Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert de Chesney/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 Ucucha 20:56, 22 December 2011 [1].

Robert de Chesney edit

Featured article candidates/Robert de Chesney/archive1

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it is a comprehensive account of a relatively obscure medieval bishop. However, don't let the fact that he's not well known today bore you... he was definitely a mover and shaker in his time period. His brother was an important royal official and his nephew was Gilbert Foliot - one of Thomas Becket's implacable foes. Chesney played little part in the Becket controversy, but he was an important royal official in his own right. As usual, I've beaten the bushes for all the available sources - and Malleus has done his usual impeccable job of smoothing out my rough prose and finding bad spots where I didn't explain myself well. I give you - Robert de Chesney - Bishop of Lincoln - builder, clergyman, and royal official. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing is unproblematic.
Volume title for Barrow doesn't match between footnotes and source listing
Saltman title also doesn't match
Check capitalization on FN 49
Nitpicking, but be consistent in whether "UK" is preceded by a comma in locations, and indeed whether UK is included at all for Cambridge. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I got all these... can I claim I really saw them and left them in so you felt useful? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a list of nitpicks that I'm sure you already know about but left in to make me feel useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mix of BritEng and AmEng, and given the subject should probably use the former - so no "traveled", for example
"Educated at Oxford or Paris" - later you say "in", which has a slightly different meaning
Why "Roger, Bishop of Salisbury" but "Nigel, the Bishop of Ely"?
Why wikilink Normandy in the second section and not the first? Similarly, why link Henry II in the fourth paragraph of "under Henry II" but not the first?
"mentioned the unanimous nature of the Chesney's selection"?
"witnessed a charter...attests a number of Henry II's charters" - why the shift in tense?
"Chesney witnessed a charter of Henry fitzEmpress' before his succession to the throne" - okay, this becomes obvious later, but is it Chesney or Henry succeeding to the throne? At this point it isn't clear (except from a piped link) that Henry fitzEmpress = Henry II.
"In 1155–1156 St Albans secured papal privileges" -> "had secured"?
At what point was the forged charter discovered as such?
"The two Welsh princes and the Scots' king" - why not "Scottish king", to match "Welsh princes"?
We might need a little more background info on the dispute between Henry and Becket
"Chesney left a number of books to Lincoln Cathedral. at least ten, of which seven survive"? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus got the first one, the second doesn't seem to be an issue - as the body of the article says "Chesney probably attended schools in either Oxford or Paris..." which doesn't seem to conflict in my mind with the lead statement of "educated at Oxford or Paris" - it'd be slightly misleading if I'd linked that lead to either Oxford or Paris universities - but neither had yet truly formed. Inserted "the" between Roger and Bishop of Salisbury. Fixed the linking issue. Extraneous "the" removed before "Chesney's selection". Malleus got the shift in tense. Fixed the throne/succession issue. Fixed the St Albans issue. My sources don't state when the forged charter was discovered to be fake - presumably it was in modern times. I do not touch the vexed issue of whether they are Scottish or Scots - no matter what I use, I'm going to get someone pissed off. I'm hesitant to put more into the article about the Becket dispute, as it really wasn't important to Chesney. The main interest is that he wasn't involved that much. I've added "....which dealt with the growing dispute, now known as the Becket controversy, between the king and Becket." to lead readers to the dispute if they want more details. Malleus got the last point. Sorry for the delay on this ... it's been a wild week in real life... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've recast the Scottish sentence. But what do you mean by But Matilda was less sanguine? placable, perhaps? If this is literal, surely phlegmatic is closer to her allies' disposition. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "sanguine" was my choice of word, but I certainly didn't mean it to be taken literally. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed your word, Malleus, but this does bring up an interesting point... Henry II's temper is always blamed on his Angevin father ... but given the tales about his mother Matilda... I think it was probably an even deal on the inheritance! Any suggested other word choices here? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you mean by it, Malleus? It's not clear to me, and it may be less clear to other readers. Amenable? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Settled for Matilda being "less patient," which is at least clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with one minor concern:

In "Bishop under Henry II", second paragraph, you write: "The result of the case, a precursor to the later Becket dispute, aroused King Henry's anger, but the death of the king's brother Geoffrey meant that the matter was eventually dropped." It's not clear to me how one relates to the other. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads "The result of the case, a precursor to the later Becket dispute, aroused King Henry's anger, but the death of the king's brother Geoffrey and the king's subsequent travel to the Continent to deal with that issue meant that the matter was postponed and eventually dropped." which hopefully makes it clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I thought that's what it meant, but wasn't sure. I enjoyed reading the article -- good luck with the nomination! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

William de Chesney remained a layman, and became one of Oxfordshire's leading landowners. His own article adds that William was a royal official; but how did he become a great landowner? Inheritance? Grants? Marrying well? (I.e., here, was Robert of great family to begin with, or were they a pair of successful climbers?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The implication is that William was granted lands by Stephen, but there isn't a comprehensive article on the family, unfortunately. Charter evidence appears to be mainly from the Chesney's rather than grants to them, and the surviving grants to them are obscure (thus the difficulty in determining if the d'Oilly manor that William ended up with also included the whole of the d'Oilly lands or only that one manor...) This is the main reason I'm not bringing William to FAC - I wanted to, but the secondary sourcing is just a bit too sparse for my taste. They both (William and Robert) appear to have been not "men raised from the dust" but not high noblemen either - they are related to Gilbert Foliot after all, and his origins were never denigrated as base. William's career isn't helped by the fact that there is another William de Chesney active at the same time who does not appear to have been a close relative - many of the references to William de Chesney in Henry II's Pipe Roll accounts are impossible to determine which one is meant (plus Robert and William also had a nephew William de Chesney ... for added fun.) Owen says of the family "a minor knightly family of Anglo-Norman extraction with lands in the midlands, especially Oxfordshire." and that's about all the space she devotes to his family's landholdings. And of course, William doesn't even have an ODNB entry. Suggestions for further clarifications are always welcome - this is a time period I know so well that sometimes I just know things and forget that others don't and leave out important details. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this belongs in the article; after all, you know it from sources. The reader should too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Another excellent and thorough article. Covers the topic comprehensively but remains clear to the non-specialist. A few points, which you may feel free to ignore if you don't agree. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Chesney was active in his diocese; more than 240 documents relating to his episcopal career survive.": For those unfamiliar with the period, could it be made clearer what "active" means here?
The first sentence of Historical background is very long and contains a lot of elements. Could it be broken up? Possibly move the part about William to the beginning of the sentence near Henry's death then begin a new sentence about the succession.
"she returned to her father, who married her to Geoffrey, Count of Anjou": Is the part about returning to her father necessary? It suggests that she had left him in some way which hints at some sort of discord. And incredibly fussy point, the sentence suggests that Henry performed the marriage himself.
"Stephen himself was captured in February 1141 by Matilda's forces, but Robert's subsequent capture by forces loyal to Stephen later that year led to him being exchanged for Stephen in November 1141." Captured…capture and three Stephens in one sentence. Also "later that year led to him being…" makes the sentence a little cumbersome. What about "…later that year allowed his exchange for Stephen in November 1141"?
"apparently freely": Again may not be clear to anyone unfamiliar why this should be phrased in such a way.
"the 1156 Pipe Roll has the sheriff of the county accounting": I think this could be phrased more effectively.
"Chesney is reported by his nephew Foliot to have had an interest in Roman law, as Foliot wrote to Chesney that Foliot had ordered a copy made of the Digest for his uncle" Although I don't see an obvious way around this, the repetition of Chesney and Foliot in this sentence sounds slightly strange.
"Chesney was a builder in his diocese, where he was involved in the construction of the episcopal palace" This rather suggests he built it personally. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got most of these - I didn't change the first point because I'm not sure that anything other than "active" would describe it well. He was .. active ... as a bishop, as opposed to some bishops who were ... not active. (grins). Nor did I fiddle with the Pipe roll bit - I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the "phrased more effectively" part - as this is pretty much the bare bones of what's given in the pipe roll. Nor did I fiddle with the Foliot stuff as I agree - it's repetitious but it's unfortunately not something lending itself to being rephrased. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did the last, I think. Having one paragraph on their correspondence instead of two saves most of the work of introduction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.