Reviewer:hamiltonstone (
talk)
02:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is neutral, stable, well-referenced and contains no images. I have undertaken some minor copyediting. Specific comments:reply
What is a "papal judge-delegate" - any chance of a link to something that will explain what this means to a lay person?
I assume there was a change in King between 1216 and 1219, because different Kings (John and Henry III) are mentioned; but if that assumption is wrong, then an explanation is needed.
The first para of "Bishop" section is either out of order, lacking in clarity, or perhaps a bit of both. The second sentence seems to be explaining the circumstances that led up to the event in the first sentence. Should it not therefore come first? In addition, not knowing what a "cathedral chapter" is, makes understanding the overall events a little hard. But that may be unavoidable.
"and since Foliot accompanied him, the statement by a medieval chronicler from Dunstable that their destination was not certain, being either Rome or Compostela, should be discounted." I get the point, but the non-equivalence in the way sources are presented in the article text makes this odd. Why not first tell us who says that Roche travelled to Spain; who says Foliot accompanied him; who says this is unclear (ie. the mediaeval chronicler); and why the last should be discounted?
Reviewer:hamiltonstone (
talk)
02:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is neutral, stable, well-referenced and contains no images. I have undertaken some minor copyediting. Specific comments:reply
What is a "papal judge-delegate" - any chance of a link to something that will explain what this means to a lay person?
I assume there was a change in King between 1216 and 1219, because different Kings (John and Henry III) are mentioned; but if that assumption is wrong, then an explanation is needed.
The first para of "Bishop" section is either out of order, lacking in clarity, or perhaps a bit of both. The second sentence seems to be explaining the circumstances that led up to the event in the first sentence. Should it not therefore come first? In addition, not knowing what a "cathedral chapter" is, makes understanding the overall events a little hard. But that may be unavoidable.
"and since Foliot accompanied him, the statement by a medieval chronicler from Dunstable that their destination was not certain, being either Rome or Compostela, should be discounted." I get the point, but the non-equivalence in the way sources are presented in the article text makes this odd. Why not first tell us who says that Roche travelled to Spain; who says Foliot accompanied him; who says this is unclear (ie. the mediaeval chronicler); and why the last should be discounted?