Wikipedia:Peer review/Baldwin of Forde/archive1

Baldwin of Forde

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC, and am looking for suggestions on prose flow, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility to the non-expert. Anything and everything should be picked apart, and all suggestions are welcome!

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing...: haven't done a bishop for a while (not an old one, anyway), so I'll enjoy it, but it may be a day or two before I can start. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No great hurry needed. And I should be able to do a few peer reviews in a day or so myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Here are a few issues from my reading of the lead and first section:-

Lead

"...the king insisted that Baldwin become archbishop. While archbishop,..." The repetition at the start of the new sentence is inelegant; I would suggest "...the king insisted that Baldwin become archbishop. In this office,..." etc

Early life

"...the son of Hugh d'Eu, who was Archdeacon of Totnes and a woman whose name is unknown; his mother, however, later became a nun". A couple of issues here. The placement of the first comma suggests that Hugh was an archdeacon and a nameless woman; I recommend moving it to after "Archdeacon of Totnes". The word "however" is not required. In fact, I'd run the sentence thus: "...the son of Hugh d'Eu who was Archdeacon of Totnes, and a woman of unknown name who later became a nun".
However, the next sentence rather puzzles me, with its suggestion that what's just been said may be inaccurate. Can you clarify?
"By 1155, ~~however~~..." Another redundant one
There is probably a medievalist's reason for it, but it seems odd to me that Thomas Becket is referred to throughout as "Becket" while everybody else is called by their first name. Why is this?
It is necessary to say what office Becket held during this time, to explain how he had the power to excommunicate.
"Baldwin then became a monk and then abbot..." When is "then"? Would it be better to rephrase the whole sentence: "In about 1170 Baldwin became a monk and then abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Forde."?
We have two piped links in this section to Canon law: one from "canon lawyer" and the other from "canonist"
I'm not certain that "remanded" is the right word here.
At the end of this section it's 1178 and Baldwin is 53, just 12 years from his death, serving as an abbot - yet we're calling the section "Early life"?

More to come, naturally. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this section - we refer to Baldwin as Baldwin because he has no "surname" - "of Forde" is merely descriptive. By convention, popes have no surnames once they become pope - and convention is to not use surnames for royalty. So anytime someone's name is "Xxx of someplace" it's usual to refer to them by "Xxx" rather than "someplace" (partly to avoid confusion with place names). I want to keep the double links to canon law - it may not be clear to everyone that "canonist" means someone learned in canon law. I believe "remanded" is correct here - but other suggestions are welcome. Otherwise, took all your suggestions. Hope to get to more of these later... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and here is more:-

Bishop of Worcester

I don't think his very brief detail justifies a whole main section. My suggestion is that you combine it with the last couple of paragraphs of the previous section, under a heading such as "Ecclesiastical office" or some such.
- Moved. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop of Canterbury

It would be appropriate to say briefly why the vacancy at Canterbury arose. Obviosly someone died, but who?
"...he would only accept Baldwin at Canterbury". Do you mean: "he would accept only Baldwin at Canterbury", i.e. Baldwin was the only candidate acceptable to him?
I think all material related to Baldwin's dispute with the monks should be in the subsection presently titled "Escalation of the dispute". Suggestion: end the preamble after the first two sentences of the second paragraph. Begin the subsection with "During his time as archbishop...", and retitle it "Dispute with Chrict Church monks".
"After that, Baldwin then proposed..." Either "after that" or "then" is redundant.
The link on "secular" goes to clergy, which is not immediately helpful in explaining to the reader the difference between secular and monastic clergy – particularly as the general definition of "secular" is "not concerned with religion".
"It is not clear if Baldwin himself intended such a plan, but it was definitely a plot by some of the other backers of the proposed church..." I feel the phrasing here falls a little short of encyclopedic neutrality. For example "it was definitely a plot..." Who says so? Presumably the source, and this needs to be clear. I'd be happier with something loke: "though according to (sources) this was clearly the objective of..." etc
"an appointment that was widely acknowledged..." etc. Widely acknowledged at the time, or by late commentators? If the former, perhaps be a little specific?
- I've dealt with all of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Service to King Henry

Could we have a parenthetical explanation of "servi camerae"?
"Baldwin took the cross..." What does this mean? And I think the word "either" is missing, before "in January 1188".
"In April 1188, Baldwin was in Wales on his tour..." Unless we are told what the tour was, the words "on his tour" don't add anything, and could be deleted.
"although the chronicler also claimed that it was mainly undertaken by Baldwin in order to avoid the dispute with the Canterbury monks." By "it", do you mean the whole Welsh tour? I'd say "suggested" rather than "claimed" unless he made a public assertion. Also, "in order to" is verbose; simply "to" will do.
"Baldwin was with Henry before his death, unsuccessfully taking part in efforts to negotiate with Prince Richard". Better to say "the king's death" - better still, "shortly before the king's death. And, since Richard has not previously been described as "Prince Richard" I would clarify: "with the heir, Prince Richard" (or some such).

Will finish probably tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the ongoing review. I'll await you finishing up before tackling this. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got through here with reworkings - note that the first point in this section was eliminated by a rewrite/removal of some parenthetical stuff that crept in and wasn't citable ... i love drive by editing... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rest:-

Under Richard

"Queen Mother" is not a hyphenated term
"the infamous Case of Evesham." Whose adjective? If the source's it should be in quotes. If yours, it's POV
I've never met the word "moneyers" before; is there a modern equivalent by way of explanation? (But I love the idea of archbishops needing the king's permission to have a mint!)

Third Crusade

We need additional punctuation in "leaving Marseilles ahead of Richard along with Hubert Walter and Ranulf de Glanvill sailing to Syria directly on 5 August 1190".
I doubt the general reader will know what is meant by "metropolitam authority". They may also stumble over "spiritualities" and "temporalities", but at least these terms have links.
Ah, I get the idea when I read on, sort of, but maybe a little simplification of the terms would be helpful
For sorting out: "after learning of the death of Frederick Barbarossa's death on the way to the Holy Land".
Who was holding Acre at the time of Baldwin's arrival, i.e. who was under seige from Guy and Sybilla?
This is a bit hard to visualise: "...the city was under siege by the Frankish forces led by King Guy of Lusignan and Queen Sibylla of Jerusalem, who in turn were being besieged by Saladin." Is it that Guy and Sybilla were sort of trapped, between the city they were besieging and the forces of Saladin forming a kind of outer ring?
It seems extraordinary that Sybilla and her daughters should all die at the same time, unless they were killed. Was that the case? If the sources don't give the causes of deaths I think you should indicate that the deaths are "unexplained".
...but, more specifically, aren't we getting a little far from our subject by recounting the machinations over the throne of Jerusalem? I don't think we need this amount of detail to understand the minor role in the matter played by Baldwin just before his death.
Capitals inconsistency: Earlier in the article we had "support for the Crusade", then "preaching the crusade", "3000 recruits for the crusade", "join Richard on Crusade", "Baldwin accompanied Richard on the Crusade", and "and died surrounded by his followers on the crusade." What is the capitals policy here? I can understand "Third Crusade", but the other usage seems arbitrary.
- Got most of these - i've left in the detail on the machinations in Jerusalem because I can't even begin to think how to simplify this down without getting into trouble with not being accurate (this is greatly simplified as it is .. politics in the Kingdom of Jerusalem are usually described as "tortured" and go downhill from there...). Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writings and studies

I don't think you should say "recently published" and then give the actual year; that seems like redundancy. (Some might think that 1963 isn't all that recent. Were you even alive then? I was.) It may be better to rephrase thus: "It was first printed in 1662, and in 1963 was edited and published in the series Sorces Chrétiennes, as volumes 93 and 94."
You have "twenty-two sermons" and "22 sermons" in the same paragraph
Try to avois repetion such as "...a work on faith.[1] The work on faith..."
"Baldwin was known for his preaching ability, and was considered a famous preacher." This sentence looks a bit of a tag-on, in a paragraph otherwise concerned with his writings. Consider repositioning it.
"...another group of writings connected with Baldwin was the correspondence relating to his dispute with the Christ Church monks." Shouldn't that be "is", as the correspondence appears still to exist?
"Stubbs" should be properly introduced (as you did Barlow)
- Got all of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

A bit thin on material in this section, and most of what you have is more a character appraisal than a "legacy". I don't think that Joseph's poems, written after Baldwin's death, have any relation to the latter's legacy. There are a few "crusade/Crusade" issues to be sorted out.
- I'm open to suggestions for another title for this section Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have kept my review pretty much to prose and subject-related issues, and as you will have seen, have done a few minor copyedits on my way through. I've not looked at refs or citation formats, but I rather trust you on these. Please let me knoew if there are any issues you want to discuss from my review. Like you, I find it impossible to watchlist all the peer reviews I do, but you know where to find me. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS Shock-horror-shame! There's a disambiguation page link on "Capitulum"! Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]