Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/William of Wrotham

The following discussion 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William of Wrotham[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

Featured article candidates/William of Wrotham/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I would like some military-type eyes on things, as well as more people's eyes on any missing context or problems with the prose. He's destined for FAC shortly. Has had a copyedit, but suggestions always welcomed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I did my thing, but found nothing to do. Good to see you at A-class! - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I've been wanting to see this article at A- or FA-class for a while. Thoughts:

"Little is known of the background of William or his family" - I might simplify that to "Little is known of William's background or family".
"£1100" - "£1,000"?
"As part of his work with the stannaries, he became the first warden of Lydford Castle after it was constructed in the 1190s.[6][a] He was involved in a dispute in 1199 with another official, Hugh Bardulf, over the stannaries. In 1200 William lost his office as sheriff and temporarily lost control of the stannaries. " - stannaries in three successive sentences. I might suggest "As part of his administrative work, William became the first warden of Lydford Castle following its construction in the 1190s. In 1199 he was involved in a dispute over the stannaries another official, Hugh Bardulf, temporarily losing control of them - along with his office as sheriff - in 1200."
The second paragraph of "royal service" uses "William" to trigger five sentences in a row; maybe replace with "he" a couple of times for some variation?
"directing the efforts of the Cinque Ports in naval affairs and the seaports of south-western England" - I can't parse this. Was he distinctly directing the Cinque Ports and the seaports of south-western England, or..?

Otherwise, perfect as always :). Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done the first, the second - I usually go with no commas in thousand-level numbers. Took your suggestion on the third. Varied that second paragraph some. On the last ... changed to "In late 1213 William was directing the efforts of the seaports of south-western England as well as the Cinque Ports in naval affairs." .. he was directing both groups - which are distinct. Does that help? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmn. What about "The seaports of south-western England and the Cinque Ports in naval affairs"? A bit tighter. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Took that. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comments by auntieruth55[edit]

Lovely article. I too have some prose questions, plus a few content questions.

William's main administrative work was naval. He was in charge of the royal fleet in the south of England in 1205, and was one of those responsible for the development of Portsmouth as a naval dockyard. ... Could this be streamlined? Although William had a variety of administrative roles, his primary contribution ... or William had particular administrative charge of the royal fleet in the south of England in 1205....seems like the intro sentence is repetitive.
William's brother Richard was named as his deputy in William's deputy or his father's?
why was it important that no ships sailed without royal permission? (taxes, defense)
why was the award of churches important (revenue for William?)
what made William "evil" or was it simply his association with John? Do we know why he participated in the baronial rebellion?
Oh, and Portsmouth is linked twice....
Again, nice job! :) auntieruth (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught to try to use topic sentences, especially when introducing a major change in direction such as the first point. I've added a clarifying "William's" in the bit about his brother. As for why it was important - none of the sources I have directly state why - at least in connection with William. Traditionally the English kings restricted movement to and from the continent - this remained true until Elizabethan times. There were many reasons - but not so much taxes or defense as just plain old control. Added an explanatory footnote on the church issue. As to what made William "evil" - we don't know why Roger of Wendover selected some of the "evil councillors" - it was probably just them being associated with John. Others are pretty easy to see as "evil" from their actions - William doesn't appear to have been one of that type. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've seen these comments and hope to get to them in the next few days... I should have known that when I put something up for assessment that life outside Wikipedia would go bonkers... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel any better, noticing this change on my watchlist is part of the first editing I've been able to do in 2-3 days. No pressure; do what you have to do in meatspace :). Ironholds (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New: additional comments pending support: In May 1216 William was offered a safe conduct by the king, which noted that William had fled overseas. How about In May 1216, the king offered W a safe conduct, which noted that William had fled overseas.

Otherwise: GREAT! auntieruth (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, interesting article. Just a couple of minor comments/suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is there a reference for this sentence: "He continued as Lord Warden of the Stannaries until 1215"?
in the References section, for the Rose work in Hill's book, is there a page range that could be added for the chapter?
"File:050715 140 lydford castle.jpg": the image description page probably needs a freedom of panorama licence as well as what is also there. You can find information about this here: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, until 1215 has a source - the ODNB. Added. Page range for Rose's chapter added. Template added. If someone at FAC screams about it being there, I'm throwing YOU to the wolves... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. A first rate article. A few queries.

"Although a 13th-century source says that William held a royal office under King Henry II of England (reigned 1154–1189), the first contemporary reference to William is in 1197". "Although" seems to suggest that the Hundred Rolls statement is not reliable. Is this intended?
advisors is usually spelled advisers in BrEng.
Cite 3 in the lead seems unnecessary when the quotes are cited below.
"In 1197 he granted William a manor at Sutton-at-Hone, Kent, which was supposed to become a hospital, but instead eventually became a preceptory for the Knights Hospitaller." I found this a bit confusing. It seems to imply that it was intended to become a hospital when William acquired it, but the source states that this was later.
"The reason for the loss of these offices is unclear.[7] He continued as Lord Warden of the Stannaries" "Restored" rather than "continued"?
I am not sure whether "naval commander" is the right expression for someone who probably never commanded at sea.
"William supported John, and remained in England." No change needed, but did opponents generally leave England?
Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the intent of the ODNB is pretty clear that they think the reference is a bit dodgy. I haven't looked at the Hundred Rolls entry that's referenced, but my guess is it's a reference to Wrotham having held the office/land by some later office/landholder who may or may not have known a thing. Golding states that it's specifically a "late-13th century" source - which would put it at least 100 years after the fact. Advisers now, not a yankeeism. I'm going to leave the cite in the lead, my understanding is that quotes should always be cited wherever they occur. I've added in "later" to the hospital/preceptory sentence - which should resolve the issue. on the stannaries office - how is "After restoration to office, he remained as Lord Warden of the Stannaries until 1215." instead? On commander - Golding states "command of the fleet of the Cinque Ports. Thereafter he had, until 1215, effective charge of John's naval affairs" - I'm open to other phrasing ... but Golding specifically gives him command of a fleet there. Some opponents did - especially ecclesiastical ones - see Geoffrey (archbishop of York) for one example. During the interdict many bishops left the country. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and a couple of suggestions. I would add "late" to 13th century in lead as well as in main text. "commander of King John's navy" would avoid expression "naval commander", which sounds wrong to me, Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should get to these in the next few days... It's been a wild couple of weeks in RL... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me. Ironholds (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like we have a consensus to promote. Any repachages? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:05, 20 December 2014 (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.