# Talk:William de Warenne (justice)

Not BRR - you made a bold edit, I reverted some of them. One sentence sections are frowned on. Encyclopedic prose and headings avoid the use of symbols. The infobox is quite fine. Persondata is depreciated. There is no need to break out offspring by bullet points - we are a prose encyclopedia, not a genealogical listing. There is no need for citations in the lead. Your rearrangement removed a citation from information, leaving it sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:William de Warenne (justice)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Although I'm not deeply versed in this period of English history, I'm willing to review this article & see if I can learn something from an expert. -- llywrch (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in writing this up. I've had off-Wiki distractions, plus the complication I've had the 2nd century Roman Empire on my mind & not 12th century England. But to my comments.

This article is obviously well-organized & written. So those points pass. However, my tendency is to look at the actual facts of the article & determine whether it satisfies my curiosity as a general reader. Which leads to these points:
In the lead you quote the historian Ralph Turner as saying de Warenne "did not quite fit into the inner corps of royal counselors" -- It's not exactly clear how this is from the article. Was it due to his origins? His duties? Or his personality?
Turner does not elaborate. Here's the complete section "New men seeking to purchase prestige may have been more generous than members of the old nobility. Only one of the twelve founders, William de Warenne, baron of Wormegay, came from the old baronage. Although he was a longtime official under King John, he did not quite fit into the inner corps of royal counselors."Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. Not sure if I understand his point. Was Turner implying that of the inner circle of royal counselors, he was the only one who came of the old baronage while the newcomers owed their presence to the generosity? If so, that might explain things. -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
In the section "Royal Service", first paragraph, you don't link "eyre". Is there a reason it isn't? I find it an uncommon enough word I'd link it.
Linked. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
At the end of the second paragraph of this same section is the sentence: "In return, Warenne served as a witness on Walter's charters founding a monastery at West Dereham." I don't see the significance of this tit-for-tat. Did de Warenne receive some benefit from being a witness?
Bad wording. Rather, the fact that he was a witness is a further sign of the ties between the two. I've made this explicit. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
In the section "Marriage and family", the discussion of his grandchildren confused me a little. When you write "Warenne's grandson's rights to the barony were controlled by Beatrice's third husband, who did not relinquish them until his death in 1243", was this grandson the same person as William Bardolf? I'm assuming he is.
Clarified... hope this is better? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I compared this article to the one on his father, Reginald de Warenne, & noticed an omission. Reginald died owing "a large portion of the fine levied against him for the inheritance of his father-in-law's estates", which was ₤466. How did William cope with this outstanding debt? (I doubt the Crown simply foregave these debts. Or if it did, there would be a good reason why.)
Lastly, & only because they were mentioned in his father's article, are there any surviving muniments, documents with de Warenne's signature, etc.? (Not really necessary for this article to meet GA qualifications, but I was curious.)
Not that I've seen a source for. I'm pretty sure his father's wikipedia article doesn't mention any, though, are you confusing it with the ODNB article? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
This was more of a general question/suggestion than implying I expected this. (I've sent a few articles to WP:Peer Review, & I often get a question about illustrations about them, even when such materials aren't common. I know few influential people before c. 1500 had such materials.)
Most of these points are minor & I expect you can easily fix them. The one about his father's debts, however, is important enough to require additional material in some form. -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll get to most of these soon, but as for the debt - I can't answer that. Reginald is better covered by secondary sources than his son. The sources just don't say what happened to the debt. It wasn't unusual for debts such as these to just ... be forgotten or forgiven or ignored. A lot depended on how in favor the person was with the king. But without a secondary source that discusses the information, we can't begin to speculate. If this was a scholarly journal, I'd go digging in the various records and find if they even carried the debt over to William ... but for WP, that'd be OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. IMHO, I'd mention that the debt existed, then explain (as you just did) how it was forgotten/forgiven/ignored, & provide an example or two. Maybe stating that fact will prod someone into publishing a paper on that practice. -- llywrch (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
going to be Saturday or Sunday before I get to this, as my desktop decided to crash bad enough that it needed a full restore, so I won't be getting anything done today. Sat and Sun I've got to help,with the local library annual book sale, but may be able to get to this in the evening, assuming that the restore on the desktop actually works. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
No hurry. Wikipedia wasn't written in a day. ;-) llywrch (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Digging further - it appears that Reginald may have repaid the debt - Vincent "The Court of Henry II" in Henry II: New Interpretations p. 301 "At his retirement...he was required to begin immediate repayment of very substantial debts...to which the Exchequer had effectively turned a blind eye for the previous decade, but which now had to be repaid in the two years that remained to Reginald before his death". There's a cite to an article I've been unable to get my hands on - Nicholas Vincent "The Founding of Wormegay Priory" in Norfolk Archaeology in 1999. So it's not clear whether or not William inherited his father's debts - they may have been paid off prior. (This is why these articles are still stuck at GA status (or at GAN) - my inability to get a hold of this one article is going to keep them from being FA. Luckily, GA only requires coverage of the main aspects, not to be comprehensive, which is the FA criteria.) I'm not sure I am comfortable with assuming that William inherited the debt his father had - since none of the sources I've been able to access on William state he had a debt to the Exchequer, it's verging into OR territory given Vincent's statement. Going to tackle the rest now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Guess this bit of information will wait until this article is ready for FA review, since otherwise it's not essential. -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Summary Only two of my objections has not been met: one is the issue about his father's debt, which really doesn't come into this article so it can be overlooked; the other is how to make use of Turner's quotation in the lead. If I hadn't been so lackadaisical about this review I'd insist on cleaning that bit up, but IMHO Ealdgyth has been waiting long enough on this review & I trust she'll fix it soon, & definitely before the article is submitted for FA. I'm passing this. -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)