Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Longchamp/archive1

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 17:50, 26 November 2009 [1].

---

William Longchamp

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/William Longchamp/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because this is one of the better summaries of Longchamp's life available. As per usual, it's been through GA, Peer Review, and a stringent copyedit by Malleus. We're starting to stray a bit from my normal time frame, although its still a "bad boy bishop". Longchamp was one of Richard the Lionhearted's major advisors, and got into severe conflicts with the English nobles and bishops, eventually being driven from England disguised as a woman, or so the stories say. A contemporary of Hubert Walter, he lacked Walter's suaveity and ability to get along with others. The one remaining article that might touch on his life is unavaible to me at this time (someone will eventually respond to my Inter Library Loan request on it) but from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Longchamp, it probably has little new to offer this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• The dab checker shows three dab links.
• I fixed the one problem alt. If an infobox uses a full image tag instead of just an image name, it's easier to just place the alt in the tag.
• Not sure the Greenway link in the References section should be repeated again in "Notes"; just use "Greenway." there.
• Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. ;)

--an odd name 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've redlinked one dab, removed the link to Le Pin completely as I have no clue where the abbey was located and it's just easier to let someone else figure it out, and dab'd Wilton. As for the Greenway, it's how I've always done those Fasti refs, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The double link is nothing big to me (see also Nikita Khrushchev's FAC with the double on this day link). It just looked weird seeing it twice in the link checker. Issues struck; carry on. :) --an odd name 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review - File:Lincoln Castle.jpg - Please ask the uploader to clarify on the image description page that s/he is indeed the author of the image. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the original uploadeer hadn't edited since May 2008, I just replaced the pic with an almost identical one File:LincolnCastleGatehouseInterior.jpg which has the requested information. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Great - that works - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

• Oops, I had a note from Ealdgyth to look at Longchamp, and didn't even notice that it was currently at FAC. I think it needs a bit of clarification and reorganization, but it is Midterms week and I am busy for other reasons as well... It seems it has been here only a short while, so I probably have time. I would like to work on this with others but it may be a few days before I can. I did leave one note on the article's talk page. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 1c, 2c (Hooray, More Bishops!) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1c checks out for expected balance between source types and publication modes

1c checks out for no inappropriate sources

1c checks out for a balance of scholarship over time

2c checks out (beautifully)

2c quibbling:

Heiser, Richard R. (01 Spring 2000). "Castles, Constables and Politics in Late Twelfth-Century English Governance". Albion 32 (1): 19–36. doi:10.2307/4053985.

Turner, Ralph V. (Autumn 1975). "Roman Law in England Before the Time of Bracton". Journal of British Studies 15 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1086/385676.

the (01...) in Heiser's date is an issue number, not a date number.

Spring and Autumn are issue names, not dates (remember the bottom half of the world here). Should read Albion 32 (1: Spring) and Journal of British Studies 15 (1: Autumn) respectively. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are errors in the citation templates, and I don't have much control over how they are formatted. The only way to fix them is to remove the Spring or Autumn, which I've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Named the issues in the article; reported the poor documentation to the Template. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I took some time to reorganize the article a bit, then self-reverted. More info on article talk. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ling's changes have been placed in the article, they were fine. I did fix his reference, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support A well-written and well-researched article with just a spice of Hollywood movie thrown in. Thanks to the clarity of the article, I can now spout interesting facts about this bishop, too. :) Just the other day, I was telling someone all about the Gregorian mission. FAC reviewing really comes in handy as a discussion-starter. "Did you know that...?" "Where did you read that?" "On Wikipedia..." "What?" Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've caused Malleus to tell the BBC that they've got their facts wrong so I guess I am now corrupting lots of others also... yikes. (Today I wrote an article that wasn't about a horse, a bishop, nor an Anglo-Norman nobleman! ... )Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support with minor comments. I simply rearranged the info in the "Death and legacy" section, and barely changed the sentence structure at all. On a second read, I think the its first paragraph might be a bit choppy... too many simple, brief sentences all in a row. If you could combine one or two of them to create a little variety, that would be good. But this is a small matter. Thanks for fixing the ref; I knew it was wrong when I added it (see my comments on article talk). Ling.Nut (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Up to Ealdgyth's usual standard. I made some comments on talk a while back, all addressed. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.