Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William of Wrotham/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

William of Wrotham[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an obscure English cleric and royal administrator, who was heavily involved in naval affairs in the reign of King John. Although he was called one of John's "evil counsellors" by Roger of Wendover, it doesn't really appear to have been the case. He never was criticized for extortion or anything, and appears to have been a good administrator and official. It's a short article, but he's actually more important than the length of the biography would imply - he had a hand in not only naval affairs, but tin mining also. Has had a copyedit from both Eric and John, and both a GA and A-class review, so it should be in decent shape with prose. I've plumbed every source possible, I believe, so he's comprehensive. Although I'm competing in the Wikicup, this is not an Wikicup eligible nomination - all the work was completed prior to this year. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Is there some reason "c." (for "circa") is in italics? MOS:DATE doesn't require that, and I'm unfamiliar with that style. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I most often see it italicised in my sources, mainly. And it was pounded into my head in classes that it was. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it's a fairly familiar style to me, too. I think the MOS to follow here is probably MOS:FOREIGN, since that's what Circa is: it notes that one should "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not current in English". I don't really see people use "circa" in the 21st century with any of the frequency that they might use the words provided as examples of common loanwords, so I think we can probably call it "not current" and the italicising is fine. Ironholds (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking around the MOS archives, it looks like it comes up from time to time, and real-world usage and guidleines seemed to be mixed. I notice MOS:YEAR, though, says to use "the spaced, unitalicised form". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS#Circa: "To indicate approximately, the abbreviation c. (followed by a space and not italicized) is preferred over circa, ca., or approx. The template c. may be used." Rationalobserver (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Support.

  • I think we need a little more explanation of "evil advisers"; in the body you place this in the paragraph about the conflict with Innocent, but you don't actually associate it. Looking at Roger's text, I think you can at least include the "at this time" description, and you could also characterize them as giving the advice John wanted to hear, which was Roger's point.
    • Added a bit from secondary sources - Roger's not someone I want to interpret without a modern historian to hold my hand (he's very problematic as a historical source). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A separate point: I've always heard this phrase as "evil counsellor"; which a quick Google search seems to confirm is the usual form. If you're going to put it in quotes, any reason not to use that form?
    • I'm quoting from the ODNB article on William - Golding says "named by Roger of Wendover as one of John's ‘evil advisers’ who supported" Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sentences quite near each other end with "... is unclear"; can one of them be rephrased?
  • "He was jointly placed in charge of the mints of London and Canterbury in 1205, along with Reginald de Cornhill, with whom he also shared the collection of the tax of a fifteenth on merchants, a post the two had held since 1202". I think this needs rephrasing: "a post" doesn't have a real referent -- it means the post of collector of the fifteenth tax, but there's no actual noun as the sentence stands. You could fix it with "... with whom he also shared the post of collector of the tax ...", but that's a bit clumsy.
    • I agree the original isn't ideal ... but it's pretty common to phrase things that way in historical writing... maybe "shared the office of collecting the tax"? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "vacant ecclesiastical offices": I assume these were vacant as a result of John's dispute with Innocent? If so I think a few words of context would be good.
    • Not in these cases - they were just vacant for a short while before the king and/or cathedral chapters got around to appointing someone new. It was pretty normal for someone to be appointed to collect the revenues during these situations. None of William's appointments lasted that long, and all except Whitby occurred before the interdict. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Annals of Dunstable ascribe to John a desire to oppress the Cinque Ports": what does this mean? If the annals are unclear we can't be more specific, but overseeing naval preparations doesn't seem closely connected to any planned oppression of the towns.
    • It does not get clearer than that ... my source says "According to the Annals of Dunstablethe king 'took occasion to oppress the men of the Cinque Ports with great and heavy afflictions'." and Powell cites Norgate's bio of John. Because of how Golding phrases things, I've chosen to attribute it rather than state it as fact. Neither bio of John mentions any such reason or anything about exactions on the Cinque Ports. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In mid-1217, he rejoined the royalist cause": suggest mentioning that John was dead by this time, since many readers won't recall the date of John's death mentioned further up.
  • Maddicott refers to an article on Lydford Castle by A.D. Saunders in Medieval Archaeology, which mentions Wrotham a few times; it's available online, or I can send you a copy if you like. I haven't looked through it in detail to see if anything there is not included, so you may have already read and discarded this.

-- Sources are sound. I checked one for close paraphrasing (it was fine) but that probably doesn't count as a spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love the article - I tried to access it and it failed for some reason. I'll get to the others in the next little while. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it - it's mostly information already in the article - the only bits that aren't are some really detailed descriptions of his actions with regards to the stannaries - I'm inclined to think we don't need the details of how William set up the payments of the miners and when the miners needed to pay what. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sent; let me know if you don't get it (I have two different emails for you and am not sure which is more current). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes look fine to me. I've supported above; nice work, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – A scholarly and highly readable article, as we have come to expect from this source. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. In passing, "ancestor" in the lead looks a trifle odd for something incorporeal, and I wonder if "forerunner" might read more naturally. Perhaps not, and that's my only suggestion; otherwise nothing but praise. Tim riley talk 17:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Changed "ancestor" to "forerunner" as you suggested - I think that's a better word choice, so thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley Miles[edit]

  • I commented on this first rate article at A class, and I have a few more minor points.
  • "From 1197 William was responsible for Geoffrey's lands at Lydford, Devon". "responsible for" is a bit vague. ODNB says "accounted for". Does this mean accounted to the King for the knight's fee due on the estate? If so, I think it would be better to says so.
    • Changed to "From 1197 William was responsible for the collection of revenues from Geoffrey's lands.." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ships dispatched to the coasts in 1204". "coasts" sounds a bit odd to me in this context. South coast or coastal ports?
    • They were guarding the coasts, not so much the ports (as they were also guarding against landings away from the ports ala the Conqueror). Warren just says "dispersed around the coasts in 1204." ... no further clarity on which coasts of England were meant. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's nit-picking, but coasts still sounds wrong to me. I think you can say "the south and west coasts", but they are part of the coast of England and if you are not specifying which area it should be "the English coast". How about "dispatched to guard the English coast"?
  • In the legacy section you say that Roger of Wendover's account is regarded by modern historians as unreliable, so citing his description of William as an "evil adviser" in the lead, without qualification, seems to me a bit misleading.
    • Now reads "Known to a contemporary chronicler as one of John's "evil advisers"..." It's not that Roger is unreliable on Wrotham being an advisor - it's that Roger's anecdotes and edifying stories are ... suspect. When he's not giving amusing and interesting tidbits (like Matthew Paris), he's reasonably reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reviews along the way! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. I made no edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I did stop by wearing my coord hat, with the intention of checking over before promotion, but decided I wanted to tweak the wording a bit. While I don't think that necessarily means I need to recuse, I think I can afford to given we again have three active coords at FAC...

  • Prose and readability fine by me now (pls let me know if you disagree with my copyediting).
  • Not an expert on the period, but content appears as comprehensive as can be expected.
  • I note that Nikki reviewed the image earlier.
  • Reviewed sources for formatting (Mike attested to reliability above) and no issues leapt out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I thought I supported this before, but perhaps that was at A-class review. Anyway, it's wonderful. Clear, concise, despite the incredible vagaries of medieval sources your historians had to use (I agree with Ian's comment above). In this lead bit the first contemporary reference to William is in 1197 , I'd change the is to appears....other than that I found nothing. auntieruth (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_of_Wrotham/archive1&oldid=1138475731"