Talk:Burchard du Puiset/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 13:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see- happy to offer a review.

"as all the occurrences also call him archdeacon of Durham." This is a fiddly little point, but that's not the reason he was archdeacon of both (which is what is currently implied) but the reason we know he was archdeacon of both. How about: "He then held the office of archdeacon for the East Riding, which he held along with the archdeaconry of Durham; all known mentions of his archdeaconry of the East Riding also call him archdeacon of Durham."
- Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"but a murderer as well." He was the son of a murderer, or was a murder? Currently ambiguous.
- Now reads "Burchard and Marshal retaliated by accusing the archbishop-elect of being a murderer as well as the son of a prostitute." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"both Burchard and Marshal requested their installation in their offices" What does this mean? Is "installation" a technical term with which I'm unfamiliar?
- NOt a technical term. We could go with "admitted" or "inauguration" Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who was Hamo? (Or am I misunderstanding the sentence?)
- Another clerk. I've added a redlink - I'll get to him eventually. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Burchard continued to hold the office until at least October 1194, when he last is mentioned in the office." As it's a new section, perhaps specify the office? This would also remove repetition of "office".
- Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume we have no knowledge of his date or birth or place of origin?
- NOpe. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources all look great, but I will say that you don't need accessdates on courtesy links (like the ones the ODNB). The story about Geoffrey's feud with Burchard is fascinating. J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YEah, well, ODNB actually does change things occasionally - they will update entries, so it's possible that things might change in an entry. Thanks for the review (this isn't a Wikicup entry - I did all the work prior to 2015) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worry about the WikiCup thing- I'm just another competitor, now! My one outstanding issue is with the "installation" point. I'm not clear why, if it was his office, Burchard needed Geoffrey to install him. J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was an ecclesiastical office for one thing, and for another, any archbishop could control the access to the actual machinery/tools/etc of office. Think of it as like an election. We election someone, and then they are sworn in... they don't actually "take" office until they are sworn in. Until Geoffrey allowed Burchard to actually be installed in office, not just appointed by the king ... Burchard could not actually get a hold of the various ledgers and other things he needed for the office. Given Geoffrey - he probably locked them totally out of the cathedral buildings and they could not do a thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great- that's clearer to me now; I suspect the problem was with me rather than your text. I'm happy to promote. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]