Talk:William de St-Calais

message: WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please.  The survey will end on April 30.
* Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
* If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
* Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? 
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style.  Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: I'm on the road and may or may not be able to access the internet reliably. Figured I should let folks know in case the article gets reviewed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominator on the road

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 12, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Pass
:2. Factually accurate?: Pass
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Pass
The article is well written. There were a few very minor comma and grammar problems that I fixed myself. The article is well sourced and everything seems to be easily verifiable. It is thorough and covers all aspects of his life with out any POV problems. The article seems stable. All the images relate to the text around them and are from the commons, so there are no copyright/rationale/etc issues.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.</div> - Nikki311 05:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: I have read through the article again, fixing a few minor problems as I went. The article has changed considerably from when I reviewed it at PR, and I see that many of my suggestions have been incorporated. I have a few remaining points:-
*Early Life: When you say "As abbot, he only appears...", I assume that you mean he is only "mentioned in records". done
*Work for William the Conqueror
**I don't think the word "signor" exists in the sense that you mean it, i.e. someone who has signed a document. Try "signatory". 
*** Brain fart moment when I wrote it... that was the word I was trying for. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Time for you to play "remove all those words Eald insists on putting in" (grins)  Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-peer review comments

message: "The pope was also concerned about the king's refusal be deliver papal letters to bishops without royal permission."  It's in the section "Work for William the Conqueror".  --Kenatipo  speak! 00:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks for spotting it. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be a pain, but I'm still having trouble understanding the sentence.  Should it end at bishops, dropping "without royal permission"?  or, does "bishops without royal permission" refer to a certain class of bishops, perhaps those approved by the pope but not by the king?  --Kenatipo  speak! 02:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now reads "The pope was also concerned about the king's refusal to allow the delivery of papal letters to the English bishops unless royal permission was secured." That work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot better.  Thanks again.  --Kenatipo  speak! 02:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing!  Can someone add "and Bishop of Durham" to the end of the first sentence of the TFA blurb?  (Of course, it's edit protected).  --Kenatipo  speak! 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drop a note to DaBomb - I'm not an admin and can't edit the blurb. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK!  --Kenatipo  speak! 03:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence needs help 

message: David Crouch's book "The Normans: The History of a Dynasty", page 135, states only that "when the king's army moved north, he [William de St Calais] refused to surrender himself unless ...".  It does not support the assertion in this Wikipedia article that "the king approached with an army".  In fact, other secondary sources, including Andre Wilmart's 1928 "Alain le Roux and Alain le Noir: Comtes de Bretagne", make it plain that William II knew nothing of the safe conduct agreement between St Calais and the royal army's commanders until St Calais mentioned it during his treason trial.
It is a much too common error to interpolate a claim that Norman kings led their armies in person.  For example, writers have often carelessly placed William the Conqueror in the heat of battle, but there is little-to-no evidence for this except for the two cases William is reported to have mentioned on his deathbed, one of which is of course the Battle of Hastings, and the other was, if I recall correctly, either Val-es-Dunes in 1047 or Mortemer in 1054. Zoetropo (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect attribution of army leadership to King William II