Talk:William Pantulf

William Pantulf 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: April 25, 2015. (Reviewed version).

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.

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.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from William Pantulf appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 February 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Anglo-Norman baron William Pantulf cleared himself from suspicion of murdering his lord's wife by undergoing a trial by ordeal?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Pantulf.

Wikipedia

mistake[edit]

"In 1092 Pantulf journeyed to southern Italy again, this time to secure a relic of Saint Nicholas for his foundation at Noron.[9][d] During this visit, he was offered extensive lands in Apulia by Robert Guiscard, but declined the offer and returned to the north.[2]" In 1092, Robert Guiscard was dead for 7 years (Guiscard died in 1085).--31.35.104.232 (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 09:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info box

Link and capitalise Baron
- Not correct to capitalize here - it's not a proper name. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link Anglo-Norman
- Linked Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of Parent(s), I'd put Mother as Beatrice, and then have Father as Unknown
- Cannot be done - the infobox only seems to allow the heading "parent". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could have other relations as including his sister
- His sister is just a name - we don't know who, if anyone, she married. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Link Anglo-Norman
- Done Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link and capitalise Baron
- Did Baron of Wem instead. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link Wem
- See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link vassal
- Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead could be a bit more encompassing and with a bit more detail
- I'm open to suggestions on what to include.
  - Just a take two or three points from the rest of the article and include it in the lead so it's more broad in it's summary. — ₳aron 12:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background and family

His family had been resident there since at least around 1030 → His family had lived there since around 1030
- Went with "His family had lived there since at least around 1030.." as it is possible that the family was there before 1030. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link vassals
- No need to link it again when I've linked it in the lead. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you have to link the first time in the lead for things, too. The lead is just a summary. What if someone skips the lead? — ₳aron 12:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After the Conquest

Link Sussex and Shropshire
- Shropshire was linked in the preceeding sentence. Sussex linked. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalised Hundred
- Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and are considered → and were considered
- No. Are is correct here as it is a historical judgment currently. It's a judgment that came after the actual events - in fact around 1960 or so. Saying "were" would imply that it was considered a barony at the time of Pantulf's life, which it probably wasn't. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
along with King → along with the king,
- no. the full sentence is "Pantulf was present at the consecration of the church at Bec Abbey on 23 October 1077, along with King William the Conqueror of England." King is a title here and is properly capitalized. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily because he → temporarily when he
- No, he lost his lands because he was suspected of the murder. It's perfectly acceptable as written. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
of the abbot. → What abbot?
- "Pantulf sought refuge at the Abbey of Saint-Evroul in Normandy while he was under suspicion; he and his family were under the protection of the abbot." - abbot of Saint-Evroul. My source doesn't give the abbot's name, or I would have used it. Nor do I have a list of the abbots of that monastery, unfortunately, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy

There's no need to have the final sentence as a second paragraph, just make this section one paragraph instead of breaking it up and splitting it.
- Uh, it's not one sentence. There are three sentences in the last paragraph. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, a one line paragraph then. It makes no sense to keep it so fragmented. — ₳aron 12:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

On hold for 7 days. — ₳aron 16:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes. Passing. — ₳aron 13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.