Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nigel (Bishop of Ely)

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [1].

Nigel (Bishop of Ely)

edit
Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I've had it copyedited, peer reviewed, and I don't think there is a thing I could add more that is available in secondary sources that I can lay my hands on. Nigel was yet another of those very interesting but very unknown bishops from England. He was Lord Treasurer, and arrested, rebelled, exiled, fought with his monks, had interesting relatives and had a son who was Treasurer also. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I just asked for the dash tool to be run over this article, something I spaced doing before noming. Sorry! All dashes should be correctly shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the dash tool has been run. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting on the source review... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you mention it, I just noticed that the Fairweather translation of the Liber Eliensis is not listed in the sources. I haven't gone through and checked that each source used is listed, but will do so later. I just glanced down the list and the only weblinks I saw were to evidently reliable sources such as ODNB; and the books that I recognize all look good. Mike Christie (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I could have sworn I put the Fairweather in... it's in now. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: no issues here. Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems to be very scrupulously done. There's one oddity, in my eyes. You have a set of "notes" and another of "footnotes". "Footnotes" seems strange, in that web pages offer no obvious way to have [specifically] footnotes (so named to point up the contrast with endnotes). I do understand the motivation for having two sets: one is dutifully provided to head off complaints and also to cater for the true scholar; the other adds parenthetical information that's more likely to interest the (more or less) casual reader, whose attention you want to draw. But rather than [notes 1], etc., pointing to [interesting] "notes", and then a pile of [less interesting but of course necessary] "footnotes", how about [A], etc., pointing to [interesting] "notes" and then a pile of "source notes"? Although there may be a yet neater solution I haven't thought of. Morenoodles (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a system that's passed FAC before, and recently. I think most folks understand that "footnotes" now can mean, especially on wikipedia, any small numbered note that gives a source. And I particually dislike the lettered approach to reference tagging (it's a foible.) If it really bugs others, we could change the "footnotes" to "references", but I'm loath to do that unless others feel a need for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In articles I've promoted (Star Trek II, Bone Wars) the repeated references are put in the titular section and the actual reflist is under plain "Notes"; it's a scheme I've found commonly on articles that split called references in such a manner and I think it makes sense. (Admittedly there are two types of notes here, so it has to be juggled, but I think 'references' makes the best sense for the bibliography). I don't really care one way or another but I think in pure aesthetic terms its best to have the headings be as different namewise as possible. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep "References" (or of course "Bibliography") for an alphabetically ordered list of references, and not for notes. Also, while I'm not too fond of [A] I think it's less obtrusive than [notes 1]. But maybe this is just me. Morenoodles (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, it's not technically possible to have [A]-type markers with the current <ref group="arbitrarytext"></ref> syntax, you can only have [arbitrarytext 1] etc. See WP:REFGROUP. Dr pda (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the "footnotes" to "references". I don't want to use "bibliography" as this is a biography article and somewhere in our MOS there is a guideline that "bibliography" should be used for the subject's writings. So we now have "notes" "references" "sources" which hopefully keeps things separate. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Wow, nice work. Only a few comments here.
    • "Nigel rebelled and deserted to Stephen's rival Matilda, but was eventually reconciled with Stephen." Hmm.. "was reconciled" suggests a third-party action, while leaving out the "was" suggests the action was between Nigel and Stephen. Which is the correct meaning?
    • "Although he subsequently held some minor administrative posts, Stephen never ..." As written, it seems that Stephen is the subject of the sentence until one reads on. Could use some reworking.
    • "Some historians argued that Nigel's brother was Alexander of Lincoln ..." "Argued" suggests the matter has been settled?
      • Most historians write as if they were brothers. I'm not sure on the best way to word this, because I don't want to say they were 100% proven to be brothers, but... a lot of historians write (after the initial "We don't have any contemporary references that say they were brothers, but they probably were" waffles) as if they were. Suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm inclined to something more strongly indicative of what you just explained. Maybe, "Many historians agree that Nigel's brother was Alexander of Lincoln"?
    • You use "around" 1100 and "about" 1120 - can we make these consistent throughout? Not sure which is preferred, but they both sound oddly informal to me. I suppose "circa" is more formal.
    • Some work needed on consistency in comma usage (ex. In some places you have "In (year)" with no comma and in some places you use a comma).
--Laser brain (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I've given this another quick copyedit, and left a handful of inline queries requesting clarification. Maralia (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got all but your last one about the marriage. We dont' know anything about his marriage (if indeed it was one, and we aren't talking concubinage instead) and the only reason we have to suppose it is that he had a son. Several historians say he was married without saying anything else about the "wife", the others just mention his son. Unlike Nigel's uncle Roger, we're totally at sea about the domestic arrangements of Nigel. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should've been more clear in that query. I wasn't questioning the lack of detail—only the placement within the article. If the point being made is that he was married, that could be inserted anywhere, long prior to the paragraph about his death and legacy. If the point is that he was a married bishop, then perhaps it belongs in the section about his 'ascendance' to the bishopric? (Not to complicate things further, but I just noticed the section about this is headed 'Treasurer under Henry I'; perhaps that header should be expanded.) Maralia (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more that he was married than that he was a married bishop, the emphasis is on the married part. And "married bishop" is often shorthand in the field for "lived with some woman for a while and had children in a sorta married condition". It's extremely unlikely that he actually had a true marriage ceremony. I put that information there because that's where I usually stick the "boring biographical details" for bishops (I'm following the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography outline, in fact.). As for the header, would "Under Henry I" work better? fits in with the scheme. (I really don't do "catchy" headers well.. ) Ealdgyth - Talk 05:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What struck me was the apparent incongruity of a lead that primarily introduces him as Bishop of Ely versus a section header that instead focuses on his treasurership. I'm fine with your suggested alternate. This is something like the 7th FAC I've reviewed today; I'm off to bed :) Maralia (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the copyediting, it's very much appreciated. And the finding of problems too! Ealdgyth - Talk 05:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments I can't see enough quibbles not to support, but a few comments jimfbleak (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead, para 2. Five Stephens in five sentences – is it possible to vary a little – eg On the king’s death?
  • Laon – as a non-historian, I’m unclear whether Laon was in territories ruled by the English crown, the Dukes of Normandy or the French king. (if I’m being thick here, please ignore)
  • besieged quickly reads oddly to me, siege and quickly seem almost opposites - soon besieged maybe?
  • Both occupying forces did damage to the lands of the diocese. Does this mean the crops, or were the dykes destroyed, or what? Perhaps we don't know

Support Didn't know this was going forward so quickly, but it is a high quality well cited article worthy of the status. Eadgyth is really a fountain of energy. It had copy-edit problems a few weeks ago when I read it, and reading (the first third of) it again, these seem to have gone and doubtlessly if they are still there will be solved by the countless great copy-editors who patrol these FACs. I don't like the Notes-References-Sources style I must say; prefer Notes and References to be in Notes and Sources to be in References, the ole fashioned way, and I hope this doesn't mean people are going to be expecting me to write in this format ... but this ain't otherwise a big deal. Great work Eadgyth, Malleus (as always) and Mike, and the other copy-editors. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's winter. I'm stuck in the house. It's either Wiki or pack. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nigel_(Bishop_of_Ely)&oldid=1088822472"