# Talk:Geoffrey Talbot

Interesting reading Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
also - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
also Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geoffrey Talbot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 13:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Proofreading - I've included criteria b because "some historians" is used twice, and this is on our list of words to watch:

"Her ancestry is unclear, with David Crouch stating she was a member of the de Lacy family, and the Complete Peerage states she was probably" - I'm not an expert in variations between American and British English. Maybe split into two sentences - "the Complete Peerage also states that"?
putting "also" in would imply that the CP agrees totally with Crouch, which, unfortunately, they do not. She's quite the mystery as various historians have all come up with vastly differing parentages for her. Crouch never actually states who he thinks her parents are, unfortuantely. I've broken this sentence up into two. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
"These holdings around Swanscombe are considered by some historians as probably comprising" - re "some historians" is it possible to be more specific?
Well, Sanders' English Baronies is the "go-to" reference work for baronies/etc in this period. He's the main source for this, and since he's the basic reference work, there are a number of historians, including Crouch Reign of King Stephen pp. 78-80, and King King Stephen p. 60  who call Talbot a baron. I could just say Sanders, but it's obvious that other historians are relying on Sanders for their information and what to call him. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
"According to some historians, Agnes was Gilbert de Lacy's aunt" - same comment as above.
Added that it's Crouch. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
"Matilda's half-brother Robert." - please clarify that this is the same Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester linked to in the previous section.
Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
"Talbot may have been the chief instigator of the rebellion. By mid-May, Stephen was besieging Talbot in Hereford Castle, a siege that lasted until mid-June, when the castle surrendered. Talbot escaped," — Perhaps it would be clearer for casual readers if split into two sentences "When the castle surrendered on the terms that the garrison would be allowed to leave unharmed, Talbot escapes and fled..." It does seem worth mentioning that Stephen had developed a reputation for treating the rebel garrisons "kindly." I see that multiple sources mention that Talbolt burned the part of the town of Hereford located on the opposite bank of the Wye from the castle, this might be worth mentioning.
added a bit. I'm not seeing the sources for Talbot burning the town? Crouch just says part of the town burned. King doesn't mention anything about the town burning. Shoesmith doesn't mention the town burning during this time. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: I think the original chronicle source is the Chronicle of Florence of Worcester - here are two sources for Talbot burning the town after Stephen leaves Hereford Castle: Palgrave and the chronicle source Seraphim System (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, since those are primary sources, I'd generally want to see secondary sources that tie Talbot to the burning of the town. Palgrave died in 1861, so he's a bit dated at this point. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
"Talbot escaped, and fled to the de Lacy castle at Weobley Castle, which also was besieged and surrendered" - I have checked a few sources, and this statement seems to have more impact when it emphasizes Talbot's departure and Stephen's pursuit—there does not seem to be much to say about the siege itself, other then it was considerably shorter then the siege at Hereford.
I have no idea what you're wanting here. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this paragraph is much clearer after the revision. Seraphim System (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
"The Empress' forces then arranged a parley with the bishop and offered him a safe conduct, but when the bishop showed up at the meeting, he was threatened with hanging unless Talbot was released." - This can probably be split into two sentences, and just skimming sources I think the article would benefit from slightly more context.
What context do you think is missing? King (p. 88) quotes a bit of the contemporary sources, but other than adding some color, it's can be pretty much summed up as it is here. Crouch doesn't mention the incident at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Same as above, it was a little difficult to follow the sequence of events before the revision. Seraphim System (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
"Talbot was released, but this event led to difficulties between the bishop and King Stephen, who accused the bishop of supporting Matilda, and was only with difficulty persuaded to accept the bishop's explanation" —The emphasis is on Talbot, but the sentence is primarily about Stephen, which made it a little confusing for me to follow (I had to reread it a couple of times.) Again I think some additional context here would help readability.
Let's try "The bishop released Talbot under duress. The release affected the bishop's relations with Stephen, who accused the bishop of supporting Matilda, and was only with difficulty persuaded to accept the bishop's explanation."
Same. Seraphim System (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
"his lands passed to Sybil and her husband" - while we don't usually repeat links, I think linking again here would be helpful, because by the end of the article, I had completely forgotten who Sybil was...it also seems that Sybil was widowed by 1138, so I think it may be incorrect that the lands passed to "Sybil and her husband" — if she remarried, it is not discussed in the article, and is further confused by reference to her children with Pain FitzJohn in the same paragraph.
Sybil had remarried by the time of the death of Talbot - she was then married to Josce de Dinan. Have clarified Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
All in all, I think it is mostly complete, and quite close to GA, however I think the section on the siege in particular could use a little more detail, as some of the impact is lost. We do have some sources available regarding the toll the Siege of Hereford had on the town, and it seems this is worth mentioning. I think maybe some background details on the events of the Anarchy and Stephen's reign that Talbot was directly involved in would give the article more context, in general. There could be some more discussion about Sybil as well. This has the potential to be a GA quality medieval bio, but I don't think it is quite there yet. Seraphim System (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add images? I know there are some images available of Matilda and Stephen. There are a couple of the Swanscombe marshes (if there are marshes today, there were likely marshes back then right?) and of course a photo of the Hereford Cathdral (which, has some construction dating to 1107–48 according to OUP's The Grove Encyclopedia of Medieval Art and Architecture—interestingly enough, dating it to Talbot's time)

I don't see the need to add pictures of Matilda or Stephen to this short of an article. We can't assume that there were marshes then, either - and quite honestly, it's a very nebulous tie to marshes. If Geoffrey had been an ecclesiastic, I could see a photo of the Cathedral, but since Talbot didn't actually work out of the Cathedral, I'd find it a bit weak of a tie. There is not a requirement for images in the GA criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I think I saw at least one source that identified him as a marcher lord, in fact Crouch seems to identify him as part of Gloucester's marcher "affinity" here listed among the 12 marcher lords, also here where Crouch dicusses Talbot and Miles of Gloucester, he describes Herefordshire as "the most considerable royal asset in the southern Marches" — what would help is a clear source on what properties were actually part of "Swanscombe" — do the sources use the exact term "feudal barony"? I checked and our internal link is not very helpful.  Seraphim System (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there is a suitable lede photo, but we do mention that he fortified the Cathedral. (Of course. we can't assume that the construction dating from that time has been connected to his fortifications.) Would it be ok to add images to the body without a lede photo? Seraphim System (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Sanders' work is titled English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and Descent 1086-1327. Swanscombe is in the section denoted as "probable" baronies. The difference between a "feudal baron" and a plain "baron" is that a feudal baron predates the system of summoning lords to Parliament with writs. The status of a baron was much more ... fluid ... in this time period. Sanders bases his work on what type of relief was paid when a magnate died - if it was a certain amount, he considers that the holder of the estate was a baron and lists the barony in the confirmed section. When other factors (such as size, etc) point towards it being a barony but there is no record of reliefs paid (for whatever reason - lost accounts, waiving of the relief by the king, etc) he includes them in the "probable" section. Swanscombe is actually in Kent, so we can't assume that Talbot had holdings in Herefordshire... and it would be very odd for a baron with his caput in Kent to be titled a Marcher lord, but, Miles of Gloucester is a Marcher lord. Keats-Rohan doesn't list Talbot's holdings. It's likely that the de Lacy connection was what brought a Kent landowner to the Marches and embroiled him in the difficulties at Hereford, etc.
Without seeing the images, it's hard to say ... but as a general rule, I prefer to not add images just to have an image. If we have something that is definitely tied to Talbot, and not just somewhere that he might have been, then yeah. But they really aren't necessary for GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that the burning of the town is mentioned in a lot of 19th century sources, but not recent sources. Especially I have not been able to find any published after Hereford City Excavations 
What the Council of British Archeology report says is in 1138 the castle was held by Talbot, besieged and surrendered. 
In 1140 while Stephen's forces were in the castle, Talbot took over the cathedral and used the tower for siege weapons. 
This seems to be the timeline followed by most of the sources published after the CBA report, and the majority seem to rely on Gesta Stephani. The Florence of Worcester chronicle seems to be used heavily in the 19th century, and then seems to vanish from the historical narrative. I haven't been able to find any explanation for this, but I agree that without any further information, the current version of the article reflects the most recent scholarship. I think on that note, this article can be passed. 
I know it's length is a little short, but I think this is fair for a medieval biography, as it well-sourced and it covers all the major issues from the WP:RS clearly, without going into too much excessive detail about the Anarchy, or issues that would be beyond the scope of the biography. 
Side note: I am personally a little iffy about the citation format, as I prefer short citations that link directly to the full citations, but the GA criteria does not require any particular citation format be used. Seraphim System (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't kept up on the specifics of which chronicler is "in favor" with historians since I left college... but while I was still in college, I do recall most of the scholars considered the Gesta to be slightly more reliable than Florence. (I'm sure out there is some grad student who is writing their thesis/dissertation on why Florence is more reliable than the Gesta....) These things can change, so I offer it with that sort of caveat. This is one reason I don't even try to use primary sources on Wikipedia, because it is too easy to stray into doing my own interpretation of them, rather than reflecting what scholars think and write. As to the citation format - it is more common in history to see author title page in citations. It's certainly easier to keep track of what source is what both when writing and when reading the article - if you have the short title of the work, you don't have to have the link to the full citation because you don't have to try to remember which source was published in what year... There are a LOT of FAs that use this format ... also almost all the GAs I've worked on do also. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hadn't thought of that, I can see short titles being easier to keep track of then 2008a and 2008b. Seraphim System (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)