Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas of Bayeux/archive1

Thomas of Bayeux

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and would appreciate pointers on how to improve the writing and make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from: JamesMLane: I qualify as a non-medievalist, so here are my thoughts.
 * The introductory section should be reworked. An introductory section should help the reader decide whether to read the full article.  The current version has some detail that's unimportant for that purpose, such as that Thomas was educated at Liege, and would benefit from a summary of his historical role.  I suggest something like this:
 * "Thomas of Bayeux (died November 18, 1100) was Archbishop of York for thirty years. He was a leading though unsuccessful opponent of the primacy of Canterbury, the view that the Archbishop of Canterbury should take precedence over the Archbishop of York."
 * "Thomas, a native of Bayeux, was a royal chaplain to Duke William of Normandy, later King William I of England. After the Norman Conquest, the king nominated Thomas to replace Aldred as Archbishop of York, and he held that post from 1070 until his death. Even before his consecration, he came into conflict with Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, over Thomas's initial refusal to give an oath of obedience to Lanfranc. He continued to oppose the primacy of Canterbury, but church authorities and Kings William I and William II sided with Canterbury.  Thomas did succeed in securing the role of York in Scotland."
 * Then, of course, all the detail that's no longer in the introductory section would be incorporated into the body of the article.


 * Can't we give any information about the year of his birth? Even if it's just "Historian A guesses this and Historian B guesses that", it would be better than nothing.
 * Thomas's "profession of obedience was made verbally to Lanfranc personally and not in writing...." The use of "verbally" to mean "spoken and not in writing" is distressingly common but I still consider it substandard.  "Verbally" means "by words", and his profession was verbal whether spoken or written.  It was nonverbal if made without words, e.g. by kneeling before Lanfranc at a public assembly.  If what's meant here is that he spoke it, then "verbally" should be changed to "orally".
 * The resolution of the boundary dispute could be clarified. The article says that the sees at issue were Worcester, Dorchester, and Litchfield, and that the outcome was to set the boundary at the Humber River.  I'd like to know what that meant without clicking links to see which of those sees were on each side of the river.
 * Succession after William I's death: Our articles are inconsistent about William's sons. In Robert Curthose I read this: "In 1087, the Conqueror died of wounds suffered during a riding accident during a siege of Rouen. At his death, he reportedly wanted to disinherit his eldest son, but was persuaded to divide the Norman dominions between his two eldest sons. To Robert, he granted the Duchy of Normandy and to William Rufus he granted the Kingdom of England."  That says that William Rufus was the second-oldest.  The article about Thomas, however, says that William was the third son.
 * The current introduction says that Thomas helped William II put down the rebellion, but the only elaboration is that he accompanied William II on his campaigns. Was that considered significant help, e.g., the troops were much heartened or recruiting was easier because the Archbishop was along?  If not, and if the only significance was that he was opposing his former mentor, then maybe just "sided with" would be better.
 * Re this passage: "While Anselm was in exile after quarreling with the king in 1097, Thomas consecrated Herbert de Losinga as bishop of Norwich, Ralph de Luffa to the see of Chichester, and Hervey le Breton as bishop of Bangor." Are the consecrations by Thomas significant because these would normally be prerogatives of Canterbury? If so, perhaps that should be spelled out.
 * Re: "In 1100 after the sudden death of King William II and the seizure of power by his younger brother Henry...." The phrase "seizure of power" is a little jarring, partly because unexplained and partly because it smacks of POV.  This is tangential to the Thomas bio, so a lot of detail wouldn't be appropriate, but maybe something along these lines: "In 1100, when King William II died, his older brother Robert had not yet returned from the First Crusade.  His younger brother, Henry, took the opportunity to ascend to the throne, with the support of the nobles.  Henry was crowned as King Henry I three days after William's death.  Thomas arrived in London too late to crown Henry I...." then pick up the current text.
 * In the last paragraph, is "patronized" an acceptable BE spelling?

Overall, I think the article is in very good shape. JamesMLane t c 04:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)