Talk:Peter de Maulay

Peter de Maulay 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.
Review: March 28, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Biography

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

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

A fact from Peter de Maulay appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 January 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the chronicler Roger of Wendover called the 12th-century English nobleman Peter de Maulay one of King John of England's "evil counsellors"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter de Maulay.

Wikipedia

DYK nom[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Peter de Maulay Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter de Maulay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Will review this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A well-written article. I have only a few comments to make: Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Early life:

where he soon became a close advisor of the king Add a citation at the end of this.

There is no need for a citation on this phrase, since it's covered by the citation at the end of the next sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add why exactly he should be an "evil" counsellor?

We don't know why Roger of Wendover considered him such. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He married in 1214 Isabella Better write In 1214 he married Isabella

done. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thornham had died in 1211 How can the place die? Should this be "Robert" instead?

It's not unusual to refer to people in this time period by their "location" name but I've changed it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Under Henry III:

Henry III is a duplicate link

The earlier link is to "Prince Henry" so I've retained this link in case people don't at first make the connection. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

which occurred on 17 May Add the year.

Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Treason accusations:

In July Peter des Roches returned to England and in late July was instrumental in the clearing of Maulay from the charges of treason

What did you have concerns about with this? Looks like you started a thought and then never finished it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Upavon case:

Has Upavon been linked anywhere?

If you mean in this article, yes, it was linked in "Early life" when we discuss de Maulay receiving it. If you mean is there an article about the medieval dispute over Upavon, I'm not aware of any. (And it would be difficult to justify on GNG grounds) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images: Are you sure we can use no images in the article? How about a image of Henry III?

There really isn't a need for purely decorative images. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all. Good luck! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Ealdgyth, I see no more issues with the article. This is ready for promotion. A fantastic job!

Pre-FAC review[edit]

Some comments with an eye to FAC:

In the lead we have "First appearing in the historical record in 1202, Maulay was in England by 1204 and serving as an official of John"; in the body we don't get anything that confirms he was in England by 1204. The only mention of that date in the body is his relinquishing his lands in France. The body says "Under John, he was appointed an usher in the king's household"; is that datable to 1204?
I'd like to move the setnence about 1202 to before the one about 1204 in the "Early life" section, but you don't have a citation at the end of the sentence ending "between 1218 and 1259". Is that sentence covered by "Vincent Peter des Roches p. 26 footnote 60", the first citation in the next sentence?
"According to the medieval chronicler Ralph of Coggeshall, Maulay was the murderer of John's nephew Arthur of Brittany": can we get a few words of explanation here? E.g. "..., whom John may have arranged to be killed in order to remove him from the royal succession"? Most readers won't know that John was quite likely behind Arthur's death.
"where he made a name for himself with his exactions and heavy profiteering": I can imagine (I think) what a heavy-handed medieval landlord might do, but I know less about the opportunities a Sheriff would have had. Can we give any specific examples?
"At times, he was also responsible for keeping John's wife, Isabella of Angouleme and his heir, Prince Henry, safe from rebels, as long as they were at Corfe." Is this saying that when they were at Corfe he was responsible for them, but not otherwise? If so I think it could be shortened to "He was also responsible for keeping John's wife, Isabella of Angouleme and his heir, Prince Henry, safe from rebels, whenever they were at Corfe."
"Maulay remained in office under the new king, Henry III": this refers to his office as Sheriff of Dorset and Somerset?
"Henry III, who succeeded to the throne in late 1216": might be worth making this "...in late 1216 at the age of nine", to make clear the reason for the regency, mentioned later in the paragraph.
"who had been captured by the royalist side": we've mentioned "rebels" in passing but only in the lead have we mentioned open revolt against John, so it's not clear to the reader what "royalist side" can refer to.
"to surrender control of Sherborne Castle and Somerset": did the castle come with the office of Sheriff? Is Maulay being told to give up his office?
Do we know the date when Maulay lost custody of Richard of Cornwall? Presumably it's after the second coronation, in which case I think we can switch the order of those sentences.
"The loss of the city of Damietta in Egypt in September meant that the three men postponed their departure": I've copyedited this a bit to clarify, since Damietta is not a well-known city, but how about making it "News of the loss...", since news did not travel as quickly then?
"the three men postponed their departure": I think it would be worth making it clear here that it was over a delay of over twenty years in Maulay's case, since "postponed" makes it sound like it was just a few months or a year.
"were returned to their previous holders": what does "previous" add?
"Maulay began work on Mulgrave Castle": can we be any more specific? Improving the fortifications? Repairing?
"Maulay regained Upavon in 1233,[1] after the king reopened the case.[35] Henry justified his action as being exercised "per voluntatem nostrum", or through his own will.[37] Henry opened a case of quo warranto, and then declined to recognise his own charter as valid, thus granting the manor to Maulay." I don't think I follow this. Henry reopened the case in which he had taken Upavon from Maulay? And his per voluntatem nostrum justification was in 1223 for the original taking, or given in 1233? And the quo warranto (which I think could be glossed inline) case was essentially Henry opening a case against himself, and ruling against his original decision?
"now that de Burgh had fallen from power": when was this? It would help the flow to say this earlier in the paragraph.
"Maulay was briefly in disgrace": I would normally read "in disgrace" in this era as "out of the king's favour", but here Maulay is the beneficiary of an action of the king's, and it's the nobles who are up in arms. Was Maulay actually in disgrace with the king?

That's it for a first pass; here are my copyedits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]