Talk:Richard Swinefield/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will undertake this review. The article is stable, neutral, generally well-written, appropriately referenced and its image appears not to have any issues.

Review points

• While I have read and reviewed a few articles by Ealdgyth, I do not recall coming across the term "prebend" before. It is linked, but could perhaps have a clause or sentence mentioning briefly what it is.

• Most of the articles you've done have been earlier time periods. The prebendary system didn't really get established until about 1150. Also, some of the English cathedrals were served by monks, instead of canons, and with monks there was no prebendary system. Anyway, added an explantory note. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• "see of Hereford, or bishopric..." Should this be "see, or bishopric, of Hereford"?

• I'm trying to avoid linking see, or bishopric, of Hereford... any suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw that one coming. I don't have any particularly helpful suggestion, but my guiding principle would be to write the best prose and compromise on the linking, rather than the other way around. I think you should run with "see, or bishopric, of Hereford", or alternatively "see, or bishopric, of Hereford". hamiltonstone (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• "given custody of the spiritualities and temporalities of the see..." I don't know what this phrase means, and the fact that it is somehow different from both being confirmed as bishop (which happened earlier) and being consecrated as bishop (which happened later) increases my curiosity. Can some explanation be offered here?

• Added explanation. Basically the process in the later Middle Ages was "bishop elected, gets custody of the properties (the spirtualities and temporalities) and then is consecrated, then he'd be 'enthroned', or ceremonially seated in his cathedral. If the bishop was being moved from another bishopric, they wouldn't be consecrated again, and the date of custody is important, as it shows when he was usually considered the full bishop of the see. It's still important when it's a new bishop, as the date of custody is usually when the king approved of the election. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• "During Swinefield's time as bishop..." This whole para has only one citation at the very end. Is that because all facts in the para are from the one source?

• Yes. Anything before a citation is cited to the next following citation. If all the infromation in a paragraph comes from one source, I only cite at the end of the paragraph. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Swinefield was concerned with the treatment his clergy received, working to ensure that they were well treated". The sentence is clunky, with "treated" being used twice, but it also does not sound NPOV to me. What's the evidence?

• The relevant portion of the ONDB article says "Swinfield also demonstrated concern for the personnel of his diocese, although his adherence to ecclesiastical principles was tempered by realism. He acted swiftly when clerics were unjustly treated, as in the case of the chaplain of Hyssington, and refused the king's request to grant a prebend or benefice to Nicholas de Grenville, then just ten years old." which pretty much says "he made sure they were well-treated". I can't think of a way to reword the sentence though. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I have reworded this sentence. I think this is fine for GA. If this article were aiming for FA I think I would want to insist that some evidence be included to support the points made (ie. the examples that were in ONDB), and one option would be to quote that passage from ONDB in full. But it is fine as it stands for this review.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• "He attempted to prevent the misappropriation of churches within his dioceses". Really? I would have thought a church was too heavy to steal :-) "church funds" perhaps?

• Actually it means the churches. Each church had an incumbent, who held the benefice of the church. Someone, sometimes the local lord, sometimes the king, sometimes the pope, had the right to name a new incumbent when the previous one died. The process was obviously open to abuse, by either naming an ineligible clerk to the post or by selling the post or by egaging in nepotism for the appointment. Misapprorpiation is the term for appointing an unworthy candidate, for whatever reason. Added an explanation. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I thought the explanation interrupted the flow and have tried a radical copyedit of the whole sentence, which I hope preserves the intent. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have copyedited as i went; please check these to ensure I did not deleteriously change the sense of any of the article.

• I moved one cite back to where it belonged, otherwise looked fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you just hang out waiting for me to nominate a bishop? I only got him polished up yesterday! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I like reading and reviewing the stuff you and Deacon of P... are doing. The subject matter is fascinating for someone whose idea of a great night in is watching archaeology documentaries on TV :-) I know your work is not going to be too hard to review, and that you'll get on to things quickly. I've had other reviews open for over a month (which is fine when you know someone's going to sort something out). So i suppose, yes, I'm just waiting for you to nominate your next bishop!! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)