Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hilary of Chichester


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:39, 10 March 2009.

Hilary of Chichester

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

I am nominating this for featured article because... I've hit every source I can think of, it's been through GAN, PR, and two rounds of copyediting. As usual, copyediting by Malleus. Hilary isn't really a saintly bishop, but he wasn't a bad boy either. Just a typical 12th century bishop and royal judge. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment from 
 * Its odd seeing a nom from Ealdgyth here ;)
 * Dabs and external links are found up to speed, though, some book refs from multiple pages have "p." instead of "pp.", which need to be fixed accordingly. -- ₮RU  CӨ   00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref formatting is found up to speed. Who's gonna check this article for sources? ;)-- ₮RU  CӨ   02:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Mainly prose:-
 * Lead
 * Possibly ambiguous sentence: "After an unsuccessful nomination to become Archbishop of York, Pope Eugene III compensated Hilary by promoting him to the position of Bishop of the Diocese of Chichester in 1147.". It would be clearer as: "After Hilary's unsuccessful nomination to become Archbishop of York, Pope Eugene III compensated him by promoting him to the position of Bishop of the Diocese of Chichester in 1147." And maybe "promoting him to the position of Bishop of the..." could be simplified to "...promoting  mim to the Bishopric of Chichester."?
 * Fixed per your suggestions Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can "for providing for" be reworded a little more euphoniously?
 * "supporting" is now used. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Early life
 * Another slightly ambiguous sentence: "Hilary served as a clerk for Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester as well as Dean of Christchurch in Twynham, Hampshire, probably receiving both offices through the influence of Henry of Blois."Suggest by placing a comma after "Bishop of Winchester" and replacing "as well" with "and".
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be "Hilary (not "he") was dean by 1139." The last "he" was Henry of Blois...
 * fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ...but the sentence needs attention anyway, with two unconnected statements joined by an "and".
 * actually, they are connected. Clarified to read "Christchurch was a collegiate church of secular clergy, or clergy who were not monks,[5] and Hilary was dean of the church by 1139." as it's christchurch he was dean of. Clarified further up too. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "As Dean of Christchurch he restored..." Got to be "Hilary restored" - it's a new paragraph. However, "Hilary ordered the writing..." can be "He ordered..."
 * fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence beginning "Unsuccessful as a candidate..." repeats the ambiguity in the lead. The sentence needs reworking, e.g. "Hilary was unsuccessful as a candidate for the archbishopric of York against Henry Murdac in 1147, but Pope Eugene III chose to compensate him by appointing him to Chichester." It would also be better to use the "see of Chichester" link here rather than later in the paragraph.
 * Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Stephen's reign
 * "Hilary was one of the bishops who made peace between Theobald and Stephen after the council, which took the form of negotiations after Theobald's return to England." Would this be the Reims council? And does "which" refer to this council, or to the peace-making?
 * yes, it is. Hopefully clarified. Changed to "Hilary was one of the bishops who made peace between Theobald and Stephen after the council at Reims, helping in the negotiations after Theobald's return to England."


 * Last sentence is awkwardly phrased and grammatically suspect. Suggest tweak to this version: "Theobald settled himself at Hugh Bigod's castle of Framlingham; negotiations between the royal party and the archbishop's party resulted in the king yielding, and in the restoration of the archbishop to his lands."
 * Fixed per your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Henry II's reign
 * Could the phrase "canon lawyer" be explained?
 * linked and quickie explanation provided. "known as a canon lawyer, or someone trained in ecclesiastical law"


 * "Hilary served as a royal justice in 1156, and was with the king in Normandy from late 1156 to April 1157." I'm not sure what the second part of the sentence is referring to, nor of its relationship to the first part.
 * "Hilary served in England as a royal justice in 1156,[2] and then was with the king in Normandy from late 1156 to April 1157." Basically, we're tracing his movements. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "The next year in 1163 at a council held at Westminster, as part of the king's growing quarrel with Becket over criminal clerks, Henry attempted to have all the English bishops to swear to uphold the old customs of England." There is a redundancy in "The next year in 1163...". Also, I'm uncertain whether "as part of the king's growing quarrel..." is referring to the council, or to Henry's attemped chicanery.
 * Changed to "The next year at a council held at Westminster which was one of the stages in the king's growing quarrel with Becket..." is that better? Westminster was just one step in the quarrel... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Who were the "magnates"?
 * Now reads "Henry tried to get the lay barons and bishops..." Magnates is a way of NOT saying "aristocracy" or "nobility" Barons comes close. English noblity is .. odd. There is no "noble class" really, and magnates just is another way of saying "leading laymen" .. which I suppose I could say if you prefer that. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "lay baron" is no more comprehensible to the uninitiated, I'm afraid, than "magnate". The link to magnate is pretty useless. If they weren't nobles, could they be described as "leading commoners", or "powerful commoners"? Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * it's now "leading laymen". I dont want to use "commoners" since that implies a class concept that's really foreign for the middle ages. they weren't "commoners" (that would be the peasants at this point). The real dichotomy here is between the high level ecclesiastics and the high level non-ecclesiastics. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "...to persuade the archbishop to compromise..." I think this needs extending, e.g. "...to compromise on the issue of canon law" (or whatever makes better sense).
 * Changed to "...archbishop to compromise over issue of criminous clerks and the matter of custom,..." which is a very sketchy explanation of the becket dispute. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, speaking on behalf of the illiterati, terms like "criminous clerks and matters of custom" are too strong meat for us. Why not just "...archbishop to modify his position", or some such? Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You wanted specifics above (pokes Brian) I changed it to "modify his position" (which to me isn't much different than "compromise" but...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

These are not major points, and I have enjoyed another instalment of life with the bishops. Will be happy to support when these matters are cleared.

(and forgot to sign ABOVE) Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Always happy to provide another "As the bishops turn" episode... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support subject to clarification on two matters outstanding from above list. All other issues resolved. (They were a weaselly lot, these old bishops, weren't they?) Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I peer reviewed this a while ago and find it much improved and fully meeting the FA criteria. My only quibble is that the "Notes" section has only one note, so should be "Note" (I think). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review: thank goodness for freedom of panorama in United Kingdom; there are no issues with the three user-taken images in the article. Clear. Jappalang (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comments :
 * The comma after Henry of Blois in the lede is a bit confusing ... when I read the sentence from the start, I want to think that it's a serial comma. I'd suggest adding "who was" after the comma in order to set off his titles. Ex. "Henry of Blois, who was the Bishop of Winchester and brother of King Stephen of England." The same goes for the sentence in the Early Life section.
 * Done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The second-to-last sentence of the first paragraph of the Early Life section is a bit awkward because of all the auxiliary clauses. I suggest splitting it into two sentences.
 * Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the second sentence of the second paragraph of Early Life, I'm a bit confused. Is it a history of the church building, or the church as an institution? Also, does the history still exist or is it the church building that still exists?
 * It's the book that still exists, clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the first sentence of the Stephen's Reign section, is Robert de Bethune the Bishop of Hereford, or are they two separate people?
 * yes, he is, clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In Stephen's Reign, why were Stephen and Theobald at odds? Was it because Theobald held his duty to the Pope higher than fealty to Stephen, or was there another reason? Some context might be helpful.
 * No one really knows WHY Stephen told Theobald not to go. Saltman (the most modern biographer of Theobald) leans towards Stephen's desire to control the church as his predecessors had. I've seen other reasons too. They weren't at odds until Stephen told Theobald he couldn't go, and then that sorta started the problem. I'm trying to not get bogged down into a lot of details that aren't germane to the article (the quarrel eventually degenerated into Theobald refusing to crown Stephen's son and further issues that Hilary wasn't involved in...). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest a wikilink for Exchequer.
 * done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the second-to-last paragraph of the Henry II's reign section, you mention "the king's growing quarrel with Becket over criminal clerks" before explaining what that quarrel really is. I strongly suggest reordering that paragraph so you explain what Becket's quarrel with Henry was before mentioning it and how Hilary factored into it.
 * reordered a bit... let me know if this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the last sentence of that second-to last paragraph and the first sentence of the last paragraph, you use "this" twice. It's not exactly clear which "this" is referring to which event.
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall, it's an excellent article and a fascinating look into the history underlying a tumultuous period in the history of the Roman Catholic church. The story is clearly defined, and you avoid getting bogged down in the undoubtedly Byzantine politics of the times. You do an excellent job of showing how Hilary and Becket seemed to switch sides in their arguments about the primacy of the crown and church between 1155 and 1165, and it's understandable even to someone like myself who has minimal knowledge of the context. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Becket is on my plate. I can't say I'm happy about the idea. (I've never liked the man, he drove me nuts in school.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — My comments have been addressed, and I feel this article meets all requirements of a FAC and should be promoted. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.