Talk:Hugh Foliot

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Hamiltonstone in topic GA Review
Good articleHugh Foliot has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 24, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 24, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hugh Foliot took custody of Hereford Castle in 1223 as part of Hubert de Burgh's takeover of power from Peter des Roches?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 7, 2019, August 7, 2023, and August 7, 2024.

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugh Foliot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC) The article is neutral, stable, well-referenced and contains no images. I have undertaken some minor copyediting. Specific comments:Reply

  • What is a "papal judge-delegate" - any chance of a link to something that will explain what this means to a lay person?
  • Why no link for King John?
  • What is a "benefice"?
  • I assume there was a change in King between 1216 and 1219, because different Kings (John and Henry III) are mentioned; but if that assumption is wrong, then an explanation is needed.
  • The first para of "Bishop" section is either out of order, lacking in clarity, or perhaps a bit of both. The second sentence seems to be explaining the circumstances that led up to the event in the first sentence. Should it not therefore come first? In addition, not knowing what a "cathedral chapter" is, makes understanding the overall events a little hard. But that may be unavoidable.
  • "and since Foliot accompanied him, the statement by a medieval chronicler from Dunstable that their destination was not certain, being either Rome or Compostela, should be discounted." I get the point, but the non-equivalence in the way sources are presented in the article text makes this odd. Why not first tell us who says that Roche travelled to Spain; who says Foliot accompanied him; who says this is unclear (ie. the mediaeval chronicler); and why the last should be discounted?
  • consistency query: there is "Roches" in second para, and "des Roches" in the third. Is there a reason?

Otherwise excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think that takes care of it... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
A pleasure, as always. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply