Wikipedia:Peer review/William the Conqueror/archive1

William the Conqueror
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm hoping to take this (very important) biography to FAC soon, and would adore help with continuity, flow, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility to the non-specialist, and lots of other polish before tackling FAC.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty close to FA to me, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that a family tree in the article would help
 * It might also help to have a map showing Normandy, Flanders, Maine, Anjou, England...
 * There are two dabs (using the tool in the toobox here)
 * In the lead William was son of the unmarried Duke Robert the Magnificent of Normandy by his mistress Herleva. the son? the only son?
 * Does the year need to be repeated here? It was already in the first paragraph ''His illegitimate status and his youth caused some difficulties for him after he succeeded his father in 1035, as did the anarchy that plagued the first years of his rule.
 * Grammar issues at start of this William final years reign were marked by difficulties in his continental domains, troubles with his eldest son, and threatened invasions of England by the Danes. Perhaps "The final years of William's reign were marked by..."?
 * I would link his two sons in the last sentence of the lead. ''William's lands were divided after his death: Normandy went to his eldest son and his second surviving son received England.
 * In Background, I would calrify that this was the first settlement by Norsemen (presumably what became Normandy already had people living there): ''Permanent settlement occurred sometime before 911, when an agreement between Rollo, one of the Viking leaders, and King Charles the Simple of France was reached, surrendering the county of Rouen to Rollo.
 * Would it help to identify Edward as "the confessor" in ''When Harthacnut died in June 1042 Edward was proclaimed king before Harthacnut's burial.[7][b]
 * I nChallenges, add a comma to make clearer the bishops supported him too, or use "while" instead of "and"? ''While many of the Norman nobles engaged in their own private wars and feuds during William's minority, the viscounts still acknowledged the ducal government[,] and [while?} the ecclesiastical hierarchy was supportive of William.[23]
 * Seems a little awkward William himself founded no new monasteries besides the two in Caen prior to 1066, but from 1035 to 1066, the Norman aristocracy founded at least 20 new monastic houses, a remarkable expansion of religious life in the duchy.[54] Perhaps something like From 1035 to 1066, the Norman aristocracy founded at least 20 new monastic houses (including William's two monasteries in Caen), a remarkable expansion of religious life in the duchy.[54]
 * Harold's preparations - problem sentence But Harold's claim was not entirely secure; there were three or other four main claimants to the English throne, perhaps including his exiled brother Tostig.[70][k] First off, is the "But" needed? Second the phrase "there were three or other four main claimants to the English throne" is broken in some way. Third there are only three claimants to the throne listed after this (Tostig, Harold Hardrada, and William) so should it be two or three claimants (not sure if Tostig is a claimant)?
 * William's preparations - there are a lot of different people in the article and it might help to remind the reader who some of these people are. Here I might use "Duke William" instead of just "the duke" in ''William of Poitiers describes a council called by the duke, in which the writer gives an account of a great debate that took place between William's nobles and supporters over whether to risk an invasion of England.
 * Tostig and Hardrada's invasion - similarly, would it help here to identify Tostig as Harold's brother and Hardrada as the king of Norway? Tostig and Hardrada invaded Northumbria in September 1066, and defeated the local forces under Morcar and Edwin at the Battle of Fulford. by the way they are identified more clearly at the start of the next section, but those IDs would be better here.
 * This is a one paragraph section - could it be combined with the Battle of Hastings section (since much of it is on William's invasion preparations)?
 * Feels awkward to me "refusing to leave behind the sea" in ''From there, he ravaged the interior and waited for Harold's return from the north, refusing to leave behind the sea, which was his line of communication with Normandy.[77]
 * I really do not understand this Instead some of the English clergy and magnates nominated Edgar the Ætheling as king, but Edgar's supporters were not solidly behind him. his supporters nominated him as king, but were not solidly behind him??
 * March on London - what happened to Edgar the Ætheling? One minute he is nominated as king, then next section he's getting land from William?
 * First actions - I realize William is now king, but I thought at first this meant the king of France (as the action has returned to Normandy). ''Once in Normandy the king went to Rouen and the Abbey of Fecamp,[88] and then attended the consecration of new churches at two Norman monasteries.[2]
 * Does the header "william as king" meet WP:HEAD?
 * File:William the Conqueror 1066 1087.jpg faces out of the page, but WP:MOSIMAGE says to have images placed so that the draw the reader's eyes into the center of the page.
 * Death and aftermath - should this section be before the William as king section (since that refers to his death)?
 * "a 100"? ''This lone relic was reburied in 1642 with a new marker, which was replaced a 100 years later with a more elaborate monument.
 * In the Legacy section, FAC might ask who these historians are - there are a fair number of general statements like ''These various controversies have led to William being seen by some historians either as one of the creators of England's greatness or as inflicting one of the greatest defeats in English history. Others have viewed William as an enemy ..." Actual names might help here.
 * I wonder if there might be some other legacy items included? Popular culture? Memorials? There is a nice Kipling short story called "William the Conqueror" for example...
 * I did not check refs or sources - you seem to know what's going on there. ;-)
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

PS Please let me know when this is at FAC Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I"ve dealt with most of these - thanks so much for the PR. There were a few spots where your comments didn't really work - the moving of sections or the consolidating of sections, but all the grammar/spelling/etc issues should be fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Three spell-check points:
 * Comments from Tim Riley
 * Domesday Book
 * I imagine "assement" ought to be "assessment" but I didn't dare change it lest it turn out to be an ancient term.
 * Death and aftermath
 * If you're sticking to UK English, "odour", not "odor"
 * Notes
 * Acute accent wanted for "La Trinité"?

First batch of comments on prose: More to come. – Tim riley (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Numbers (for ages) – You vary between "7 or 8" in the lead and "seven or eight" in the Challenges section. To my eye the first looks quite odd, and second much more natural.
 * Background
 * "Earl Godwin of Wessex", but "Godwin, Earl of Wessex" under English and continental concerns
 * Challenges
 * "acknowledged the ducal government and the ecclesiastical hierarchy" – a comma before the "and" would help the reader's eye, perhaps. (Later: I see Ruhrfisch is ahead of me on this.)
 * Consolidation of power
 * "which William was forced to besiege" – was he really forced?
 * "the marriage went forward" – a slightly unexpected word: "went ahead" would seem more usual, I think
 * Physical appearance and character
 * "although he did become quite fat" – "became quite fat"?
 * Got most of these I believe. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Concluding remarks from Tim riley
 * Invasion of England
 * "Westminster Abbey" – blue link here?
 * English resistance
 * "The Danish king had brought a large fleet to England and attacked not only York, but Exeter and Shrewsbury" – this reads as though the fleet attacked these cities, but presumably not.
 * Danish raids and rebellion in the north
 * "Robert also married his half-sister Bertha to the king of France" – not sure of the purpose of the "also" here
 * Revolt of the Earls
 * "Ralph eventually left Norwich in the hands of his wife and left England" – repetition of "left"
 * Troubles at home and abroad
 * "asking that William do fealty for England to the papacy" – I feel I should know what this means, but I don't, and would welcome a few explanatory words. (Later: I see "fealty" is bluelinked lower down in the text. Moving the link up to here would do the trick, I think.)
 * "in 1083, when his eldest son Robert" – William's son, not Odo's, as the wording seems to convey
 * Legacy
 * "the obituary notice for William in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle condemns William" – perhaps "him" for the second "William"?

As you are using British spelling, I hope you won't mind if I mention that your use of "likely" – as in "the New Forest was likely sparsely settled", "are unclear – likely it had several purposes", "but his account is likely more of an account", "but it likely occurred sometime in 1051" and "Edgar was young, likely only 14 in 1066" – is an idiom unknown in UK English. We would write "probably" in all those phrases. (The other "likelys" and "unlikelys" elsewhere in the text are fine.)

I greatly enjoyed this article, and I look forward to greeting it at FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Being English myself I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that the "likely" idiom is unknown in UK English, but I take the blame for any of Ealdgyth's Br English infelicities, as that's what she pays me for. I'll take a look at each of the likelys and fix any that don't seem idiomatic to me. In my defence I hadn't yet finished looking through the whole article, but that's really no defence at all. Malleus Fatuorum 11:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments A few thoughts on the early sections, which I'll post now in case you're looking to close the review soon. I will add more if time allows:- Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * W's greatest historical legacy was probably the Domesday book, and I think this should be in the first, all-important paragraph, rather than the reference to his pre-Conqueror struggles to hold the dukedom of Nomandy (which is discussed in some detail in the second paragraph.
 * W's greatest historical legacy was Domesday???? (snorts). Hardly. I think it's much more likely it was actually conquering England, wouldn't you agree? Domesday is considered a big deal NOW, but for many many many years it wasn't... it was pretty much forgotten soon after William's death. I have reworked the first paragraph some, but I would feel very ORish if I put Domesday in such a prominent place. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Try to avoid starting successive sentences with "After..."
 * Background
 * "When Scandinavian attacks were renewed at the end of the 10th century..." Clarify what and where they were attacking
 * Second paragraph begins "Danish raids continued..." Are these the same as the Scandinavian raids of the previous paragraph? If not, maybe say when they began.
 * I found the relationships described in the second and third paragraphs quite hard to follow. I kmow thee things can be complex. When I had a similar problem with Tichborne case, Tim kindly provided me with a chart, which made things a lot simpler. It may be worth asking him to do the same sort of thing here.
 * At your service if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agricolae got charts made... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Early life
 * "Robert also had a daughter, Adelaide of Normandy, by another mistress." Is this relevant (there are no further mentions of her)
 * She's relevant through her daughter who married an English earl - Waltheof. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Robert also supported..." - but the previous narrative has been about who supported Robert, not who he supported.
 * Duke of Normandy
 * The chart is useful, but hard to read unless you use the thumb...in which case you lose the caption. Maybe increase the size a little?
 * More importantly, I'm a bit confused by the key given in the caption, which seems to indicate that some people were both opponents and supporters - William of Talou, Archbishop Mauger.
 * Some supported at times and other times opposed ... Norman politics were never "simple". Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "...some evidence indicates that he was either seven or eight years old at the time." In view of what has been established (W was born in 1027 or 1028, Robert died in July 1035) the above statement seems needlessly tentative. Is there other evidence that suggests he was neither seven nor eight?
 * Actually ... his birthdate is worked out from the evidence that he was 7 or 8 at the time when he became duke ... so it's kinda important to note this, although I've reworded. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gotten all of these, if I don't comment, it means I had no concerns with the suggestions. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Dank
 * "first ... King of England": style guides usually say to lowercase "king" here, but since we're not lowercasing "Grand Poobah" and whatnot, I don't push it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The MoS seems quite clear on the matter: "Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are ... are capitalized only in the following cases: ... When the correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun (e.g. King of France)". Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay by me. Do you remember where we've discussed where to draw the line? - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything looks great so far.
 * "Further corroboration": What was the first corroboration? - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "William appointed a Norman to the bishopric of Le Mans in 1065 as well as allowing his son Robert Curthose to do homage to the new Count of Anjou, Geoffrey the Bearded, William's western border was thus secured, but his border with Brittany remained insecure.": run-on sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "William also put the government of Normandy into the hands of his wife for the duration of the invasion": I'm not sure about the connection between this sentence and the rest of the paragraph, and I'm not sure what the "also" refers to. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "defeating the invaders on 25 September at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September, in which Tostig and Hardrada were both killed.": How about this? "defeating the invaders and killing Tostig and Hardrada on 25 September at the Battle of Stamford Bridge."
 * "It is unclear when Harold learned of William's landing, but it was probably while he was travelling south.": Any objection to this? "Harold probably learned of William's landing while he was travelling south."
 * In one paragraph in William the Conqueror, you start four sentences with "William then".
 * "The king marched through Edwin's lands and built a castle at Warwick. This caused Edwin and Morcar to submit, but William continued on ...": I don't like "This caused" here; how about this? "Edwin and Morcar submitted after the king marched through Edwin's lands and built a castle at Warwick, but William continued on ..."
 * Otherwise, so far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at William the Conqueror. - Dank (push to talk) 10:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed these... thanks for the copyedit and review! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You bet. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm looking through now at stuff that was changed after I copyedited ... the changes were generally good, but I made a few tweaks. I'm not sure what "continued Norman support" means. I was reverted after I translated "volte-face", but I don't see the point, since that's not common in English and easy enough to translate. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "volte-face"; I explained in my edit summary that your translation of "about face" is subtly different in meaning, and a term generally only used in the military. If in fact the phrase were "easily translated" then there would have been no need for us to import it into English. And I would most definitely dispute your assertion that "volte-face" is uncommon in English – or at least, it's not uncommon in England ... but then we've pretty much all got Norman blood in us now. If you're really set on dumbing down the language you might consider something like "change of heart" instead. Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're George? I didn't know. Google ngrams flatlines "volte-face", but if you want to keep it, go ahead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)