# Talk:Hugh Foliot

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugh Foliot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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:

What is a "papal judge-delegate" - any chance of a link to something that will explain what this means to a lay person?
Here you go: papal judge-delegate Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I love the way you write whole articles to fix an issue like this. We're very lucky to have you on the project. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Why no link for King John?
linked Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What is a "benefice"?
linked Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
You are correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
Linked cathedral chapter, added "from Hereford" and reorderd. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
"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?
clarified a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
consistency query: there is "Roches" in second para, and "des Roches" in the third. Is there a reason?
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that takes care of it... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
A pleasure, as always. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)