Talk:Hugh de Cressy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 16:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments - sourcing, etc, fine on initial inspection. Length is short and I think the article could be improved by moving a bit less slowly and assuming a little less knowledge on the part of the reader. I realise that much history from this period survives in fragments, but the article would read more fully, I think, if it was possible to avoid it coming across like that. For example, "In 1170, he was present at the coronation of Henry the Young King in June at Westminster, and during the Revolt of 1173–74 by King Henry's sons, Hugh was a partisan of the king. During the Revolt, he fought at the Battle of Fornham near Fornham St Martin in Suffolk" - could be "In June 1170, de Cressy attended the coronation of Henry the Young King at Westminster (Abbey? Cathedral? Somewhere else?). During the Revolt of 1173-4 (who revolted? was the a large revolt? - both details, that, while they are on the dedicated page, could be usefully repeated here) de Cressy took the side of the king (was he an important/infuential ally? was he active? etc.*) and fought at the Battle of Fornham near Fornham St Martin in Suffolk (was the king victorious? is this an important battle in the ending of the revolt?). Details like this could help the reader make the most of what information is presented here. Obviously no need to go over the top. [*I, who knows nothing about the revolt, was left a little confused that the young Henry was king despite the fact his father was alive. Anyway, I think we should be clear about what side he is on.]

No images at the moment. Is there something that could support this? Perhaps a coat of arms/armorial? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * too early for coats of arms for him - royalty hadn't really settled on it for themselves, much less had time to percolate down to the lower nobility - which is where Hugh's status was. I'll get some of these suggestions taken care of in the next few days... just wanted to let you know I'd seen it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added in some background - I usually try to avoid overloading the articles with too much background information - is there more you think is lacking? Let me know if there is more you think is missing, otherwise I think I've caught most of the above? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have some firm suggestions tomorrow when I get a chance (should be tomorrow), but I think there are further passages where the reader could get more out if they were supported by more context. Also, I notice there isn't a birth year, but is there no speculation about when he might have been born? How old he was when he entered service? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * His DNB article (which is the most complete "biography" extant) doesn't speculate, so I can't speculate... he could have entered service as young as 15 or as old as 30 ... it's hard to say, and without some historian speculating, we're really not able to. And thank you for any suggestions on where context is missing - I'm so well versed in this period that it's very hard to see where folks don't know things... which is why I like going through GA with articles - to get non-expert eyes on things. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I should say first that judging by the other aspects of the article, only this context issue is likely to be actionable. One more:
 * In 1180 he was in charge of Rouen,[9] being named constable of the Tower of Rouen.[4] and in 1184 he recruited mercenaries for royal service on a campaign in Poitou.
 * Is this to say that, by virtue of being made constable he was in charge of Rouen? Best also mention either that's in modern-day France (or Normandy) or in English-controlled France (I'm sure there's a link). " he recruited mercenaries" - would "he was responsible for hiring" or similar be better/clearer? "on a campaign" - is that in preparation for a campaign, or whilst on the campaign?
 * In addition, to those copy points, is there any way we could give a flavour of what it meant to be in charge of Rouen - is it the garrison/military or administrative? Or anything to give an indication of seniority?
 * I've tried to explicate some - but it's difficult as the sources are just not complete enough to know for certain ... Hugh's one of those shadowy figures that pops up from time to time but we don't know enough to know why/where/when/etc some things happened. We have no idea what "in charge of Rouen" meant beyond that he was the constable, which at the time was a somewhat fluid office. There isn't really a "seniority" system in this period - the information just isn't there. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't note above but both sets of changes have been considerable improvements. The sentence "in 1180" doesn't make clear that he is in charge of Rouen by virtue of being constable - it allows for the possibility that he was both in charge and constable. One possibility for clarifying that would be to inverse the clause order a little to put the constable before the "in charge".

More to follow. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "during the period 1186 and 1187" doesn't read right, either.
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had a qick look about what other information I might be able to find. Round, already cited, (at 491) appears to say that Hugh was in charge of Norwich Castle which doesn't seem to be mentioned (useful for GA). "The Military Household of the Norman Kings" by Prestwich could be used perhaps as a note to justify the use of royal charter signatories as an indication of status (not necessary for GA). I think the section referenced to Waugh could usefully be expanded for both clarity and context, since Waugh dedicates several sentences to it. It appears to have been important to Henry's career/life and so would merit certainly a little more mention (not GA). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * [On his deathbed] "at Rouen" - I suggest this would be clearer moved to the first sentence of the paragraph - even if it might mean tweaking the referencing,
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In 1175 along with Ranulf de Glanville, Hugh served as a royal justice in northern England,[3] part of the great eyre of 1176 that was commanded after the Council of Northampton What does it mean to "command" an eyre (is it something liked "established")? Also, if the eyre is of 1176 is it poorly named or was it preceded by Hugh being named a royal justice? Since "Council of Northampton" is a red-link, could we mention what sort of thing it is (depends what you do about "commanded" since that clarification might be enough)?
 * The king commanded/ordered/decreed/etc that they do an eyre. The two events are not exactly connected and somehow I was less clear here - I've sorted it out, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to rely on Round for any broad facts that aren't mentioned in the ODNB article. Round's article is almost 100 years ago - the fact that the ODNB article doesn't mention Norwich likely means that current thinking is that Hugh didn't have custody of Norwich. The ODNB says "marriage arranged for him by the king in 1174 to Margaret de Chesney, heir to Blythburgh, Suffolk, and hereditary claimant to the shrievalty of Norfolk and the custodianship of Norwich Castle" ... but does not state that Hugh ever had custody of the castle. Note that it does not appear that Hugh got the office of Sheriff of Norfolk either. The bit that is sourced to ROund is also confirmed by the ODNB article, I'm using Round because it expands a bit on the information - adding in the information on the fine, which isn't in Hugh's ODNB article - which does give the information that Margaret married Roger. If I ever write an article on Margaret (it's possible - I seem to be specializing in this little bit of obscure history - I wrote on his father in law and might as well keep working in this area) I'd go into more detail about Waugh's theories ... but for Hugh I think I've got the gist of what's needed without going off topic too greatly. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not relevant to GA status, but is it because of the time period that Hugh is "Hugh" and not "de Cressy" (or something else) throughout? Or is "Cressy" merely a descriptor? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He's right on the cusp of the time period where last names become last names instead of descriptions. If he was 100 years later, we'd call him "de Cressy" and 100 years earlier we'd be utterly comfortable using "Hugh"... but where he is .. it's a tossup. His sons took "de Cressy" so I could probably call him "de Cressy" but then I'd have to fidget with the "de" at the start of every sentence so I took the lazy way out and used "Hugh" instead. If he'd been "Hubert Walter" I'd definitely use Walter (and I did ...) but that's because it's so easy to do without complications. There are examples in his lifetime of folks shifting last names within their lifetimes and he didn't use one consistently, so it's safe enough to use "hugh". (I hope that made sense...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I consider everything above done or answered. THe sentence "He was rewarded with a marriage to an heiress for his service to the king, which included serving as a royal justice as well as acquiring mercenaries for the royal army." could now usefully expanded tot two or three sentences. Perhaps one about his marriage and being close to the king, and another about his royal service as a justice and in France. Then I'll run down the checklist and make sure I haven't missed anything out. Were you planning on ACR or FA? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, padded it a bit. I had not planned on anything past GA for him - there just isn't any information out there. I've managed to get people with a bit more data to FA (see Urse d'Abetot or Hygeberht) but this one isn't really quite to the amount for enough to flesh it out. We'd be spending more time on the background than on the subject, I'd think. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Full review:
 * 1) a) Prose: fine for GA. Those articles I did access (see above) showed verification and no copyright or plagiarism issue in each case.  b) fiction and list incorporation N/A; lead short but compliant in all necessary aspects with WP:LEAD; layout straightforward; words-to-watch no wording nor really opportunity for wording to fall under this guideline;
 * 2) Verifiability: In my opinion, a little overzealous with sentences like "Hugh died in 1189[1] around Easter[2] at Rouen.[4]" (I'm surprised sources 2 or 4 can't cover 1) but clearly compliant with policy - sources fine; no  original research
 * 3) a) Article remains short but has been increased to an acceptable standard. b) Clearly focussed.
 * 4) Neutral as far as I'm aware. No obvious red flags given the age of the subject nor political/religious affiliations. If anything the article would benefit from more statements of efficacy or success, but I realise these sources do not exist or are not currently accessible.
 * 5) Stable: yes.
 * 6) Regrettable that no supporting image can be found, but the criterion allows for "if possible". If an image of the castle at Rouen can be found, the article would benefit. I'm prepared to allow the article to pass without given the discussion above.

Will pass the article shortly (about an hour's time). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)