Talk:William de St-Calais

Survey
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.


 * Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


 * If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


 * Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominator on the road
I'm on the road and may or may not be able to access the internet reliably. Figured I should let folks know in case the article gets reviewed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 12, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass

The article is well written. There were a few very minor comma and grammar problems that I fixed myself. The article is well sourced and everything seems to be easily verifiable. It is thorough and covers all aspects of his life with out any POV problems. The article seems stable. All the images relate to the text around them and are from the commons, so there are no copyright/rationale/etc issues. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. - Nikki  311  05:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Post-peer review comments
I have read through the article again, fixing a few minor problems as I went. The article has changed considerably from when I reviewed it at PR, and I see that many of my suggestions have been incorporated. I have a few remaining points:-
 * Early Life: When you say "As abbot, he only appears...", I assume that you mean he is only "mentioned in records". done
 * Work for William the Conqueror
 * I don't think the word "signor" exists in the sense that you mean it, i.e. someone who has signed a document. Try "signatory".
 * Brain fart moment when I wrote it... that was the word I was trying for. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although in most of the article you have successfully dealt with the issue of separately identifying all the Williams, the problem returns in this section, when St-Calais is referred to several times as "William".
 * Caught them here... Williams breed like rabbits, apperantly. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebellion: I think the "when" after 1088 is superfluous, otherwise the sentence becomes ungrammatical and meaningless done
 * Trial: I think a "not" is missing in "his fellow bishops did (not) believe him". Also, is the redlink really necessary?
 * Put in the missing "not", I need to write the article on the tractae. I now have three journal articles discussing how important the thing is ... I guess that means it's important! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Return to favour: I'm still troubled by the lower case "archbishop of Canterbury". Surely, the title of the office is "Archbishop of Canterbury" and this justifies the capitalization? It looks so wrong, otherwise.
 * Couldn't find it the first time through, got it (I hope) this time. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Diocesan affairs: I recommend you delete the word "unfortunately" from the beginning of the fourth sentence, otherwise it sounds like opinion. done
 * Death and legacy: That clumsy (and now incoherent) formation "...asking the knight where was one his servants was". Why not make it: "asking the knight the whereabouts of one of his servants".
 * That works. Editing while on sinus pills does sometimes lead to incoeherent phrasing... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When you have fixed these, I would love to do a general copyedit, as I several times came across sentences or phrases that I thought could be worded better. I'll only do this, though, if you want me to. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! Time for you to play "remove all those words Eald insists on putting in" (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This sentence needs help
"The pope was also concerned about the king's refusal be deliver papal letters to bishops without royal permission." It's in the section "Work for William the Conqueror". --  Kenatipo   speak! 00:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for spotting it. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain, but I'm still having trouble understanding the sentence. Should it end at bishops, dropping "without royal permission"?  or, does "bishops without royal permission" refer to a certain class of bishops, perhaps those approved by the pope but not by the king?  --  Kenatipo    speak! 02:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Now reads "The pope was also concerned about the king's refusal to allow the delivery of papal letters to the English bishops unless royal permission was secured." That work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot better. Thanks again.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 02:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One more thing! Can someone add "and Bishop of Durham" to the end of the first sentence of the TFA blurb?  (Of course, it's edit protected).  --  Kenatipo    speak! 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Drop a note to DaBomb - I'm not an admin and can't edit the blurb. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK! --  Kenatipo    speak! 03:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution of army leadership to King William II
David Crouch's book "The Normans: The History of a Dynasty", page 135, states only that "when the king's army moved north, he [William de St Calais] refused to surrender himself unless ...". It does not support the assertion in this Wikipedia article that "the king approached with an army". In fact, other secondary sources, including Andre Wilmart's 1928 "Alain le Roux and Alain le Noir: Comtes de Bretagne", make it plain that William II knew nothing of the safe conduct agreement between St Calais and the royal army's commanders until St Calais mentioned it during his treason trial.

It is a much too common error to interpolate a claim that Norman kings led their armies in person. For example, writers have often carelessly placed William the Conqueror in the heat of battle, but there is little-to-no evidence for this except for the two cases William is reported to have mentioned on his deathbed, one of which is of course the Battle of Hastings, and the other was, if I recall correctly, either Val-es-Dunes in 1047 or Mortemer in 1054. Zoetropo (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)