Talk:Walter de Coventre

Linked dates

Aren't linked dates deprecated? All the dates are linked and this is tomorrow's FA. This has to be addressed.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  00:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed it with this.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  00:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This person seems very obscure

There is negligible online information about him - all the references are from books. All this article seems to say to me is that he held some relatively unimportant positions in educational and religious institutions - I'm just not sure it's interesting enough to be a featured article. I wouldn't say it captivates the reader's interest all that much.--Hedonistic Harlot (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Interesting" isn't a criterion for a featured article, and nor is his online presence: we simply need a goodly amount of information on him from reliable sources. As long as the article is comprehensive and without problems, it can be a featured article, even if there's relatively little that can be said about him. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it's a fascinating bit of mediaeval jigsaw puzzlework, even if not one aimed directly at the interests of a hedonistic harlot!45ossington (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

These comments started from the fact that it reached the front page. I think people were less gruntled if the introduction (which is almost a page) was shortened and made it clear he was no less than just another medieval bishop. Uffish (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of other online information seems to me to strengthen the case for an article here, not to reduce it. And, for me, books are still generally a superior source of reference material to web sites. I'm really pleased to see this as a featured article although I'll have forgotten his name by tomorrow! Thincat (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto! I saw it and thought "another forgotten bishop, hurrah", which sounds strange, but it's a cheering sight. Think of it as an entirely different angle to attack systemic bias from - an FA-quality article on someone who would never get a biography written. Shimgray | talk | 14:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

When was David king?

According to David II of Scotland, David became king at age 5 and was crowned at age 7, but this article says that he was crowned at age 4. The source given on David's article is Sir Archibald H. Dunbar's "Scottish Kings - A Revised Chronology of Scottish History 1005 - 1625", Edinburgh, 1899, p.146-7. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his father died when he was five, and he was crowned in later 1331. The "crowned" was apparently an unnoticed product of the copy-editing... "crowned" being thought the same as "coming to the throne". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording of first sentence

Can we change the wording of "direct evidence of his birthdate, his family". That phrase reads to me as if there's no direct evidence that he had any birthday or any family. A better would be "nothing about his birthdate, etc. is known". "Evidence of" seems to me to mean "proof of existence of"; but perhaps I'm just weird.

Also, the "although" doesn't work in this sentence, because the lack of evidence would not suggest that he didn't come from "the region around Abernethy". Rather it should be written, "although some indirect evidence suggests..." I'd actually prefer that this sentence were split in two at that comma before "although". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Portrait of David II

Could someone add more inforamtion about portrait of David II in this article?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

iStockphoto says: "Engraving by R. Harding (pub. 1797) after an original work by Jamieson." No idea who Jamieson was. The date makes me wonder if this might have been engraved for Pinkerton's Iconographia Scotica. Strangely that seems not to be available on Google or the Internet Archive, so it wouldn't be that easy to check. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)