Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter de Coutances/archive1
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 SandyGeorgia 17:32, 12 December 2010 [1].
Walter de Coutances[edit]
Walter de Coutances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because... although for a brief time, Walter was one of the big movers and shakers in Western Europe, he never seems to have had very good PR flacks, and he's largely forgotten today. His main claim to current fame is that it was his manor of Andali that Richard I of England "acquired" to build Château Gaillard. No secret children lurking in Walter's background though! As is usual, he's had a thorough copyedit by Malleus, and a peer review back in February. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images - I appreciate a photo of the subject is not easy, however I am not convinced File:Vue_generale_de_la_cathedrale_de_Rouen.jpg is the best substitute in an infobox, as Bishop, would he have not been awarded arms, which may better represent him? His place of internment is known, and stated in the article, why is an image of this not provided? He does seem to have been a mover and shaker, and while there may be little or no imagery of him, pictures of those with whom he consorted are in ample supply, as are the places he was based, and I would encourage the text to be broken up with such imagery. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, i have not seen a free-use image of his tomb. Tombs are not always easy to photograph, as the churches sometimes restrict photography. I have never been to his tomb, so I cannot take a photograph of it nor do I know the status of photography there. He also died in the early 13th century, arms would not necessarily have been awarded to him. And while I appreciate that you may favor images to break up text, I'm not in favor of just inserting random images of kings and such in order to have illustrations either. Images aren't a requirement for FA status, just that any that are used are appropriately licensed and used. That said, if you have concrete suggestions, I'm open to them, but that might be best on the article's talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am far from happy with the use of the image of a cathedral in the in the infobox, but you have correctly stated this is within policy Fasach Nua (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Walter, what a lovely nave you have. LOL --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't have that much to do with this FAC, but I agree that the use of buildings in the infobox is confusing. Since the picture in the infobox is the most eye-catching thing, and the first thing you look at, I first thought the article was about the building. How about keeping the infobox image-free, and moving the image further down in the article? P. S. Burton (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Walter, what a lovely nave you have. LOL --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am far from happy with the use of the image of a cathedral in the in the infobox, but you have correctly stated this is within policy Fasach Nua (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and nitpicks A slippery lot, these English kings. I put a link to justiciar in the lead, and made a couple of minuscule tweaks. Just a few queries follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
absolved Richard for — absolved Richard from?Coutances had befriended him — lots of Coutances in these two sentences, perhaps he had been befriended by him or similarLink for constable?- Although "absolved" would usually be followed by "from", in this case I think "for" is correct. The ODNB also uses "for" in its correspending description: "Following Henry II's death the archbishop absolved Richard at Sées for his conduct toward his father and invested him with the duchy of Normandy at Rouen".
- Rewritten as "Although the medieval chronicler and churchman Gerald of Wales related that his friend Coutances was descended from Trojan heroes who escaped the Sack of Troy and ended up in Cornwall, that was a flattering invention on Gerald's part". Ealdgyth may of course prefer some other wording. Malleus Fatuorum 13:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: Cit. 35: "Loyn" - "Lyon" in sources. Very limited spotchecking reveals no problems. All sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with minor nitpicks. I peer reviewed the article in February. Very thorough and covers the topic well, while easy for a non-specialist to follow. I have not looked at sourcing. I am inclined to agree that the image in the infobox may not be the best, although I have no objections to it at all.
- "to use all the administrative machinery of Normandy to drive Arnulf from his diocese": This is not entirely clear: how did he use the administrative machinery and which aspects of the administration?
- "On his return to England Coutances was given custody of the abbeys of Wilton and Ramsey, which were in royal custody pending election of new abbots" Repetition of custody.
- "in the name of the king, who had the regalian right to that income" Should it not be regalian rights as there was more than one abbey?
- "In 1180 Coutances was again sent to France by the king, on another diplomatic mission." Is it necessary to have "again" and "another" in the same sentence?
- "In the later part of 1186, after the death of King Henry's son Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany, King Philip II of France demanded..." It took a couple of goes to work this one out as at first I thought that there were a few people: his son, Geoffrey, the Duke of Brittany and Phillip. Could it be made clearer? Or is it just me?
- Clarified.
- "took the cross": Could this be linked or put in quotation marks so it is clear it is a technical term?
- "In 1189 Coutances held an ecclesiastical synod that legislated, among other things, that the clergy should not hold secular offices, even though Coutances himself had held and continued to hold secular office." Repetition of secular office and maybe cut a "that" from the start of the sentence as it effectively reads "that legislated that".
- Nitpick: "Sitting on the commisson with Coutances were..." Only Hubert Walter has a comma between his name and title. Unless this is because he has no "de" or "of" in his name, should he not be the same as the others?
- The council also took oaths of fealty": To whom? --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 23:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport -pending (straightforward) resolution of query belowreading though and looking ok. queries follow:Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During 1191 the citizens of the city of London managed to acquire from Coutances and Prince John the recognition that the city was self-governing - they acquired the status of self-government? I don't get what is going on here...- I've added to that so now the section reads "During 1191 the citizens of the city of London managed to acquire from Coutances and Prince John the recognition that the city was self-governing, something they had been attempting to secure for a number of years. This however, was not the grant of a complete charter of liberties, which did not occur until 1199." which hopefully helps make it more understandable, without bogging down the narrative with extraneous details about the complex history of London's attempts to secure self-government. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.