Wikipedia:Peer review/William de St-Calais/archive1

William de St-Calais

 * 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 June 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 June 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 soon, and would welcome suggestions about how to eliminate jargon and improve the prose. Especially welcome would be anything that shows how a non-specialist would need context.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton: Here are some initial comments; more will follow

Identities:The main problem at the start of this article is confusion over names. The article subject’s name is William; both kings he served were called William. The subject is referred to in the article variously as "William", "the bishop", and "St-Calais". References to "the king" had me wondering "which king?" - I spent quite a lot of time working out who was who. It would certainly have helped if they had been a bit more inventive in their choices of names in those days (think of all those Matildas!), but there it is.

May I suggest a means of clarifying these different identities? First, reserve the name "William" for the subject, and refer to him always either as "William" or "Bishop William", but not, except in the clearest of contexts, as "the bishop" or other names.

Secondly, after the first mention of King William I, parenthesize ("The Conqueror"), and refer to him thereafter as the Conqueror, not as King William or "the king" – everyone knows who William the Conqueror was. Incidentally, in the Early life section you refer to him as Duke William of Normandy without explanation that this is indeed the Conqueror (I know the link is there, but I think the article should be self-sufficient on such matters).

Thirdly, identify King William II as "Rufus" or "William Rufus", and refer to him thereafter in this way. Long-winded formulations such as "King William II of England", after first mention, are a little tiring.

Let me know what you think about this way of clarifying the "who’s who". Meanwhile, I am reading through the article, and will give detailed comments later. For the time being I would point out, from the lead, that:-


 * Something is missing from: "While bishop, William replaced the canons his cathedral chapter with monks…" (third lead sentence)
 * Councillor is misspelt (first lead para)
 * The word "bishop" occurs three times in the first sentence of the second lead para, and is repeated in the sentence following.

More to follow,

Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks Brian. I'm on the road this week, probably until the 5th or 6th, so it'll be a bit before I can get to these, but just wanted to let you know your comments are always appreciated and welcomed! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is some more:-


 * Early Life: I have copyedited this section, mainly to reduce repetitions – there were five mentions of Bayeux in the first two lines. I’ve also introduced "William the Conqueror", and connected him to the Duke of Normandy. Does it seem clearer? My own view is that it does – or could do, when the names in the lead are sorted out.


 * Bishop of Durham: I have done a few small copyedits
 * "considerably freed" is an odd phrase. Perhaps: “which would have considerably reduced interference in the diocese”.
 * Shouldn’t "archbishop of Canterbury" be capitalized? (it is, earlier)
 * Comma required after "…Jarrow to Durham"
 * "The group had started…" Suggest this sentence is simplified to read: "This community had been founded at Jarrow by Reinfrid, a Norman ex-knight and monk of Evesham Abbey, and Eadwine, an English monk from Winchecombe Abbey"
 * Next sentence: Suggest: "After the community had settled in Durham, William named Eadwin (spelling?) as prior…"
 * "…before the Norman Conquest preparatory re-establishing monks in the cathedral".  Not grammatical: "prior to" re-establishing… makes sense.
 * Since it’s been established who Odo was, delete "the king’s half brother"
 * Comma required after "imprisonment"
 * Suggest change "the king’s permission" to "royal permission", to avoid repetitions of "king”"
 * For same reason, suggest "…to explain to the pope the reasons for imprisoning Odo.
 * Commissioner for the Domesday Book

More to come,

Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

...and here it is:-


 * Rebellion
 * In order not to cause confusion with names, could the first sentence be altered to read "Soon after William Rufus’s accession to the English throne in 1087, Bishop William became one of the new king’s most trusted advisors"?
 * We have already established that Odo was the king’s uncle, but when we last met him he was in prison. Could we have: "along with the now-released Odo of Bayeux"?
 * The word "though" after 1088 is redundant
 * Just "Odo" will do from now on, but what are "magnates"?
 * "William behaved suspiciously" sounds like opinion. I’d delete this, together with the word "then" before Odo, so that this sentence reads: "Around Easter 1088, Odo and many of the magnates [...] Normandy on the throne. Then: "After the king had set off with William and some troops to counter Odo in Kent, William suddenly deserted, shutting himself in Durham Castle".
 * I’ve put a para break here, to ease the reading, and have copyedited the second para, so please check for factual accuracy.


 * Trial
 * Can "his fief was forfeit" be rendered into plain 21stC English?
 * "His fellow bishops did not believe him". Citation required.


 * Return to favour
 * "no more was heard of his appeal". His appeal to Rome, presumably?
 * Suggest: "requesting that William be restored to his see"
 * Suggest: "…William quickly became one of Duke Robert’s principal advisors"
 * Suggest: "Duke Robert, the king’s brother, had persuaded the king to allow Bishop William’s return, perhaps…" etc
 * "William" (not St-Calais) "secured the end of the siege…"
 * Suggest "William returned to Durham"
 * should "archbishop of Canterbury" be capitalized?


 * Diocesan affairs
 * "did all in their power to support Malcolm’s sons…" Support in what way, or against what?
 * "Robert de Mowbray…also challenged the bishop’s authority…" Don’t understand the “also”.
 * First sentence of second para is awkward. Could it shorten to: "As bishop, William inherited a long-running dispute between the monks of the cathedral chapter and the bishops"?
 * The last sentence post-dates William, & perhaps shouldn’t be here.

OK, one more section to go, I'll do later. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is it, my final comments:-
 * Death and legacy
 * The dream story is a bit clumsily told. Poor phrasing: "…asking the knight where was one of the bishop’s servants". Also, what is meant by the "dream guide"?
 * I don’t understand: "…whether or not it was based on the exact copy of this manuscript". What point is being made here?
 * Frank Barlow is linked in the last line, though he is mentioned (unlinked) in the previous paragraph.


 * Notes: As ever, your sources are very impressive. There are a few more opportunities for reference combinations, notably [9]&[12] (Knowles), [15]&[16] (Knowles again) and [30]&[31] (Richardson).

I hope that you will find this review helpful. I’ve suggested possible improvements where I can. My chief concern has been the possible muddles over names, and how these confusions might be avoided. I’d certainly like to look again, when you’ve had a chance to respond. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)