Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas of Bayeux/archive2

Thomas of Bayeux

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been over a year since the last PR, and I think I'm finally ready to think about FAC for him, having finally acquired the last sources I was hunting for. Looking for comments on prose, grammar, jargon, and context that might be missing to a non-medievalist. Thanks to the folks commenting in the previous PR, they were helpful!

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from JamesMLane: Per my comments in the last PR, I think the article is very good, but that the introduction should be reworked to have less detail, and a clearer explanation up front about why the reader might want to know more about this person. Also, the phrase "seizure of power" still seems a little jarring and leaves the reader unclear about what was going on. Perhaps, from the point of view of Thomas's bio, it would be simpler to omit the dispute about who would become king: "In 1100, after the sudden death of King William II and the accession to power by his younger brother Henry, ...." It appears from the article that Thomas played no role in the conflict between Henry and his brother, so it doesn't need to be alluded to here. JamesMLane t c 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• We'll have to disagree about the level of detail in the lead, it's the normal amount I put in most of my FACs and FAs. On the "siezure" it's actually factually correct, Henry basically sprinted to Westminster, took control of the treasury, had himself crowned king, granted a "charter of liberties" promising to not do what his brother had done, and groveled to Anselm to come home and approve of Henry's taking power. Rufus and Curthose had agreed previously that if one died without an child, the other would suceed to power in the other's realm, so historians are pretty much agreed that it's a "seizure" not a "accession". Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: These are a few remarks on the first couple of sections. I will give the article more attention next week when I am at home again, but here's something to be going on with:-

• Early life
  • Suggest delete "later" from "who later was Bishop of Worcester." The dates make it clear that it was later.
  • Suggest delete the comma after "Lanfranc in Normandy"
  • The last sentence needs a better context. I suggest: "After the Battle of Hastings in 1066 William, the new king of England, named Thomas a royal clerk." (with appropriate links added)
• Archbishop under William I
  • At the beginning it reads oddly that he was "probably consecrated on 25 December", and then in the next sentence that Lanfranc refused to consecrate him. It's a slight chronology problem - my suggestion is: "On 23 May Thomas was nominated to succeed Ealdred as archbishop of York. He declined..." etc., and then "Royal pressure induced Thomas to submit to Lanfranc, and Thomas was consecrated on 25 December."
  • When you say that "all decisions were ratified at the Accord of Windsor that year", we need to be reminded that the year is 1072
  • Can you explain what you mean by "the continental system" of archdeacons. Does this mean that prior to this time the office of archdeacon was peculiar to the European continent, or that there was a different "continental" system relating to archdeacons? Needs explaining.

I will be back with more. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to it. This week in "Real work" is kinda busy, so it'll be the weekend before I can fully attend to these (and those Adam raised below). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Brian again: Sorry for the delay in returning to the review. Here are a few more comments:-

• Rebuilding the cathedral: I have done some further copyedits in this section. The last sentence is confusing unless you specify that elements of Thomas' structure are still visible in the crypt of the present York Minster.
• Serving William II: More copyedits and:-
  • It may be worth inserting a clause into the first sentence clarifying that William Rufus inherited the English throne in accordance with William I's bequest. Simply saying "instead of his oldest brother" tends to suggest that the throne was seized (as indeed it was by Henry I, 13 years later.
  • "William was Thomas' sole suffragan bishop, but..." Why the "but"? Two separate facts, I suggest that the correct conjunction is a semicolon
  • Second paragraph, first line, one "again" too many
  • Confusing, and repetitive: "Thomas arrived in London too late to crown Henry I, as the ceremony was performed by Maurice, Bishop of London, in the absence of both archbishops. Anselm at this time was still in exile." Perhaps "Thomas arrived in London too late to crown Henry I; in his absence and with Anselm still in exile, the ceremony had been performed by Maurice, Bishop of London."
  • I think "possibility" would be a better word than "chance"
• Death and legacy
  • Second paragraph; To avoid repetition of "learning", Thomas could be praised for his "scholarship".
  • The sentence about his composition of William I's epitaph is out of place here; it doesn't conern either Thomas's death or his legacy. I suggest the sentence is re-sited.

I hope these rather rushed comments are helpful.

Comments from Adam Bishop:

• I made some copyedits; the only major thing I changed was the lead sentence, I thought it was more important that he was archbishop than that he was from Bayeux.
• Are the questions of York's obedience to Canterbury, and Canterbury's primacy, actually the same problem? (I don’t quite remember, although I can see how they are slightly different.)
• Was his mother named Muirel or Muriel?
• His professional of obedience was made orally, "not in writing or to the archbishops of Canterbury." Why archbishops? Does this mean Lanfranc's successors too, as mentioned later?
• If you want to be totally pedantic, the plural of "pallium" is "pallia". But I suppose it's "palliums" in English :)
  • Both "pallia" and "palliums" are correct in English. Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Who was the Danish king that Thomas might have crowned? (Or is just a Danish king in general?)
• After Gregory VII becomes pope, the Canterbury-York dispute is linked for the first time, although it is mentioned several times earlier.
• Are Hugh the Chanter and Hugh the Chantor the same person?

I'm not much help for non-medievalist context, but I didn't see anything else that immediately jump out as context-less. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)