Wikipedia:Peer review/Nigel (Bishop of Ely)/archive1

Nigel (Bishop of Ely)

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC (as a break from Canterbury... ) and would welcome any and all suggestions/comments/copyedits/complaints in my attempt to get it in better shape. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I can't help with the content, but I have a few suggestions for improvements related to style.

Some of the sentences that are in passive voice would be better in active voice. Active isn't always better, but it often is. In the lead, you write: "After rebelling, Nigel was eventually reconciled with Stephen, but when Stephen died Nigel was returned to the Treasurership by Stephen's successor King Henry II of England, in order to restore order to the treasury. He was succeeded in office by his son, Richard FitzNeal, who he had trained in the operations of the Exchequer, or treasury of England." This would be punchier if written something like this: "After rebelling, Nigel eventually reconciled with Stephen. Stephen's successor, King Henry II of England, made Nigel treasurer again in hopes of restoring order to the treasury. Nigel's son, Richard FitzNeal, trained by Nigel in the operations of the Exchequer, or treasury of England, succeeded him in office."

Speaking of FitzNeal, I'm confused. The lead says he succeeded Nigel, but the "Death and legacy" section says Adelelm succeeded Nigel.

The word "invested" in relation to castles probably needs to be linked or briefly explained.

If Nigel had more than one brother, the phrase "Nigel's brother Alexander" in the lead is correct. From the main text, though, it appears that Nigel had only one brother. In that case, "Nigel's brother, Alexander" is correct. I see another similar situation in "Stephen's early reign", where "Stephen's rival the Empress Matilda" needs a comma.

Treasurer sometimes appears in the text with a capital "T" and sometimes with a small "t". Except where you use it as part of a formal title or to start a sentence, I'd go with small "t". Ditto for "treasury".

To catch other small errors, you might have yet another editor do a copyedit. I see quite a few sentences that have unneeded commas. It would be difficult to list these, but I'll give an example. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead says, "As a royal servant, Nigel served as Treasurer of England under Henry I, before being appointed to the see, or bishopric, of Ely in 1133." The comma after "Henry I" makes the reader slow down for no reason.

It's generally a good idea to position groups of footnote superscripts in ascending order. I see two places in the "Treasury under Henry I" section " where the order is reversed.

I'm used to seeing the footnote parts separated by punctuation. Your footnotes are consistent, so maybe using no punctuation is OK, but this format looks unusual to me. For example, "Brett The Church Under Henry I p. 110 footnote 4" might be more readable as "Brett, The Church Under Henry I, p. 110, footnote 4".

You are probably planning to change the hyphens in the page ranges to en dashes with a script, but I thought I'd better mention them.

The head, "Stephen's later reign and under Henry II" is a bit awkward. Maybe to keep the heads parallel, you could use "Treasurer under Stephen" instead of "Stephen's early reign" and then use "Treasurer under Stephen and Henry II".

In "Stephen's later reign and under Henry II", "lone Pipe Roll" should be "lone pipe roll".

In "Death and legacy", I'd suggest re-writing the sentence, "The bishop spent most of his life in debt to various moneylenders, only managing to clear his debts in the year he died with the help of his son." His son probably didn't help him die, and the sentence has other problems. Maybe this would do: "The bishop spent most of his life in debt, but in the year he died he managed to clear it with his son's help."

I hope this helps. If anything I've said doesn't make sense, please ask. I'll put a watch on this peer-review page. Finetooth (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments.

Random stuff:

Third sentence of 'Early life' - surely there must be a neater way to ref this sentence! Do none of the four refs contain more than one element? Could you combine several cites into one cite that combines more than source?
Same para - lots of probablys, can this be varied?
Same para - second to last sentence: two 'held's. Can this be varied?
You might need to give a little bit of context to the 'Anglo-Norman kingdom' at this period to give background to Nigel's roles in England and Normandy. Most readers will of course know about Billy the Conquerer, but they may not have joined up the dots to realise that the King of England also ruled a large chunk of modern day France.
What form did Nigel's revolt in 1139/1140 take?
I take it Nigel regained his bishopric as a result of the papal bull?
A rare slightly awkward sentence: "It may be that the survival of the lone Pipe Roll from Henry I's reign, that of the year 1130, owes something to the fact that it may have been Nigel's own copy, which he brought with him to the Exchequer when he returned under Henry II." I appreciate we are speculating here, but I think there's one layer too many of uncertainty introduced! Although we don't know which, the pipe roll either is Nigel's or it isn't, so it can't really "owe something to" that fact. How about "The lone Pipe Roll to survive from Henry I's reign, that of the year 1130, may be Nigel's own copy, brought with him to the Exchequer when he returned under Henry II."?
"His uncle Roger also had at least one son, Roger, who was chancellor for King Stephen" Whose Uncle Roger? Presumably Nigel's, but given the construction of the paragraph it could also be William or Richard. As there are also two Rogers (father and son) there's definitely potential for confusion!
"Besides his uncle, cousins, and brother, another relative was" The first part of this is redundant - just say "Another relative was..."
" defenses" Presumably the article should be in UK English per WP:ENGVAR, so "defences". That one caught my eye, I haven't checked the rest of the article.
"recovering lands of the church that had been lost" How and to whom?

OK, I'm done. Hope some of that is helpful. Contact me where I've been unclear! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, thank you! I got busy with RL so it'll be a bit before I can get to all of these, but I thank you very much for the detailed review, it's going to be a great help! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]