Talk:Thomas of Bayeux

Thomas of Bayeux is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 12, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 30, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
May 18, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
October 19, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
March 14, 2010	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 18, 2017, and November 18, 2018.
Current status: Featured article

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance).

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Thomas of Bayeux is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move

If he's "usually" called "Thomas of Bayeux," then shouldn't the article be called "Thomas of Bayeux" with the redirect at "Thomas I of York"? TheLimbicOne 14:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the first place, you may want to consider shortening the lead because, as two paragraphs, it is quite long for an article of its size. Second, some of the prose doesn’t make sense. For example, was Sampson always Thomas’ brother, or only from 1086-1112 as is suggested by the text? Additionally, under “Serving William II” you have a string of sentences which all begin with “Thomas”: these should be rewritten. There are also a couple of other spelling and grammatical errors sprinkled throughout.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am placing the article on hold in the expectation that the problems mentioned above can be cleaned up. jackturner3 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, think I addressed everything but the spelling and grammatical errors. If you could point those out? I freely admit I suck at spelling, so I'm not likely to see them without having them pointed out. And grammatical errors... I've stared at this dang thing so much I am starting to see spots! Pointers would be much appreciated. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling is not a problem, and the grammer seems correct now. For that reason, I happily promote this article to GA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackturner3 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 30 January 2008

Dumb questions

Lead

" After the Norman Conquest, the King nominated Thomas to replace Ealdred as archbishop. After Thomas refused to give an oath of obedience to Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury... ". I just can't make head nor tail of that. Archbishop of what? Ealdred? Lanfranc? Who the Hell are they? Why should Thomas have to give an oath to the Archbishop of Canterbury? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See how that rewording works? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I think I'm done for a bit. Thomas was one of my earlier GAs, so he's probably a bit more confuzled than the later ones. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"After the Norman Conquest, the King nominated Thomas to succeed Ealdred as archbishop." Archbishop of where? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"After Thomas' election ...". I find the "Thomas'" to be quite strange. If I were to say it I'd say "Thomas's", wouldn't you?

"... part of Lanfranc's claim that Canterbury the primary bishopric, or head of the English church." Is there a word missing here?

""Thomas also attended the trial of the Bishop of Durham, William de St-Calais ...". I think we need to say what William was being tried for. Treason wasn't it?

Early Life

Was his mother Muirel or is it a typo for Muriel?

Archbishop under William I

I'm finding it difficult to reconcile these two apparently contradictory statements: "The council decided that the Archbishop of Canterbury was the superior of the Archbishop of York" and "the profession did not mention any primacy of Canterbury".

Rebuilding the cathedral

"Shortly before Thomas was appointed, on 19 September 1069, York Minster, the cathedral of the archdiocese, was burned in a fire that swept through York." This is slightly ambiguous. I'm not sure whether 19 september 1069 is the date of Thomas' appointment or the date of the fire.

"The refectory and dormitory for the canons were also destroyed." Destroyed as well as what? We say that the cathedral was damaged, not destroyed.

"Because of the way the foundation was laid out ...". seems strange to use the singular "foundation" in this context instead of the more normal (at least in the UK) "foundations".

Serving William II

"After the rebellion was over, Thomas was in attendance at the trial in 1088 of William de St-Calais ...". As above, "trial for treason"?

"Thomas attended the subsequent trial in 1088 of William de St-Calais, Bishop of Durham, who had sided with Odo. William was Thomas' sole suffragan bishop, but it was Thomas who pronounced the sentence that William must first be tried for rebellion against the King before he could be reinvested with his bishopric." I'm not quite getting this; it's the phrase "pronounced the sentence" that's throwing me. Is this pronounced the sentence at the trial (for treason?) that's just been mentioned, or it is an earlier trial, at which Thomas decided that William should be tried for treason (i.e., at the trial that's just been mentioned)?

I took care of all of these, but the "Thomas'" one. I was taught it's that way, and if you wanna change it, do but ... I cannot. It goes against my training and I just can't! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd most definitely say "Thomas's", and I'm sure you would as well if you said it out loud. I won't change it if youre not happy with it though; it's not a matter of "right" or "wrong". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death

How did Thomas die? The article mentions that he died shortly after the coronation of Henry I, vaguely implying that the events are related, but does not actually say how and why he died. Is it not known? If it is, it might be useful to have a sentence on that in the article. Otherwise, an excellent and interesting read. Muraho (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not known what exactly he died of but the sources don't specify, so it's not possible to put in something. This isn't unusual on medieval topics, to not know the cause of death. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Muraho (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birth

Hello, I'm removing the part that say he was born in Bayeux. I just checked the provided reference (Cowdrey in ODNB) and it doesn't support that. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]