Talk:Nigel (bishop of Ely)

GA Review

As usual, an excellent piece on a little known medieval figure. The only reason this is held up is that I think it could do with another copyedit. To this end I've copied the prose that I felt was poor below alongside any other issues for you to deal with.

• I notice one or two inline references that appear in the middle of sentences (there's one in the very first paragraph (studied under . . .). Is there a particular reason for this or is it an error?

Mainly because of the information coming from different sources, when that happens, I prefer to stick the footnote with the fact/information being sourced, so that it's clear what came from where. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.

• "After a two year vacancy, king made the appointment because he was returning to Normandy, and was settling outstanding business before leaving England." - Surely "the King" is correct?

Fixed to "King Henry" Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Throughout the article "king" is uncapitalised. I thought that when it was used to refer to a specific king (i.e. The King meaning Stephen or Henry II), it should be capitalised. Is this wrong?

Honestly, I thought it was king unless you're using the full title. Anyone we could ask that would know for sure? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I'll have to think on this, but no name springs to mind.

It should be "King Henry" , "the King of England" , "the king said". Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "as Henry appointed two other bishops at this time." - Can you name them? (non-essential)

done. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think earl and count should be capitalised when part of a title - is this correct?

Changed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Stephen had threatened to hang Roger in front of the castle" - Roger of Salisbury? But it then indicates that he was insid the castle already, so does it mean he would hang him once the castle was captured? If so, why just Rodge and not the others?

Hopefully clarified this. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Better

• The two boxes on the right collide a bit on my screen, is there any way to either merge them or seperate them wider?

I'd love to get rid of the officholder box. But someone was willing to edit war to keep them in. I'll try to rearrange some. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

At least they don't clash any more. Nicely done.

• "The monks of his cathedral chapter did not much like the fact that they were required to pay" - is there a slightly more elegant way of putting this?

Reworded it slightly. Let me know if you think something more needs to be done. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This shouldn't take too long and once addressed I'd be happy to promote this otherwise excellent article. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. Let me get through the rest of my morning routine and should be able to take care of this. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No rush!--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of everything. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You have indeed, GA!--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review comments

Moved here to make my life easier....

Finetooth comments: I can't help with the content, but I have a few suggestions for improvements related to style.

• Some of the sentences that are in passive voice would be better in active voice. Active isn't always better, but it often is. In the lead, you write: "After rebelling, Nigel was eventually reconciled with Stephen, but when Stephen died Nigel was returned to the Treasurership by Stephen's successor King Henry II of England, in order to restore order to the treasury. He was succeeded in office by his son, Richard FitzNeal, who he had trained in the operations of the Exchequer, or treasury of England." This would be punchier if written something like this: "After rebelling, Nigel eventually reconciled with Stephen. Stephen's successor, King Henry II of England, made Nigel treasurer again in hopes of restoring order to the treasury. Nigel's son, Richard FitzNeal, trained by Nigel in the operations of the Exchequer, or treasury of England, succeeded him in office."

• Speaking of FitzNeal, I'm confused. The lead says he succeeded Nigel, but the "Death and legacy" section says Adelelm succeeded Nigel.

The confusion comes from the fact that Nigel was treasurer twice. Adelelm succeeded on the first go round, fitzNeal on the second. Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• The word "invested" in relation to castles probably needs to be linked or briefly explained.

changed to "laid seige to" Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• If Nigel had more than one brother, the phrase "Nigel's brother Alexander" in the lead is correct. From the main text, though, it appears that Nigel had only one brother. In that case, "Nigel's brother, Alexander" is correct. I see another similar situation in "Stephen's early reign", where "Stephen's rival the Empress Matilda" needs a comma.

• Treasurer sometimes appears in the text with a capital "T" and sometimes with a small "t". Except where you use it as part of a formal title or to start a sentence, I'd go with small "t". Ditto for "treasury".

• To catch other small errors, you might have yet another editor do a copyedit. I see quite a few sentences that have unneeded commas. It would be difficult to list these, but I'll give an example. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead says, "As a royal servant, Nigel served as Treasurer of England under Henry I, before being appointed to the see, or bishopric, of Ely in 1133." The comma after "Henry I" makes the reader slow down for no reason.

• It's generally a good idea to position groups of footnote superscripts in ascending order. I see two places in the "Treasury under Henry I" section " where the order is reversed.

• I'm used to seeing the footnote parts separated by punctuation. Your footnotes are consistent, so maybe using no punctuation is OK, but this format looks unusual to me. For example, "Brett The Church Under Henry I p. 110 footnote 4" might be more readable as "Brett, The Church Under Henry I, p. 110, footnote 4".

• You are probably planning to change the hyphens in the page ranges to en dashes with a script, but I thought I'd better mention them.

• The head, "Stephen's later reign and under Henry II" is a bit awkward. Maybe to keep the heads parallel, you could use "Treasurer under Stephen" instead of "Stephen's early reign" and then use "Treasurer under Stephen and Henry II".

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• In "Stephen's later reign and under Henry II", "lone Pipe Roll" should be "lone pipe roll".

Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• In "Death and legacy", I'd suggest re-writing the sentence, "The bishop spent most of his life in debt to various moneylenders, only managing to clear his debts in the year he died with the help of his son." His son probably didn't help him die, and the sentence has other problems. Maybe this would do: "The bishop spent most of his life in debt, but in the year he died he managed to clear it with his son's help."

Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope this helps. If anything I've said doesn't make sense, please ask. I'll put a watch on this peer-review page. Finetooth (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

4u1e's comments.

Random stuff:

• Third sentence of 'Early life' - surely there must be a neater way to ref this sentence! Do none of the four refs contain more than one element? Could you combine several cites into one cite that combines more than source?
• Same para - lots of probablys, can this be varied?
• Same para - second to last sentence: two 'held's. Can this be varied?
• You might need to give a little bit of context to the 'Anglo-Norman kingdom' at this period to give background to Nigel's roles in England and Normandy. Most readers will of course know about Billy the Conquerer, but they may not have joined up the dots to realise that the King of England also ruled a large chunk of modern day France.

Added. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• What form did Nigel's revolt in 1139/1140 take?

Clarified and expanded. It was a very... abortive... revolt. Stephen caught him before he'd really got the revolt started. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I take it Nigel regained his bishopric as a result of the papal bull?

He never really lost it, just his secular offices, and he was scared to go back to Ely without being assured of the king's grace. Stephen drove him out of Ely, but never deposed him officially. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• A rare slightly awkward sentence: "It may be that the survival of the lone Pipe Roll from Henry I's reign, that of the year 1130, owes something to the fact that it may have been Nigel's own copy, which he brought with him to the Exchequer when he returned under Henry II." I appreciate we are speculating here, but I think there's one layer too many of uncertainty introduced! Although we don't know which, the pipe roll either is Nigel's or it isn't, so it can't really "owe something to" that fact. How about "The lone Pipe Roll to survive from Henry I's reign, that of the year 1130, may be Nigel's own copy, brought with him to the Exchequer when he returned under Henry II."?

Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "His uncle Roger also had at least one son, Roger, who was chancellor for King Stephen" Whose Uncle Roger? Presumably Nigel's, but given the construction of the paragraph it could also be William or Richard. As there are also two Rogers (father and son) there's definitely potential for confusion!

Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Besides his uncle, cousins, and brother, another relative was" The first part of this is redundant - just say "Another relative was..."
• " defenses" Presumably the article should be in UK English per WP:ENGVAR, so "defences". That one caught my eye, I haven't checked the rest of the article.
• "recovering lands of the church that had been lost" How and to whom?

Clarified briefly. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. Hope some of that is helpful. Contact me where I've been unclear! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you! I got busy with RL so it'll be a bit before I can get to all of these, but I thank you very much for the detailed review, it's going to be a great help! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nigel & the arts & architecture

Having been asked to comment, it seems Nigel's relationship with the arts was essentially destructive, so there seem to be no buildings to add or anything like that. I see most of the abbey chronicle is online: Liber Eliensis: A History of the Isle of Ely from the Seventh Century to the Twelfth, By Janet Fairweather, Translated by Janet Fairweather,Published by Boydell Press, 2005, ISBN 1843830159, on Google books. Obviously a primary source, but supplementary links could usefully be added. There may be useful introductory matter I've not seen. The references are very numerous, & no doubt exhaustive for political and administrative history (as I would call it; "general history" to User:Ealdgyth I expect), but I think underplay Nigel's poor relationship with his abbey, which seems to have gone well beyond the usual frictions. That the arrival of an English Pope seems to have sharply reversed the previous Papal support for Nigel is very suggestive of wider tensions between the Normans & English, & I think sources from less specialized historians, or those specialized in church or cultural history should have rather more on this - or biographies of Hadrian. I have no suggestions I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have both the Camden and the Fairweather issues of the Liber headed my way, (those are the books I mentioned that were still on the way). I'll recheck Miller's Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, but as I recall from my previous reading of it, there is little development of a discussion about Nigel's conflicts with his monks. One general factor involved in Nigel's poor relations is that Ely had just recently become the seat of a bishopric, prior to 1109, it had been an independent abbey. Unfortunately, none of my secondary sources mention this, I'm hoping there is a mention in the Liber, otherwise I can't mention it as it'd be OR. Another, general, factor was that the cathedral chapter were monks, and Nigel was very definitely secular clergy. I'll dig for a few more anecdotes, and try to bring this out a bit more. Thanks very much John, it's been a great help! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review

File:Nigel Bishop of Ely family tree.svg - Needs a description, author, and date (you can whack Mike Christie with a trout). Awadewit (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thanks Awa! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit notes

I gave this a quick copyedit. You might want to double-check to make sure I didn't introduce any American English by accident. A couple minor issues:

• Isn't the "Aldhelm" in the Notes section actually the "Adelelm" referred to in the text?
  • You are correct. Standardized. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• I felt like capitalization followed the right pattern where bishop/Bishop was concerned, but ran off the rails a bit as regards treasury/Treasury and exchequer/Exchequer.
  • Okay, Treasurer is a title so as I understand it, it should be capitalized. I've gone through and fixed those. I put treasury in lower case, but changed most of the references to Treasury as the specific English institution to Exchequer, and those should all be capitalized. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I also left a hidden comment or two with specific questions. I just have to say: good lord...what a bibliography! Maralia (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I found two hidden comments, and fixed them. Most secondary sources refer to Alexander and Nigel as brothers, it should be noted. And if you think that bibliography is bad, wait to you see the ones being worked on now... Bede and Wilfrid. Thank you SO much for the copyedit. Malleus has been fiddling with it too, so don't think the state of the prose reflects only my efforts! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • One more thing, did it do a good job of explaining the background of the times? Did the context of his life make sense, I guess? Anything that was unclear to you? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article issue

When hovering over the link to the article, the following text appears:

"Nigel was an 4”2 angry Italian man KFC slave and fascist who served as Dictator of a small island from 1133 to 1169. He came from an family..."

This is bizarre and I cannot figure out how to edit it. Obviously it doesn't appear in the actual article, just in the box which appears when viewing it from another page. Please could a more experienced editor take a look at the problem? Emmybris (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead

"Most historians, then and now, have felt that Nigel's administrative abilities were excellent; he is considered to have been more talented as an administrator than as a religious figure."

Then and now is an odd phrase to use on the Wiki. When is then, and when is now? 71.11.5.2 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)