Talk:John de Gray

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John de Gray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Mine. Is this one destined for FAC? Review to come soon. J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• "to a de Gray's selection being quashed" Fix?
• "Although reviled by one contemporary writer as an "evil counsellor" to the king," Some would say that direct quotes in leads should be cited. I'm not fussed, but a thought to consider.
• "The elder de Gray was instrumental in securing the selection of his nephew as Lord Chancellor,[1] with the elder de Gray was a surety for the younger de Gray's payment of a fine of 5,000 marks in order to secure the chancellorship.[3]" This isn't clear
• "was keeper of John's seal" Do we have an article on this role?
• More terms that would benefit from links- "royal regalia", "papal legates", "the curia"
• "This story only appears in Wendover's account, and he wrote in the 1230s nor was he a monk of Canterbury, so it is unlikely he is recording a true account." Rephrase?
• "But the pope decided" Starting a sentences with "but" like this is not usually good form
• "England and exiled the Canterbury monks from England.[16] Innocent placed an interdict on England" Repetition
• "on the church of England" Unfortunate phrasing
• "only de Gray and Peter des Roches, the Bishop of Winchester, were the only English bishops still in England and not in exile or dead." Rephrase?
• "In 1209, de Gray was governor of Ireland." He was made it then, or he was it by that time?
• "This sheltering of Braose did not embitter de Gray towards Marshall, as in 1212, the bishop wrote to the king praising Marshall.[27]" Repetition. I know you like to keep things clear, and I agree that that is something which is sometimes lost, but this sentence isn't great
• "However, the historian Seán Duffy has argued that this is not the case," Was?
• "in Connacht" Link?
• "Matthew Paris, a medieval writer, called him an "evil counsellor",[43] and blamed much of the difficulties of John's later reign on de Gray's failed election to Canterbury.[1]" Add "however", perhaps? When he's saying something so very different, it seems odd to just "add it to the list", as it were
• "p. 169 and footnote 251"- I believe footnotes are cited with "n."?
• Wikilinking publishers in the bibliography couldn't hurt?

Very nice article- clearly well researched. I've done a little copyediting- feel free to revert if you're not happy. J Milburn (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll check this over in the morning... I'm drained. I am not sure about FAC, honestly. You think I should? I've been kicking around the idea of a Featured Topic on "John's evil counsellors" .... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First two fixed, the third - changed "with" to "as" which hopefully makes it more clearerful. On the keeper of the seal - we don't have one for this particular role, as de Gray was Prince John's keeper of the seal - not King John's keeper of the seal. Links made. Get the rest shortly - I need breakfast. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Reworked the Wendover bit, changed the "but" to "however". Removed the "from England" after "exiled the Canterbury monks". Changed "church of England" to "church in England" but it should be noted that historians use "church of England" in this time frame a lot... Removed the "not in exile". Clarified a bit more on the governor bit. On the Marshall bit - I'm open to wording suggestions, but it's not exactly a clear piece of evidence. Replace "is" with "was". Linked (Gods, the Connacht article is abyssmal!). Reworded a bit on the "evil counsellor" bit at the end... I generally don't wikilink publishers - it's never been asked for at FAC. If you really want it, I can... but.. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done a little further copyediting myself, and I'm now happy to promote- nice work. I do think this is something that would have a chance at FAC- there don't seem to be any glaring omissions or problems- but you're more experienced than I am in that regard, so your call! It makes a fine GA if nothing else. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Changing the surname...

See the sources at the end - they use the name Gray. Nor does the "coat of arms" file page give any indication that the coat of arms is in any way connected to John de Gray. Nor is the file page sourced at all. This is a featured article - every thing needs sources and that includes images. Nor do we need to link many common words. Please read WP:OVERLINK and see what it says about this sort of overlinking. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources using "Gray" - Handbook of British Chronology, Crosby The King's Bishop's, Vincent Peter des Roches, Warren King John, Turner King John, Huscroft Ruling England, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

Sources using "Grey" - Barlow Feudal Kingdom of England.

The majority of the sources use "Gray" which is why this article uses "Gray". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)