Talk:Manasser Biset/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 01:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link Anglo-Norman, justice.
- Linked. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is Cany Cany-Barville?
- It appears so - linked. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pugh: for consistency, could "canons" have an upper case C?
- Done. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth linking "follower" to retinue? And "steward" to Steward (office)?
- Linked steward - but he wasn't really in a "retinue" ... he just was a supporter of Henry II before he took the throne. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Biset's son was Henry Bisset" → 'They had a son, named Henry Bisset'.
- Well, no. We can't say "They had a son" because the source says "His [Manasser] son and heir was Henry Biset" - which pretty much says we don't have a charter that definitely gives Alice as Henry's mother. I did tweak the wording a bit. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Besides his son, Biset also had a daughter, Margaret." → 'Besides their son, Biset and Alice also had a daughter, Margaret.'
- Likewise - the source here doesn't say that Margaret was Alice's daughter, just that she was Henry's sister. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pugh & Crittall: they are given as editors. Is that of the article or the volume? In either case is hte actual author of the work known?
- the page for British History Online for the work doesn't list authors ... just editors. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Hope it wasn't too much of a strain! He's not got a lot but he's a link in various bits of history - and important in his own right as a pretty influential justice. It's just the period is sparse for documentation. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! It was very soothing. I often feel I have problems, but you seem to be making bricks without either mud or straw.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed