Talk:Walkelin/GA1

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

Reviewer: JimKillock (talk · contribs) 17:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there, not much to do! Thanks for providing an interesting overview of this Bishop.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Mostly there, but some specific minor edits required. There is an assumption of knowledge of church terminology which should be avoided. Also too many passive sentences, which are sometimes hard to read. Here are some specifics.

   tried to replace the adjoined monastery with a chapter of canons. What is a canon?

   Changed this whole sentence. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   having-been-excommunicated - why the hyphens?

   Changed this phrase. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   In April 1070, Stigand was deposed as Bishop of Winchester by papal legates at the Council of Winchester (1070), having-been-excommunicated by five different popes for holding the post of Archbishop of Canterbury at the same time, being a pluralist. - sentence is hard work. I think you mean something like: In April 1070, papal legates removed Stigand as the Bishop of Winchester, having been previously excommunicated by five different popes for "pluralism", or holding multiple posts at the same time, as he was also the Archbishop of Canterbury.

   Have edited to make clearer. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Walkelin aimed to replace the monks in the Cathedral by canons. What is a canon? Why does it help him?

   Have added Wikilinks and edited to say that canons are priests. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   However, Lanfranc, who had just been consecrated as Archbishop of Canterbury by a selection of bishops including Walkelin himself, opposed the change, and successfully blocked it. Why did Lanfranc oppose this?

   I added a description of Lanfranc as a "monk", which best explains why he opposed this. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   agree, thank you Jim Killock (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   divided the see's assets - edit or link to explain what a see is.

   Have Wikilinked. "Diocese" might be a better word, but it feels wrong for a reason I can't pinpoint. The words are almost synonymous. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Diocese is the area, but the see is the administrative body, probably? Jim Killock (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   and the convent. For some reason this makes me think of nuns, but presumably it applies to monks also?

   Convents can be monks etc. (although more often friars): I've changed it to "monastery" to be consistent with the rest of the article. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The fact that his brother Simeon was Prior of Winchester allowed this to take place. - a bit passive, makes it hard to read. Maybe: He had ensured the appointment of his brother Simeon as Prior of Winchester, making it possible to gain the monk's agreement despite the new arrangement being to their disadvantage.

   I've changed it. The Prior's consent (as in effect, head monk) was necessary for the changes, not the monks as a collective body, I think. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   On the other hand - implies the above is a criticism, but it doesn't read as such. Maybe drop it. The new sentence above will take care of this.

   The monks are reported to have moved into the new building - do we need are reported to have?

   Probably not necessarily. I've deleted it. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   along with St Swithun's feretory. This is hard work. You do mean the feretory moved in, but it's not obvious because feretories are no longer a common concept. "along with St Swithun relics, kept in a feretory" perhaps?

   Have changed, similar to your suggestion. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   There is a story, related as such in the Winchester Annals NPOV: The Winchester Annals relate that William I granted Walkelin as much timber from a certain wood as his carpenters could take in three or four days. The Annals claim that Walkelin found as many carpenters as he could and cut the entire wood down, angering William I, with Walkelin only avoiding his wrath by putting on "an old cape",[c] and begging William that he be allowed to retain his royal friendship and chaplaincy, if not his position as Bishop of Winchester." Or similar, to avoid sounding too much like a story book ;)

   The difficulty is that the Annals say "it is said that". I've tried to phrase it more impartially, but more work could probably be done. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks!

   • Lose "It is said that"

   Ok. I've changed it to make the whole thing slightly more concise. Godtres (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   • three/four - looks ugly, three or four

   Ok. The sources disagree with one another, so I've put both versions! Godtres (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   • who is Michael J. Franklin ?

   He's the author of the biography source. I've added the "Oxford DNB" which is more recognisable, adding credence. Godtres (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Jim Killock (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The story has been used to suggest that Walkelin and William had a close friendship By whom? Say and avoid the passive if possible., ie "X used the story to"

   Have done. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   (with a similar design) - remove brackets, not needed.

   Have done. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Walkelin was significant outside of his diocese as a religious leader. » Walkelin was a significant religious leader beyond his diocese.

   Thanks. I struggled writing this sentence in the first place! Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   in 1070.[7] He attended - merge short sentences, ie ''in 1070, and attended

   Good change. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   in place of the diocesan bishop - do you mean in place of the local bishop? if so "the local diocesan bishop" perhaps

   Changed to "local bishop", which is what I originally meant. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Walkelin issued a popular indulgence - what does this mean to the average person?

   Deleted "popular", and Wikilinked "indulgence". Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   He tried to persuade Anselm not to insist on being allowed to travel to Rome, during the dispute between the Archbishop and William II in 1097 - this is slightly difficult, He tried to persuade Archbishop Anselm to drop his demand to be allowed to travel to Rome, during Anselm's dispute with William II in 1097. perhaps

   Have changed this. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   and greatly important for Winchester's economy » which proved very important for Winchester's economy

   Have changed. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Walkelin had made Simeon the Prior of Winchester. This had helped him to divide assets between the monks and his household. - this needs to be further up the top, as it explains Walkelin's deviouslness around the See's assets. See suggested edit.

   I've put this further up. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

   Some minor issues regarding neutral and passive language outlined above.

   Lead is very brief, does it need another sentence or so?

   Added another sentence, but perhaps more could be done. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   There are quite a few short sentences, is the main thing now, which interrupts reading flow. I think we should try to merge some of these. I;ll give a few example.

   Other copyedits:

   • Early life: he had probably been » he was probably;
     • since he was » as he was
   • Reform: Walkelin is said to have divided » Walkelin appears to have
   • He had previously made his brother, Simeon, the prior » this feels like you need the conclusion, eg "therefore consent was easy to obtain."

   Sentences that could merge:

   • This change would have helped him to fund his household and any future construction projects. Walkelin gained royal approval for this change. » This change would have helped him to fund his household and any future construction projects and gained royal approval for it.
   • The demolition of the Old Minster began shortly after this move. It is most likely that the initial construction was completed under William Giffard in around 1122. The demolition of the Old Minster began shortly after this move and the initial construction was probably completed under William Giffard around 1122.

   Jim Killock (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I've done the copyedits. I merged some sentences, albeit in a different way to your suggestions.Godtres (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, we've got a few short sentences we can merge, eg: He had previously made his brother, Simeon, the prior. Therefore, consent was easier to obtain » Because he had previously made his brother Simeon the prior, consent was easier to obtain

   Here: He also tried to reform the Cathedral's administration, replacing the monks with priests, although initially failed. He did succeed tho? So maybe better to say He reformed the Cathedral's administration, replacing the monks with priests, despite the opposition of his Archbishop. Jim Killock (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

   the layout style guideline

   :

   Remove capitals from citations as per guidelines,

   MOS:TITLE

   .

   I've removed the all-caps bits (which I think is what you are referring to), and edited the captions, whilst at it. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   yes that's right, thank you Jim Killock (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Footnotes: non omnes latine loquuntur, nonne, fortasse anglice quoque adjuvet alios?

   The Latin bits are translating English quotations in the main text. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   gratias, non bene legi Jim Killock (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Source check: starting with ODNB:

   ODNB says the relationship to William is "unsubstantiated"; thus "possibly" seems too strong

   Ok. I've changed this to "probably not". Godtres (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   ODNB gives a better explanation of the economic problem he faced, which seems central, also says the "monastic cathedral" is an English phenomenon

   I've added more on the economics of his proposed reform. I don't think the English phenomenon point is relevant. Godtres (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Likewise ODNB shows the view of him from his successor is that his ambitions were grandiose and excessive or to the detriment of the Monks; seems important

   I'm not sure about whether Giffard's view was that the plans are grandiose, or whether it is the writer's view, so I haven't added that. I've changed the wording of the paragraph based on that to reflect it was purportedly according to Giffard. Godtres (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   ONDB clarifies the posession in 1189, says the archaology suggests they could only have taken a small bit of the building (the "eastern portion")

   I've added "the completed parts of" to make the article more complete. Godtres (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   ONDB appears twice in the citations, I've disambiguated these and given them dates. Is the 1899 version needed? Seems to duplicate the 2004 information where cited?

   It basically does duplicate the information... two reasons I have kept it in the footnotes are: it is free to access on Wikisource (possibly we could add a link), and does contain some different content. Godtres (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Other citations seem to lack page references, these are needed in order to check; could you add and I can come back to these? --Jim Killock (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The only source without a page reference that might need one is number 8: I'm afraid I don't have a physical copy, but you can access the text here: [1]. Godtres (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   P.S. Willis is quoting the Winchester Annals in the relevant section of the link. Godtres (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Great. I think we can say the sources check out :) Jim Killock (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I doubt there is a lot more to find.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   There doesn't appear to be much contentious on the topic

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

   Could the captions be improved to explain his connection to the rebuilding programme?

   Have tried to do this. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   yes they are much better thank you Jim Killock (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This will pass once the edits are addressed.

   Hope I've addressed all of your comments. Godtres (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Fuether comments at Winchester Annals above, and at 1 B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

   on the lead, say the shape of the cathedral owes a lot to the construction started in his time (assuming this is true); establishing the market seems like an important point, and maybe use the Anselm example to illustrate his prominence in national affairs. Jim Killock (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I've added some stuff to the lead. It is now much more substantial. Godtres (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   One or two small things at 1 B. Closer now! Thanks for bearing with me. Jim Killock (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   In the interests of time and lightening your work, I made the two edits I identified - please check and alter if you think they're wrong. I'll find time to do a sources check and re-read later today. Jim Killock (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you. I've altered the one to the lead. Godtres (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I made a few light copyedits, please do check. Note I've made some comments regarding ONDB above, and other sources needing page refs so I can check. Jim Killock (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for your edits. They're really helpful, particularly those with regard to the citation parameters. Godtres (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Great, I've adjusted the DNB citation to point to Wikisource also. I think it may be worth getting a second opinion in case I've missed anything, just as this is the first time I've adjudicated a GA and I may have missed something. Hope that's OK. Jim Killock (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks. You've provided some really helpful feedback. Godtres (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   No problem and well done with your work so far. Hopefully we'll get some useful feedback before too long. Jim Killock (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

From a procedural point of view, the GA nomination looks good -- well done to you both. I haven't done a full re-check of the substantive points (am happy to do so on request), but I have looked over the article itself and the image licenses.

A few MoS points you may wish to consider, but which shouldn't hold up a GA pass:

• Words like bishop and cathedral only take capitals when they're part of a proper noun (e.g. "I had tea with the Bishop of Rochester"): Wikipedia doesn't capitalise as much as some style guides. Cathedral in the lead and Bishop in he remained bishop should be decapitalised.
• It would be worth explaining what the Winchester Annals are. If this is the title of the work, it should be italicised. Under the MoS, we don't link part of a work's name (so either redlink the whole thing or remove the blue link on Winchester).
• Latin doesn't generally capitalise the first letter of a sentence (though this is increasingly less true the closer you get to the modern day): I would decapitalise in the inscription. You could also use the {{lang|la|[text]}} template to make sure that screen readers can read the text correctly and that the Wiki software can correctly categorise it.
• Jim, did you check any sources which did support the claims made? It's usual practice to say so: e.g. "References 5, 10 and 14 check out: problem with ref. 16..." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking over this @UndercoverClassicist, it's a great help, especially regarding finer details of the MOS. TBH we have one substantial source, which is the ODNB, and the prior version of it, the DNB, with substantially the same information. On this point I didn't check the prior iteration, I just assumed the later version would be more reliable. The other sources are pretty much fillers on some specific details, AFAICT. Jim Killock (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the capitals, the annals, and added a Latin template. I've retained the capitals in the inscription, only because that's what the source I got it from had. Thank you for your comments! Godtres (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it's back over to Jim. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One even smaller thing: I'm not sure whose translation we have for the Latin text in note B, but as phrased, a better rendering would be "in the devotion and the number of its monks": the cadence of the Latin is pretty clear (from the bracketing of in ... in) that it was the monks, not the cathedral, that were particularly devoted. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good spot, that does seem right. I hope (Latin) translation doesn't count as OR.

I will close as a pass in any case - thank you both! Jim Killock (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]