Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Burnell/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robert Burnell

Previous peer review
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 would appreciate any help on missing context or copyediting that it can have.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Dr pda Wow, a bishop with a surname. I though you'd branched out into a different field for a moment :) As usual a reasonably solid, if short, article. I presume you've already hit all available (relevant/high-quality etc) sources? I've quickly read the ODNB entry and wonder if maybe a few more of the details from it could be included in the article (e.g. what he did as bishop, or his involvement in Welsh affairs), though I can see you don't want to overwhelm the article with trivia. The article would benefit from a copy-edit for prose; I don't have time to do this, but have listed a few cases below. There are also a few places where a bit more context would be good (see below also), and finally there were some MoS issues (dashes, p/pp) which I have fixed myself. I've also changed [notes 1] etc to [Note 1] while leaving the section title as Notes. (It just sounds wrong to me.)

Specific points:

  • Watch out for repetition—"served as ... served as ... served as" in the lead, "a number ... a number " in 'Foreign service', "although ... although" in Death and legacy
  • served as a royal clerk before switching to the service of the future King Edward I of England—this doesn't sound right to me, it sets up a contrast between 'royal clerk' and 'service to future King Edward', but both of these are service to a King, so there is no contrast! How about worked as a clerk in the royal chancery before moving to the household of Prince Edward, later King Edward I of England
fixedEaldgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After this I would add another sentence along the lines of he became a favourite of Edward and was one of his four lieutenants when Edward went on Crusade.(Ref ODNB) Otherwise we jump from him being a clerk to regent of the kingdom!
done.Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead also needs to be expanded; it is currently mostly about him being a bishop while the article is mostly about him being a chancellor, or at least his non-religious activities.
  • Confirmation by the papacy—who's doing the confirming, the institution of the papacy, or the person of the pope?
It was the popes. Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of Early life needs rewriting. The same facts are repeated in successive sentences.
I think I've fixed that. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context: chancery probably needs an explanation, since the link goes to Chancellor. Is it the same as the Court of Chancery or is it just the Chancellor's office?
It's actually the writing office for the king. Expanded a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Welsh' is possibly overlinking; a better link would be to an article on the conflict between the English and the Welsh at the time.
Heh. I have friendly "link sprites" who love to come through and link things ... Fixed.Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context: It is probably worth pointing out that at this time clerk implies cleric implies minor orders to prevent readers being surprised that an office worker is being appointed to religious positions :)
Added an explanatory footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context: which chapter is it who is electing the Archbishop of Canterbury?
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which, in the infobox, could we get rid of one of never consecrated/never enthroned, and in the remaining one give a date for his election, e.g. "elected June 1278
     never consecrated" or something?
I cannot remove the enthroned. It is "required" in the infobox code (and yes, I've complained, but it keeps being switched back so I gave up.) I've attempted a fix.... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • His lifestyle also partly accounts for the hostility between himself and the man who was eventually elected archbishop, John Peckham.[2] Peckham had actually been sent by Edward to Rome to secure Nicholas' confirmation of the election. I don't understand how his lifestyle led to the hostility between them. From the ODNB it appears (unless I'm reading it wrong) that Peckham was involved with Burnell's failed appointment as Winchester not Canterbury.
Peckham was involved in the 1278 bit too, as he was SUPPOSED to secure the election for Burnell (having been sent by Edward to Rome to do that..) hopefully it's clearer now. (I did some switching around).Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the chief and most influential adviser—doesn't one imply the other? Also, which is more common in British English, adviser or advisor?
I have no idea on the spelling. (I let Malleus copyedit for that .. since I'm a yank). To me, chief implies an official type position (holding the office) and I'm trying to get across that not only did Burnell hold the high office, he also had the big influence. (With some monarchs, holding the chancellorship didn't always mean you had much influence...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As part of his duties, Burnell spent most of his time—sounds a bit awkward.
  • The bishop took a leading role in the legislation of King Edward. The king's major legislative acts mainly date to Burnell's tenure of the office of chancellor, from 21 September 1274 until the bishop's death.—it sounds strange to me to refer to Burnell by his ecclesiatical title in a non-ecclesiastical context.
copyedited this. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edward and the government—what exactly is being referred to by 'government'? Parliament, Privy Council, Courts?
With Edward, it probably means the royal officials enforcing Edward's will. Have clarified in the text as "Edward and the royal officials" Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • swamping that body in too much work—swamping with, perhaps?
duh. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In these writs, the government attempted to enforce that the only correct way to receive a privilege or grant of land was through a written charter, which actions might have deprived most of the magnates of England of their lands and rights. By the 1290's, the government was forced to concede the attempt and that claims that a right had been theirs since "time out of mind" were allowed. This is rather opaque. Only because I had clicked through to quo warranto did I know that magnates often had grants without a written charter.
Added in a sentence so it now reads " these writs, attempts were made to enforce the rule that the only correct way to receive a privilege or grant of land was through a written charter, which actions might have deprived most of the magnates of England of their lands and rights. Most lands at this point were held not held by documentary grants, but by the force of custom. By the 1290's, the government was forced to concede the attempt and that claims that a right had been theirs since "time out of mind" were allowed." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ones in 1275—sounds a little colloquial, 'Those of 1275' perhaps? Also, this is a bit messy in that we get things out of order: first we have Parliament getting swamped, then we get quo warranto writs, then we get Statute Of Westminster I (which was presumably what swamped Parliament) with a mention of later quo warranto writs. The statute needs to be tied back to the preceding statements a bit better.
I've switched this around. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • arose from pressure from the barons—who are these barons you speak of? :)
switched to "magnates of England" Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penultimate paragraph of Chancellor and bishop needs more context, especially Great Seal vs Privy Seal. Hanaper in the following para could also do with a gloss.
Dealt with GS and PS. Hanaper I've attempted to explain ... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if I agree that the memorandum was the cause or the effect of the chancery becoming fixed. Who in the chancery would be able to write a memo ordering the Chancellor?
Yep, my phrasing was unclear .. switched to "This is documented in a chancery memorandum..." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the homage that Edward owed to King Philip IV of France—presumably by reason of the former's French possessions?
clarified Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berwick could do with a word or two locating it, to prevent the reader having to click through. Also, are you sure it is Berwick, East Sussex, rather than Berwick-upon-Tweed? The latter would make more sense if (as it looks like from the ODNB) he was still sorting out disputes re the Scottish crown.
Hm. I suspect you are correct on the linkage. Although I'm not sure I put in the link... fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did he hold the Parliament in Acton Burnell Castle proper, or in the adjacent barn, as the only sufficently large structure? Acton Burnell Castle suggests the latter.
I don't trust the source on the Castle article, and nothing I have says anything about the barn. CE'd it to "He kept a magnificent household, enough that he was able in the autumn of 1283 to host a parliament at his home in Acton Burnell." which keeps us away from stating exactly WHAT building it was held in. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be an idea to mention Philip being his heir in the 'Death and legacy' section as well. And could also be useful to mention that his family gave their name to the town, not the other way around.
Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason the pre-ISBN books don't have OCLC numbers?
I hadn't run the script over htem yet (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I hope you find these comments useful. Dr pda (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on the bishop stuff and the lead. This is one of my early GAs, it's not as "complete" (read "full of every detail possible") as the later ones...
thanks for the great review. How's Epikleros coming? (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Epikleros is chugging along, though slowly as I'm very busy IRL at the moment. It's almost time for another visit to the library to investigate the 20 or so books which have accumulated on my list, and someone's had the nerve to recall some of the books I've had out for, umm, six months now :) I'm looking forward to the point when I can actually start writing, but at least I can be confident that no-one can claim that I haven't carried out a "comprehensive survey of the available literature"! Dr pda (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

You seem to have attracted plenty of comment during this peer review. Here are my additional pennyworths. I have also done odd bits of ce, not thorough (no time), mainly commas and odd non-contentious rephrasings

  • Lead
    • Do you need "born" in the opening parentheses? It is surely implied by the date range,
Heh. Score one for habit. I'm so used to working on folks where we don't have a clue on birthdate, I forgot when you have both birth and death you don't have to specify which is which ...)Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not immediately clear that the "prince" whose interests Robert stayed in England to serve is the aforementioned "future King Edward I of England". Suggest you introduce him as "Prince Edward, the future..." etc
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikilnk on "regent"? Not everyone will know what the term means.
Linked. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto "chancellor"
Actually, made this "Lord Chancellor" since Lord Chancellor is linked in the very first sentence. Hopefully this makes it clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence: "Burnell continued to enjoy the king's trust until the bishop's death in 1292" makes it sound as though "the bishop" was a third person. I suggest turn it round, thus: "Until his death in 1292, Burnell continued to enjoy the king's trust."
Oh, much better phrasing. Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chancellor and bishop
    • "...and then appointed a friar, Peckham, instead". You have mentioned John Peckham in the previous line; adding "a friar" to his second mention is odd. If it is significant to say that he was a friar, this should be done at his first mention.
I'm sure there was a point to the fact that Peckham was a friar (I think it was that Nicholas was a friar also, but I can't be sure on this) but it's kinda peripheral to Burnell, so I cut it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "magnates" again - how did we deal with them in Hilary of Chichester?
Leading laymen (grins). I went with "...magnates, or leading laymen,..." so that I can use magnates later. That phrase may go into my conciousness like "pallium, the symbol of an archbishop's authority"... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fourth paragraph of the "Chancellor and bishop" section begins with an extremely long and convoluted sentence. Some rewriting advised, possibly: "During Burnell's time as Chancellor, the division between the king's personal household department of the Wardrobe,[23] and the governmental department of the Chancery, which was headed by the Chancellor, was erased almost entirely. The Wardrobe had developed as a less formal department for the collection and distribution of money but under Edward had effectively become a treasury for warfare.[24]"
Took your suggestion. (Had to jiggle refs too... fun.) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "dispurse"? Is there such a word? Disburse, perhaps.
I can't spell. You'll learn that eventually. Fixed. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The clause "...and enjoy the profits from the fees of their office" hangs loose at the very end of a long sentence, completely detached from what it relates to at the start of the sentence, which becomes very difficult to follow. Another rewrite job, I think. I don't know if the following retains he meaning, but it is offered as a suggestion: "Edward had such trust in his chancellor and the chancellor's clerks that Burnell and the clerks were allowed to dispense with the hanaper system,[28][29] which required fees for sealing charters to be paid into the hanaper department of the chancery for disbursal.[30] Robert and his clerls were permitted to enjoy the profits from the fees of their office.[28][29]"
Took your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "settle down in London" - why not "settle in London"?
Because I'm of the opininon that if one word will be good, fifteen would be better... done! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wording query: "...a chancery memorandum of 1280 that ordered the chancellor, along with the other minsters, the duty of sorting the many petitions..." The sense, presumably, is delegating the duty in question to the chancellor and other ministers , but I don't think you can "order" a duty.
Reworded to "This is documented in a chancery memorandum of 1280 that documented the fact that the chancellor, along with the other minsters, now had the duty of sorting the many petitions that came into the government and only passing on the most urgent to the king." does that work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Every year at Lent, he returned to his diocese, and left behind the court in order to attend to diocesan affairs." Rather muddled, and with repetition. Perhaps: "Every year at Lent he left the court behind, to return to his diocese and attend to its affairs."
Works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foreign service
    • The phrase "a number of" occurs in succesive sentences. One could be "several"
done. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another problem sentence: "The speech was a prelude to discussions involving the homage that Edward owed to King Philip IV of France, for Edward's land in France, which were concluded successfully." Again, its the bit at the end that's too far away from the object it relates to, in this case discussions involving homage. The sentence would better read: "The speech was a prelude to discussions, successfully concluded, involving the homage that Edward owed to King Philip IV of France, for Edward's land in France."
took your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gascony enjoyed the best government..." - should this be "its" best government?
yep. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds a bit dismissive to describe Llywelyn ap Gruffudd as "a Welsh ruler". He's pretty significant in Welsh history. (n.b I am 25% Welsh)
LOL.. Suggestions? Our article on him is at FAR, and I'm trying very hard to NOT buy the new work on him to help out. I have to draw the line somewhere... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25% of me suggests "that fabulously brave Welsh hero, cruelly done to death by the dastardly English...etc" The other 75% suggests "the Welsh chieftain". Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "the Welsh ruler"? (chieftan implies a smaller polity to me, ruler implies a nice bigger spot which might appease that 25% of you.) I'd say "important Welsh ruler" but we might fall afoul of WP:PEACOCK Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the last sentence of the section actually relevant to Burnell?
Err, no it's not. Cut. (I'm sure I had a thought that it might go somewhere, but it didn't, obviously!) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death and Legacy
    • "rumors" and "rumour" occur in final section.
fixed. (should be rumours, of course. ) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these comments help, and I apologise if they have already been raised by others. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit Not much to say - this article looked good to me. I copyedited a bit as I was going, but there were few glaring errors. :)

  • When Edward went on Crusade in 1270, Burnell stayed in England to secure the prince's interests. He served as regent after the death of King Henry III of England while Edward was still on Crusade - Do we capitalize "crusade" when not referring to a specific crusade?, such as the act of being "on crusade"?
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. LOL. I'll leave it this way and will correct if someone yelps at FAC. (Probably, my source capitalized it thus it followed me to the article.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also helped with the legislative and legal reforms of Edward's reign. During his tenure the chancellor's office and records became fixed at London. - Does "his tenure" refer to "Edward's reign" or Burnell's time in office?
Burnell's. Changed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The family had given its name to the town sometime prior to 1198. - What do you think about beginning the "Early life" section with this fact? Right now, it is marrooned in the middle of the first paragraph. It seems like a good way to begin to me.
Works for me. It was a very late addition to the article. Beginning now reads "By 1198, Burnell's family had bestowed its name on the town of Acton Burnell in Shropshire. This was where Burnell was born, probably to Roger Burnell, who died about 1259." Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1: "a clerk meant a person who was a member of the secular clergy" - a person or a man?
Heh. Man. Here I am writing in gender neutral... Moni would be so proud. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usually gender-neutral is a safe bet, however one must always keep the evil patriarchy in mind. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • dealt with problems on the Welsh marches - Sorry, what?
The usual problems on the Welsh marches. Welsh coming over to England and stealing things, the English running the other direction and stealing things, both sides beating each other up and strutting around. (grins). Changed to "... raids on the Welsh marches Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A link - excellent. Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel as if the second paragraph of "Chancellor and bishop" assumes some of the knowledge about Quo warranto writs that is provided in the third paragraph. I was slightly confused until I read the third paragraph. Note that the definition of the writ is offered in the third paragraph.
I've cut the reference to QW in the second paragraph, it was more a "throwaway" than anything else. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the 1290s, the government was forced to concede the attempt and that claims that a right had been theirs since "time out of mind" were allowed. - I'm stumbling on "and that claims that a right had been theirs..."
Try this "By the 1290s, the government was forced to back down and allowed rights based on the fact that something had been allowed since "time out of mind"." Does that make more sense? (Sucks when you know what you mean but can't quite explain it...) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the "something"? Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rights. Legal history is so... dry. Let's try "By the 1290s, the government was forced to back down and allowed rights based on the fact that the rights had been allowed since "time out of mind"." That work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about: "By the 1290s, the government was forced to back down and permit rights since they had been allowed from "time out of mind"." Awadewit (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gods, yes! Done! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chancery" is not always capitalized. I don't know if this is an issue or not.
Like Crusade, some places capitalize it some don't. I think i'll go with Chancery since I've done Wardrobe.
  • the first half of Edward's reign was the period when Gascony enjoyed its best government under the Plantagenets - "Best" meaning what, exactly? Most peaceful? Most prosperous?
I've gone ahead and attributed this to Prestwich, who makes the claim. I'm not an expert on Gascony, better to leave this to someone who is. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was part of a attempt to reinforce Acre, which was threatened in the late 1280s - I don't understand this, nor why it is linked to Acre.
Heh. Acre in Palestine, a crusader fortress. Clarified to "This was part of a attempt to reinforce the Crusader city of Acre, which was threatened by Muslims in the late 1280s." and have the link to the actual town. I always forget that Acre doesn't go to Acre the town... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a second image, would it be possible to obtain a photo of his grave?
I'm sure it would be, if I lived anywhere near England. Since I don't, I'm reliant on others (and frankly find the whole image issue annoying (sorry Awa!) but this fetish for "find an image, find an image" drives me batty!) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is all about appealing to the masses, who are much more visual. Pictures draw people into our articles. Anyway, perhaps you could leave a message on the article's talk page. Perhaps something will eventually come of it. Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Further reading" entries are missing full citations.
that's because I don't own those publications and haven't been able to lay my hands on them. (ducks) That's why they are in teh further reading section and not the sources. (Luckily, the ONDB summarizes them, so I'm not actually lacking the information in them.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, tiny things. Awadewit (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments As requested, here are my thoughts on the article, which looks pretty solid. Here are a few nitpicks,

  • Would it make sense to add minor to this sentence in the lead - A native of Shropshire, he served as a [minor] royal official before switching to the service of Prince Edward, the future King Edward I of England.
done Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the lead, would it be clearer to identify the crusade (not just by year): When Edward went on [the Eighth] Crusade in 1270, ...?
done Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dignity just sounds odd in this The bishop's second failure to obtain this dignity was probably due to his lifestyle, which included keeping a mistress.[2] - perhaps link it to the Wiktionary entry [1] as dignity?
cheated, changed to "... failure to obtain the archbishopric..." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Chancellor and bishop section, Quo Warranto is wikilinked and has a note on the second occurence, not the first.
Dealt with by removing all mention of QW in second paragraph. The sentence that mentioned it now reads "Burnell was instrumental in the enforcement royal writs and enactments, ...." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has to be a clearer way of saying this, but to be honest I am not sure exactly what it means ... and a Joan Burnell was the subject of a bond to the bishop that the son of William of Greystoke would marry her.
A marriage bond was just a bond (like a bail bond) that meant that someone would marry someone else or they forfeit the bond. I've changed this to "Joan Burnell was the subject of a guarantee to the bishop that the son of William of Greystoke... " which gets the same meaning without the technicalities. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it make any sense to add this imae of Wells Cathedral File:Wells001.jpeg to the Legacy section - it is a lovely place and I think this front was in place when he was there.
Which front is this? From our article, it looks like lots of building took place after Burnell's time, so I'm not sure we can assume it was around. It looks like the West front was built in the 1400s. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know which front it is. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 09:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I had - looks good. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Robert_Burnell/archive2&oldid=1078794220"