 | Roger de Valognes has been listed as one of the History 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. Review: April 20, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Roger de Valognes appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 January 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Sources
editGA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Roger de Valognes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 14:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
THAT was quick.. heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Need a break from trying to restore Thomas C. Hindman for URFA/2020, so I'll take a look at this.
- " a tenure that makes Roger the feudal baron of Benington" - My gut says this should be in past tense??
- "Peter was a tenant-in-chief in Domesday Book with lands in East Anglia" - the Domesday Book, or is that not the proper way of referring to it?
- "The third son, Philip de Valognes, became the first hereditary chamberlain" - but there's no Philip in the previous listing of his four sons, rather, there's a Geoffrey.
- Philip's ODNB states that he had 5 sons, of which Philip was the third, which would seem to solve the above issue
- It's probably an obvious statement that he's Anglo-Norman, but that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body
Not seeing any other issues, although the Anglo-Norman nobles aren't my area of familiarity. Hog Farm Talk 17:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- So he's now shown to the be son of a Norman - which covers the Anglo-Norman (which is just a person of Norman ancestry living in England...) I've cleaned up the sons issue - may all the gods witness that mucking about and inserting information into already cited information that is NOT in the source cited is one of the sneakiest/nastiest things people can do to an article - it can take ages to figure out what happened and fix it. Scholars are going to "in Domesday Book" rather than "in the Domesday Book" ... it's relatively recent change (in terms of historical writing at least). I think that got it all? Sorry for the delay, I'm suffering through the spring sinus outbreak... but the joys of Wisconsin mean its occurring concurrently with snowfall.. heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)