- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:54, 27 May 2011 [1].
Richard Barre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it's a lawyer! Well, a proto-lawyer, sorta-kinda. Barre was a minor player in the dispute between King Henry II of England and Thomas Becket, and spent many years as a justice, royal official, and general all around go-fer for kings and bishops. Besides, this is the only medieval biography article you'll likely ever see with a citation to the science fiction magazine Analog Science Fiction and Fact! Much like Urse d'Abetot is as a layperson, Richard Barre is a prototypical medieval clergyman who never quite managed to secure enough royal patronage for a bishopric. Think of him as "everyman-clergyman". The article has a GAN review, as well as a copyedit by Malleus, and if there is anything lurking in any sources about him, I'd love to know about it, as I've been unable to turn up anything new. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I'm not following: "After finishing his schooling, Barre worked for either Robert de Chesney, the Bishop of Lincoln or with Nicholas, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, as Barre witnessed charters for both men in the period 1160 though 1164." Are you saying the fact that he witnessed charters proves that he must have worked for one of them, but doesn't prove which one?
- Doesn't the fact that he witnessed charters for both men indicate that he worked for both, not just one of them? Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. He could have just be around when one or the other needed witnesses. It's not always possible to be sure on these things - more later. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's try "After finishing his schooling, Barre worked for either Robert de Chesney, the Bishop of Lincoln or with Nicholas, Archdeacon of Huntingdon; the main evidence for this is that Barre witnessed charters for both men in the period 1160 though 1164." Is that a bit clearer? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It could just be that I'm not a scholar of the period, but I'm still not getting it. I get that witnessing charters doesn't necessarily mean he worked for Chesney. So, how do we know he must have worked for one or the other, if witnessing charters doesn't prove he worked for either? - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because he witnessed enough to make it clear that he was working for someone, and he had no other job that we know of (no visible means of support). It's a guess, but in this period, you basically rely on guesses. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've skimmed it ... no general comments, and I'll save myself some work by waiting til after you've made the edits you mention below before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the "with" in front of "Nicholas, Archdeacon of Huntingdon" to keep it parallel; if that's wrong, then some explanation of what "for" and "with" mean in this context would be helpful.
- "Although Barre returned to England, Longchamp did not return to his diocese, and much of the administration of Ely would have devolved on Barre during Longchamp's absence.": Not following; did Barre leave England?
- No. I've changed this and reworded it to reflect that it was Longchamp that returned. Not sure how this got mangled (quite likely it was me at some point). Double check that the revision works? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally perfer "Letters" but have changed to Epistles (and removed the "St" ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with bonus points for the superglue. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Leaning support from Nikkimaria - I checked sources (formatting, at least; no spotchecks, and I'll see if I can find any relevant unused sources) and found only one small inconsistency (compare the title given here with the one you use). Here's a long list of niggles on other topics:[reply]
- Fixed the missing "n" also. The actual print article has the Compendium title in italics. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does "the law school of Bologna" have a name?
- Not in this period, no. Later it evolved into the University there, but ... at this point in time medieval universities/schools aren't organized or named in that way. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "He also briefly served Henry's son Henry the Young King. Barre served Henry as a diplomat" - it's implicit that this is Henry II and not his son, but someone unfamiliar with English history will likely get confused
- Now reads "Barre served the elder Henry as a diplomat..." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Got anymore synonyms for "served"? Lead paragraph uses that verb three time close together
- Down to one "serve", replaced with "worked for" and "briefly was in the household of" ... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "in the period 1194–1199" - this sounds a bit awkward to me, maybe "from 1194 to 1199"?
- "Because of Barre's close ties to King Henry, Becket considered Barre one of the king's "evil counselors", and was the subject of denunciations by the archbishop" - implied that Barre is the subject of Becket's denunciations, but it could be more clearly worded
- now reads "...Becket considered him one of the king's "evil counselors", and Barre was the subject of denunciations by the archbishop."
- "advising the king on how to resolve Becket dispute" - missing word?
- Searched out, found, and returned the missing "the". Superglued it in so it shouldn't stray again. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The historian Frank Barlow argues that Barre was not specifically named was because Becket considered him already excommunicated from Barre's association with those under the church's ban" - unclear, and is there an extra "was"?
- Now reads "...argues that Barre was not specifically named in the restoration of excommunications because Becket considered him already excommunicated from Barre's having associated with excommunicates." I was really trying to avoid too many excommunicates, but "under the church's ban" is obviously not clear to folks. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that made it less clear. I understood the "ban" part, it's just that the last part of the sentence is a bit muddled. Maybe "considered him already excommunicated because of his association(s) with those under the church's ban"? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why use American spelling for an English biography?
- There shouldn't be. But I am American, so I usually tend to (mis) spell things in American ways. What got missed? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "behavior", maybe others. It's not internally inconsistent, I just found it odd. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Inserted the errant "u" in behaviour. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "there is evidence that Alexander ever made any written allowance for the coronation in 1170" - should that be "never"?
- Translate "in curia domini Regis"?
- Did the projected crusade ever occur? When did Henry die? Why was Longchamp exiled? A bit more context is needed for readers unfamiliar with this history
-
- Okay, I've added two more sentences - one at the end of the last sentence of "Service" and one in the middle of the first paragraph of "Later years". Let me know if more is needed, I'm trying to avoid rewriting the entire William Longchamp article here...Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It means a mention in something that isn't possibly a forgery. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Harley manuscript is shorter than the Lambeth manuscript, which" - not clear which manuscript the "which" is referring to
- Now reads: "The Harley manuscript is shorter than the Lambeth manuscript. Richard Sharpe, a modern historian who studied the both works, stated that the Harley manuscript "provides [a] well structured and..."" Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the fact that Longchamp, who is named as "bishop, legate, and chancellor" but was driven into exile in October 1191, it is likely" - grammar
- Let's try "Because of the dedication to William Longchamp as "bishop, legate, and chancellor", it is likely that the work was composed between January 1190 and October 1191, as Longchamp only held those three offices together during that period."
- Some missing hyphens, for example "a late 15th century library catalogue"
- I suck at hyphens. Got that example. Hopefully Malleus will hunt for others? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "some satirical verses that were said to be Barre's" - that were owned by him, as the previous sentence discusses, or that were written by him?
- I've taken a stab at clarifying it a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of quick replies here, and I should get to the rest of these later today.Thanks muchly for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: As usual, the scholasrship looks impeccable. I feel that the prose needs a little further tweaking:-
- In the lead, the sentence beginning "After King Henry's death..." is overlong and should be split
- Butting in: the length is more or less in line with sentences in scholarly medieval articles I think, but I have no objections to shortening it or even splitting it if you can suggest a way to do it while maintaining the logical connection between the two halves. - Dank (push to talk)
- I've cut it into two by the simple expedient of removing the "but" and starting the new sentence with "During the reign of King John..." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In Early life, "he was related" is ambiguous. Does it refer to Richard or Hugh?
- Sorry, that was my language. Changed to: "Barre was related to the Sifrewast family, knights in Berkshire, and had a relative, Hugh Barre, who was Archdeacon of Leicester in the 1150s." Does that work, guys? - Dank (push to talk)
- On the question of who he worked for, discussed above, there seems such uncertainty about this that I think you should say "he may have worked for..."
- "By 1165, Barre joined the household of King Henry II of England" should be either "In 1165..." or "By 1165, Barre had joined..."
- Oops! Fixed with "had joined", but that might be wrong. - Dank (push to talk)
- Service to King Henry: another convoluted sentence, beginning "In September 1169, Barre was sent...", needs subdivision
- Agreed, that sentence splits neatly in two. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that, when it is stated in the text that "there is evidence", the nature of such evidence should be briefly indicated in the text.
- Let's try "... but there is no written evidence that Alexander agreed to allow the coronation in 1170." that better? It's hard to sort out exactly what went on when and why in the whole Becket affair... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Later years and death: Likewise, I think the statement that "he may have been alive as late as 1213" should be attributed in the text.
- Added the necessary qualification ... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I have raised points already highlighted by other reviewers but not yet implemented. Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I addressed most of these. Thanks for the review! (Did you notice I did two peer reviews last week?) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: All issues addressed now. I have said before that the value of these articles is that nowhere else is there such a body of work accessible in one place. So keep them going (and keep up the peer reviews, too, please). Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support just a few minor comments:
- "During the reign of King John, Barre was no longer employed as a judge". This sentence doesn't read particularly well. Perhaps changing the sentence into the active voice would help? Was Barre sacked or did he resign?
- This is actually the correct method - judgeships didn't really exist, the king appointed judges ad hoc, and after John took the throne, Barre was no longer appointed. So sacked or resigned doesn't really apply - he was "no longer employed". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "During January and February 1170 Barre was engaged in a diplomatic mission to the pope in Rome" -- active voice might be better here too if we know who engaged Barre.
- fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1187, Barre was once more employed on a diplomatic mission by King Henry" Too many words -- change to active voice?
- fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The work arranged passages from the Bible under topics, and then annotated the work" doesn't make sense - "the work... annotated the work"?
- changed to "annotated the passages" Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "publicly published" tautological? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, this is correct - as the act of "publishing" as we know it wasn't quite there in the middle ages. Technically every manuscript that was written was "published" but many were not intended for circulation - such as this manuscript. That it survived showed that it had more use than Barre thought. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and thank you very much for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Meets 1a as far as I can tell. Seems comprehensive enough. ceranthor 02:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: 1c / 2c / Sources. One fixit: footnotes: "Barlow Feudal Kingdom of England" italics please for the title!. I love your citation style for history articles, btw. I conducted 3 randomised plagiarism / copyright spot checks and all three passed. DOIs are correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC) (I had lost Nikki's source check in the above; but multiple eyes always help Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Fixed, and thanks for the review. And thanks for the praise on the citation style. I particularly detest the "Name (year) p. #" style of citation, because I can never remember what YEAR the works are published in. Makes so much more sense to use a short title so folks can find the thing... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images - there is one, it's appropriately captioned and licensed, you may wish to throw on a FoP-UK tag but that's not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.