Talk:Liber Eliensis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Liber Eliensis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject European history (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject England (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comments[edit]

Since I was invited to comment, I'll do so. The general reader would probably find it more interesting if you had a better background section, covering the literary context. I.e. it is a fairly normal "local history" or "cartulary narrative" produced in England in the era after the Norman Conquest. Gransden's background chapter (you can log out of google once you've reach your limit and then read on ... various ways to trick it) and this. Gransden claims it is the longest of these, a claim worth citing. I think if you decide to expand it more, a separate section for authorship is probably necessary. Authorship isn't really background, but central to these texts. Just expanding the debate, why historians have sometimes believed it was these monks, why they believe it was authored (here at the community's request), and so on. The MS section might benefit from tabulation, and more discussion of the pros and cons of E versus F (which is what you'd expect to read). The article is decent in size, but you can take heart that the sources you are already using give you plenty of room for expansion should you desire it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

PS, can you expand on this: Along with those works, a work on the benefactors of the abbey was used. A bit enigmatic! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so basically expansion of what's already there, not so much that there are big gaping holes of missing sections (I haven't inadvertantly done the manuscript equivalent of say... leaving out the "coronation" section for a king). That was my main concern. I really did NOT pay much attention to manuscript and literary studies! U of I has Grandsen's works, I'm just waiting on them returning to check them out for myself. Thanks, Deacon. So much easier for someone ELSE to see things than for you to see what's missing in your own work. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)