Talk:Walter de Coutances/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

More details[edit]

The article is well documented, but needs more details. It contains many interesting and worthwhile information on medieval life and on Coutances, himself. I would recommend more photos in the article to break up the writing. I would also recommend any writings, if any, from Coutances, himself. That would give the article more connection with the reader.

Reviewer: Cmguy777 (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he didn't write anything besides episcopal acta, which aren't strictly speaking writings, but instead are short legal documents. Photos aren't required for GA (or FA) status. The article contains most every detail that's known about him without going into uneccessary detail such as when he signed each acta, since we are writing an encyclopedia, not a biography, those details aren't really necessary. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added that Richard I secretly instructed Coutances to sack Longchamps if he was unable to handle Prince John. It was deleted. I am not sure why since it was from a legitimate source. I just gave my input on the article. It is true that photos are not neccessary, but in my opinion they will add to the article. {Cmguy777 (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

The thing about Richard's instructions is actually covered in the article later, and Coutances had orders that covered a number of different options, not just getting rid of Longchamp. Nor was the wording of your additon particularly encyclopedic, since "sack" is slang. Nor was there a need to link "political" or "adroitness". And when you add sourced information to an already extensive article, you need to match the style of referencing already in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your insight. The word sack dates to 1825 when a dismissed worker was told to leave with their tool bag. Longchamps was not politely dismissed, but rather had to go through a humiliating trial. The word adroitness comes from the Latin word astutus meaning crafty or clever. All that was implied by that word was Coutances was successful at what he did. The word political comes from the Latin word politicus meaning taking sides in a party. Prince John and Longchamps were in a political struggle with each other over control of England, as far as I understand, while Richard I was fighting a crusade. Richard I was even concerned with a civil war breaking out in England. That is why I used political. You have valid reasons for deleting the edit.{Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

The article seemed mostly fine to me; actually it could probably pass for FA without much improvement, since, as you say, there isn't really much more to write about him. But here are my comments, with the section in question:

Early life - Gerald "liked Coutances because the other clergyman had befriended Gerald"; I'm not sure what that means. This was the only bit of the article that was unclear for me.

Early life - "schools of Paris" could be linked to university of Paris, if that is what is meant. The university was pretty well-established by then.

Service to King Henry - there is an article on the Revolt of 1173-1174

Bishop of Lincoln and Archbishop of Rouen - Philip's sister Alice has an article (Alys, Countess of the Vexin - he had another half-sister named Alice too but this is the one who was supposed to marry Richard)

Service to King Richard - "When Richard was in Messina..." paragraph starts off a little redundantly, after the preceding paragraph

Death and legacy - John Gillingham also has an article

That's it! Adam Bishop (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of them all, clarifying that it was Coutances who befriended Gerald in the early bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I see I misread the befriending part, I thought it said "clergymen". But still, it's clearer now. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status?[edit]

Where is this review at? It hadn't been tagged as under review at WP:GAN, which i've fixed. I've had a look at the article and this review page. The article appears ready to be given the tick for GA in my view. Cmguy777, are you ready to close this as a pass? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am willing to give this article a pass. It is well written and highly valuable in terms of understanding middle age diplomacy and church policies. My only concerns was that Richard I apparently gave Archbishop Countances secret instructions to remove Chancellor Longchamp if he could not get along with Prince John. There is a sentence that mentions "duplicity" and in a sense alludes that Coutances was acting on his own, rather then orders from Richard I.[1] London, 800-1216: the shaping of a city (Christopher Nugent Lawrence Brooke, Gillian Keir, 1975) There is no mention of Richard I. Another suggestion was to add more photos to break up the reading, however, that was not neccessary. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

The "duplicity" is that a contemporary accused Coutances of duplicity, but it's not generally believed. As regards to the London book, the article goes into greater detail than the book you've linked to. The book is compressing down the entire last paragraph of "Service to Richard I" into one sentence. And properly so, since that book is about 400 years of the history of London, not about Coutances. The article says "At the council, Longchamp was deposed and exiled, largely on the strength of a royal document ordering the magnates to obey Coutances' if the archbishop's advice was resisted by Longchamp." those "royal documents" are the so-called secret instructions. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book inferred that Richard I was behind the removal of Longchamp if there were continued disputes between rulling authority over England with Prince John. I believe that should be put into the article, making reference to Richard I. The article is good as it is. I don't believe that Countance would have acted on his own authority without Richard I permission. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

It SAYS that. "royal document" basically means "Richard I" who, at this point in time was either sailing around the meditteranean or was still in Sicily. Saying "Richard dismissed Longchamp" would be wrong, as Richard did NOT. Coutances did, based on a royal document he held. If you fail the article because I won't put in a falsehood, so be it. The London book greatly simplifies the actual events, which are set forth in the article in much greater detail. The whole next section "Acting Justiciar" discusses the continuing disputes between Coutances and John that resulted in Countances being replaced by Hubert Walter. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is thoroughly interesting and researched. I had no intention of "failing" the article. There may have been a misunderstanding. I apoligize. The article is good and well documented. The "Richard I" inquiry was only suppose to be for discussion. No falsehoods should be in any article. I suppose it is difficult to know exactly what was said between Richard I and Coutances about Longchamp or Prince John. I never supposed that Richard I removed Longchamp directly. I only meant mentioning that Richard I was in favor of removing Longchamp if he could not get along with Prince John.{Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Front pic[edit]

I notice that somebody else had problems with the previous picture. This is my offering, (having just straightened it to improve appearance). Amandajm (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Walter, he finally makes it to the main page after more than 800 years, and the only graphic we have is a shot of the building where he worked? Nobody ever even drew a sketch of the guy? Featured, but featureless, it would seem. Neutron (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, I googled him and came up with pictures of every contemporary abbot and bishop but not poor Walter! I even got a picture of a basket of something that looked like chicken nuggets but they turned out to be some ghastly snack from Jersey where they omit the chicken and just eat the batter. I don't know what this has to do with Walter, but it must relate........ Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]