Talk:William de St-Calais

William de St-Calais is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 17, 2011.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 12, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
July 3, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
August 26, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 2, 2018, and January 2, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

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

Middle Ages Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kent Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East 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.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

Christianity: Catholicism / Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance).

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Survey[edit]

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator on the road[edit]

I'm on the road and may or may not be able to access the internet reliably. Figured I should let folks know in case the article gets reviewed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 12, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

The article is well written. There were a few very minor comma and grammar problems that I fixed myself. The article is well sourced and everything seems to be easily verifiable. It is thorough and covers all aspects of his life with out any POV problems. The article seems stable. All the images relate to the text around them and are from the commons, so there are no copyright/rationale/etc issues. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. - Nikki311 05:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-peer review comments[edit]

I have read through the article again, fixing a few minor problems as I went. The article has changed considerably from when I reviewed it at PR, and I see that many of my suggestions have been incorporated. I have a few remaining points:-

Early Life: When you say "As abbot, he only appears...", I assume that you mean he is only "mentioned in records". done
Work for William the Conqueror
- I don't think the word "signor" exists in the sense that you mean it, i.e. someone who has signed a document. Try "signatory".
  - Brain fart moment when I wrote it... that was the word I was trying for. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although in most of the article you have successfully dealt with the issue of separately identifying all the Williams, the problem returns in this section, when St-Calais is referred to several times as "William".
  - Caught them here... Williams breed like rabbits, apperantly. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebellion: I think the "when" after 1088 is superfluous, otherwise the sentence becomes ungrammatical and meaningless done
Trial: I think a "not" is missing in "his fellow bishops did (not) believe him". Also, is the redlink really necessary?
- Put in the missing "not", I need to write the article on the tractae. I now have three journal articles discussing how important the thing is ... I guess that means it's important! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Return to favour: I'm still troubled by the lower case "archbishop of Canterbury". Surely, the title of the office is "Archbishop of Canterbury" and this justifies the capitalization? It looks so wrong, otherwise.
- Couldn't find it the first time through, got it (I hope) this time. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diocesan affairs: I recommend you delete the word "unfortunately" from the beginning of the fourth sentence, otherwise it sounds like opinion. done
Death and legacy: That clumsy (and now incoherent) formation "...asking the knight where was one his servants was". Why not make it: "asking the knight the whereabouts of one of his servants".
- That works. Editing while on sinus pills does sometimes lead to incoeherent phrasing... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have fixed these, I would love to do a general copyedit, as I several times came across sentences or phrases that I thought could be worded better. I'll only do this, though, if you want me to. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Time for you to play "remove all those words Eald insists on putting in" (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence needs help[edit]

"The pope was also concerned about the king's refusal be deliver papal letters to bishops without royal permission." It's in the section "Work for William the Conqueror". --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for spotting it. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pain, but I'm still having trouble understanding the sentence. Should it end at bishops, dropping "without royal permission"? or, does "bishops without royal permission" refer to a certain class of bishops, perhaps those approved by the pope but not by the king? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now reads "The pope was also concerned about the king's refusal to allow the delivery of papal letters to the English bishops unless royal permission was secured." That work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot better. Thanks again. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing! Can someone add "and Bishop of Durham" to the end of the first sentence of the TFA blurb? (Of course, it's edit protected). --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drop a note to DaBomb - I'm not an admin and can't edit the blurb. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK! --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect attribution of army leadership to King William II[edit]

David Crouch's book "The Normans: The History of a Dynasty", page 135, states only that "when the king's army moved north, he [William de St Calais] refused to surrender himself unless ...". It does not support the assertion in this Wikipedia article that "the king approached with an army". In fact, other secondary sources, including Andre Wilmart's 1928 "Alain le Roux and Alain le Noir: Comtes de Bretagne", make it plain that William II knew nothing of the safe conduct agreement between St Calais and the royal army's commanders until St Calais mentioned it during his treason trial.

It is a much too common error to interpolate a claim that Norman kings led their armies in person. For example, writers have often carelessly placed William the Conqueror in the heat of battle, but there is little-to-no evidence for this except for the two cases William is reported to have mentioned on his deathbed, one of which is of course the Battle of Hastings, and the other was, if I recall correctly, either Val-es-Dunes in 1047 or Mortemer in 1054. Zoetropo (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]