Talk:Ælfric of Abingdon

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ælfric of Abingdon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks interesting. Will start review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Lede

• Bishop of Ramsbury, as well as likely being the abbot of Abingdon Abbe" - repeated "as well" in same sentence - also rather a runon sentence.
• "he continued to hold Ramsbury along with Canterbury - is that correct for this kind of article, or should it be said something like "the positions of" or "office" or something?
• "After his death, his will left a ship to the king as well as other ships to other people." - another "as well"; also clumsy wording. Wouldn't this be better: "In his will he left a a ship" (better to say what kind of ship and to what king).
• Does not sumarize the article so the general reader will understand the gist of the topic. The reader must click on every link to try to figure out what this is about, and even then it is not put in any kind of historical context.

Bishop and archbishop

• His holding the office of abbot at Abingdon is not secure, however, because although the Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, or History of the Church of Abingdon, names him as abbot, the abbatial lists do not record him as such. - should it be the present tense "is"? Also, the sentence is clumsy, e.g. "His holding of the office"
• ". He was translated to Canterbury" - is "translated" an ecclesiastical term? jargon?
• "where he received the permission of "King Æthelred and all the witan" - to hold the office?

General comment

• I will not continue with the rest of the article for now as it is too difficult for the general reader to penetrate. I believe articles are supposed to be written so the general reader can understand at least the lede as a summary of the whole.
• Could more context be added to the article? It is exhausting to have to open up every link and try to figure out what it means to the article. The general reader who is not an English church history buff is lost reading this.
• The significance of material is not explained. For example, what is the significant of leaving a ship to an unnamed king?

MathewTownsend (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   See comments above under Lede and Bishop and archbishop which are examples.

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Fails lede. Does not summarize main points in the article, and is not written in a way the general reader can understand without clicking on every link and trying to puzzle out what it all means.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   Probably. Must AGF references, since they are predominately unavailable to me.

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Must AGF this.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   Does not provide overall context for the non English reader, and maybe not for the English reader who does not have higher educaation in English ecclesiastical history. Why not try to make it possible for the general reader to understand?

   B. Remains focused:

   Too focused.

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   No images

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Some images would help. The article is very dry and doesn't pull the reader in.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Will put on hold for seven days. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have relatives in town until Thursday morning, but should be able to get to these after that. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Further comments (may be repetitious as I forgot I reviewed it already)

• "was a late 10th century Archbishop of Canterbury, as well as previously holding the offices of abbot of St Albans Abbey and Bishop of Ramsbury, as well as likely being the abbot of Abingdon Abbey." - two "as well as" in same sentence, plus verbs don't match - "was a late" "as well as previously holding" - something like "a previous holder" or some such.

• "After his election to Canterbury, he continued to hold Ramsbury along with Canterbury until his death" - oh well, some context please

• "His holding the office of abbot at Abingdon is not secure," - Historians do not agree that he held the office? or what?

• abbacy - office of an abbot? duties and privileges of? - more reader friendly

• "He was translated to Canterbury on" - is this church jargon?

• "This story originally dates to soon after the Norman Conquest and the monastic historians of Canterbury," - is there something left out - and the presence of the monastic historians? or some such?
• "probably - encyclopedic word? - most likely?

• about the duties of bishops to make sure that the laity did not despoil churches and that they should be exhorted to better lives" specifying the duties of bishops, or some such? and to ensure they exhorted the laity to lead better lives? Or to exhort the bishops to lead better lives?

• Ælfric also ordered the composition of the first Life of Dunstan - who was Dunstan?

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Should get to this this evening or tomorrow morning, depending on how much champagne I decide to drink! Happy New Years! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've gotten all of the second set - as well as much of the first set. I've also tried to go through and add a few more parenthetical explanations of what terms mean. I did not mention what type of ship in the lede as we don't know what type it was ... the sources just say "ship". Please let me know if these resolve your concerns and if you see any more. Every bit helps! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Query

• my copyedits, please check
• "The story that his brother was chosen first for Canterbury but refused, stems from confusion on the part of Matthew of Paris and historians generally hold it to be untrue" - does this mean that the brother refused to accept the office, or that he wasn't chosen in the first place?
• "cathedral chapter, who sent two members to Rome ahead of Ælfric, who attempted to" - who, who
• "The pope, however, would not appoint either without royal permission,[10] and when Ælfric arrived in Rome, he received his pallium, a symbol of an archbishop's authority, from Pope Gregory V in 997" - too long, not concise
• Think I have commented on the remaining, about the laity ans so forh.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Copyedits - look wonderful (I got the italicization and that was something you almost have to be an historian to realize so no worries). On the story - is "and historians generally hold the entire episode to be untrue" a better phrasing that makes it clearer that the whole thing (both election and not accepting) is untrue. On the delegation - try "In reaction, the chapter sent two members to Rome ahead of Ælfric and tried to secure the archbishopric for either of the monks.", which hopefully works better. Get these others in a few - dinner is served. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Reworked the bit about the pope and royal permission, and now the second part of the letter to Wulsige says "The letter also urged Wulfsige to exhort the laity to strive for justice in their dealings with others, help widows and orphans, not fight, as well as other moral precepts." which I hope is not only a bit more specific but also clearer. As usual, questions welcome and any thing further you see, please let me know. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Nice and clear now. Just a few more tiny questions:

• "Ælfric may have altered the composition of Canterbury's cathedral chapter, changing the clergy serving in the cathedral from secular clergy to monks."

• it would be clear to me if "by" were added. - "altered the composition ... by changing the clergy etc. (otherwise it could be taken to mean that although he may have changed the clergy it may not have altered the composition -- tiny nit pick, I know)

• Took your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• "likely being the abbot of Abingdon Abbey." but later "Abbot of St Albans Abbey" , the "the office of abbot at Abingdon."- why differences in capitalization? Is there a reason to the rhyme?

• Standardized on "Abbot" when used with a monastery. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• "is a grant to Ælfric while archbishop of land that had" - is that what's meant or "when archbishop of land had" - or does it mean Ælfric was granted the land only for the period he was archbishop? (I admit I don't understand what's going on here, so my suggestion may be off base.)

• Suggestion: "Indirect corroboration of his being abbot at Abingdon is a grant of land to Ælfric while he was archbishop that had previously been unjustly taken from Abingdon. (But then why: This land was to revert to Abingdon after Ælfric's death.) It was granted to Ælfric personally?

• Try this: "Indirect corroboration of his being abbot at Abingdon is a grant of land to Ælfric personally (instead of to the office he held) while he was archbishop that had previously been unjustly taken from Abingdon. This land was to revert to Abingdon after Ælfric's death." which hopefully will make it a bit clearer (not that this is a particularly clear example of historical thinking but...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Reevaluation after fixes

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

• Congratulations! Thanks for being patient with me! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)