Wikipedia:Peer review/County Palatine of Durham/archive1

County Palatine of Durham[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

Hello! This article recently underwent a major edit, mostly undertaken by myself, and I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes to check the usual things — formatting, sources, scope of coverage, etc. In particular, it would be helpful to know whether the sources all properly correspond to the passages they're applied to. I've think I've reached the point where I can't see the wood for the trees!

Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka[edit]

Palatinate or county palatine? If both, this should be explained.
...granted a substantial territory... Where?
...the diocese moved to..., ...the diocese was moved again... I think the episcopal see was moved not the diocese.
...the community of St Cuthbert... This community is not mentioned in previous sentences. I assume the bishopric received the grant.
...Bishop Walcher was allowed... By whom?
...earldom of Northumbria... Why not "Earldom of Northumbria"? Could you link it?
...officials of Northumberland... Could you clarify it? I mean the bishop himself was an official of Northumbria as its earl.
Could you link steward, justices, and sheriff?
...Durham was an independent entity Are you sure? I understand it remained part of England.
...incorporating the county... The county or the palatinate?
...the Act of Resumption deprived the bishop of the power to pardon offences or to appoint judicial officers and mandated that the county's legal system would in future be run in the name of the king, rather than the bishop. Whe have not been so far informed that the bishop could pardon offences, appoint judicial officers, etc.
...the palatinate's court of chancery. We have not been so far informed that the palatinate had a court of chancery.
...after the Stuart Restoration it was once again revived. In which year?
...the bishop's remaining palatine rights... Such as?
Doubts about the construction of this Act... Could you explain it?

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to look over the article, I very much appreciate it. Apologies for the delay, I got a bit distracted elsewhere. To address your points:

Palatinate or county palatine? The terms are synonymous and 'palatinate' is linked, so I don't know if an explanation is needed in this article.
- Perhaps both terms could be mentioned in bold in the first sentence of the lead.
  - Maybe not bolding, since 'palatinate' doesn't redirect here, but I'm sure the wording could be improved to better explain what a palatinate is.
...granted a substantial territory... Where? The source does not say.
- Perhaps in the territory of the diocese?
  - It might not have been in the diocese, that's the thing.
I think the episcopal see was moved not the diocese. The terms are synonymous.
- I doubt that in the context they could be treated as synonyms because not the territory of the bishoproc was moved but its bishops' seat.
  - You may well be right, I'll check the definitions.
the community of St Cuthbert... I assume the bishopric received the grant. Changed to 'it', in reference to the diocese.
Bishop Walcher was allowed... By whom? William the Conqueror, wording clarified.
Why not "Earldom of Northumbria"? Could you link it? As far as I know 'earldom' should be lower-case in this instance as it is a generic noun.
...officials of Northumberland... Could you clarify it? I'm unable to access the source, so unfortunately not.
Could you link steward, justices, and sheriff? Yep, done.
...Durham was an independent entity Are you sure? Re-phrased to 'independent of any other county.'
incorporating the county... The county or the palatinate? Again, synonymous. Can re-word if you think it's necessary.
- I think a consequent terminology should be used when referring to the same entity.
  - I see your point, I'll have another look at the wording so it's clear.
We have not been so far informed that the bishop could pardon offences, appoint judicial officers, etc. This is mentioned in 'Administration' below, which does admittedly need fleshing out more. Do you think a brief sentence on the powers of the bishops would be helpful in 'History'?
- Perhaps an introduction to the institution of the palatinate when it is first mentioned could help.
  - Yes. It's a bit complicated because the powers of the palatinate evolved over time, but surely possible to give an overview.
We have not been so far informed that the palatinate had a court of chancery. Same as above.
- See my suggestion above.
after the Stuart Restoration it was once again revived. In which year? The source does not say.
- Other source? It is a quite relevant informaion in the article's context.
  - I can certainly have a look. I think it's clearly implied that the revival took place soon after the Restoration, but a date would be much better.
the bishop's remaining palatine rights... Such as? The source does not say.
- Other source? It is relevant in the article's context.
  - Same as a above, it's a question of finding the sources rather than deliberately leaving the info out.
Doubts about the construction of this Act... Could you explain it? No, unfortunately.

I think it's clear from my response that a major issue when editing the article is that quite a lot of sources are not available online or are paywalled, which means many statements cannot be easily verified or altered — the 'officials' statement, for example, is from paywalled edition of the journal Speculum and I've not been able to find it elsewhere. I've worked with the sources which are available, but it's a persistent issue. In the course of making your suggested changes I've realised the references list itself probably needs an overhaul, too.

Basically, grateful as I am for your your review but it's made me realise that there's even more work to do than I thought! A.D.Hope (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all articles, even featured articles can be improved. I hope you will have opportunity to complete this interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for looking at the article, you've helped me make many improvements and to identify areas which need working on. I hope my responses to your points didn't seem confrontational, my intent was just to keep them short and focussed on the issue. I have responded to some of your second comments, but I'm quite content if you want to end the review here.

Once again thank you for your help, @Borsoka, I appreciate you volunteering your time to review the article! A.D.Hope (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]