Talk:William Pantulf/GA1

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 09:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Info box
 * Link and capitalise Baron
 * Not correct to capitalize here - it's not a proper name. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Link Anglo-Norman
 * Linked Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of Parent(s), I'd put Mother as Beatrice, and then have Father as Unknown
 * Cannot be done - the infobox only seems to allow the heading "parent". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You could have other relations as including his sister
 * His sister is just a name - we don't know who, if anyone, she married. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Link Anglo-Norman
 * Done Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Link and capitalise Baron
 * Did Baron of Wem instead. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Link Wem
 * See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Link vassal
 * Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Lead could be a bit more encompassing and with a bit more detail
 * I'm open to suggestions on what to include.
 * Just a take two or three points from the rest of the article and include it in the lead so it's more broad in it's summary. —  ₳aron  12:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Background and family
 * His family had been resident there since at least around 1030 → His family had lived there since around 1030
 * Went with "His family had lived there since at least around 1030.." as it is possible that the family was there before 1030. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Link vassals
 * No need to link it again when I've linked it in the lead. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you have to link the first time in the lead for things, too. The lead is just a summary. What if someone skips the lead? —  ₳aron  12:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * After the Conquest
 * Link Sussex and Shropshire
 * Shropshire was linked in the preceeding sentence. Sussex linked. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Capitalised Hundred
 * Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * and are considered → and were considered
 * No. Are is correct here as it is a historical judgment currently. It's a judgment that came after the actual events - in fact around 1960 or so. Saying "were" would imply that it was considered a barony at the time of Pantulf's life, which it probably wasn't. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * along with King → along with the king,
 * no. the full sentence is "Pantulf was present at the consecration of the church at Bec Abbey on 23 October 1077, along with King William the Conqueror of England." King is a title here and is properly capitalized. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * temporarily because he → temporarily when he
 * No, he lost his lands because he was suspected of the murder. It's perfectly acceptable as written. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * of the abbot. → What abbot?
 * "Pantulf sought refuge at the Abbey of Saint-Evroul in Normandy while he was under suspicion; he and his family were under the protection of the abbot." - abbot of Saint-Evroul. My source doesn't give the abbot's name, or I would have used it. Nor do I have a list of the abbots of that monastery, unfortunately, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Death and legacy
 * There's no need to have the final sentence as a second paragraph, just make this section one paragraph instead of breaking it up and splitting it.
 * Uh, it's not one sentence. There are three sentences in the last paragraph. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, a one line paragraph then. It makes no sense to keep it so fragmented. —  ₳aron  12:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

On hold for 7 days. — ₳aron  16:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Outcome
 * I made a few changes. Passing. —  ₳aron  13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)