Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas de Rossy/archive1

Thomas de Rossy
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it needs as much comment as possible (even from the bot) before proceeding any further. Prose is the likeliest thing to be an issue, but there is also a need to obtain some comments as to what background info would be most necessary. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Comments from Ealdgyth' Whee! Another obscure Scottish bishop, to go with my obscure Anglo-Norman bishop!

Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know my strengths aren't copyediting, so while I'll point out things I see, don't consider it copyedited completely, because I have a tendancy towards wordiness in my prose.
 * Early years section, the first paragraph, second sentence. Might consider reworking this sentence to something like "His name indicates his family came from a place named Rossie, but..."
 * The sudden introduction of "Papal Bull" in the second paragraph is jarring if folks don't realize that any papal communication could be called a bull. Most folks won't realize this, you might introduce it in the previous sentence.
 * Consider merging the two paragraphs in Early years, they fit together, and the current break is arbitrary seeming to me.
 * Pre-episcopal career, first sentence the second phrase seems badly connected to the first part of the sentence. Was he making a payment for Patrick or was he making it on his own behalf?
 * Consider switching the sentences in the first paragraph of Becoming Bishop section, that way the bit about him being provisionally provided to the see is next to the bit about why he was provisionally provided and not just straight out provided.
 * Same section, last sentence is awkward. Perhaps "The cancellation of Oswald's appointment does not appear to have silenced him, for he later appears in England, a kingdom that supported Urban VIII."
 * Consider giving the year on some of the dates in Bishop of Galloway, just to make things clear to readers.


 * "There is not enough evidence..." sentence should be altered, although it's hard for me to know what to alter it to without knowing more details about the evidence in question. But if the evidence contradicts itself, or is from unreliable sources, or both, then it would make sense to indicate that. John Carter (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)