Talk:Peter, Abbot of Vale Royal/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 20:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Detailed comments

• To follow over the next few days. Eric Corbett 20:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking on one of mine Eric Corbett, I'm looking forward to it. You were recommended to me as a go-to guy for reviews, but before I'd got around to it, you'd picked this up—neatly spiking my guns :D anyway, thanks again! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates}
    • I tend to be drawn to British topics, and your nomination jumped out at me. However it pans out, I can promise you a fair review. Eric Corbett 18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
      • "However it pans out" does sound mildly ominous  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Watching this page to see Eric Corbett GA review in action. Alex Shih (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
        • @Alex Shih:...If John McClane did GARs... ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Midmer, R. (1979) doesn't appear to have been used as a source.

No, atm—but can we stand by on this for a bit, as I put it in last night (I think) and it was meant to have some relevance—so I've got to go through it again and find out what exactly I'd found!

Sure, there's no hurry. Eric Corbett 18:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Found it—describing the ledger. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Images

• It's a bit of a slab of text at the moment. Why not include File:Vale royal abbey.jpg for instance, to break it up a bit?
  • Yeeas—totally agree about the wall of text; the only reason I haven't personally used that image in any of my Vale Royal articles is that—to my understanding—everything one sees in that view is "modern" (18th/19th C, I think, and def. not 15th!), and that although the building does contain medieval elements, they're all inside (the great hall, IIRC. See what i mean? On the other hand, I suppose a caption acknowledging this...?
    • Yes, I see what you mean. I can't help thinking that there must be something appropriate though. Eric Corbett 18:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Thikning about it though, maybe; not so much the building itself, but the area (as it's quite a broad view)—there are lots of sources describing how forested and wild the site of the abbey was, so perhaps a caption like "Today a country house, in AP's day this was forest and etc."? After all: it is still the same site, gotta give it that. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
        • That sounds good. Eric Corbett 22:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
          • I've given that a go—see what you think.
            • I think that with your caption that works fine. Eric Corbett 14:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Career

• I'm not sure that Career is the best choice of name for this section. Perhaps Ecclesiastical career?
  • Agree; added.
• "It may well have been he, around 1338, who authored—or at least began— the chronicle known as the Ledger of Vale Royal Abbey." Why is only Vale Royal Abbey in italics? Isn't the correct name The Ledger Book of Vale Royal Abbey anyway?
  • Good point. Although they mostly call it "The Ledger Book of Vale Royal," I think.
• "Abbot Peter was also responsible for moving Vale Royal in 1330". He didn't actually physically move Vale Royal, or cause it to be physically moved did he? Were the then buildings dismantled and re-erected on some other site? Or were they abandoned and the building work began anew?
  • No, it was re-sited.
• "The Abbot reported in 1336 that neither the vaults, the roof or the windows of the church had yet been finished ..." Neither refers to two things, not three as here.
  • Done.
• "... which had been arisen during the abbacy of Peter's predecessor". Been arisen?
  • D'oh!
• "Walter of Hereford had managed not only to get Edward II to confirm his father's grant to them". Does the them here refer to the abbey? If so, considering the abbey to be plural doesn't really work.
  • Agree, singularly singular.
• "This may well be a reflection on the original grant ..." It's unclear what this actually refers to.
  • Clarified now?
• "Abbot Peter was sued by a monk from Shrewsbury Abbey for the sum of 500 marks." It seems odd that he would be sued by a monk rather than the abbot.
  • Quite. On a closer reading of the source, the writ was delivered to AP by a monk; but as a messenger of course, rather than a claimant :)
• "Theobald Walter had claimed that his ancestors had been granted it by King Richard I".Need to explain who Theobald Walter was.
• "Theobald Butler, Walter's heir, continued to press the claim." The chronology is a little confusing. Why has Walter's heir been inserted into the story here?
  • Yes, bloody complicated this bit—I think it's clarified now though?

Cheers, Eric Corbett, see what you thikn with these changes. Cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Feud with the villagers of Darnhall

• "... as its the grants of land ..." Obviously something wrong with this.
  • lost "the."
• "For example, the abbey's own Ledge-possibly the Abbot's own work ... Should this be Ledger? Is it really necessary to repeat that Abbot Peter may have been the author of the Ledger?
  • Yes, and nope, rm dup.
• "... paying the abbot customs and services". Not sure what that means. Why lower-case abbot?
  • Added a note explaining what this meant in feudalism; Upped the abbot.

Death

• "... and much of his harvest, were burnt down. You don't "burn down" a harvest. Similarly, you don't "burn down" livestock.
  • Thanks: done.
• "De Cheyneston had already been a monk at the abbey". Strange choice of tense, not sure what it's trying to say.
  • ...not sure either; removed and tightened

See also

• Why link twice to the Dispute between Darnhall and Vale Royal Abbey article? (Once here and once in the Feud section.)
  • Because I wrote that one too wanted to give it an extra plug...?! Good spot, lost the see also.
• Bit better, Eric Corbett, now...? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  Much better now I think. I'll have another read through later, and a random check of your sources, and if that's OK then we'll be done. Eric Corbett 16:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Not as painful as I expected Eric Corbett. No rush of course, Friday night, etc :) cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

    Painful? Why did you expect painful? Anway, I'll get back to the review later this evening. Eric Corbett 17:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, no reason at all :) Cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

References

• There's a problem with ref #22. Is Petit-Dutaillis 1996 or 2013?
• The version of Platt (1994) I've found online has the information it's used to attribute (Edward's conscription of the masons and so on) on page 69. Are you sure that page 65 is correct?
  • Thanks, Eric Corbett, I've fixed Petit-Dutaillis (1996); but it's most odd about the Platt. "My" version is definitely at page 65-does that open ok for you to see it? Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

    Yes it does, that all seems fine now. Eric Corbett 10:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

• Even the Abbey's own chronicler," said historian Peter Coss "cast some doubt on the justice" of the grant. There's an ending quotation mark after chronicler, but where does the quotation start?
• Although the Shrewsbury monk's clam was for eight years' rents ... Haven't we already established that it wasn't the monk making the claim?
  • Heh, eyes like a hawk! Thanks Eric Corbett—inserted opening quotation mark, and removed "monk"="Shrewsbury's claim." >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Indeed, they appear to have been a perennial condition of penury ... Should that be in a perennial condition of penury? I'd prefer state to condition, but that's up to you.
  • I am, as they say, easy, Eric Corbett, and have inserted the stray "in" and stated the condition, as it were. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I think we're done here now. Congratulations. Eric Corbett 18:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.