Talk:Gilbert Foliot/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I'll be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

Regarding Lead
Lead is excellent.

Regarding Early life

 * "Foliot was probably the son of Robert Foliot, who was the steward of the earl of Huntingdon, David, who was the son of the king of Scotland, and Robert's wife Agnes, sister of Robert de Chesney who was Bishop of Lincoln." This confuses me and perhaps it's my ignorance of 12th century ecclesiastical history, but you seem to be saying that Foliot was probably the son of Robert Foliot, David and Robert's wife, Agnes.  It doesn't seem clear to me.
 * You also wikilink Robert Foliot a little later in the paragraph, is this a different Foliot than his probable father? Context would say yes.
 * You devote a large portion of this section to the dispute over the legitimacy of Matilda's claim to the throne. This topic does not appear to be consistent with the subject of his early life.  Since most of the debate on this issue occured at the Second Lateran Council in 1139, when he was abbot of Gloucester perhaps this subject would best fit in the next section.  Your thoughts?  H1nkles (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Abbot

 * I note that you have much more on the subject of the conflict between Matilda and Stephen here as well. I fear you may be straying a bit from summary style.  Again I welcome your thoughts on this observation.  H1nkles (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually get dinged for not giving enough context.. LOL. He's going to FAC, we'll see what happens in PR and FAC. Usually there isn't an issue with too much detail at FAC, since you're trying to make sure even the most ignorant readers can figure out what's up. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes this comment is very subjective. I certainly wouldn't hold it against anyone to go into too much detail. :)  H1nkles (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Bishop of Hereford

 * Check this sentence, "Traditionally, the see of Canterbury was held by a monk, at least since the replacement of Stigand by Lanfranc in 1170...." The reference is to the death of Theobold in 1160.  How could the tradition of monks ascending to the see of Canterbury be relevant if it started ten years after Theobold's death?  Am I misinterpreting or misunderstanding something?  Also Stigand died in 1072, do you mean 1070 rather than 1170?  H1nkles (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. Typo fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Bishop of London
This section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Conflict with Becket

 * You indicate a couple of times (the Matilde vs. Stephen conflict and now the issue between the king and Beckett) where Foliot starts on one side and then seems to inexplicably switch sides. Is there any information on his motives for completely changing sides?  H1nkles (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * None that I can lay hands on. I do not yet own a copy of his letters (I'm not sure they've been translated from the Latin, and my meagre Latin has long since gone away...) so any motives would be in there. Gilbert's not yet had a full scale biography, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Becket's exile
This section is fine, well written and cogent. H1nkles (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Becket's death
Also a good section. H1nkles (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding writings
Fine. H1nkles (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Death and legacy

 * The balance of this article is so detailed is there nothing more on the legacy of this many? Did he enact any lasting reforms within the church?  If there is nothing then so be it.  H1nkles (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He actually did not manage to reform anything. His main legacy is his behavior with Becket. He wasn't a writer, except of his letters. He didn't reach a position where he could carry through huge reforms, and he was basically pretty conservative in his thinking. He's mainly famous as Becket's ecclesiastical bugbear, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

 * Links all check out.
 * Offline sources accepted in good faith. H1nkles (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Over all review
This article goes way beyond GA. I'll pass it with ease. No conflicts with GA criteria. Well done and I look forward to seeing it at FAC at some point. H1nkles (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It shows I normally write for FAC, huh? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as a novice editor myself, reviewing GACs really helps me in my editing. I have my first article up at FAC right now and upon reading this article I want to go back and revamp it all over again.  H1nkles (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)