Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Urse d'Abetot/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Karanacs 18:14, 13 October 2009 [1].

Urse d'Abetot[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk, Malleus Fatuorum, Deacon of Pndapetzim
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because as promised, here is a non-horse, non-bishop article. Urse is a somewhat obscure figure in Anglo-Norman history, not a big magnate, but definitely powerful and through his daughter ancestor of an important family in late Medieval England. He's mainly famous for invoking a rhyming curse from Ealdred, which is why he got his article started by me. After starting, he just kept growing past my planned "stub" status for him, and so now, here he is. Co-nom with Malleus and Deacon, as without their help, I'd not have finished Urse off. (Can Sandy, Karan, or Dabomb fix the nom statment to add those two in please?) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get the toolbox stuff out of the way for you first – there are no dablinks to fix, the external links are all working, all three images have alt text (others may care to comment on whether it could be improved), and all three images are public domain images at Commons without any obvious problems. I don't know historical sources well enough to be able to say "but you've included him, and he's known to be awful" or "why haven't you included her? She's the last word on the subject". Having said that, the reference list looks impressive, with no obvious "red flags"!
Minor quibbles only, it's a very interesting read and reflects a lot of hard work by you and your co-noms. I won't be offended if you don't think any of the following would improve matters.
  • Out of interest, does the photo of the infobox show the chateau as it appeared in Urse's lifetime, or at a later date?
    • Almost assuredly it's a later building. I'm basing this on the steep roof and the non-square tower, which scream Gothic rather than Romanesque to me. Whether the building in the picture predates the French Revolution or is a later reconstruction, I could not guess. With Worcester Cathedral being of later date than Urse (except for the crypt) and with Worcester Castle not being existant, I'm kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel for pictures. If the page from Hemming's was about Urse, I'd have put it in, but I do not believe it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says that he "probably" came over after the conquest, but the lead doesn't have this qualification, which makes it slightly odd when the lead says a couple of sentences later that there is "no evidence" that he participated in the Battle of Hastings.
    • This traces to several things, mainly that there is a plaque in Devises France that states a whole long list of folks that supposedly fought at Hastings with Billy the Conqueror. However, this plaque is QUITE late in date and no contemporary record states that most of the people on the plaque were actually at Hastings. Many genealogists, however, continue to repeat the claim that Urse (and others) were at Hastings, which is not put forth by any modern historians. The trick is, figuring out when exactly Urse DID arrive in England. The upshot here is, I've removed the "probably" because well, yeah, obviously Urse arrived in England after the Conquest (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Norman Conquest of England" sometimes has a capital "c", sometimes not. I'm not sure which is the approved format, although the article Norman conquest of England uses the lower-case c in its title.
    • I was trained as a historian that it's Norman Conquest. I have no idea why our article is lower case, and I've never played with it. I've double checked that this article is consistently capitalized. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the period until 1071, William consolidated his hold over England, despite a number of unsuccessful rebellions, particularly in the north and west of the country" reads slightly oddly, for two reasons. Firstly, I think it's because (to my mind at least) it's not necessarily inconsistent to consolidate one's hold and for there to be unsuccessful rebellions in the process. Also, "particularly in the north and west" could refer to the location of the rebellions or the place of his greatest consolidated hold. Perhaps something like "Between his coronation and 1071, William consolidated his hold over England, defeating a number of rebellions that arose particularly in the north and west of the country."?
  • "Sources" – you have two "often"s in the second sentence
  • The article sometimes has "Domesday Book" and sometimes "the Domesday Book"
    • Heh. Iridescent and I discussed this and it slipped my mind. I was taught "Domesday Book" not "the Domesday Book" .. .fixed all I found. Note that it's the Domesday Survey which created Domesday Book. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Urse d'Abetot who was a witness to a charter of William, before the invasion of England, is probably the same Urse who became sheriff c. 1069" – as the fact that he became sheriff in 1069 hasn't been mentioned in the article yet, would it be easier to say "He is probably the same person as the "Urse d'Abetot" who was a witness to a charter of William before the invasion of England"?
  • "Sheriff of Worcester" - perhaps link somewhere to Worcester Cathedral and / or Bishop of Worcester? Perhaps link Worcestershire here, rather than a couple of sections later?
    • Linked Worcestershire. Worcester Cathedral is linked up in the sources section. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Urse also oversaw the construction of a new castle at the town of Worcester,[15] of which nothing now remains." is ambiguous for those who don't know that Worcester still exists...
  • "Service to William II" - should it really be "William II Rufus", or would it be better to say "William II (known as William Rufus)", or just use one or other designation?
    • Well, historian's use "William II" "William Rufus" or "Rufus" pretty much interchangably, probably just because you need some variety in how you refer to someone, and you can't vary it with a last name in this era. I think sticking with what's there is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, as I say, a fine article. Perhaps writing about a non-horse non-bishop is an insufficient challenge for you; perhaps it's time that you wrote an FA on a hurricane... BencherliteTalk 15:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will check these over shortly (probably this afternoon after the farrier arrives) but some probably look quite helpful. And no to the hurricane idea, thank you. No roads, albums or video games either, sorry! I'm firmly wedded to either horses or medieval subjects. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, my minor quibbles have been resolved. BencherliteTalk 19:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, then so the perfect subject for you is medieval horses! (Any chance that you'd take on Veillantif? Or should we look for a famous medieval bishop's horse? :-)
  • I think even my skills at teasing out information (witness Urse here! His Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry is only like 200 words...) would not be able to do much with Veilantif, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map alt text needs a bit more context for readers who don't know English geography. Could you please say that the counties in question are in western England next to Wales?
  • The phrase "A page from a medieval hand-written manuscript" should be removed as per WP:ALT#Repetition, as it duplicates the caption. In its place, could you please transcribe a few words of the text, to give the visually impaired reader a feel for what they're missing?
Eubulides (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the transcription, I would not presume to do that. Medieval manuscript transcription is a subject I am not familiar with and I would be almost assuredly wrong in whatever I tried to transcribe. Any other suggestions on what to replace that with, bearing in mind I won't (and shouldn't) transcribe? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could transcribe a bit for you if you'd like. I'm no expert, but the text is that middle stage between Carolingian and Gothic, which is not yet too Gothic-y to be immediately illegible. (I've got a 14th century one in my sandbox that I still can't figure out!) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replaced the duplicate text with something else that didn't involve transcription. Thanks for fixing the map; the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've already done my nitpicking-and-questioning prior to the nomination, here. – iridescent 19:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Eek, I've never made one of these before. The note next to Ealdred's curse lists two other "translations", a word which without further qualification implies "translations into modern English". Yet the other translations look pretty Middle English to me. I assume that Ealdred was speaking Old English, and the two versions in the note are "translations" by two different chroniclers into their native Middle English? If so, the note should specify that the version in the main text is a translation into modern English, and that the other versions are renderings in Middle of Ealdred's curse in Old. A. Parrot (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to check on this, but the original may have been Latin actually, with the "translations" into something the translators (modern historians) felt was more "authentic" that Ealdred would have said. I'll go digging in a few. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the original statement is from William of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontificum, which was a Latin chronicle/work. (Well, Bates doesn't say where he got it, but the other two give the same chronicle, so it's unlikely to have been in more than one chronicle.) So the original would have been Latin and the translators here are translating into either pseudo-Middle English or modern English. I'm more than happy to amend the note, but what would you suggest? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. How about "William of Malmesbury recorded the curse in Latin, but (insert less-archaizing source here) translates it this way. Other, more archaic translations include (Rendering 1) and (Rendering 2)."
I tried this for the note: "The original was in William of Malmesbury's Latin work Gesta pontificum, and another modern yet archaizing translation is "Hattest thu Urs? Have thu Godes kurs." Another historian renders the original Latin as "Hattest ðu Urs, haue ðu Godes kurs"." I rather like leaving the most modern translation up in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant; I was only suggesting a new version of the note, where "this way" refers to the version in the article text, and the "less-archaizing source" is just the name of the author who wrote that version. I think my version is more orderly and compact (you could add "in Gesta Pontificum" after William's name and change "archaic" to "archaizing", if that seems better), but I'll leave it to you. A. Parrot (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to reword it, feel free. I got lost somewhere in the explanations (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Because I didn't forget, my bishop horsey loving chum. Dabs and links are fine.

  • Do the Alecto; Appleton; Williams 2003 refs have a publishing location to make them uniform with the rest?
    • It's a CD Rom, and doesn't have a location anywhere on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One Hollister ref needs expansion of the author's name for uniformity with the other ones.
    • I follow the convention of using the name as given on the ref for the author. The one where he's "C. W." is how he's listed on that conference report. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mooers; Southern refs have an unconventional (01 [year]) citation. Does that mean January or what?
    • Fixed, not sure what the heck happened there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Williams refs need alphabetising.

RB88 (T) 23:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 1b, 1c, 2c. I'm impressed by the scholarly endeavour of this, especially for an article which has a section specifically detailing that finding good quality/accurate sources is a historical challenge. It's very close to being 100% comprehensive in terms of notable and reliable references. Good job to all three editors. RB88 (T) 23:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and a nitpick usual high standard, but Little is known of his family in Normandy, who were not prominent. in the lead is odd. I'd lose the redundant bit after the comma - if they were prominent they wouldn't be little-known Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in this time frame it's quite easy to be prominent but little known. In fact, Urse is an excellent example, he was a very prominent and powerful person, but the actual information known on him is pretty sparse. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image copyright review: No issues. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed the article at GAN, and thought it was pretty close to FA standard then. One minor quibble, should under-tenant (a red link) be undertenant? Mm40 (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That redirects to Subinfeudation which is a really crappy article and not quite what an under-tenant is in English history. I'd rather leave the redlink and get around to writing a better article after the next time I go to the library. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Urse_d%27Abetot/archive1&oldid=1138474876"