Talk:Josce de Dinan/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 16:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ludlow Castle

"... which survives in a loose corpus of Medieval literature known as the Matter of England". I don't think "Medieval" should be capitalised here should it?

Fixed, with apologies to the real article authors. It was my tinkering with the final paragraph that introduced this and the issue below (also addressed). EyeSerene^talk 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the "fitz" thing work? In this section we have "fitzJohn", "FitzWarin", and "fitz Warin", excluding the "Fitz Warin" included as a book title, which looks odd to me.
"While Josce de Dinan was absent from Ludlow, Walter de Lacy was able to take the castle". Do we know why de Dinan was absent? Did he and Sybil live in the castle? Also, the article switches several times between calling him "Josce" and Josce de Dinan". Consistently one or the other would be preferable.
"Josce laid siege to the castle but was unsuccessful in his attempt". His attempt to do what? Lay siege to the castle or to recover the castle? Presumably he was successful in setting up the siege, so the latter?
"Custody of Ludlow was contested not only by Stephen but also by Gilbert de Lacy, and his efforts to wrest the castle from Josce are the background to the medieval romance Fouke le Fitz Waryn". Are we talking about Gilbert de Lacy's efforts here?
"... during which Mortimer was seized by Josce while travelling". Who was doing the travelling, Mortimer or Josce?
"The romantic poem Fouke le Fitz Waryn, which survives in a loose corpus of Medieval literature known as the Matter of England ...". Calling it a romantic poem here seems inconsistent with the earlier claim that the 13th-century has not survived, and what we have is a prose version.

Clarified. EyeSerene^talk 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this it? Or are you looking to add more? I'm confused... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all of these. Fitz is not standardized. I prefer "fitzJohn" but you'll see "fitz John" "FitzJohn" and "Fitz John" used in the historical literature. It should be standardized except for the title of the romance - which is usually different than the names - why, I do not know except that literature studies uses different names often. Welcome to the world of medieval studies... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.