Wikipedia:Peer review/William de Corbeil/archive1

William de Corbeil

• 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 May 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 at some point, and would welcome suggestions on how to improve the prose, and how to make it more understandable for the non-medievalist.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Peripitus

A good, well referenced article that, from my very sketchy knowledge of the period, appears broad in its coverage. There is some information that I expect is available missing, the article needs copyediting by a new set of eyes, and there are some parts that are unclear:

Some concepts are not expressed as well as needed by a general audience.

• "he served the bishops of Durham and London" - does this mean he served as bishop in Durham and London or that he (in modern parlance) worked for them ?
• "He was elected as a compromise to the see of Canterbury" - I think that the word "candidate" may be missing here. Either that or it should be "His election to the see of Canterbury was a compromise"
• "Thurstan had already arrived and had presented his side" - either "his argument" or "his case"... his side gives a weird visual.
• "It was at the same time that the Pope decided against Canterbury in the primacy dispute with York, when the forged documents that the Canterbury monks presented as evidence were dismissed as forgeries" - very unclear. Perhaps far better as say "At the visit's conclusion the Pope denied the primacy of Canterbury over York; dismissing the Canterbury monk's documents as forgeries" or is this not what is meant ?
• "and it was this persuasion that lead to Stephen's crowning" - are you sure ? I have not read the sources but I would have thought the Baron's, the other contenders for the crown etc... had a major influence.

The word "Canon", while currently linked to its explanatory article, should be explained within the article in some way Some information that I think is needed

• In his early life the article skips from him being educated to him educating. If the sources say it would be good to give an idea of the timing from one to the other. Does the source hint at how long he taught for ?
• He joined the service of Ranulf Flambard - something on what this service represented is needed
• for the free election, allowed by Henry I, who were the leading men ?
• "Cardinal John of Crema, who was now in England" - a year is better than now. Even better would be the year that the Cardinal arrived in England

There is copyediting needed to remove redundancy and correct tone problems in some places. Just a couple of examples below:

• King Henry I's son-in-law managed to persuade persuaded
• the papal legate of the new Pope Honorius II -> Pope Honorius II's papal legate. I do suggest that this section be rewritten so that it flows in time. Honorius appointed (1124)...legate sent (1126)...opposition to de Corbeil starts (112?).
• William did not long outlive Henry, as he died dying at Canterbury

- Peripitus (Talk) 12:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)