Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Warelwast/archive1


 * 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 Laser brain 02:56, 24 January 2011.

William Warelwast

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC), Malleus Fatuorum

I am nominating this for featured article because it's time for a different bishop! But we're dealing with a different diocese this time... Bishop of Exeter! This little diocese isn't exactly the richest of the various medieval English sees, in fact, it ranks well down the list on revenues. Warelwast worked hard for his not-so-rich-plum - he served two kings before the second king finally rewarded him with a bishopric. To get there, he had to be pretty nasty to a future Doctor of the Church, as well as doing a lot of other traveling and diplomatic work for two of William the Conqueror's sons, who just happen to be two of the more ruthless English kings ever. Warelwast eventually went blind before his death, and a medieval chronicler claimed that this was punishment from God for Warelwast's behaviour. Yet another bad-boy bishop, although he was mostly a bad-boy before becoming a bishop. As usual, it's had a very nice peer review, as well as a thorough copy-edit by Malleus - who should be credited as a co-nom. (Who I hopefully correctly added as a co-nom, if I screwed it up, can someone fix it please?) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1c/2c is good doi fails: Spear, David S. (1982) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the doi, apparantely JSTOR is being a pain about dois, or something. Anyway, it's gone.Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: The one image checks out. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking a read through- Generally looking good. Well written and appears to be well researched. J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "a new cathedral at Exeter" Have we an article on the cathedral to link to?
 * "D. W. Blake" Full name/link?
 * "Augustinian canon" Link? Probably not terms familiar to those new to the subject
 * "between St Florent Abbey in Saumur and Fécamp Abbey, heard before King William II some time between 1094 and 1099 at Foucarmont." About? Outcome? I appreciate it's probably not known.
 * "granted churches in Cornwall, Devonshire, and Exeter to Warelwast" Any notable? Any still exist?
 * "Annales Plymptonienses" What is this?
 * "Warelwast's nephew Robert Warelwast succeeded as Bishop at Exeter in 1138. Robert had been appointed archdeacon of Exeter by his uncle.[41] The historian C. Warren Hollister described Warelwast as a "canny and devoted royal servant".[30]" Presumably the last line refers to the article subject? I see what you're trying to do (give the article some closure) but I'm not sure it works so well. Sorry, I realise that perhaps isn't the most helpful comment.
 * Linked.
 * No article for Blake.
 * Augustinian and canon are linked in the sentence before, and Augustian is linked to what Augustinian canon would link to.
 * Will double check on this, but pretty sure it isn't given in the source (I could be wrong!)
 * Don't think my source names them, quite honestly, but will double check.
 * I've added in "elder" in the last sentence, to make it clear that we're talking about the article subject. There just isn't much ON either Warelwast, so that's pretty much the consensus on him, "the ultimate royal servant", pretty much. I could add a few more quotes, perhaps, but they'd basically be repeating themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On #4 - yes, my source doesn't say. However, on #5, it does name the churches, so will add that in. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments Just minor points.
 * "William Warelwast (or William de Warelwast[1]) (died 1137)" - can we lose the back-to-back brackets somehow?
 * Bohemond's "crusade" should perhaps be in parentheses, or "so-called", since it was only ever intended to be against the Byzantines, which even in 1107 was seen as a bit much.
 * Things one might usefully spell out: Whatever his exact DOB, WW was one of the first generation of Normans to grow up after the Conquest. The Exeter diocese then included Cornwall.
 * "to the see of Winchester, Roger of Salisbury to the see of Salisbury, Reynelm to the see of Hereford, and Urban to the see of Llandaff.[26]" - pipe 'em!
 * some links missing: Rouen, Troyes, last rites, Exeter, ?Cornwall, Devonshire, maybe to the "death" section of William II.
 * In the absence of a pic of WW, one might add one of one of the kings. File:Worcester.dream.jpg has some bishops & clergy in it & is contemporary-ish and somewhat relevant.


 * Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Fixed.
 * 2. Changed to "...attempting to secure support for Bohemond of Antioch's proposed campaign against Byzantium." which should be better.
 * 3. Unfortunately, neither of my main sources for his life (ODNB and the Blake article) speculate on his being part of the first Norman generation, so I'm not comfortable with speculating that he was indeed part of this generation. Any suggestions on where to include the information that Cornwall was part of Exeter?
 * He died 71 years after the conquest, and had a significant job 20 or whatever years after it, so it seems more like arithmetic than speculation to me. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just not comfortable doing that. We aren't sure he grew up in England, or Normandy... I'm afraid that'd leave things too open to charges of original research. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4. Err... they are linked, what are you wanting piped?
 * "see of"s in a row looks clumsy to me. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * changed them all to "so-and-so to place-name", is that what you had in mind? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry I wasn't clearer. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5. LInked most of these - the death section of William II is just atrocious and I don't think it adds anything as it stands.
 * ok. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6. Unfortunately, the link for the source information on that pic is dead, so it wouldn't pass FAC muster.
 * I've updated the image file with the ms details. I can never see, for something that is only ever photographed by the owner every 20 years, that the precise blog the image was taken from matters at all. See
 * PIc added. I don't make the image rules... I just have to deal with them. I tend to agree where obviously medieval manuscripts are concerned, it's pretty silly, but... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly for the comments! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  18:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Comments all dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support: A well written and comprehensive article. Just a few queries.
 * "Possibly present at King William's accidental death in a hunting accident": accidental ... accident.
 * Changed to "Possibly present at King William's death in a hunting accident". Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Warelwast served as a diplomat to his successor, King Henry I": As it stands, "his successor" is a little obscure. It means the king's successor but could be read as Warelwast's.
 * Changed to "Warelwast served as a diplomat to the king's successor, Henry I". Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "and it was probably him who divided the diocese into archdeaconries": This is probably fine grammatically, but doesn't seem quite right to me.
 * Now "... and he probably divided the diocese into archdeaconries." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "which the historian D. W. Blake speculated might imply that he was..." Speculated and implied in same sentence sounds very uncertain, What about "which according to historian D. W. Blake, implies..."
 * Took your suggested wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Several hostile medieval chroniclers..." Hostile generally, or just to Warelwast?
 * Hostile to Warelwast. Changed to "Several medieval chroniclers hostile to Warelwast ...". Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...his career suggests otherwise": Which aspects of his career suggest this?
 * Clarifiied. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "as a confirmation from the time of King Stephen..." What is a confirmation in this context? I think it needs either a link or specifying what it was a confirmation of. I read it as meaning a confirmation of the Exeter churches.
 * Charter. Added. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it worth a sentence saying why William wanted to remove Anselm?
 * Historian's are really divided, and we're talking a HUGE explanation. Better to stick with the fact that William wanted him gone. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "with orders to recognize Urban in return for Anselm's deposition": recognise Urban as pope, presumably?
 * Yes, clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * " But it is likely that although the king": But ... although is a little clunky.
 * I don't see much wrong with "but .. although", but looking at the sentence again the "likely ... may" seemed a bit repetitive. Changed to "But although the king may have instructed his envoys to attempt to secure these objects ...". Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "It was Warelwast who searched..." Given that "It was also W who..." comes in the same paragraph, could this be replaced with "W searched"?
 * Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "It was also Warelwast who prevented King William's excommunication, as he was the king's envoy at Rome when Anselm petitioned to have the king excommunicated during his exile ... Eadmer, who was present at the papal court, stated that Warelwast prevented the excommunication by bribing the pope and papal officials." Could this second sentence be merged with the first as it repeats the fact that Warelwast prevented the king's excommunication.
 * Merged into one sentence: "Warelwast was the king's envoy at Rome when during his exile Anselm petitioned to have the king excommunicated, which according to Eadmer, who was also present, Warelwast succeeded in preventing by bribing the pope and papal officials". Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "It is quite likely that the king had given instructions to Warelwast that if the mission failed, Warelwast was to inform Anselm that the archbishop was only welcome to return to England if Anselm agreed with the king's position in the dispute." Quite a tricky sentence, with some repetition. What about something like: "It is quite likely that the king had given instructions that if the mission failed, Warelwast was to inform Anselm that he should only to return to England if he agreed with the king's position in the dispute."
 * Nice suggestion, changed. Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "being present at the transfer of a Devon church to Bath Cathedral..." possibly sounds odd to the non-specialist.
 * Suggestions on how to word it without losing the correctness? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Err... Not really. While I was a medievalist once upon a time, my vocabulary does not stretch far enough. If it's too tricky to simplify, I'm happy for it to stay as it is. I feel it should say "the transfer of [whatever you transfer when a church is transfered into a diocese]", but the missing word is beyond me! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case... they transfered the church and its revenues to the cathedral... so ... yeah, the word is "church". Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Other bishops consecrated at the same time included William Giffard to Winchester, Roger of Salisbury to Salisbury, Reynelm to Hereford, and Urban to Llandaff." Is this important to Warelwast? If it relates to the ending of the dispute, mentioned in the next but one sentence, maybe move it to after the following sentence about W being rewarded.
 * Yeah, it is to the specialist. Who was consecrated (if anyone) helps establish that his wait for a bishopric was not unusual at this time and it also shows that his elevation was accompanied by other royal clerks. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead says that Warelwast probably split the diocese into archdeaconries, but the "Work as a bishop" section simply says they were probably split in his reign.
 * He would have been the only one who could have done it. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * " Robert of Bath, the Bishop of Bath": would this be better as "Robert, Bishop of Bath"?
 * I"m trying to avoid the blue link next to the blue link problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is a nice summary but it seems a bit bolted on as the previous two sentences talk about his nephew. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been moved to its own paragraph. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If Malleus doesn't get to the rest of these, I will tonight or tomorrow. I'm kinda under a RL crunch, so busy with that for a while more. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * All the changes look good. Switched to support now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * thankee! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Reads well, solid research. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And thankee! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.