From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Plegmund has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
January 1, 2012 Good article nominee Listed

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 23:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking this one as well. Hopefully I'll learn something! J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

  • "Plegmund (or Plegemund;[2] 2 August either 914 or 923" What's the date? His death?
  • Open by saying why he's notable- the fact he was a hermit belongs in the lead, but not before the fact he was an archbishop
  • In the lead, you give the impression that we are certain that he was a hermit, yet in the prose/notes are more cautious
  • "trying to revive scholarship" Scholarship generally?
  • "Æthelstan and Wærwulf" Are these people worth links? Is there anything to be said about them?
  • "He went to Rome after 908, when he took alms from the king to Rome." You've already mentioned this- could the two be merged?
  • "Plegmund died on 2 August 914[2] or 2 August 923.[5][11]" Why the confusion? Is there more to be said about this?
  • Is there more to be said about his sainthood? Was this one of the cults that was later surpressed? Is he still recognised today? Do we know anything of what his cult believed?
  • Why have you opted for one death category over the other?
  • Why Category:Kentish saints?
  • Perhaps the lead could be expanded a tad?

A decent article. I did some copyediting- feel free to revert if needed. J Milburn (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've adressed most of these - the scholarship issue is just that... they were working on reviving general scholarlyness.The two non-linked scholars may or may not be worth articles - I haven't actually dug into them enough to know if I can assemble something (but it's not likely that they are that notable). I'm not sure why there is confusion over his death date - the three sources given are all reliable and none of them act like there is any doubt - but they diverge wildly. I don't think he was ever a popular saint - there isn't much about his cult beyond what's here. And "cult" in the terms of Christian saints doesn't have "beliefs" that differ from other Christian saints - cult means the veneration that is due a saint, and prayers to them for intercession with God, not a specific cult as in Roman gods. Kentish saints because Canterbury is in Kent. There is a bit more in the lead now. Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, just another quick couple of things- the well isn't mentioned outside the lead, and so is unreferenced. There's also no mention of the window used in the infobox- perhaps worth talking about, if you have any information? Both would be nice additions to the legacy section. J Milburn (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Removed the mention of the well - the only references to it I can find aren't in reliable sources - the window predates my working on the article and I have no further information on it. It's really a pretty crappy picture, blurry and out of focus but in the interests of not biting other contributors, I have eliminated it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, looking again, I'm happy to promote now. Good work- I look forward to seeing more in 2012! J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)