs it to confirm that they were present when it was signed. "Witnessed" is the standard way of describing that. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2c fn45, "[Bishop's Palace Chapel] Palace Trust" is confusing for me as a short citation; I didn't realise I should connect the short title to the long title listed first in the references section. Maybe by using the quoted full title here, it would trigger the response to search references by title? In references "Studd, J. R. " lacks a date. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.