Wikipedia:Peer review/John de Gray/archive1

John de Gray

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think he's important and hefty enough to head to FAC and would like comments on its prose, the comprehensiveness, and the clarity - the ability of a non-specialist to understand the topic.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am no specialist on the topic, but am quite interested in history in general and enjoy reading about medieval societies.
I'd advise rephrasing the first sentence in the lead. How does the following sound?
- John de Gray (died 18 October 1214) was a medieval English Bishop of Norwich and the elected but unconfirmed Archbishop of Canterbury?
The second sentence, too, could be rephrased. Here's an idea:
- He was employed in the service of John of England, even before John's coronation as king. For his services, de Gray was rewarded with a number of ecclesiastical offices, culminating in his pro forma election to Norwich in 1200.
Could something else be substituted for the word "quashed"?
I'm now reading into the "Early life" section. Here, a double-link can be found, "Prince John." This is the third time a new term describing John of England has been used, potentially confusing an unknowledgeable reader. Perhaps you could stick with "John" until after you reach his coronation, whereupon using "King John" would make more sense.
I have a little feeling that quickly describing pro forma would be a good idea. However, a reader should be able to infer this from the next sentence, and I don't see this as a major issue.
As with "King/Prince/John of England," you use the terms "royal" and "regal" interchangeably. I'd suggest "royal," for the sake of clarity alone, but either should be okay.
There are hardly any issues with the "Archbishop-elect" section.
"In Ireland:" serving as governor there for the king..." Why not simply "royal governor?"
Persecuting? This certainly does not sound neutral, and it is unsourced, no matter what the de Braose article uses as section headings.
- I'm all right with keeping the word in there, as long as some source is found describing a "persecution."
"Episcopal affairs and later career": You describe that de Gray's ability to raise money was useful for the King, yet this is alluded to earlier. I'm not sure how you feel about this, or if you can think of another way to decrease redundancy while still giving the reader the correct impression that he was a money-lender who the King often depended on.
The article as a whole is quite readable, fascinating, and smooth. I'd support this in an FA candidacy, and I hope that, after a few minor revisions, you nominate it. DCItalk 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persecuting - here's what Warren's biography of John says about John's behavior towards Braose - "He [Braose] died in exile in 1211 after being hounded from his lands and from the country by John's malevolence. His wife and one of his sons died before him, starved to death in King John's prison." then a few sentences later "There seems to be no cause for the king's persecution of these men beyond his own deovouring suspicions." (these men includes William Marshall...) Powicke (the source being used here) is a bit more restrained but the gist is the same - Braose was unfairly hounded by the king. I think I took care of most of the rest - quashed is ... the correct term for the papacy disallowing an election. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing: The (lone) image needs alt text. Allens (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is no longer required as part of the FA criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a good thing to have... if not fixed already, I'll do so. Allens (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]