Talk:Albin of Brechin

GA nomination

I've reviewed this article according to the GA criteria, and I have a few concerns over prose (1a) and coverage (3a). First of all let me say that the article basically looks excellent, so I'm optimistic that my concerns can be satisfactorily dealt with within the hold period.

• Some of the phrasing looks distinctly odd to me, as if I'm reading a medieval history text instead of a 21st-century encyclopedia article. For instance: "He was the son from a sexual union conducted between an unmarried woman and an unmarried man, for which he obtained dispensation from the papal legate ...". Why not the much simpler (and clearer) "His parents were unmarried ..."? Also, the way the sentence is written makes it unclear what it was that he had to seek dispensation for. Was it the "sexual union", his own illegitimacy, or both?
• "Albin was known to have had a nepos ("relative") called Adam ...". Why not just Albin had a relative ..."? What is the value in introducing the term nepos?
• "Professor Donald Watt was of the opinion that Albin's postulation was probably due to the influence of Alan Durward ...". What postulation is this? Does it refer back to the choice of the cathedral chapter after the death of Bishop Gregory? In what way was Alan Durward influential?
• "It is of note that he can be found around Durham again in 1254 or 1255 ...". Phrases like "It is of note" should really be avoided, as they assume a particular pov. Of note to whom?
• "A later tradition held that a now obscure martyr named Stolbrand was translated during Albin's episcopate." What has this to do with Albin himself?
• "... newly provided Bishop of St Andrews ...". Does that mean newly elected?
• I can find no mention of Othobon's synod, which the Scottish bishops were required to attend, and Albin's participation in the resulting appeal to the Scottish king that's mentioned here.
• The lead says that Albin was a university graduate, yet we're not told which university, what subject, or when he attended university.
• We don't hear anything about Albin's life until 1239, when he would have been about 39 years old. Is there nothing known of him before then? If there isn't, then that point should be made in the article.
• "Until the mid-1250s, Albin was highly visible in the sources ...". I think I know what this is getting at, but it's rather awkwardly phrased. We're now in 2008, way past the mid-1250s; is Albin not still highly visible in the sources?
• "... he and Bishop Clement are found passing judgment ...". The tenses generally seem to jump around a bit jarringly, but why not the simpler " ... passed judgement"?
• "Bishop Albin is found with the Alexander Comyn once more, as the justiciar conducted a perambulation ...". Why the Alexander Comyn? Is it Comyn that's the justiciar? What's a justiciar anyway?

I don't think any of these issues are of themselves particularly serious, but taken together they persuade me to place this article on hold for up to seven days so that they can be addressed before this article is listed as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of these issues are of themselves particularly serious, but taken together they persuade me to place this article on hold for up to seven days so that they can be addressed before this article is listed as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination, eh? I see Green caterpillar is working through it. I'll try to go over it when GC is done. Now I'll just answer Malleus Fatuarum's points ... for the sake of it.

"Albin was known to have had a nepos ("relative") called Adam ...". Why not just Albin had a relative ..."? What is the value in introducing the term nepos?

Nepos allows the reader to draw his own conclusions. The term nepos will already be familiar to many readers. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Professor Donald Watt was of the opinion that Albin's postulation was probably due to the influence of Alan Durward ...". What postulation is this? Does it refer back to the choice of the cathedral chapter after the death of Bishop Gregory? In what way was Alan Durward influential?

The suggestion would be that Alan Durward's secular influence lay behind the postulation. I think the term "Postulation" rather than "election" is accurate (and is used in the source) because the understanding was that the pope would have to issue a dispensation before rubber-stamping the election and providing Albin to the see. Unfortunately, sometimes these articles use technical terms like that, for which wiki has as yet little coverage. Here's the relevant OED definition of postulation:

Ecclesiastical Law. A request or appeal sent to a supreme authority to sanction the nomination of a person for an ecclesiastical office (such sanction often being required because the candidate is canonically disqualified from appointment by, for example, holding another similar office). Hence: a nomination or election awaiting the approval of a higher authority.

"... newly provided Bishop of St Andrews ...". Does that mean newly elected?

Provision is the direct appointment to a benefice by the superior which, in the case of Scottish bishoprics, was the Pope (they had no archbishop). The Pope was under no theoretical obligation to rubber stamp an election by a cathedral chapter.

I can find no mention of Othobon's synod, which the Scottish bishops were required to attend, and Albin's participation in the resulting appeal to the Scottish king that's mentioned

I look into incorporating some of that. The other sources though don't regard it as very important.

The lead says that Albin was a university graduate, yet we're not told which university, what subject, or when he attended university.

That is the nature of the beast. His university isn't known ... that's more usually the case than not. We just know he went to university because he bore the title Magister. The only clue may be that Albin allegedly was a friend with an Arabist scholar named Egbert the Carmelite. Maybe that guy's background would shed some light, but that might be WP:OR.

We don't hear anything about Albin's life until 1239, when he would have been about 39 years old. Is there nothing known of him before then? If there isn't, then that point should be made in the article.

You're prolly right. It is almost always the case that one never hears anything about these guys before they hold office; prolly seemed more usual to me than the normal reader. A note shall be placed by me if no-one else does.

You appear to know that he went to university though, presumably before 1239? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Until the mid-1250s, Albin was highly visible in the sources ...". I think I know what this is getting at, but it's rather awkwardly phrased. We're now in 2008, way past the mid-1250s; is Albin not still highly visible in the sources?

"... he and Bishop Clement are found passing judgment ...". The tenses generally seem to jump around a bit jarringly, but why not the simpler " ... passed judgement"?

It's a historian's thing. To us there is no Albin, just evidence with Albin appearing in it.

"Bishop Albin is found with the Alexander Comyn once more, as the justiciar conducted a perambulation ...". Why the Alexander Comyn? Is it Comyn that's the justiciar? What's a justiciar anyway?

Looks like a typo. A Justiciar is an office. In Scotland, the position was held be a nobleman or magnate who would hear cases and exercise the legal powers of the monarch: see Justiciar of Scotia and Justiciar of Lothian. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of replying in detail I will just make one example point. "The term nepos will already be familiar to many readers. " No, it will not. You are writing for a general readership to whom it will not be familiar, and neither does the term add any value to this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's value is allowing the reader to make his own judgment, as many will indeed be familiar with nepos. General readership indeedie ... but I think I fair proportion of people who take an interest in a 13th cent. Bishop of Brechin will know ... fair enough perhaps to use the term "many". Anyways, it's not really a big deal, is it? Just have "kinsman" (nepos) or "relative" (nepos) and all readership will benefit. Regards,Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I will simply wait with interest to see how this article develops over the next seven days. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Gonna finish these last 3 pages now :). Green caterpillar (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Malleus ... I tried to address all the points you've raised. RE: Biographical Dictionary of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, I followed that up, and the sources, and much of the info there cannot be substantiated by other sources. So as it is not a reliable source (19th cent. and tertiary), I omitted the assertions about Albin, but I did include details about the general events. If you have any other concerns, feel free to raise 'em. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough. I'll get back to you later when I've had the time to take another good look at the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review part 2

A big improvement I think, so well done to everyone involved.

I'm afraid that I've got some good news and some bad news though. The bad news is that I do still have some concerns about some of the writing; the good news is that I don't think any of them should be too difficult to fix.

• "These Céli Dé had been officially made a secular cathedral by an act of Bishop Gregory, Albin's predecessor." That's an unusual use of the word cathedral that I think needs to be explained. Most people will think of a cathedral as a building.
• "The Céli Dé were the Scottish monks who formed base of the pre-Reform, pre-13th century monastic bishopric of Brechin". Even with the (presumably) missing the added, this seems to have come out of the blue. Is the monastic bishopric of Brechin the same as the Bishopric of Brechin that Albin had? If they're important, why have they not been mentioned before?
• "Meanwhile, Cardinal Ottobono's legatine council, to which the Scottish church sent four delegates, promulgated canons for the English church which the Scottish church was not to incorporate." This is ambiguous. It could mean that the Scottish church wasn't meant to incorporate them, or that it chose not to incorporate them. I know that the latter is true, but the text needs to be clearer for those who don't.
• "The outcome of the case is not known, and it is possible that Adam was deposed as archdeacon." What is this trying to say? If the outcome isn't known then it's also possible that Adam wasn't deposed.
• "After a three-year gap in the records, Albin's activities re-emerge ..." That reads very awkwardly, his activities re-emerge?
• "Meanwhile, Albin was involved in a political controversy regarding succession to an earldom ..." Meanwhile implies that there was something else going on at the same time, but the preceding paragraphs don't make it clear what, if anything that was.
• "Bishop Albin, with the Archdeacon of Brechin, was named as a papal mandatory again on 4 January 1254, and authorised to put Nicholas de Hedon in possession of the deanery of Elgin Cathedral.[3] Along with Clement of Dunblane, he was named by the pope as a conservator of the privileges given to Abel de Gullane ...". Who does that last he refer to? Albin or de Hedon? Needs to be rewritten to make it clearer.
• "the former faction held the ascendancy between 1249 and 1252, and between 1255 and 1257, while the latter between 1252 and 1255, and between 1257 and 1258". Awkwardly and ungrammatically written
• "Albin became Bishop of Brechin following an election and then a successful appeal for confirmation to the papacy. Pope Innocent IV's mandate for confirmation gave the details of the election. Following the death of Bishop Gregory, the cathedral chapter selected three of their members to elect the next bishop ...". Is that first sentence a summary of what's to come in the paragraph? the way it's written it looks like there were two elections: the one mentioned in the first sentence, and the one following Bishop Gregory's death. Presumably Bishop Gregory was Albin's predecessor as Bishop of Brechin, which needs to be said. (I know it's in the infobox, but it needs to be in the text as well.)
• "Because Albin was born to an unmarried couple he needed papal dispensation ...". Needed it for what? To join the church? Why did the dispensation have to be asked for again after Albin's election?
• "One of Albin's kinsman (nepos), Adam, ...". Ungrammatical. Should be one of Albin's kinsmen, but as I'm uncertain of the plural of nepos I'll leave that for someone else to sort out.
• "(died 1286 × 1292)". What does this convention mean? Died some time between those years?
• "Previous post: Precentor of Brechin (× 1246)". Isn't it more common to write c. 1246?

If we can focus on the writing, and on dealing with the points I've raised above then I'm sure we can get this article its GA listing. I'd strongly advise against adding significant new content to it until this review is completed though. I'm going to extend the hold period until midnight this Friday, which I think ought to be plenty of time to make any necessary changes. Good luck. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"(died 1286 × 1292)". What does this convention mean? Died some time between those years?

Yes.

"Previous post: Precentor of Brechin (× 1246)". Isn't it more common to write c. 1246?

Means sometime different. c. 1246 means around 1246, "× 1246" means in or before 1246.

Anyways, I went and attempted to address your concerns. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been some great work done on this article by a number of editors, not just this evening, but over the last week or so. I don't want to name names, but they know who they are. All I've really tried to do with my review is to make an already excellent article more accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of medieval Scottish history.

The article has now improved to the extent that I'm happy to list it as a GA. It's a credit to everyone who's contributed to it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Malleus. I hope I'll see you reviewing more of these articles in time. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was afraid at one point that you might think I was being too tough. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Wouldn't this article fall under the remit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland and Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism? -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I went and added the WP banners, after Talk:Jocelin. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it would be, but no harm in asking ;)! -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

x in dates

I noticed this in the discussion above, and hadn't come across it before (but I'm not a medievalist). I see it's not included in WP:MOSNUM at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Longer_periods where they discuss "c." or Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Dates_of_birth_and_death , where they include "fl". If "x" is a standard usage, perhaps it should be suggested at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers), to get it included in MOSNUM? PamD (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-standard. It is not clear that it comes under "general readers, not for specialists" though. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Replaced. In the process I have emended the claim that he ceased to be precentor by 1246; surely April 1247 is possible. Or have I missed something? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)