From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dougatwiki (talk · contribs) 16:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

At first sight I am sure this will get to GA very quickly. I'll get back fairly soon with my first detailed comments. Doug (at Wiki) 16:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

First Comments[edit]

A few details as I read it:

Lead para

"raids and invasions by the Vikings and a new political situation because of a change in overlordship from one kingdom to another "

Could the "because of" change to "resulting from" ?

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


"Gervase of Canterbury says"

Shouldn't that be "Gervase said" or "Gervase wrote". Or "The Chronicle of Gervase of Canterbury says" ?

Fixed by DM... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"There is no sign of his being associated with"

"of him being associated with" or "of his association with" ?

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Given the long length of his archiepiscopate"

Sounds a bit funny. Can we drop the "long"?

Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"first Viking attacks"

Reads a bit awkwardly. It sounds as if the first is an adjective going with the Viking attacks rather than part of the first....second construction. If they could be separated that would not happen - like "first the Viking attacks" or "first the threat of Viking attacks" or "first the frequent Viking attacks".

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Mercian king, as after this, he"

I feel it should be "Mercian king as, after this, he".

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"gave control of all the free minsters"

It feels like there should be an "in England" or something here before the "to the king"

Well, it's not really "all England" yet, though. Changed to "This agreement gave control of all of the free minsters under Canterbury's authority to the king..." Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Æthelwulf succeeded his father, the first son"

Written this way, "the first son" refers to "his father". Perhaps "Æthelwulf succeeded his father and became the first son" or how about "Æthelwulf succeeded his father as king of Wessex and became the first son to do so in almost two centuries." avoiding the repetiiton of "succeeded his father" and "follow his father"?

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Later life and death

"the later at London" probably "the latter " or did you mean "the later"? I see it's possible. (But there's a "later" in the next phrase so best avoided.)

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

After discussing these, the "Well written" criterion can be signed off. I don't think the rest of the criteria are going to give many problems. I'll start checking them now. Doug (at Wiki) 17:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

More Infobox gives consecration in August - text of article gives July ?? Doug (at Wiki) 18:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Blargh! I'm about to step out of hte house but I should get that fixed and the other issues either tonight or tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

More The date of Ceolnoth's election is given in the "old" DNB article on him. (29th June) This could be added to the infobox (and text?) with a reference. Doug (at Wiki) 20:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If it's not in the New DNB or in the newest HBC, that date is no longer accepted by historians. HBC says of him "Ceolnoth cons. ?27 July 833 death: 4 Feb 870." No election dates means it's not considered a fact any longer. Nor does the ODNB give even that tenative consecration date, they just say that his office began in 833. There was a lot of work done on the episcopal lists for Canterbury and a LOT of dates got revised in the last edition of the HBC. The relevant scholarship was published in Anglo-Saxon England volumes 1 and 2 by M. A. O'Donovan "An Interim Revision of Episcopal Dates for the Province of Canterbury" in 1972 and 1973, which forms the backbone of the work for the HBC. So, in short, to use the old DNB entry for this data would be wrong, as it's been superceded. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes! I just watched all the changes happening in real time! That seems to have fixed all my reservations.

I've been through all the other criteria and can't find any issues to comment on. It follows the pattern of several of your earlier GA articles like this so you seem to have everything sorted. There's no reason for me not to give it an immediate pass so I'll go ahead and put that into effect. Good work! I reviewed it because I'm interested in the area and enjoyed concentrating on the topic. Doug (at Wiki) 22:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)