Talk:William de Braose, 2nd Baron Braose

William de Braose, 2nd Baron Braose has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 11, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / British / European / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Coat of arms

This could go in the article. It's the coat of arms William bore at the Battle of Falkirk, according to the Falkirk Roll. Though I noticed Falkirk isn't mentioned in the article at all. Here's the ref: Foster, Joseph (1902), Some feudal coats of arms from heraldic rolls 1298-1418, illustrated with 830 zinco etchings from effigies, brasses and coats of arms, London: James Parker & Co, p. 35. The book is over a hundred years old, and I noticed the blazon is at odds with this webpage which covers this particular roll [1], which cites: Gerard J Brault, "Rolls of Arms of Edward I", Society of Antiquaries, London, 1996. I've followed the blazon on the webpage (#31).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you think Foster and Brault differ? Doug (at Wiki) 13:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on lions in heraldry says: "The tail also may be knotted (nowed), forked (queue fourchée) or doubled (double-queued)". Foster's blazon reads: "tail fourchée". Brault's reads: "double queued". One refers to a forked tail, the other a double tail. See?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is only a modern distinction, if that. I don't believe a herald of 1298 would permit such small diferences. You can see on the webpage that you cite that the original roll reads "coue forchee" which is translated into English as "double queued". Doug (at Wiki) 16:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no example of two lions sharing one tail, but one lion with two of these appendages is common, and is blazoned as double queued. This means that two complete tails emerge from the base of the spine; but there is also the situation in which only one tail emerges and at a distance of between a quarter and a half of its length it branches out into two. This condition is blazoned qeue fourché" (Franklyn, Julian (1971), Shield and Crest (3rd ed.), Genealogical Publishing, p. 142). Two different terms. Actually, this might be a good example of why Wikipedians are not supposed to base articles straight off primary sources alone, and why we should be weary of out-of-date secondary ones. If we'd followed the Anglo-Norman blazon literally, without the aid of a modern heraldist, we'd end up with a forked tail, rather than the double tail. I think that maybe competent heraldists have the ability to render archaic blazon into modern blazon, and it doesn't always match word for word in literal meaning. So maybe, even though the Anglo-Norman blazon reads "coue forchee", it shouldn't be interpreted to equate to the modern "qeue fourché(e)"; maybe what heraldists consider "qeue fourché(e)" today wasn't used way back in de Braose's day. I'm not sure; I can't read Anglo-Norman either. Any objections if I place the shield in the infobox?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. Doug (at Wiki) 01:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are saying? neither of those sources(the website or the book) are original sources, and both of them are modern. My guess is that Brian Timms rendered all those arms from the blazon, and it is he that does not make the distinction between a tail doubled queued and one coue forchee. There are examples of both in that roll, and they are depicted the same way by Timms. Of course Fox-Davies says that the terms were at one point interchangable, at which point he is not clear. Of course if the terms are interchangeable, so are the designs. Therefore, in de Braose's time artists may have depicted his lion with either a double or forked tail. However, now since all blazons use the term fourche, that is what a modern herald would draw. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are basically agreeing with me. Actual examples of arms depicted in the 13th century are rare. Doug (at Wiki) 01:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William de Braose, 2nd Baron Braose/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully later today. Canadian Paul 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and here it is:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Under "Family and early life", first paragraph, "In any event" is a bit of an unencyclopedic phrase.
Same section, is it necessary to split this section into two paragraphs? I feel that paragraphs of less than three sentences generally disrupt the flow. This is a bit more of a problem in the second section, where there is already limited information from historical sources that makes the section choppier by nature.
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not contain any information that is not present in the body of the article - for example, there is no mention of him being the Lord of Bramber - and should contain information from every section in the article. Currently, there is nothing from "Marriage, death, and legacy".

Other than these minor issues, everything looks great (or at least reads great since, like John of Tynemouth, there wasn't much opportunity for images here). I saw your notice about being away, so if you need more than the standard seven days to address these issues, just give me a heads up on my talk page. Canadian Paul 01:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with the first and third - the second, I'd really rather keep it as two paragraphs, as the first deals with birth and childhood, and the second, he's old enough for royal service. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an addition to the royal service section which makes the paragraph more substantial now. Doug (at Wiki) 17:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One and two are good now, but the lead still needs to mention something from "Marriage, death, and legacy" to be complete per WP:LEAD. Otherwise it looks good! Canadian Paul 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urf. Missed that (even though I read it..) will get it this afternoon/evening. Lunch shortly with my brother (we got delayed here another day..) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, we're all set to go for a GA Pass! Congratulations again and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 04:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue

I think Joan is actually the dauhghter of William Sr, as her mother is Aline, given theres no sources it's difficult to check the origional poster. http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/BOHUN.htm#James%20DE%20BOHUN%20of%20Midhurst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.103.225 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. The site you quote is wrong. A good source is Complete Peerage Vol 2 under Brewes. Since that was written it has been proved (see Vol 14 p111 ) that Joan's mother was called Agnes. Doug (at Wiki) 09:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]