This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
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.
A short well referenced article, so its quick to review.
My only concern is the WP:LEAD, its a short article and an even short lead. The lead is OK as an "introduction", but as a "summary" (it should perform both functions) does it accurately reflect what's in the article? For instance:
"Little is known of his origins or his activities as archbishop" - should that be little is known for certain (or similar comments)? The body of the article mentions letters that still exit, as do charters; and there are stories written written after the Norman conquest mention that him, but there are concerns over their reliability/consistency with other records (also, see below).
I'm happy to accept that the concerns over reliability/consistency with other records has been addressed in respect of "although he possibly owed his elevation to the Kentish monarch".
Bearing in mind that the article is short, I see little point in insisting that informatation is presented in summary form in both the Lead and the infobox, as well as in the body of the article. So, I'm happy for information such as appointment, successor, feast day, etc, to appear in the infobox rather than the Lead.