Talk:William Pantulf/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

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.