# Talk:Vale Royal Abbey

Serial Number 54129 - Assuming you're thinking of FA at some point, two thoughts. First, the revised (2011) Cheshire Pevsner has a pretty extensive entry on Vale Royal (pp=646-649). If you've not got access, I'd be happy to photocopy the relevant pages and email them over. Second, any reason why there's not an image at the head of the infobox? Hope you're keeping well and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi KJP1! Many thanks for the suggestions. i) If you don't mind, I'll bite your hand off for the most recent Pevsner! and ii) I don't know really; there don't seem to be actual pictures of the original buildings, and it seemed misleading to use a picture of the modern house? Coincidentally, though, one Jonesey95 has come along and added a map (in the middle of other useful fixes—cheers!) to the IB, which brightens things up considerably. Although there aren't many images to break up the prose, I've got an idea for playing around with maps.I'm under no illusions it's at all ready yet; apart from the Pevsnser—which I was shamefully ignorant of, not knowing much archaeology—there's a lot of historical stuff that should be either there in the first place or in more depth.Thanks, and I hope the world is treating you well too! ——SerialNumber54129 12:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem at all. If you just email me, I'll scan the pages and ping them over. There's some useful stuff on the architecture. I'm very lucky to have the Pevsners, although keeping them up to date proves rather expensive. Happy to look anything up as required - I often dip in to see what they  give for Harry's Lutyens war memorials. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Is there a reason you have the {{NHLE}} templates set to Citation Style 2? This seems inconsistent with the format of the other citations. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Lord Bolingbroke: I'm afraid I don't understand what that means; but I think they were already in use in the article ([1])—inline—when I found it. In any case, if there's anything about them you feel you can improve, then of course have at it! ——SerialNumber54129 10:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Sorry I wasn't more clear! I meant that the citations of Historic England (which use Template:NHLE) include the parameter |mode=cs2, which sets the citations to Citation Style 2. In CS2, commas are used to separate the elements of a citation rather than periods ("Title", Work, Date rather than "Title". Work. Date.). Since all the other citation templates use CS1, I went ahead and removed the |mode=cs2 parameter to achieve a consistent format. Hope this helps. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lord Bolingbroke: That's brilliant! Thanks very much, I never knew it could be changed like that. Actually, as it goes...I prefer the apostrophes  :) more in line with what I'm used to IRL, if you know what I mean. But that's really useful information, cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 15:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Glad my gnoming could be of help! As a sidenote, the generic {{citation}} template also uses CS2, which is why I replaced it with {{cite book}} in this edit. As you mentioned, all of the CS2 citations were in the article before you expanded it; I apologize for assuming it was you who added them. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

With apologies for the delay, and for the fact that these are going to have to come in dribs and drabs.

It's really good - well written, comprehensively researched, nicely illustrated. A fine piece of work.
Peer review - I can't remember if you use this before FA, and I've not time to check. I find it very helpful, and would recommend it.
The Prince moves from Prince to King in the first para. without explanation. I think it needs one. As an aside, I think the convention is capitalisation when it's King Edward, and not when it's the king. But it might just be a preference.
I've dealt with two tiny typos.
More to come. KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, KJP1; re. PR, yes sometimes, but if a quality writer of quality FAs gives it the once of over beforehand, that's often enough...sorry, I think I've just run out of butter  :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Flattery will get you everywhere! I will try to crack through this weekend, but life is proving irritatingly busy just now.  All the best. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Cheers, KJP1. For the Prince->King thing, how about ...fulfil his vow until 1272, the same year he inherited the throne? Re. capitalisation, d'you mind if I leave that a bit? While I have no personal preference (personally!), I keep receiving different "instructions" on it. At least at the moment, it's consistent, and, perhaps, I can see what a more general consensus is later on? Thanks for the typos, by the way! ——SerialNumber54129 13:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
All absolutely fine. The King/king thing is, I think, one where views differ. KJP1 (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Foundation
"Supposedly caught in extremely rough weather" - "while crossing the Channel"? - It's explained in the lead he's at sea, but not here.
"the ships returned peacefully to England" - "safely"?
"and Prestwich suggests that it although he probably founded the abbey as a request" - this isn't quite right. And "as a request" isn't clear to me. I know what's meant - as a guarantee for future safety - isn't there an "indulgences"-like term for this?
"Things did not go smoothly" - encyclopedic? And what "things"? "The establishment of the abbey was problematic"?
"who believed that it (and its land) impinged on them" - not sure "impinged" is quite right here. "threatened their livelihoods"?
"The Darnhall site was soon found unsuitable for the large buildings planned. It may have been intended as a temporary site; in 1276, Edward (now king) agreed to move the abbey to a better site." - 3 "sites" in two lines. Replace the last with "situation"?
"to the Weaver (and the abbey's fishponds)" - is the Weaver a river? Answer yes, from the next para., so "to the River Weaver and the abbey's fishponds, following the course of the river to Bradford Mill"?
Apologies this is taking so long. Life really is just getting in the way! More to come. KJP1 (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Construction and problems
This sounds a bit vague - will ponder an alternative.
Building
"Fifty-one masons came from around the country—rarely were they local men, and it is unknown whether they came willingly or were impressed—under the leadership of Chief Architect Walter of Hereford (one of the foremost architects of his day). began work on a huge, elaborate High Gothic church the size of a cathedral" - A couple of things. I think this began as two sentences but it's become one, with a stray full stop. It's packed and probably would be better as two. Or join them with "and began" or "to begin". Then, is Chief Architect actually a title, like Lord Protector? I don't think so. I'd probably drop it as you explain that he's an architect-priest. Lastly, is Walter, this Walter?
"The construction was intended to have thirty copes,..." - I don't think the copes etc. were intended to be part of the construction. Very flimsy things to build with! "The foundation/abbey/building was to be furnished/endowed with thirty copes...."?
"Helpeston intended an apsidal choir" - Who he, Ed? You introduce him further down in the Later Middle Ages section.
"in the second and third years recruitment was much improved. At the same time, however, the number of masons employed decreased from.." - this seems contradictory?
"by Bishop of Durham Anthony Bek" - "by the Bishop of Durham Anthony Bek" or "by Anthony Bek, the Bishop of Durham".
"Each complete pillar cost 3s. 6d, for which the abbot put down a deposit of £52" - that gets him something like 300 pillars. How many did he need?
Financial problems
"However, things soon began to go wrong." - I like however but its overuse can make normally sane FAC reviewers go bonkers. Not sure it's needed here?
"when Walter of Hereford sent to the Wardrobe to claim his annual robe he was told this would be the last time, and no more wages or robes would he receive." - Two things. Can we explain "robe" in some way, literally a robe? And the ending is rather poetic. Is it a quote? If so, would it be better to have it as a quote?
"Precise reasons for the King's volte-face is unknown." - A plural followed by a singular. Perhaps, "The precise reasons for the King's volte-face are not known"?
"Work stopped for at least a decade after 1290, at least in part to the transference of .." - is there a "due" missing here; "Work stopped for at least a decade after 1290, due in part to the transference of ... "?
"Workmen refused to work on account of the unlikelihood of payment" - I think the double meaning of "account" confuses here. Perhaps, "Workmen refused to work for fear of not being paid."
"The authors note sententiously that the building" - is "sententiously" a bit POV?
Relations with tenants
"the monks' relationship with their tenants and neighbours was usually poor (and sometimes abysmal)." - does the bracketed content add much?
"It is impossible, however, to ascertain if the abbey was as locally tyrannous as the villagers claimed" - is this shading into a bit of OR?
Quotebox - the relevance of the quotebox content to this section isn't immediately clear to me.
Estates and finances
"These included Conewardsly (granted in 1276)" - not sure what the "These" is referencing?
"Ashbourne, was not held for long" - superfluous comma.
"Wool exports, however, were the abbey's main source of income" - do we need the "however"?
"of which £60 was spent on hospitality; £16 was wages for the abbey's servant staff, £21 expenses for the abbot, £30 for defensive measures, and £50 in "gifts, damages and contributions."" - perhaps, "of which £60 was spent on hospitality; £16 on wages for the abbey's servant staff, £21 for the abbot's expenses, £30 for defensive measures, and £50 in "gifts, damages and contributions.""? And should the full stop follow the quote marks?
Later middle ages
"In spite of the abbey's financial difficulties, building continued slowly" - this sounds a bit contradictory. Perhaps, "In spite of the abbey's financial difficulties, building continued, albeit at a slow pace"? Or some such.
"were able to move from their "temporary" dwellings and moved into their main quarters" - think the "and moved" is redundant.
"covering the choir and the church's north end in lead" - assuming they weren't totally encased, "roofing" or some such?
"There were problems with Helpston's security" - is this as clear as it could be? Is it 'security of tenure', as opposed to 'personal security'? Perhaps, "There were problems with securing Helpston's continued commitment..."?
"and now the destroyed nave presented its own architectural problems for rebuilding" - Is the "now" in the right place here? Perhaps, "and the now-destroyed nave presented its own architectural problems for rebuilding"?
"The plans were now, however, on a much-reduced scale from originally" - is the "from originally" necessary?
Last abbatial election
Link/introduce Thomas Cromwell here, rather than in the next para. And is it John Haware or John Hareware, and is anyone likely ever to blue-link him?
Dissolution
The only thing here for me is that we have "Hareware" and we have "Abbot John". As they're the same person, this confused me slightly.
Later history
"He the abbey gatehouse as the courtyard's entrance." - Something not quite right here - perhaps "He retained the abbey gatehouse as the courtyard's entrance"?
"and offered to advance the political careers of Lady Mary's sons if they would come to court in a letter shortly afterwards" - "and, in a letter written shortly after his visit, offered to advance the political careers of Lady Mary's sons if they would come to court"?
From the Civil War para. to the Blore rebuilding para., we jump about 200 years. Is there nothing to fill that gap? Pevsner has a bit on the architecture - "a remarkably early instance of Elizabethan revivalism.
"they permitted (and assisted with labour and facilities) a 1958 archaeological excavation in 1958" - in 1958 redundant.
Archaeological investigations and discovery of remains
The only thing here is the HE listing. You write of Holcroft's house and Vale Royal Abbey as being Grade II* but aren't they the same thing? They appear to have the same HE listing.
Notes
Note 7 - £37 per annum — which according to the Victoria County History was equivalent to about £700 a year in 1980. £37 p/a in 1277 to £700 in 1980 sounds very low. Is this right or is a zero, or two, missing?
Note 10 - the dwellings were for the workers as well as the monks - were these workers construction workers, or permanent workers on the abbey's estates? If the latter, this was the common practice for Cistercian foundations, the Choir Monks and the Lay Brothers, conversi. David Robinson's guide to Tintern Abbey has a useful explanation on page 8.
Note 35 - "is "difficult to date,5 partly because their letterforms did not necessarily represent those in use in contemporary handwriting" - is the number 5 a stray from somewhere?
Bibliography
This has quite a few red flags for "deprecated parameters".
Serial Number 54129 - right, I think I'm done. Hope some of this is useful and sincere apologies for the delay and for the piecemeal approach. Look forward to commenting at FAC in due course. A grand piece of work for which many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for the thorough review and kind words KJP1  :)  no problem with piecemeal, I'm a great believer in WP:VOLUNTEER and WP:NODEADLINE, etc. I'll crack on with your suggestions now, I've been following them and they're all good, cheers. About the parameters; the buggers changed {{cite web}} a week or two ago, and it's ballsed up everything that uses |subscription=. See subscription|. Thanks again for all your help, I'll give you a shout when it's up. Let me know if I can return the favour of course. ——SerialNumber54129 10:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Darnhall's location was unsuitable for a large construction - Why. Ceoil (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

In the lead "The original site at Darnhall was unsatisfactory" - again, am very curious. Ceoil (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
PS, the article is great, and am confident it will be back at FAC in a few weeks. Reviewers found nothing more needing than a lick of paint, and having read through twice now, not seeing any structural issues. Ceoil (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ceoil, it's in the footnotes; lack of a water supply. As one of those who torpedoed the initial FAC, I agree with your assessment; all the issues here are stylistic issues that derive from grafting two different writing styles together, rather than the kind of structural issues that will need major work. ‑ Iridescent 17:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)