Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edith of Wilton/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2023 [1].

Edith of Wilton

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the late 10th century Benedictine nun, abbess, and saint. She's an interesting character, with lots of interesting idiosyncrasies and quirks. She also demonstrates many of the qualities of female saints and religious women of her day. It's been fun getting to know her, so enjoy. Looking forward to the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text
File:Edith_of_Wilton.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Edith_of_Wilton_-_MS_Royal_14_B_V.jpg, File:New_Minster_Charter_966_detail_Edgar.jpg, File:Santa_Editha_-_Juan_de_Roelas_20140426.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text added to all images. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

Delete the section title "Life", making sections of its sub-sections. (The article is dedicated to her life.)

Done.

..., the patron saint of Wilton Abbey, a Benedictine convent in Wiltshire, England, near Salisbury,... I think this information should be mentioned in the lead and the legacy section, not in the first sentence of the main text.

Done.

...near Salisbury,... Uneccessary taking into account that both Wilton Abbey and Wiltshire are linked.

Done, if I understood you correctly. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...Wulfthryth, a member of the royal family... Neither the article about Edgar (an FA) nor the article dedicated to Wulfthryth mentions that she was a member of the royal family.

The source cited says that she was of noble birth, not royal. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also changed the wording a bit to make it flow better.

...Wulfthryth... who was educated at Wilton... Why not past perfect?

Fixed via previous correction.

...most historians... Is this verified by the cited sources?

Corrected by removing the phrase.

When Edith was an infant, her parents' marriage was dissolved... The article about Edgar (an FA) summarizes the events in a different way partially based on the same source (Yorke).
That Edgar may have taken Wulfthryth with force from the convent should be mentioned when their possible marriage is mentioned.

Everyone, I'm rethinking this discussion about the alleged forced marriage and kidnapping. I'm wondering if this kind of discussion about the disagreement amongst scholars about it doesn't belong here. It certainly belongs in Edgar and Wulfthryth's bios. Do you think for this bio, it's best to remove the discussion and simply state the uncertainly of their marital status? If so, I'm happy to do so. I can also use the Edgar bio's version of what happened, since even the scholars disagree. BTW, the Edgar bio uses a source written by Yorke in 2004, while the Yorke source here was written in 2008.

Hagiographer Agnes Dunbar reported that Edgar, under the direction of his bishop, Dunstan, did penance for his actions by not wearing his crown for seven years. 1. Unsourced. 2. When did she report it? 3. This sentence could be placed before the previous sentence about Edith.

Reinserted missing source. Not addressing other comments here in anticipation of a response to my question above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...choosing at the age of two to stay there... Did she make a choice at the age of two? In a subsequent sentence, the info is repeated.
... until her death in c. 984 Consider deleting it.
That Edith was a lay member of the community according to Hollis is mentioned twice in the same paragraph.
According to the story,... What story?
..., along with her concern and service to criminals, the sick, and the destitute, ... Consider deleting this text. The facts could be mentioned in a later section, not in the section about a two-year-old girl.
...on the occasion of her entry into and commitment to religious lif At the age of two?
I think section "Birth and childhood" should be rewritten, because its scope is unclear: I understand that it is dedicated to her parentage and childhood, so information about her adult life should not be mentioned here. The chronology of the section is also unclear.
... she wore them reluctantly and with a cilice underneath I guess this is a PoV from her hagiography.
Goscelin uses this explanation to justify other behaviours... Consider rephrasing the text, because the explanation is not mentioned in the previous sentence.
Her menagerie of exotic animals, the rebuilding of the convent, etc. are not mentioned before although they are more relevant than her hagiographer's pious explanation. I think her acts should be listed before their interpretation is mentioned.
Goscelin implies that Edith held positions of power and influence at her father's court and probably at the courts of her half-brothers Edward the Martyr and Æthelred II. Why is this mentioned in section "Dress and response to criticism".
Medieval scholar and historian Katie Ann-Marie Bugyis reports that... Is this necessary?
Consider changing the section title "Dress and response to criticism" to better reflect its subject.
After reading the first two sections of the article, I think it needs significant changes to be promoted. It reads like a hagiography and jumps from subject to subject and then back. Borsoka (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley

Booking my place, and also pinging Dudley Miles, one of our leading resident experts on Saxon England. More from me anon. Tim riley talk 16:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First lot of comments

An interesting article, but the prose needs a little work to bring it up to the standard needed for FA. From a first canter through:

First, we need to decide whether the text is in AmE or BrE. The latter seems appropriate for this subject, but we have AmE popping up throughout: obligated, fulfill, center, emphasize, emphasizes, legitimize, emphasize, offenses ... offense, symbolizing, favor. Where these AmE spellings are in quotes, so be it, but otherwise best to use normal BrE. (Only the Oxford University Press clings on to ancient –ize endings these days. The Times and the Cambridge University Press now use the –ise form like the rest of us.)
However – there are eight howevers in the text, most of which clog the prose to no valuable effect.
"At the age of 15, Edith's father offered her the position of abbess" – a strange sort of dangling modifier: the father was not aged 15, which is what this says.
"historian Susan J. Ridyard, scholar Sabine Baring-Gould, Hagiographer Agnes Dunbar, scholar Stephanie Hollis, contemporary historian William of Malmesbury" – clunky false titles
"she protested the promotion" – one protests one's innocence or devotion, but protests against something of which one disapproves.
"According to Goselin ... Goselin's" – seems to have lost a letter in his name, or is this someone different?
"St. Eadburgh" – but elsewhere you don't give a saint an unnecessary full stop
"condeming" – spelling
"Hollis that it likely occurred" – if we're in BrE this should be "probably" rather than the AmE "likely"
"until Wilton Abbey the abbey" – what?
"juxaposed" – spelling
"Ridyard called the construction" – but elsewhere you follow the usual convention of putting such phrases into the present tense.
"as per her instructions" – prefer good English to bad Latin – "according to", or some such, would be less clunky
"Eve of Wilton ... about whom Goscelin also wrote a hagiography" – was Eve a saint?
"establish the legitimacy" – their legitimacy?
"endoresed" – spelling
"seastorm" – not a single word according to the OED ("sea-storm") or Chambers ("sea storm")
"The pilgrims travelled to Wilton...woke up to find himself healed" – unexplained lurch from plural to singular.

That's all from this first read-through. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 19:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources

The main sources are used, apart from Yorke's article, 'The Legitimacy of St Edith'. If the nominator emails me, I can send her a copy. Rollason's Saints and Relics in Anglo-Saxon England is worth consulting if you can get access. Biographical articles on British people should use the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography if possible. This is not open access, but it is widely available. A local library may be able to advise, or a Wikipedia editor may be able to help. However, I have previously pointed out to the nominator that two sources she is using are not reliable, Baring-Gould and Dunbar. These have no place in any Wikipedia article, let alone an FA. So long as they are used, I regret that I have to oppose. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles and all, I'll remove the Dunbar and Baring-Gould refs as per your recommendation. Fortunately, they're only used three times each. I need to go to the library to consult the other two sources you mention, so as a result, it looks like I need to withdraw this FAC to give me more time for additional research. Thanks for the feedback thus far. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask Nikkimaria about Wikipedia Library, which would give you access to ODNB and many other sources, although there may be a waiting list. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No waiting list for ODNB, just click here. For other stuff, start here. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking Christine, is that a request to withdraw the nom? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. I need time to do the additional research requested. I'll be back! ;) Thanks and best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by request. Will be coming back bigger and better. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.