Talk:Wulfred/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always enjoy reading your articles. Here goes-

We could do with a date of birth/flourishing dates, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death
"Mercian kings – Coenwulf and Ceolwulf" A second dash after Ceolwulf?
"After Coenwulf's death, relations were somewhat better with the new king, but improved much more after Ceolwulf's deposition." This is a little confusing- who was the new king?
"was a member of a wealthy and important family with considerable landholdings in Middlesex and neighbouring regions" Probably?
"Wulfred came into conflict with King Coenwulf of Mercia over the issue of whether laymen could control religious houses," Who believed what?
"Tensions over the Kentish houses of Reculver and Minster-in-Thanet reached such a point that Wulfred was deprived of authority by the king for a period of some years" How are these two issues related?
"Coenwulf's reign, as at a council held late in Coenwulf's reign" Repetition
"Wulfred and the Canterbury community fought Coenwulf vigorously" Obviously not literally, so I'm not sure this is the best phrase
"Nor did Coenwulf and his followers quickly cede control of Minster and Reculver to the archbishop." Unclear how this relates to the previous sentence- I mentioned this above; I assume there's some significance to these places that hasn't been mentioned
"Werhard, who was to give the lands to Christ Church after Werhard's death" I assume a mistake?

I've rephrased in a few places (see this) so feel free to revert if I've missed something key. I don't know if you have access to JSTOR (I can send you articles if need be), but I came across this-

English Coins quick view R. H. Dolley The British Museum Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Jun., 1953), pp. 54-55

Which may have something to add. I also found reference to "the life by Stubbs in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv. 1195-7" Which would be worth looking at. I'm not sure if the Dictionary of Christian Biography is available online. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reply (I should get to the rest of these tomorrow) Stubbs is quite old (William Stubbs) so we're looking at at least 110 years old entry - better to rely on the ODNB entry. Don't get me wrong, he was a giant in the historical field, but unlike some of J. Horace Round's work, most of Stubbs' stuff has been superceeded - especially his biographical stuff. Not sure I'll be able to get my hands on the Dolley thing - it'd be something I'd work on for FAC status if I did so (might, might not, not quite sure yet) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the Dolley article (and/or the article you list in further reading) email me via the "email this user" thingy and I'll send them to you. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Cubitt ... it is mainly useful as a "background/more in depth" thing, rather than stating much on Wulfred, that's why its in the "further reading" section. Emailing for the other... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. - I've got a death date, which should satisfy the requirement here. 2. Fixed. 3. I've tried to clarify this a bit more 4. I think the "Is believed" covers the probablity of this well enough. 5. Added that the king supported the lay control of monasteries. 6. Uh.... the king got pissed that the archbishop was opposing him and deposed the archbishop? I'm not sure what is unclear to you so I have no idea how to fix it. 7. Yes, it's repetition, but ... is there a better way to phrase this that doesn't lose the meaning? Sometimes we worship at the altar of "avoid repetition" so much that we lose important context. 8. Suggestions for a better phrasing though? 9. Again, Im not sure what's confusing you here... The kings and Wulfred had a dispute over these monasteries....that's the dispute mentioned in the previous sentence. 10. Nope, not a typo. Werhard got the lands, but after Werhard's death the lands were supposed to go to Canterbury.

Let me know if that helped any. I did look at the Dolley, but it really doesn't add anything about Wulfred - if this was an article on the coin, yeah, but it's not. We already include the important bits about the coinage. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough- I didn't read it in detail. Concerning point 6, I don't understand the significance of those two places- it's not clear from the article prose. I'll give the article another look through- I hope you don't mind me tweaking the prose here and there? J Milburn (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, the mistake I made was that I read "Tensions over the Kentish houses of Reculver and Minster-in-Thanet" as "Tensions over the Kentish noble houses of Reculver and Minster-in-Thanet" rather than "Tensions over the Kentish religious houses of Reculver and Minster-in-Thanet". Perhaps some kind of clarification? Also, concerning point 4- "Wulfred is believed to have come from Middlesex and was a member of a wealthy and important family with considerable landholdings in Middlesex and neighbouring regions." As written now, it reads that his origin in Middlesex is uncertain, but the fact he belonged to the family is certain. Is this what you intended? J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AH! Okay, that makes sense if you misread that... inserted "monastic" between "Kentish" and "house" to hopefully clear this up. On the other bit ... I've rewritten to "Wulfred is believed to have come from Middlesex and to have been a member of a wealthy and important family..." is that better? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much clearer, thanks! Another point- do we know the year of the council held "late in Coenwulf's reign"? That would fix the awkward repetition. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an exact date, but put the "guess" in. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm happy with how the article looks now, and I'm happy to promote. Keep up the good work! J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]