Talk:Hugh de Puiset/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugh de Puiset/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I holding this for a couple of simple reasons, listed below. I have also made som quite extensive edits to the article's prose, which was poor in places. Hopefully this is improved, but please check to make sure I haven't changed the meaning of anything.
 * Are "archdeacon of York" and "treasurer of York" likely to have articles? If they are then fine, if not then they probably shouldn't be redlinked.
 * It depends on how quickly you want them to have articles. Eventually, yes, they will. How quickly that will happen is anyone's guess. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, leave them linked. Was just a little concerned with overlinking, but as long as someone in the know (i.e. you) seriously believes these will have articles then let them stay.


 * "Hugh only obtained consecration by making a personal visit to Rome" - Why, because he was too young?
 * No, because Murdac refused to confirm the election, and his consecration could only happen if someone higher up in the heirarchy overruled the Archbishop of York. (i.e. the pope or one of his legates). Expanded this a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good.


 * "He was, however, present with Roger de Pont L'Evêque" - Was this after Becket's death?
 * Before. Clarifying that point. It was the coronation of the Young King that pushed Becket to excommunicate some bishops who complained to King Henry II who then supposedly said the famous "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" phrase which sent folks off to kill Becket. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You know I actually knew that from watching David Starkey but had forgotten. Well clarified.


 * "Hugh either connived at the invasion or helped the rebels and the Scottish king" - how/why?
 * Clarified a bit from another source. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, but I changed two of the repeated "the bishop"s into "Hugh" for improved reading.


 * So was he Earl of Northumbria? Is this not a more important position than Bishop of Durham? Why is he not mentioned at Earl of Northumbria?
 * Actually, given the fact that Durham had some important privileges, Durham was probably more important. Not sure why he wasn't mentioned at the Earl article, he is now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough - is there some sort of succession box that would work for this (not essential, I just like succession boxes)? Should the bluish box with the sherriff and justicar titles also include earl of northumbria?
 * Heh. I didn't want the offical box but wasn't going to edit war to keep it out. The problem with succession boxes is... this was a one off grant. He didn't inherit the earldom, he bought it. When he died, it didn't go to his heirs, it reverted to the king. I suppose there are earldom boxes and succession boxes for this, but I don't know about them. (I tend to stick to ecclesiastical matters). Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Longchamp arrested Hugh for overstepping his authority and made him surrender his castle, his earldom and hostages." - What hostages and how did he overstep his authority?
 * I don't know who the hostages are. They don't say what exactly Hugh did, beyond be an enemy of Longchamp's. I've added that in, but that's about all I can do at the moment.
 * I didn't mean their names specifically, its just that that is the first time the hostages are mentioned and its a bit confusing to a modern reader. I assume that the handing over of hostages is a medieval thing (I remember reading about it in the Anglo-Scottish Wars a lot), but to a modern reader its not totally clear.
 * Hm. I'll keep this one in mind as I expand the article. (i'm actually on the road, so somewhat limited on source materials). Hostages was quite a medieval thing, but I'd want to have better sources available before I expanded on that bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Once the above questions are addressed then this article can pass as GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, I totally missed the review in the watchlist spam. These don't look too difficult, and thank you very very much for a copyedit. I know my writing is marginal at best! Thankfully, there are very nice people (like you) who help it out. Should be able to take care of most of this this afternoon. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I've addressed most of these. I'm a bit hampered by the fact I'm still waiting on getting a copy of the published biography of him, so some details just aren't available just yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well given that you didn't have a published biography you've done an excellent job. I've replaied to the above and some of the suggestions may require edits to the article (and it could do with another copyedit), but I see nothing that should hold up this GA nomination. Congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)