Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roger Norreis/archive1

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 GrahamColm 10:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Roger Norreis

Roger Norreis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Roger Norreis/archive1

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... after excellent copyedits from John and Eric Corbett, I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. I've searched high and low for a relevant photograph or two - but the remains at Evesham date from after Norreis' time, and so do all of the other bits from where he lived. Norreis is a VERY bad boy - an abbot who did not fulfill the medieval ideal of the holy clergy at all. I find him a fascinating example of the fact that people remain people throughout history. It's been a while since I brought an obscure topic to FAC (the last four have been William the Conqueror, Middle Ages, Norman conquest of England, and Battle of Hastings) so I'm due for a bit of human interest and expanding people's horizons. Norreis is part of the infamous to Anglo-Norman historians Case of Evesham (which is a redirect right now, but eventually I'll get set up as an article), a great tangled mess of ecclesiastical litigation that dragged on for over 50 years and is fascinating to historians and very revealing to non-historians. I present to you, Roger Norreis - one very bad abbot. I hope you enjoy reading about him as much as I enjoyed researching him! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ealdgyth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why have a subscription tag on FN2 but not 5?
• British Archaeological Association or Society?
• Grandsen or Gransden?
• Be consistent in how you're dealing with Cambridge. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Got these all. THank you for the review. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

General

• Finally someone who sees commas the same way I do, well mostly! The fewer there are the better I say.
  • You may thank Eric Corbett for that. I'm actually overly fond of commas and he has to whack at them quite a lot. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Make sure serial comma usage is consistent throughout; I noticed a few times where you forgot the second comma.
  • Can you point them out, I'm not seeing them? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Background

• He was a monk at Christ Church Priory, the cathedral chapter of Canterbury Cathedral;[3] when he became a monk is unknown.[2] - A semicolon is wrong here, just a comma will do*:I've fixed that back, as a comma clearly isn't correct here. Eric Corbett 20:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Prior

• had been a supporter of the archbishop's scheme. - I think scheme gives the plan a negative connotation which is sort of inappropriate. Unless of course I'm reading it incorrectly?
  • Most folks consider the fact that the archbishop was indeed trying to pull a fast one over on his monks so I'm not that concerned about the tone. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Why is Geoffrey Fitz Peter, 1st Earl of Essex spelled with a lowercase f?
  • It's a perfectly correct way to spell it. Spelling for names then isn't standardized. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• and did not greatly annoy his monks - Not sure annoy is the best word here. Maybe perturb or dismay or antagonize?
  • But antagonize implies that he meant to piss them off - it's not clear that he did, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• and is a self-agrandising account - Seems like it should be quoted rather than stated, since it's obviously an opinion not a statement of fact.
  • It's a pretty common opinion among historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dispute

• and nothing was done about Norreis's exactions and abuse of his monks.[17] - Did Norreis get his land back?
  • Not clear from the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• The legate ordered an investigation, with the result being a written agreement between the two parties. - The with makes this sentence a bit wordy.
  • Someone whacked it out. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• and Norreis pursued them with soldiers, - he had control of soldiers? whose were they?
  • It's not specified in the sources, but I assume they were either ones he hired or were knights/men at arms from the abbey's estates. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Good work. Let me know when these are fixed. ceranthor 01:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I've got most of these, Ceranthor. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to say I've seen these comments and hope to get to them by the end of the week. RL has blown up in my face and I'm going to be busy with a rush photography job for the next two days. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Coemgenus Support

• Excellent article on an obscure figure. I enjoyed reading it.
• "was probably of Norse origin": Does that mean his ancestry was Norse, or he was personally from Scandinavia?
  • Clarified that his family was probably of Norse origin. He was born in England, somewhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• "There was no attempt at an election by the monks, which went against canon law." Do you mean the lack of election was against canon law, or that an election would be against canon law?
  • Clarified. The lack of election was against canon law. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• "The interdict of 1207–1213 caused further delays". Was this some beef between King John and the Pope? It sounds familiar, but a note might help.
  • I"ve linked the year range to the section of King John's article dealing with the interdict. I really should write an article on that interdict some time.. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• That's all I have. Some monk! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I've dealt with all of these. Thank you for the review, and sorry I was a bit slow getting back to them. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Great, changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Support – meets all FA criteria, in my view, and is a highly diverting read into the bargain. A few very minor comments, none of which affect my support, but you may like to consider:

• Prior and abbot
  • "There was no attempt at an election by the monks, which went against canon law" – Ambiguous. Presumably it was the absence of an election that contravened canon law, but the sentence can be read as saying the opposite.
    • As above, clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "Norreis did manage some good for the abbey, as it was while he was abbot that the crossing tower of the monastic church was completed" – It is not clear that the second part of the sentence necessarily supports the first. Does the source confirm that the completion of the tower was due to Norreis's actions, or was he just there at the time?
    • If Norreis had not assented to using money for the construction, it wouldn't have been completed ... so although it's not explicit, it's implied that he at least had some agreement to the completion of the tower. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "Early in his tenure of office" – We have had "tenure of office" in the previous para. I think just "tenure" the second time, perhaps?
    • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Dispute with Mauger and his monks
  • "When Norreis made it back to England, Mauger excommunicated the abbot in April 1205" – wouldn't a plain "him" be as clear as "the abbot" here?
    • It could be, but it's not horrid to be explicit either, I don't think. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "The interdict of 1207–1213 caused further delays" – as this is the first we've heard of the interdict, a few words in the text or as a footnote would be helpful to the reader: who was interdicted, by whom and why? (According to 1066 And All That, the pope gave orders that no one was to be born or die or marry (except in Church porches) – that sort of thing.)
    • I've linked to the relevant section of John's article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's my lot. Thank you for a most entertaining as well as informative article. – Tim riley (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Sorry for my delay. My concerns have been resolved. ceranthor 18:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.