Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geoffrey (archbishop of York)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:21, 6 November 2011 [1].

Geoffrey (archbishop of York)

[edit]

Geoffrey (archbishop of York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC); Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it is a comprehensive account of a rather unusual bishop. Geoffrey is not noted for his saintly restraint nor his even temper. He inherited the full measure of his father's, King Henry II of England's temper. He spent most of his life fighting with someone, or more commonly several someones, over everything under the sun. The article has had a peer review as well as the usual thorough copyedit by Malleus, who had to work harder than usual on this one as the sheer number of disputes made the chronology much more tortured than usual, thus his co-nom status. I present to you, Geoffrey the Bastard, one of the more colorful archbishops in medieval English history, as well as being one of the more infamous royal bastards. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments Just the article to review, given my new-found religious expertise! As polished as I expected, but a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ykenai — just idle curiosity, but this name doesn't look French or English, so I wondered whether it was Cornish or Breton perhaps (feel free to ignore)?
  • under the canonical age for holding a bishopric — which was?
  • performed the episcopal duties in the diocese of Lincoln, as Geoffrey had never been consecrated and was unable to perform those functions.[1] Although unable to perform his religious duties — too much performing, methinks.
  • I linked consecrated and diocese at first occurrence, but there are other potential links that would help your readers, eg medieval, Justiciar, simony
  • His tomb was still extant in 1767 — is it now? If not, do we know its fate?
  • Ykenai's ancestry isn't speculated on in any source I have access to - it's not even sure that she's Geoffrey's mother. You know, I can't find anything in all my sources that states explicitly what the canonical age of consecration for a bishop was at this time - I'm pretty sure it was 30, but I can't specifically state that. The given source for this information in the article doesn't give an age. I exchanged the first "performed" with "carried out". I linked Justiciar and simony - I really don't see the need to link medieval (and which medieval would I link to anyway? The Middles Ages covers a very large amount of time). The implication in the source for the tomb is that it is no longer extant, but it's not so explicitly stated. Many tombs in France were destroyed in the French Revolution, so it's likely that it's gone. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A few comments for now. May add more later. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, following the comments and discussion below. I've struck and annotated the points I raised as they were dealt with and/or discussed. I've left the discussion of the sources unstruck for readability. Having done a final reading of the article, I'm now happy to support, though there are two caveats: (1) One potential concern I raised (about how paraphrasing was done from the main sources used here), has been discussed on the article talk page. I'm happy with this, now that this has been discussed, but both nominators (in their own way) made clear they disagreed that there was any need for such concerns, so if anyone else is willing to give a second opinion here or there, I'd be most grateful (even if it is only to say that I completely missed the boat on this). (2) On the final read-through, I noticed that the lead section only spends the last couple of sentences on what is covered in around half the article (archbishop period onwards), and the final section isn't really covered in the lead section at all. So possibly some rewriting of the lead section is needed. This latter point (the lead section) is one of the things I normally remember to look at when doing reviews, but given some of the disagreements that arose here, rather than take a week or so over this review and check some of the other things I sometimes look at, I've cut it short a bit (at around four days), as I think it is best I move on from this. Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a note on the talk page on manuscripts titles that you may not have seen yet. (actioned)
  • It might help to name some of the other children of Henry II that you don't name. At the very least, the other Geoffrey should be named as when I went to read the article on the revolt that this Geoffrey helped quell, I saw mention of a Geoffrey there and was confused until I realised it was the other Geoffrey. Also, the Henry II article names one of the illegitimate children in the infobox, but not this one. (actioned)
  • Pedantically (and not at all needing any action), the 'ref name' you have for the ODNB reference is DNB, when that was the earlier publication that preceded the ODNB. I wonder if that wins me an award for pedantry... (no action needed)
  • Some readers may need a sentence or two to help familiarise them with the England/France context here (helping to explain why there was all this gallivanting around across the Channel). (actioned)
  • In the lead, instead of saying "Richard", make clearer that this is the famous Richard I (Lionheart). Most readers will have heard of him, and that will help them place this life in its historical context. (actioned)
  • The link to sanctuary doesn't really help the lead much. (defer to nominator)
  • This bit needs rewriting: "It was after this campaign that Henry is said of Geoffrey". (actioned)
  • This sentence is a bit convoluted (commas might help): "What happened with the vacant archbishopric of York after Richard's taking the throne as well as why and the exact chronology of events are complicated by the contradictory nature of the main contemporary accounts." (actioned)
  • Needs rewriting here: "and as a result his were estates confiscated by the king" and here: "Geoffrey he once again secured the support of Pope Innocent". (actioned)

I see a copyedit is being done at the moment. Hopefully that will pick up anything else like the above. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no copyedit underway; I simply responded to the points raised by Jimfbleak, and now by you. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I completely missed that you were a co-nominator. My bad. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite understandable. You could put what I know about medieval Archbishops of York on the back of a very small postage stamp, or even modern ones come to that. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanatory note that this Geoffrey shouldn't be confused with Henry's legitimate son Geoffrey. Also added a bit to the rebellion article (which really really sucks, by the way) to make it clear that there were two Geoffrey's involved. I've also added the three "sure" illegitimate sons of Henry II to his infobox. I am not touching the DNB comment with a ten foot pole... that's getting way more anal-retentive than even I manage. I've added an explanatory note about Henry's continental possessions - I didn't want it in the text to bog down the already rather convoluted chronology/prose. I added the link to sanctuary for either a peer reviewer or for Malleus, not sure which, so I'm not inclined to remove it. I've left a note on the talk page about the manuscript issue, hopefully Johnbod will set me right on that. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Struck the actioned points and the anal-retentive stuff (aren't you glad some people look at the actual wiki-text?). :-) A few more comments below, and I agree with Johnbod on one of his points, but will expand on that below. Carcharoth (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your main source appears to be the ODNB entry by Marie Lovatt - there are currently 49 cites to this source, and on checking I noticed that several of the cites cover more than one sentence. This compares with 7 cites for Turner and Heiser, 2 for Wahlgren, 1 for Barlow, 12 for the works by Greenway, 5 for the works by Warren, 8 for Fryde, 3 for Clanchy, 6 for Given-Wilson and Curteis. I could go on, but that would take too long. The point is that you explicitly name Diana Greenway, Ralph Turner, D. L. Douie, Richard Heiser, G. V. Scammell, Thomas Jones and J. C. Holt in the text, but you don't mention Lovatt at all, though the article relies very heavily on her work. This feels wrong, somehow. If her work is the only existing biographical treatment of Geoffrey (are the other sources just passing mentions within wide works?), that should be acknowledged somewhere in the text (not the 'only' bit, but the fact that Geoffrey received a write-up in the DNB by Kate Norgate in 1889, and then in the ODNB by Lovatt in 2004). I also read the Norgate article from 1889, and the differences are interesting.
    • Norgate's work was groundbreaking at the time, but it is no longer cited (pretty much any of her work, not just her article on Geoffrey) within the field, so I'd be hesitant to use it for anything, honestly. Most of the original DNB entries have long been superceded - the few cases where there is nothing in scholarship that has changed, the ODNB had those entries revised (Thus the entry on Urse d'Abetot is a revised version of J. H. Round's original entry. The reason I don't credit Lovatt in the text is that no where does she differ from other sources consulted. It's not quite true that she's the only person who has written on Geoffrey - there is a chapter in Royal Bastards that basically agrees in most points with the ODNB entry (the few points where it differs, I've pointed out that difference). I wouldn't characterize the other mentions of Geoffrey as "passing"... he gets a lot of "airtime" due to his quarrels, but the main work on him is Lovatt's right now (Douie did a Borthwick paper on him that I've been totally unable to get my hands on (the local university library has a copy, but it's been perpetually checked out for ages...) Greenway is attributed because she differs from Lovatt in calling Peter of Dinan Geoffrey's half-brother. (I suspect that Lovatt is just being lazy and using "brother" interchangably for either "full brother" or "half brother" as she also calls Richard and John Geoffrey's "brothers" and it's very clear they are only half-brothers). Turner and Heiser get a attribution because they are speculating in the text, it's not stated in their work that it's fact, but rather a possible reason. Douie gets an attribution because I'm quoting him directly on his opinion of Geoffrey. Scammel is the same as Turner and Heiser, he's pretty clear that he's speculating. Jones is the same as Douie - he's giving his opinion and is directly quoted, and the same is true for Holt. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, responding on a few points: (i) The 1960 work by Douie is available with full view on Google Books, see here - it is 15 pages long and I found it very readable. (ii) Douie's full name is Decima Langworthy Douie (a woman, not a man), and there is more on her family here. (iii) Lovatt's home page is here, and her ODNB article uses both Douie and Norgate as sources, so it is not quite true that Norgate's work is no longer cited. Lovatt cites "K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, 2 vols. (1887)" (I would guess Norgate drew on this work for her 1889 DNB article). (iv) As you know this area so well, I will accept what you say about Lovatt not differing from other sources or interjecting her own opinion (though she does draw on her PhD thesis as a source for the ODNB article). (v) It would be nice, though not essential, to make clearer that the citations are to pages from a chapter in Royal Bastards (there are 'chapter' parameters available in most citation templates), as that allows readers to look that chapter up if they want to do that.

        I still think it is useful for the readers to be told in some way that the three main article-length works focused on Geoffrey are Norgate (1889), Douie (1960), and Lovatt (2004) - I may expand on this in a later comment. I would do that by citing something to each one, and placing them in a separate subsection in the references, but that might be a step too far. Incidentally, before I forget, what are the credentials of Given-Wilson and Curteis and their publishers, and what level is Royal Bastards pitched at? Popular history book or academic treatise or something in-between? Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • I don't think that mentioning article length modern histories in the text is normal for most biographies. I've certainly never done it in any FA biography I've done, and I checked a couple of other recent promotions and such works aren't mentioned either. I do see book length biographies occasionally mentioned (but at other times, not mentioned either, when there are many of them), so I think I"m going to pass on this one. I did read Douie's work, and while interesting, it would make the already dense section on controversies even denser. I'm even happier to have it in the further reading section though. (It is not really a treatment of Geoffrey's total career - as it's pretty focused on his relations with his cathedral chapter at York, and while that's an important part of his career he also interacted with lots of others). I added the chapter parameter to the Royal Bastards citation in the References section. The work itself was originally published by Routledge (mine is a reprint by Barnes & Noble), which is a decent publisher. It doesn't have footnotes, but does include sources in the end. Given-Wilson is a lecturer in medieval history and is married to Curteis, who is an archaelogist. It's hard to classify - it's not a scholarly monograph but it's not a "popular history" either. It's held by a number of university libraries, that's for sure. It's a bit more "sensationalist" in tone with its writing, but its facts are solidly in agreement with Lovatt's. I've used it less as a citation mainly because Lovatt's work is available to more folks online, quite honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the clarification on the authors of Royal Bastards - I did notice some more recent works on the same topic - I assume they add nothing new? I've added a courtesy link to the Douie work - though there is no need to use citation templates in further reading. Further reading entries are not citations, but I suspect that some editors use citation templates there because it produces a standard format, and to enable easy porting for use as references later. But further reading (by the time you reach FAC) is not 'further editing to be done later' (as I may have said elsewhere). The works here should be ones that the nominator(s) have read (as you say you have now done) and are happy to point readers towards. Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anyway, to return to the point I was making about article-length works, I raise that point because unlike the use of book-length sources, where it is possible to greatly compress and summarise, or citing a source in passing for a brief point that needs referencing, the use of article-length sources as the main source for an article on Wikipedia can be problematic. The reason being that Wikipedia articles are generally of the same length and tone as these articles, and you may (by drawing on the same or similar sources) end up largely replicating what the author of that article did (merely rewriting things) - there is also the point that as being essentially the same thing, the articles are in some sense in direct competition for readers. This is why I think it is courteous (ethical even) to be clear on that point to the readers and to indicate clearly the other works of a similar style and length that exist (I would also mention Norgate somewhere as a tip of the hat as she appear to have started the ball rolling here). Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't usually indicate the length of sources cited, when it would often help readers and editors to know if a source is a book of several hundred pages, a 20-page chapter from a book [Royal Bastards] , a 15-page booklet [Douie's work], or several pages in the ODNB [Lovatt's article].

            At the moment, if someone asked me to point them to a good article-length treatment of this topic, I'm not sure if I would: (a) point them to this article; or (b) just tell them to read the chapter from Royal Bastards, plus Douie's booklet, plus Lovatt's article. I'm not sure that there is much difference to either of the approaches (a) or (b). I guess what I'm asking is what does a reader get from this article that they wouldn't get elsewhere? I also have some figures on word counts and (now I've been taking a closer look) some nascent concerns about similarities in wording and structure between this article and Lovatt's. Would you be willing to discuss that on the article talk page rather than here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            • Yes, that would probably be best, because right now .. reading "I guess what I'm asking is what does a reader get from this article that they wouldn't get elsewhere?" i'm thinking you're wondering if the whole article should just be deleted because you could read Lovatt's work instead... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, not really. I can see that you have added lots that isn't in Lovatt's article, but I wanted an idea of what proportion that is of the current article (I have made an estimate, but you will have a much better idea). Don't get me wrong. I think the ODNB is wonderful, and I use it as a source as well, but my trepidation comes from knowing someone who worked on the ODNB and once complained to me (and on-wiki) about how someone had written a Wikipedia article that hewed closely to an ODNB article he had written. Ever since then, I've been a bit sensitive to that, possibly too sensitive. Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've replied to the above (as well as including information from the duplication detector tool) over on the article talk page. Let's move this there? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thank-you for that. I still need to do one more read-through of the article along with its main sources, but after that I hope to be able to support, despite what I said above about other article-length accounts being more readable. Sometimes things are unavoidably lost in the transition to the tone and style of an encyclopedia article - I wasn't just referring to the Wikipedia article there - Douie's booklet is for me also more readable than the ODNB article, and the Royal Bastards account is again a different style to that adopted in Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While comparing the article to the ODNB entry, I noticed that the bit about Paul de Dinan doesn't seem quite right. The Wikipedia article currently says Paul de Dianan was Geoffrey's brother, with a cite to the ODNB article. But what the ODNB article actually says is: "Geoffrey, appealing against the papal sentences, attempted to intrude first his brother Peter, and then Peter de Dinan, into the archdeaconry of the West Riding". It seems pretty clear from this that these are two different Peters. If this is a mistake of some sort, might be a good idea to double-check the other 48 cites to this source. (actioned - I meant Peter, not Paul, sorry)
    • I'm going to assume you mean "Peter de Dinan"? There is no Paul in this article. I've done some more digging, and yeah, this looks like me having confused the two. Fixed now by changing the redlink for Peter of Dinan to just plain, unlinked Peter. I've been trying to find enough sources for Peter of Dinan (as he pops up in some strange places) but haven't yet found any coverage beyond bare mentions, not enough yet to write a biography (even a stub). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The York-Canterbury dispute is mentioned twice in very similar wording, and linked twice (one instance is piped, so it is easy to miss this). (agree that double-linking is OK when footnotes involved)
  • His role as 'Chancellor of England' is linked in the lead, but not in the main text. (actioned)
    • Here, I get to be strange (given the previous statement) and state I don't generally link again in the main text if something is in the lead, only in explanatory footnotes. (Not everyone reads the explanatory footnotes, thus why I link the dispute twice) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And here I get to be strange as well and disagree. :-) No, seriously, I don't think things like frequency of linking (which is something that is meant to be fairly uniform to help the reader), should come down to the personal idiosyncrasies of whoever happens to be editing the article. This is something where readers may be looking for a link and will fail to find one. And it is trivial to check every link in the lead and see if it is repeated in the main body of the article. In this case consecration and sanctuary and Richard I of England and John of England are all linked in both the lead and somewhere in the article (though the link to sanctuary in the article goes to a section rather than the whole article). So things are a tad inconsistent with the linking, even given what you say above. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went ahead and linked it, but as you noted, the link to sanctuary is to a section, and if you'd noted, the two links to Richard and John are where the names are different than those used in the lead (Prince John, instead of John of England) so I linked to avoid confusion. I used the new double link checker thing very carefully before bringing this article to FAC, evaluating each double link to make sure it had a reason. There is no rule that you must link both in the lead and the body, as you seem to be implying, and generally I don't unless there is some reason. But rather than continue to fight over this, I've linked Chancellor. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • My rule of thumb is to link the main body of the article as if someone has skimmed the lead and started reading properly from the first paragraph of the body of the article. That's what I do in a lot of articles when I'm reading. And it is annoying to see a link missing, and to then scan back up the article and find it in the lead section. Carcharoth (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, but you sometimes refer to 'Hugh du Puiset' as Hugh and sometimes as Puiset. Also, should that be 'du Puiset'? There is also Hugh of Lincoln and Burchard du Puiset. I think it is all OK, but given the number of people of the same names here, it might be worth double-checking that there is no potential for confusion. (mostly actioned, but one bit left over)
    • Okay, I've standardized except for the part about "Burchard du Puiset, a relative of Hugh" which I've expanded to "Burchard du Puiset, a relative of Hugh du Puiset". Puiset is also fine, and used often. I use Puiset rather than Du Puiset because I find the usage of Du Puiset at the start of sentences very very ugly (I'm anal about the lowercasing of the de/du/fitz thing, what can I say. My prof at college was anal about it in papers and it rubbed off.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All looks fine now, though I note the J. C. Holt quote refers to a "de Puiset" (not 'du'), and you might want to be clear which du Puiset that is, presumably Hugh. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, it is. Hugh is referred to as either "du Puiset" or "de Puiset" depending on the source. Surnames are very changeable in this time period (strictly speaking its not even a surname, it's a byname or a toponymn, but I'm not a specialist in the whole naming thing so I can't keep track of which is which...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of 'Richard's ransom' comes out of the blue. Might be worth explaining to readers what that was about. There is also only one mention of 'crusade'. Is it worth giving the context for that as well? (actioned)
    • Sorry, missed this, working on adding something in an explanatory footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I"ve added an explanatory footnote here explaining what happened and why. Unlike Geoffrey's actions in John's reign, where he led the resistence to John's taxation of the clergy, when the ransom payments were required, Geoffrey seems to have paid up without much demur. I also added a bit about Richard being in Normandy preparing to go on the Third Crusade in the appropriate place, hopefully that helps with context without bogging the article down too much on stuff that Geoffrey was only peripherally involved with. (Geoffrey seems to have never ever ever considered taking the cross - the thought of his temper on crusade doesn't bear thinking about!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ODNB article says the London prebend was Mapesbury. Not sure if you were just summarising here and eliding the detail, but it is something that could be included. (fair enough)
    • We don't have an article on the prebend of Mapesbury, and this was a place where I figured I could cut a bit of detail and hopefully cut down on some of the denseness of the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing the glossing of prebend struck me as a bit unnecessary. It's not exactly a controversial matter.
    • I try to cite everything, because if I don't, someone will come along and claim that I'm trying to cite the meaning of a prebend to something that doesn't state it. Better to be safe than sorry, in this world. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still think it is not necessary, but won't quibble. It does stick out like a sore thumb from the other references, though. I really don't think anyone is likely to ask for that to be cited. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another article versus source issue with "Geoffrey's youth was Alexander's main objection to Geoffrey's election" vs "Pope Alexander III, probably conscious of his youth, did not confirm him in that office until 1175". I don't see any justification for saying "main objection", unless that should be cited to another source? (actioned)
    • It's somewhat of a supposition, but probably a safe one. However, I've changed this to "was one of Alexander's objections to Geoffrey's election" to avoid any issues. (The bastardy was another concern, but likely not nearly as objectionable as the age.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have in the article an image of Henry II and Thomas Becket if Becket is not mentioned in text? There is the opportunity in this bit where: "Geoffrey processed to London via Becket's tomb at Canterbury" (from the ODNB entry). Was there still tension between king and clergy at that time, and where did Geoffrey fit into that? (defer to nominator)
    • The image is there because our images of Henry II suck. And there was always tension between the clergy and the king - there wasn't much more than usual at this time. I'm open to suggestions for other images of Henry - but I'm trying to avoid overuse of his tomb image... I could use File:Henry2seal.jpg but I try to not push my own photos that much... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the bit about processing to London via the tomb of Becket? Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Becket had been dead 20+ years by this time, his tomb had turned into a shrine and a place of pilgrimage. None of my sources really state WHY Geoffrey went past Becket's tomb but I'm not sure that it's the best opportunity to introduce Becket - Becket was dead before Geoffrey began his career, and I guess I'm confused about what you're wanting added. I am happy to replace the picture with the one I pointed out (of Henry's seal) but I did think that having some sort of image of Henry in the article might help. Suggestions for other images would be appreciated, if you have any ideas. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No ideas, I'm afraid. I have struck this as not really actionable and my arguments aren't really convincing here. I just found it strange that Becket is there, as usually when someone is in an image and mentioned in the image caption, you expect to see them mentioned in the text as well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two points about one of the quotes: "My other sons are the real bastards. This is the only one who's proved himself legitimate!": (i) You've joined two quotes that are separate in the source you are citing. Is an ellipsis of some sort needed? (ii) The DNB entry by Norgate gives a different translation/quote, which is one of those differences I noticed. (actioned/discussed)
    • The actual statement is "‘My other sons are the real bastards’, Henry is said to have exclaimed, embracing Geoffrey fervently. ‘This is the only one who's proved himself legitimate!’" which I think is safe enough to run together but I've put in the requested ellipsis. There are a number of different translations out there, (it comes from Gerald of Wales and was originally in Latin) but Lovatt's is probably the closest to the original meaning while still remaining close to modern-day idiom. (Given-Wilson and Curteis use "Base-born indeed have my other children shown themselves; this alone is my true son!" which is just plain stilted.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might be best to give the Latin in brackets or a note, for those who can tackle it. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • BLech. I don't own a copy of the original Latin of Gerald of Wales (He was a bit past my studies in college, so I never acquired the original language versions, and I've had no interest in writing about him so haven't bothered during my Wiki career) How about I promise to get it during my next library trip? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It should all be online if you have the ref, but it's not important. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think there is a modern translation availble through either Oxford Medieval Texts or the Toronto Texts ... I'd rather use a modern text/translation when possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • It would be nice to have both the original Latin and another modern translation. One thing this did prompt me to wonder was what language(s) Geoffrey spoke? In what I've read, it is said that he wrote in Latin (of course), and there is a story about how his formal resignation from one of his posts was in 'execrable French', but I'm not clear what the point of that story is (the difference between Anglo-Norman French and continental French?). When did the English kings start speaking English anyway? Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • They likely didn't speak English all the time until close to the Wars of the Roses. Geoffrey likely spoke English as well as Norman French. Whether he spoke Latin or just knew the liturgy by heart is something we may not know. Even at this time, writing Latin and speaking it weren't always the same thing.
                    • The first proclamation in English is I think from Henry V, but they spoke it earlier than that, though they seem to have preferred history and romance manuscripts in French until even Henry VII. But I suspect Geoffrey's English was pretty pidgin, for giving orders to stablemen & so on, like the Hindi of many officials of the British Raj. Even by Geoffrey's time I suspect their French was becoming more Aquitanian than Norman. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point I agree with Johnbod about is the density of the clergy disputes sections. I do think those sections could be polished a little bit more, possibly with some brief explanations of how powerful the clergy were at the time and what their role was within society, and relating that to Geoffrey (if any sources manage to do that). Carcharoth (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC) (actioned)[reply]

    • the problem is that none of the sources I've got explicitly link Geoffrey to the sort of explanation I think you're wanting (And I emphasize the "think" here .. I'm a bit unclear about what you're wanting exactly.) And if you think it's dense - I've left out some minor disputes with various monasteries and minor clergy ... Geoffrey really could pick a fight. I'm open to suggestions on copyediting to remove some of the density, but I'm not sure there is much that can be removed without losing sense of why he was going the various places and what the various quarrels were about. Malleus, want to take another whack at this section? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure there's a great deal can be done, but I'll take another look anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I'm suggesting is adding context. Like the bit above where I point out that the bit about Richard's ransom comes a bit out of the blue for a reader not familiar with this era of history. Also, the suggestion to mention the crusades to give context there. And the whole stuff about raising money to pay for Richard's ransom, and how the clergy supported themselves and raised money. That's what I mean by the role of the clergy in a feudal society. Just something to add a bit of colour and remind the readers how different society was back then. If you are not comfortable doing that, fair enough, but it was something I thought would help raise the article another notch or two. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added context to the ransom and a link to third crusade. Honestly? I don't see that society was really that different quite honestly - the names and procedures were different, but I'm not one of those people that thinks that people have fundamentally changed their nature much in the last 5000 years or so. The names of the elites may change, but the fact that folks are going to look out for the main chance really hasn't ... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The added context does help. Thanks for putting that in. On the matter of whether fundamental human nature has changed, of course it hasn't, but that isn't what I was saying. Society has changed. We no longer live in a feudal society, and archbishops are not royal bastards and don't act like royal bastards either. But then I guess most readers of this article will know that, so I'll probably drop this point. The most important points of context (the Crusades and the Angevin connection) are mostly there, so that should be enough. Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the above is getting quite off-topic wrt WP:WIAFA; when I read something like "I guess what I'm asking is what does a reader get from this article that they wouldn't get elsewhere?", I'm wondering if I've landed on a website with policies other than Wikipedia's. Much of this could probably be better explored on talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'm not clear what you mean by "Much of this" - could you clarify? I have reviewed what I said above and matched my comments to the FA criteria they were related to (mostly 1a, 1b and 1c). Would it help if I posted that here, or shall I raise that with you somewhere else? Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Pretty much there; I should say I added a bit right at the end a while back.
  • A clunky sentence in the lead "The archbishop spent much of his archiepiscopate in various disputes with his half-brothers, both Richard, and after Richard's death, John, who succeeded Richard to the English throne in 1199."
  • "When Prince Richard and King Philip II of France declared war on Henry in 1187, Henry gave Geoffrey command of a quarter of the English royal army, and he was with Henry when the king was driven from Le Mans in 1189." - saying "the king" makes it ambiguous. Presumably it was Henry?
  • "him in return for a payment of 1000 marks and the promise of 1000 more to follow" not "1,000"? Same elsewhere.
  • The clergy disputes get pretty dense to read, but I don't suppose that can be helped.
Er, that's it. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The modern style is not to use delimiters for four-figure numbers, so "1000". Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, though I prefer to retain them for money amounts, but that's a personal preference. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, you want to tackle the clunky sentences, or do you want me to work my elephantine fixes? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've de-clunked now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think caps should be used, but I"m increasingly on the wrong side of the caps/lower case dicussion per Jimfbleak (that is, I prefer to use caps more than the MOS allows(.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope we won't let this caps issue drop, as the consensus here seems strong. In particular, the lower-case option may reflect some American usage, but it certainly doesn't reflect British English. The guideline as it stands is outrageous, though happily generally ignored. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm very much in favour of your suggested capitalisation, as I said to Ealdgyth some time ago, but FAC should not be dependent on changing a guideline. If the guideline is changed then so can the title of this article. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The proper solution would be to take the issue up on the guideline page. There will be some archived discussion from the past, but it's been way long enough for a new discussion to begin. Any of you are welcome to bring it up, and I'll be happy to chime in, but if I bring it up, it'll look like sour grapes from losing previously. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nitpicks:

  • For the Richard/Philip image, while those with subject-matter knowledge think it obvious, it's probably worth clarifying in the caption which king is which
  • File:Saint_Louis_Psalter_17_recto.jpg: I get a "session timeout" error on the source link. Also, this isn't required, but seeing as the image page is English-only we really don't need those language tags
  • "The identity of his mother is uncertain; the only contemporary source that gives any information on her is hostile to Geoffrey, but she may have been named Ykenai" - as a non-specialist, it's not clear to me why the hostility is important. It's explained later, but do we need this detail in the lead?
  • "he led a campaign in the north of England to help put down a rebellion by his legitimate half-brothers, which led to the capture of the King of Scots" - the campaign or the rebellion led to the capture? Clarified later
  • "Ykenai may have been a daughter of a knight" - in addition to or instead of being a whore?
  • "he was under the canonical age for holding a bishopric" - what age is this?
  • "What happened...is complicated" - wouldn't it be more correct to say our knowledge of what happened is complicated, or something to that effect?
  • "...ordered Geoffrey to the king's presence in Normandy, Although Hugh du Puiset, who was Justiciar, was hampering Geoffrey's attempts to collect revenue for the earlier find..." - are these meant to be two separate sentences? Also, is "find" the correct word?
  • "Puiset appealed to Rome and refused to attend the synod and was excommunicated in December by Geoffrey" - rephrase to avoid double and, or add a comma before the second?
  • Be consistent in whether Justiciar is capitalized or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've got most of these except the following: I left a note with Johnbod about the psalter image since he uploaded that image. As I noted above, I don't have a firm source for the canonical age of consecration - I'm pretty sure it's 30 but nothing I have comes out and says that (flails). This includes a couple of works that SHOULD state it but don't.. I think this is one of those pieces of information that medievalists are just supposed to know.. heh. I didn't change the "What happened is complicated" bit because Malleus and I spent forever twiggling it and he's happy with the phrasing (or was) and I'm hesitant to disturb his careful work without his help. Otherwise these should all be fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not upload the image, but I have updated the file on how to sneak up on the dynamic database via here. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Richardson "Schools of Northampton" English Historical Review p. 599
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Geoffrey_(archbishop_of_York)/archive1&oldid=1078799933"