Talk:Ranulf de Broc

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Madalibi (talk · contribs) 05:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I will review this fine little article in the next few days. Madalibi (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Toolbox

• No DAB links and no EL: no issues.

Infobox
I would recommend linking to usher and marshall just as in the text.

Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead
The lead looks a bit short, but it is proportional to the rest of the page. Let me, however, be demanding for context. English Wikipedia tends to take a lot for granted when discussing English and American history, yet we get readers from all over the world, so I think it is better to assume no background knowledge of the events and places described. Someone who knows nothing about the Becket Controversy, for instance, will not know if Becket was in exile during the controversy or as a result thereof. And the lead does not make this point clear. Could you specify which was the case? The lead should also say more about what Ranulf did as administrator of Canterbury, since this is one of the major themes of the body of the text. Could you also add either the dates of life or the dates of reign of Henry II? I put other requests for clarifications under "Prose" and "Content" below.

I'm not sure what else you want about the Becket controversy in the lead - I state that Becket was in exile ... I'm not sure it's possible to summarize the whole thing enough for a lead. This is why I've linked to the article on the controversy. I've expanded a bit on Ranulf's exactions at Canterbury. I'm not usually given to putting regnal dates into this sort of article - if folks are interested in Henry's regnal dates - they are in his article. It's not like there aren't any anchoring dates in the lead - there are a couple that date the events of Ranulf's life. I've put in a parenthetical which hopefully will work.

Prose
The article is written in an accessible style that makes the narrative easy to follow. A few minor issues, some of which concern content more than prose:

• Do we have any idea who Oin Purcel and Nigel de Broc were? Dates of life? Social standing? Place of birth? Estates? Any statement that historians have no information on their lives would also be welcome.
  • We have no dates - but I have no source that states anything on Oin. He doesn't exist in Keats-Rohan's Domesday Descendants or Domesday Descendants. I can't say that historians have no information on him because I haven't started working on any research for him - there may be information out there in some obscure publication. Nigel is a relative of some sort of Ranulf's - but Keats-Rohan doesn't have anything more than that - and she gives conflicting info - Nigel's entry is "de Broc, Nigel - Brother of Ranulf" (that's it, yes. It does list some primary sources after that, but that's the total of the entry). But Ranulf's entry (right below Nigel's) says that Ranulf was Nigel's nephew. Welcome to medieval studies. And this is an improvement over the Anglo-Saxon period! I've added a footnote on the discrepency - I'm inclined to take Ranulf's entry as slightly more likely, but it's hard to say why this hasnt been fixed. It's not on the list of corrections or other list of corrections either. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• He was receiver of the forest of Witingelega...: does "receiver" have a technical meaning here?
  • It's unclear from the sources. In the 13th and 14th century it would have meant the chief administrator of the royal forest. But in this period? I've checked with Charles Young's Royal Forests of Medieval England and it would appear that normally the chief forester or the forester responsible for a royal forest would have administered the forest - so what Keats-Rohan means here is unclear. Again - welcome to medieval studies! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• the day to day administration of Canterbury: as a modifier, shouldn't this be "day-to-day"?
  • You are likely right - fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• difficulties dragged on: sounds vague. What "difficulties" are we talking about?
  • It's meant to be vague - the recriminations and counter-recriminations would take a lot of space - but mainly they did not involve de Broc except as it's mentioned in the text here. (Let's just say that Becket was a person who could take one tiny little point and inflame it into a nightmare of arguments and problems. And he worked on like six or seven problems in this period). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• stripping the estates of the recent harvest and storing them away: problem of agreement.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• was involved with attempts: find more specific words?
  • Its detailed in the rest of the paragraph. I've tried to reword this to be a bit clearer.
• Working with de Broc were Roger de Pont L'Évêque – the Archbishop of York, Gilbert Foliot – the Bishop of London...: here parentheses would be clearer than spaced en dashes, which usually come in pairs. I'm thinking of "Roger de Pont L'Évêque (the Archbishop of York), Gilbert Foliot (the Bishop of London)..."
  • I've reworded, see if this works better. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• his excommunication of the three ecclesiastics: which three ecclesiastics? Do you mean the three ecclesiastics in the party that met Becket when he returned from exile? The next sentence (The next day the group was accompanied by some clergy sent by the ecclesiastics who had been excommunicated by Becket) suggests that things were more complicated.
  • Got this in a fix to above. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Becket excommunicated both de Broc's again...: should be "de Brocs".
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Revolt of 1173–74: explain in a few words?
  • As with most things involving Henry II - it's complicated, but I've tried. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Structure
Usually limpid, but I have one little issue with the order of presentation.

• From an event that took place on Christmas 1164, we jump to a statement that, The de Brocs continued to administer the estates until Michaelmas 1170. The text then states that, Although Becket accused de Broc... [presumably in 1170] ...of despoiling the Canterbury estates, it is not clear whether this was the case. But the next paragraph jumps back to late December 1164, and only in the next section ("Role in Becket's murder") are Becket's accusations discussed in detail. This is a bit confusing! :-) I think the text would flow better if you did not mention Becket's accusations until the section on Becket's murder. It would also be nice if you could specify when "De Broc managed to secure the support of some of the monks of the cathedral chapter of Canterbury" so that this sentence can also fall into place.
  • Oh, no. Becket started screaming bloody murder about the estates even before de Broc was appointed. And continued to bleat like a stuck pig until he died. (Did I mention that Becket was a great one for taking a tiny little problem and magnifying into a great-cause-that-must-be-righted-and-deserves-condemnation?). Hopefully I've clarified this. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• De Broc married Dametta de Gorron: do we know when? And where could we place this info so that it doesn't sound as though he married her after 1173?
  • NOt the slightest clue. It'd be very unusual to know this for basically a low-level nobleman in this period. Because we don't know, I've stuck it at the end because putting it elsewhere would imply he married wherever we put it. (Even the fact that they had five daughters doesn't mean that he didn't marry Dametta after 1173 - it's possible that he did then, although unlikely. If I had to guess, I'd guess around 1160, given his career path, but... that's just my OR, not anything we can put in. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Content
The article is stable and neutral. As far as I could tell from a brief search on Google Books, it covers the main aspects of the topic

• It would be even better if you took even less for granted. Many Europeans will not know what the Becket controversy was, let alone Japanese or Pakistani readers. I've recently asked for such clarifications in GA reviews about Serbian, Hungarian, and Chinese history, so why not medieval English history! The sentence During the Becket controversy, de Broc supported King Henry II of England and was appointed to oversee the lands and income of the see of Canterbury while Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was in exile, assumes that the reader will know what the Becket controversy was about, will understand that Thomas Becket was exiled as a result of the controversy (as opposed to, say, before it), and that he fled into exile (rather than being sent forcefully exiled as punishment, for example). A few words should be enough to clarify the issues and the sequence of events.
  • I've worked a bit on this but as above - it's easy to simplify the conflict. (To be quite honest, Becket changed his mind along the way and kept bringing up new issues - I'm in the camp of historians who believes he was courting martyrdom, quite honestly). Hopefully the little I've added helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Michaelmas: specifying the date would help.
  • Added but it's not pretty. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• De Broc was to pay the king 1562 pounds 5 shillings and 5.5 pence annually from the revenues of the estate. Not an important question, but do we know approximately what the estate's annual revenue was?
  • No, we don't, and that's one reason that it's unclear whether de Broc actually was being too extortionate or if Becket was exaggerating. It's not that big a number for the size of the diocese and the number of estates it had - it's just not clear. Unfortunately, Barlow, who is the most recent biographer (and it's not that recent - 1986) doesn't delve into the details nor is there any research I know of that does. I'm not even sure there are records that could be investigated on how much the revenues were - so I'm not sure historians could research it. (My actual specialty period was William II's reign, so I'm not as conversant with the primary sources available for Henry II's reign - I know most of the "big" ones, but the financial records in the PRO I just don't know about.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

References
The footnotes and bibliography are well presented, every piece of information is supported by a citation, and the article contains no original research. No issues here.

Images
There are none, but images are not a requirement for GA status.

General assessment: all the issues I raised are minor and easy to remedy. I'm putting on hold to give the nominator time to perform the necessary improvements! Madalibi (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this and hopefully will get to them this evening while I watch the Advertising Bowl. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I've addressed most of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

PROMOTED Thanks for your detailed explanations! I used to do medieval history (mostly French with some German and Italian) before I switched to Chinese history, so this was fun. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)