Wikipedia:Peer review/William Warelwast/archive1

William Warelwast

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback on comprehensibility by the non-specialist as well as prose concerns, prior to taking him to FAC.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: It's no surprise to me that this article is well-done. I have a list of fairly nit-picky suggestions for improving the prose and making terms more clear to the general reader.

Lead

• "A native of Normandy, little is known of his background before 1087, when he appears as a royal clerk for King William II of England." - This is nitpicky, but "little" is not what should be modified by "a native of Normandy". Suggestion: "Warelwast was a native of Normandy, but little more is known about his background before 1087, when he appears as a royal clerk for King William II of England."

• "The medieval chronicler Eadmer, who was a partisan of Anselm's," - To avoid the double possessive, "of Anselm's", maybe tighten this to "The medieval chronicler Eadmer, a partisan of Anselm,"?

• For readers unfamiliar with Catholicism, would it be helpful to link "papacy", "bishopric", and "archdeaconry" in the lead and "transept" in the infobox?

Early life

• ... in Exeter was given to Warelwast by "Willelmus, avus meus", or "William, my grandfather/ancestor". - Should this direct quotation have an inline citation directly after it?

• "claimed that Warelwast was a relative of the king's" - Double possessive; "of the king" rather than "of the king's"?

• Corrected through to here... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal clerk under William II

• "The first secure mentions of Warelwast... ". - "Reliable" rather than "secure"?

• "This case was between St. Florent Abbey in Saumur and Fécamp Abbey that was held at Foucarmont." - Maybe "This case, heard at Foucarmont, was between St. Florent Abbey in Saumur and Fécamp Abbey"?

• "were back in England with the legate, Walter of Albano, by 13 May 1095." - Since the bit about Walter of Albano is repeated three sentences later, perhaps "with the legate, Walter of Albano," could be deleted from this sentence, and Walter of Albano could be linked in the next iteration.

• Link "legate" to papal legate on first use?

• "while the king may have instructed his envoys to attempt to secure these objects, Rufus probably was willing to negotiate... " - Who is Rufus? I think it is the nickname of William II, but that needs to be explained in the text. Or am I just not seeing it?

• "It was also Warelwast who prevented the excommunication... " - Link excommunication?

Corrected through to here... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal service for King Henry I

• "Warelwast in 1106 was the king's negotiator in the discussions that led to the settlement of the Investiture Controversy in England." - Would it be helpful to state briefly what the settlement was? It's pretty clear from context that the king got his way and was able thereafter to appoint and replace bishops and archbishops, but I can't be certain.

• "Henry had reserved the see of Exeter for Warelwast" - Link "see" to Episcopal see?

• "Unfortunately, Warelwast was unable to change the pope's mind," - Delete "unfortunately" since it expresses a point of view?

• "the primacy in the English Church" - Should "primacy" be briefly explained or linked to something?

• Corrected through here Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Work as bishop

• "a provincial synod for Normandy" - Link synod?

• "In his diocese he started a new cathedral, which began construction around 1114 and was consecrated in 1133." - Since the cathedral didn't begin to construct itself, perhaps "In his diocese he started a new cathedral around 1114, and it was consecrated in 1133"?

• "Three royal charters granting churches to Warelwast survive, for churches in Cornwall, Devonshire, and Exeter." - Tighten to "Royal charters survive that granted churches in Cornwall, Devonshire, and Exeter to Warelwast"?

• "Warelwast also instituted the two offices of treasurer and precentor... " - Link precentor?

• "As well, the first sub-archdeacons, who were under the archdeacons." - This is not a complete sentence.

• "This office is not attested again... ". - It's not clear which office this refers to. Do you mean the office of sub-archdeacon?

• "He may have resigned his see prior to his death, and the 16th century antiquary John Leland thought that Warelwast resigned his see before 1127, became a canon at Plympton, and died in 1127, however the year of death is incorrect, but it is possible that Warelwast became a canon shortly before his death." - Too complex. I'd suggest expressing this in two or three separate sentences.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tim riley comments: The article is entirely comprehensible to the lay person (to this one, at any rate), and enjoyable into the bargain. (Having just tangled with Klang (Stockhausen), I found this a breeze.) A handful of exceedingly minor comments:

• The article seems to be written in UK English, in which case, "signaled" needs a double "l". If, per contra, the spelling is to be American, there is a English "favourable" in the lead.
• Two typos: "arrising" and, I imagine, "Wiliam". (I didn't dare amend the latter and have left the former untouched along with it.)
• "… hostile chroniclers claimed that Warelwast was uneducated…" Pray ignore if you wish, but I had it drilled into me when young that one doesn't use "claim" as another word for "assert" or "allege", and reserves it for occasions when a real claim is at issue, such as claiming a right or title.
• "Devonshire" is not wrong, by any means, but is rather old-fashioned. "Devon", tout court is the usual form these days.

Finally, I hope you will permit me to say that it is a pleasure to read an article where the upper- and lower-case distinction between, e.g., "King William" and "the king" etc is scrupulously observed. O si sic omnes.

If (but only if) you have time and inclination, I too have an article up for peer review: Octavia Hill… – Tim riley (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)