Talk:Peter, Abbot of Vale Royal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 20:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Detailed comments

 * To follow over the next few days. Eric   Corbett  20:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking on one of mine, I'm looking forward to it. You were recommended to me as a go-to guy for reviews, but before I'd got around to it, you'd picked this up—neatly spiking my guns :D anyway, thanks again!  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates
 * I tend to be drawn to British topics, and your nomination jumped out at me. However it pans out, I can promise you a fair review. Eric   Corbett  18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "However it pans out" does sound mildly ominous :)    >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 19:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Watching this page to see Eric Corbett GA review in action. Alex Shih (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ...If John McClane did GARs... ;)    >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 21:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography
 * Midmer, R. (1979) doesn't appear to have been used as a source.
 * No, atm—but can we stand by on this for a bit, as I put it in last night (I think) and it was meant to have some relevance—so I've got to go through it again and find out what exactly I'd found!
 * Sure, there's no hurry. Eric   Corbett  18:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Found it—describing the ledger.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 19:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Images
 * It's a bit of a slab of text at the moment. Why not include File:Vale royal abbey.jpg for instance, to break it up a bit?
 * Yeeas—totally agree about the wall of text; the only reason I haven't personally used that image in any of my Vale Royal articles is that—to my understanding—everything one sees in that view is "modern" (18th/19th C, I think, and def. not 15th!), and that although the building does contain medieval elements, they're all inside (the great hall, IIRC. See what i mean? On the other hand, I suppose a caption acknowledging this...?
 * Yes, I see what you mean. I can't help thinking that there must be something appropriate though. Eric   Corbett  18:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thikning about it though, maybe; not so much the building itself, but the area (as it's quite a broad view)—there are lots of sources describing how forested and wild the site of the abbey was, so perhaps a caption like "Today a country house, in AP's day this was forest and etc."? After all: it is still the same site, gotta give it that.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Eric   Corbett  22:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've given that a go—see what you think.
 * I think that with your caption that works fine. Eric   Corbett  14:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Career
 * I'm not sure that Career is the best choice of name for this section. Perhaps Ecclesiastical career?
 * Agree; added.
 * "It may well have been he, around 1338, who authored—or at least began— the chronicle known as the Ledger of Vale Royal Abbey." Why is only Vale Royal Abbey in italics? Isn't the correct name The Ledger Book of Vale Royal Abbey anyway?
 * Good point. Although they mostly call it "The Ledger Book of Vale Royal," I think.
 * "Abbot Peter was also responsible for moving Vale Royal in 1330". He didn't actually physically move Vale Royal, or cause it to be physically moved did he? Were the then buildings dismantled and re-erected on some other site? Or were they abandoned and the building work began anew?
 * No, it was re-sited.
 * "The Abbot reported in 1336 that neither the vaults, the roof or the windows of the church had yet been finished ..." Neither refers to two things, not three as here.
 * Done.
 * "... which had been arisen during the abbacy of Peter's predecessor". Been arisen?
 * D'oh!
 * "Walter of Hereford had managed not only to get Edward II to confirm his father's grant to them". Does the them here refer to the abbey? If so, considering the abbey to be plural doesn't really work.
 * Agree, singularly singular.
 * "This may well be a reflection on the original grant ..." It's unclear what this actually refers to.
 * Clarified now?
 * "Abbot Peter was sued by a monk from Shrewsbury Abbey for the sum of 500 marks." It seems odd that he would be sued by a monk rather than the abbot.
 * Quite. On a closer reading of the source, the writ was delivered to AP by a monk; but as a messenger of course, rather than a claimant :)
 * "Theobald Walter had claimed that his ancestors had been granted it by King Richard I".Need to explain who Theobald Walter was.
 * "Theobald Butler, Walter's heir, continued to press the claim." The chronology is a little confusing. Why has Walter's heir been inserted into the story here?
 * Yes, bloody complicated this bit—I think it's clarified now though?
 * Cheers,, see what you thikn with these changes. Cheers!  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Feud with the villagers of Darnhall Death See also
 * "... as its the grants of land ..." Obviously something wrong with this.
 * lost "the."
 * "For example, the abbey's own Ledge-possibly the Abbot's own work ... Should this be Ledger? Is it really necessary to repeat that Abbot Peter may have been the author of the Ledger?
 * Yes, and nope, rm dup.
 * "... paying the abbot customs and services". Not sure what that means. Why lower-case abbot?
 * Added a note explaining what this meant in feudalism; Upped the abbot.
 * "... and much of his harvest, were burnt down. You don't "burn down" a harvest. Similarly, you don't "burn down" livestock.
 * Thanks: done.
 * "De Cheyneston had already been a monk at the abbey". Strange choice of tense, not sure what it's trying to say.
 * ...not sure either; removed and tightened
 * Why link twice to the Dispute between Darnhall and Vale Royal Abbey article? (Once here and once in the Feud section.)
 * Because I wrote that one too wanted to give it an extra plug...?! Good spot, lost the see also.
 * Bit better,, now...?  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Much better now I think. I'll have another read through later, and a random check of your sources, and if that's OK then we'll be done. Eric   Corbett  16:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not as painful as I expected . No rush of course, Friday night, etc :) cheers!  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Painful? Why did you expect painful? Anway, I'll get back to the review later this evening. Eric   Corbett  17:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, no reason at all :) Cheers!  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 19:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

References
 * There's a problem with ref #22. Is Petit-Dutaillis 1996 or 2013?
 * The version of Platt (1994) I've found online has the information it's used to attribute (Edward's conscription of the masons and so on) on page 69. Are you sure that page 65 is correct?
 * Thanks,, I've fixed Petit-Dutaillis (1996); but it's most odd about the Platt. "My" version is definitely at page 65-does that open ok for you to see it? Cheers,  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 10:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, that all seems fine now. Eric   Corbett  10:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Outstanding issues
 * Even the Abbey's own chronicler," said historian Peter Coss "cast some doubt on the justice" of the grant. There's an ending quotation mark after chronicler, but where does the quotation start?
 * Although the Shrewsbury monk's clam was for eight years' rents ... Haven't we already established that it wasn't the monk making the claim?
 * Heh, eyes like a hawk! Thanks —inserted opening quotation mark, and removed "monk"="Shrewsbury's claim."  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 18:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they appear to have been a perennial condition of penury ... Should that be in a perennial condition of penury? I'd prefer state to condition, but that's up to you.
 * I am, as they say, easy,, and have inserted the stray "in" and stated the condition, as it were.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 18:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I think we're done here now. Congratulations. Eric   Corbett  18:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)