Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mellitus/archive1

2c

Generally, excellent! I like the clean clear style you've chosen, and the use of shorttitle cites. Reminds me of my home citation style (ahhh). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miscite, he's got a double barrel name: Holoford, et al. Oxford Book of Days p. 170

Speaking of, isn't this a primary source if its a collection of chronicles? Holford-Strevens, Leofranc; Blackburn, Bonnie J. (2000). The Oxford Book of Days. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-866260-2.

Actually, no it's a calendar listing things of importance that happened on each date. Handily, it also lists all the feast days for Anglican saints, which is very very helpful for me, as finding out which saints the Anglican church venerates is a bit difficult. I believe that Amazon has a preview if you wanna check it out. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vhappy Fifelfoo (talk)

Unsigned extremely low grade Tertiary: "St. Mellitus of Canterbury". Catholic Online. Accessed on 12 November 2009

Yeah, well, finding attributes for saints is next to impossible. If you're really upset I'll just strike the info, but it's the best site/source I've found for the information used (which is only what the attributes of this saint are). sometimes I can get lucky and find the better known saints attributes at better sources, but not obscure ones like Mellitus. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept this rationale given the obscurity Fifelfoo (talk)

I very much appreciate you double-shotting (secondary and primary) cites which are also Bede cites. This is a good way to use primaries.

I'm assuming you cited Colgrave for Introduction because the text in main are primary sources, shouldn't the bibliography list Colgrave explicitly at the editor of the work entire as well then? Colgrave, Bertram (2007). "Introduction". The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great (Paperback reissue of 1968 ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-31384-1.

If I'd cited him as the editor, it'd have an "(ed.)" after his name, so yes, he's listed as the author.Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I more meant, that if he's the editor of the book as well, and the book is a book of primary sources, or even just articles not written by Colgrave, you should also list him as the editor, separately of the entire work in the bibliography. Foo. "Chapter" in Work Foo (ed.) as an example. Otherwise someone like me comes along and asks, "What? Did they only read the introduction of a sole authored work?" Fifelfoo (talk)

6 needs itals, its part of the title, see bibliography: Markus "Gregory the Great and a Papal Missionary Strategy" Studies in Church History 6 pp. 34–37

Ummm ... is the book's title actually "Anglo-Saxon England 36"? Spiegel "'Tabernacula' of Gregory the Great" Anglo-Saxon England 36 pp. 2–3

Yep, that's what I saw on the title page. It's an annual "book" not a journal thing... very fun to cite. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! So just italicise the 6 in your short citations :) Fifelfoo (talk)

I'm a bit confused about apparent journals like Studies in Church History, and Anglo-Saxon England, where the vol / issue no is included in the short cite, and the title in the bibliography, when other journals aren't cited so.

that's because I'm not using the cite journal for those because they are annual publications with ISBNs, so I use cite encyclopedia in order to give the isbn. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! They're annuals with numbers. v happy Fifelfoo (talk)

lowercase in following a fullstop? "Mellitus". in Lapidge,

Template issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Fifelfoo (talk)

I'll get the others in the morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

happyness Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]