Jump to content

Talk:Oda of Canterbury/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning review
  • Lede
  • "Later he came to be regarded as a saint, and a hagiography was written in the late 11th or early 12th century." - is it ever explained what he did that was saintly in the article?
  • He supposedly performed miracles - see the death section - specifically the bit about the eucharist dripping blood and the repair of a sword. His involvment with the church reform movement would also be considered saintly - but no secondary source I have specifcally makes that connection (it's just something that is expected to be known by historians). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
  • I'm unclear on how you get to that statement, honestly. There are miracles discussed in the body of the article - saints perform miracles. If you maybe said what exactly you are looking for, then perhaps I might better understand and be able to help here, but your reply doesn't give me much understanding of what you're not understanding. Generally, most folks would consider the fact that miracles were ascribed to him enough to qualify him as a saint. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early career
  • lots of "later"s close together
  • legendary tales later were ascribed to him. Later he came to be regarded as a saint, and a hagiography was written in the late 11th or early 12th century. (in lede)
  • Oda's nephew Oswald of Worcester later became Archbishop of York. It is possible that Oswald's relatives Oscytel, another later Archbishop of York

In Byrhtferth of Ramsey's Life of Saint Oswald, Oda is said to have joined the household of a pious nobleman called Æthelhelm - no way around the passive voice?

I'd rather not - the claim is from a hagiography and thus is somewhat suspect - the "is said" construction makes this much plainer. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply
Can't it be said the claim is from a hagiography? The "is said" doesn't make it plainer to me. Rather, it makes it sound like it was generally known.
  • Bishop of Ramsbury
  • Whatever his upbringing - not sure what this means - was there some unsavory hints? What would the usual "upbringing" be to become Bishop of Ramsbury?
  • Reply
Not encyclopedic wording though, but casual. Can't the wording be more precise, so the reader is not left to "read into". "Although nothing is known about his childhood"? Or whatever.
Isn't this an article in an encyclopedia. Should I have to read meaning into ambiguous wording?
Is the current wording (which lacks the bridge wording you objected to) acceptable? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other stories, such as those by the 12th century writer William of Malmesbury, have Oda fighting under Edward the Elder then becoming a priest, but these statements are unlikely." - why?
  • Since they are not attested before the 12th century - 2 centuries after the fact. William of M wasn't exactly the most discerning of reporters - he had a habit of not questioning his sources and could even be said to have been a bit credulous. But again, this is not so stated in my sources - which state merely that the stories are "unlikely". Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oda was said to have fought alongside Æthelstan at the Battle of Brunanburh in 937." - no way around passive voice?
  • "Oda is said to have miraculously" - no way around passive voice?
  • "Æthelstan is said to have sent him" - no way around passive voice?
  • "to arrange the return of King Louis IV of France to the throne of France,[9] but this story is not related in any contemporary records."
  • "Æthelstan is said to have sent him to France to arrange the return of King Louis IV of France to the throne of France,[9] but this story is not related in any contemporary records.[3] Louis had been in exile in England for a number of years.[9]" - not clear why, as a bishop, Oda of Canterbury would be in a position to a king to the throne of France.
  • Archbishop of Canterbury
  • Oda of Canterbury seems to have engaged in legislative duties, more so than religious.
  • "Oda helped King Edmund with royal legislation.[3] Oda was present, along with Archbishop Wulfstan of York, at council held by Edmund that proclaimed the first of Edmund's law codes.[11] The council met at London, over Easter around 945 or 946.[12] Oda also settled a dispute over the Five Boroughs with Wulfstan" - lots of Oda in a row - wording could be varied.
  • "While he was bishop of Ramsbury, Æthelstan is said to have sent him to France to arrange the return of King Louis IV of France to the throne of France" - don't understand why this would be the Archbishop of Canterbury's job.
  • "Louis had been in exile in England for a number of years." - should be integrated into the para, not dangling at the end.
  • using Oda to begin sentences continues through this section.
  • Perhaps filling in a little history would help this section - like why did King Edmund need help with legislation, and why does the Archbishop of Canterbury do this?
  • what did the Hagiography say, as there is little in this article that seems to justify one?
  • Nothing much, honestly. There are a number of medieval archbishops of canterbury that had hagiographies for which we modern historians kinda go "huh, why?". I suspect (and this is purely my own opinion but it's based on lots and lots of study in the subject period) that later monks of Canterbury felt that all early archbishops of canterbury should have been saints, so they just decided tehy would be. Remember that prior to 1090ish there was no formal process of canonization - if folks said you were a saint and enough folks believed it, then voila - a saint you were. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Hard to evaluate this, since I have no access to the sources and the editor's interpretation of them. But it's disconcerting that few statements of fact are made and many seem folk tales or gossip.
  • Unfortunately, most of the secondary sources tend to treat the primary sources with a healthy dose of skepticism, which does lead to a lot of "said to" and "may haves" rather than hard facts. This period of time in English history isn't a time period where there are lots of solid facts to begin with, and there are lots of later medieval writers who "added facts" to earlier works.
  • The story seems to be pieced together from many sources that each contribute a supposition, or occasionally a fact.
  • "was said to have been"
  • "and presumably settled in East Anglia"
  • "It is possible that"
  • "but this is not known for sure"
  • etc. through most of the article
  • To me this article does not seem directed at the general reader but rather to a specialist in English ecclesiastical history. Is there a way to make it more accessible to the general reader?

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    See examples above.
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Would like to know what was in the Hagiography mentioned in the lede, and why he was regarded as a saint.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    AGF since none of them are accessible
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Not sure, as a plethora of sources are used to piece the story together; there are 24 sources listed, only five used more than once.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    Needs some context to make the article more comprehensible to the general reader.
    For example, several kings are mentioned without context for the non English reader.
    B. Remains focused:
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    No images; perhaps some general ones would be appropriate to give interest.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
I have relatives in town until Thursday morning, but should be able to get to these after that. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've dealt with most of these. Let me know if you spot other issues or still have concerns. I'll get to the other GA nom tomorrow ... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • Usually I just copy edit minor things but I dare not on this article. So I will list further issues here:
  • Lede
  • "both prior to and while a bishop," - grammatically this says "both prior to [a bishop] and while a bishop" - does this mean "both prior to becoming ..." - or some such?
  • "Oda was instrumental in royal legislation" - might this mean "Oda was instrumental in crafting royal legislation" or some such?
  • Please perform a copy edit before I read further.
  • Please provide enough context so readers who are not intimate with English idioms, who are not professional historians, and who are not ecclesiastically sophisticated can make sense of it. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you feel you cannot copyedit it. Yes, I will collaborate on any edits you make and thus make further improvements - but that doesn't mean your edits were incorrect or wrong or unwelcome. I'm not sure why I'm getting this sense that you're upset with me or something, I'm trying my hardest to meet your concerns - and asking questions when I'm unsure of what you are wanting. I cannot provide context without having input - unfortunately I am familiar with the subject matter and that makes seeing spots where context is missing difficult. I'm more than willing to work on improving that issue - I've replied to many of your points where I was either unsure or thought that further clarification would be helpful. Feel free to reply back, explaining what you were looking for and I'll gladly try to meet your concerns. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry that I seem to be unpleasant. This article is just horribly frustrating to me because it is so hard to understand and basic copy editing hasn't been done. Reading it is work; usually reading GANs and copy editing them is fun for me. I am not a professional historian so maybe this article is just one that I can't fix. I can barely understand it. When your answer is "it's just something that is expected to be known by historians", what can I say? Again, I'm not a professional historian, and apparently that is what is needed to deal with this article. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'm confused because I have a number of GAs on similar subjects and from the same time frame ... reviewed by a number of different editors, and no one has ever had difficulties understanding them. Granted, the time frame is one of the more difficult in history - there is much that is not known for sure which does tend to leave a lot of "possibly" and "could haves" littered through out the article. I"m more than willing to work on things - but just as you are having problems because you're lacking context - I can't add context without knowing what is difficult to you. As an aside - ONE answer was "His involvment with the church reform movement would also be considered saintly - but no secondary source I have specifcally makes that connection (it's just something that is expected to be known by historians)." - which means that being part of the church reform movement is the part expected to be known by the historian. This time period is somewhat difficult, and it's made more difficult by the fact that much of the information is contained in works written by historians for historians - there isn't really a "popular" history of this time period that treats the ecclesiastical history in a "popular" manner. I'm working hard to make things more comprehensible... but please, work with me and tell me where exactly things begin to go south for you. Also, feel free to copyedit. If I change something - it's not that you were wrong, its that your work improved something and then I thought of something better ... that's how I'm used to working with copyeditors - we both keep polishing until things are better. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I notice that the lede has improved immensely. :) I usually don't have any trouble copy editing and have very enjoyable relationships with the editor(s). But when an article needs so much, including very basic copy editing, I get burned out. I'm really not willing to rewrite the whole thing. My attempts to add context to this article (which I do for myself, so I can understand what the heck it means) have been unsuccessful. Maybe I need a stiff drink! MathewTownsend (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the link you added because it really wasn't correct - if you'd prefer a link instead of what's there - the correct link would be to Bishop of Ramsbury - the original "Ramsbury" was just shorthand for the bishopric, not the town. I did appreciate the edit - it pointed out that that part was unclear and I strove to improve it without repeating the link (I could have pipelinked, I suppose). May I make a suggestion? I note you just started editing here in November - and you seem to have spent a lot of time working at GA reviewing - I strongly suggest you also work on articles in areas you are interested in - either areas you're already an expert in or areas you want to learn about. Pure reviewing and pure copyediting on wikipedia will be the surest way to drive yourself insane I can possibly imagine. One of the more prolific editors at FAC (he wrote most of the Anglo-Saxon king featured articles) set out to write them because he wanted to learn about the time period - and writing featured articles was the best way he knew to master the subject. Others enjoy adding to the knowledge of things they know well - I know plenty of editors like that. But really - copyediting is tedious picky (and ooooohhh so necessary!) work that often can get you very down and depressed. The best way to solve that is to research and edit your own articles - whether new ones you start or stubs that you expand. IT'll help keep you sane. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. It's just that I like to know where events are taking place, one of the reasons I like reading articles on England. (There is just not that much of interest about the man himself in this case, but context could enable the reader to learn about English locations, church business etc.) But I guess I will be denied in this article. Such omissions decrease my interest considerably. So the bishopric was not associated with a town? In outer space maybe? And nothing he actually did is going to be explained? Nor is anything about the church at that time? We readers are just supposed to know? Not even if his father was a Viking? (I think I succeed in sneaking a mention of the Vikings in.)
I'm interested in almost everything, and I only pick articles to review that I think will interest me. (Or sometimes because the article has languished and I feel sorry for the nominator.) This one just doesn't have content, and being journalist by profession, I don't do well with the hypothetical. This very short article has too many sources IMO to seem more than folklore. It is not my idea of "history". Sorry for my grumpiness. I want to get back to having fun. And that stiff drink! (Maybe I'll feel better tomorrow. (This has been a horrible experience for me also.) MathewTownsend (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply in the morning and hopefully we can keep working towards seeing things through each others viewpoint - which I think we're slowly getting towards. Unfortunately - most things in this time period deal a lot with hypotheticals - check out Ælle of Sussex for an article with even more (although that's an FA, so it's held to a higher standard than I'm aiming for right here with Oda - I hope to get to FA with him eventually - but that'll take a LOT of work!) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A medieval bishopric was centered in a town/village (some of the English ones were in very small hamlets by the time of the Norman Conquest) but they were not only that town/village/whatever. They enclosed the outlying lands - which might be quite large (Lincoln) or quite small (Rochester). The boundaries in this time period are very fluid, and several of the dioceses did not agree with other dioceses where the exact boundary was. Heck, there wasn't even agreement on which dioceses were in which archdiocese! So linking to a specific town when the diocese is intended isn't quite correct, because it wasn't just the town, it was the whole land area. As for what Oda did - what we know that he did is set forth in the article. No medieval bishop's register (the record of their everyday doings in the diocese) has survived from before 1200 - so while the presumption is that he performed the usual duties of a bishop - we can't say for sure. And anyway, the regular duties of a bishop are much better detailed in the articles on the office. I think part of your problem with the content is that you're expecting a lot more information than is available. Unfortunately, this is a time period where not much is known. Oda was too early to have taken much part in the Benedictine reform that swept England after his death, he wasn't around for the excitement of Alfred the Great's repulse of the Danes (too late) and the time period was generally pretty peaceful (except for the problem with Olaf in York). This doesn't allow for a lot of information to be imparted, unfortunately. Oda didn't leave behind a lot of legends - such as with Dunstan and he wasn't a huge player in the politics of the time ... he is kinda boring, when you get right down to it! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Mathew, Ealdgyth asked me to stop by and take a look (probably because she knows I know next to nothing about religious history in medieval England...). I took a look through the article last night and again this morning, and I find that, while I sympathize with some of your comments, I don't agree with the majority of them. I find the article fairly easy to understand, and actually find it less dense than many of the articles written about medieval religion/religious politics here on WP. I come away with what I believe to be a fairly strong understanding of the man and what historians think he did during his lifetime. Because this is a person who lived over 1000 years ago, about whom not much is written, during a time when not much was going on, I think that the article is going to necessarily be rather sparse on firm details. If the details do not exist in sources, we cannot report them. If information is given as a possibility by reliable historians, then we can only present it as a possibility, not as firm fact. Looking through the sources, they seem to be very reliable, scholarly histories for the most part. And there is, IMO, a good bit of content on the man and what he did for someone who lived 1000+ years ago and doesn't have much written on him - the article describes the work he did with laws, kings, reforming various areas of the church, etc. I guess my questions to you are: Are there specific sources you dispute or don't think are reliable? Are there specific sources you think are missing? Is there context for specific spots that you think is missing? (I see that you ask for more locations above, but also see that Ealdgyth above explains that bishoprics are not really associated with particular towns.) This is just my opinion as an outside non-medieval historian - you're free to ignore me or not... Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dana boomer. ok, I put a lot of work into the article copy editing and listing of problems. And it has improved greatly. I will accept your judgment that the article is fine now. I have some hesitation about OR. It's a short article pieced together from 27 different sources, but if you think all is ok, I will accept that. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reevaluation after fixes
1. Well written?: Pass Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass Pass
5. Article stability?: Pass Pass
6. Images?: Pass Pass

MathewTownsend (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't think that I was trying to pressure you into something - that was never my intention; mainly just wanted to stop in and give my two cents. I can see your concern about OR, but in this case don't think it's necessary to be concerned (although I have seen other cases where this would be an extremely valid argument). I think that it's basically that a bunch of different historians have all mentioned him in the context of whatever else they're writing about, but no-one has really written about this guy, so Ealdgyth has had to piece things together. However, I think that if Historian A says ABC and Historian B says XYZ, then it's perfectly fine for the article to say ABC.
 XYZ.
. Its when you get into historians disagreeing with each other that you have to be careful, or when you're creating a completely new fact out of some mishmash of sources. So, taking the above example, if the article said something like ABC + XYZ = he was the best archbishop Canterbury has ever known, when neither historian meant anything near to that, then we would have a problem. Anyway, like I said, just my two cents. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oda_of_Canterbury/GA1&oldid=1092627764"