Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Julian of Norwich/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 15 December 2021 [1].

Julian of Norwich

[edit]
Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Julian, one of England's most important mystics. In May 1373 Julian completely recovered from a serious illness that had caused her to have revelations (or shewings), all of which she went on to describe in detail. Her writings are now published as Revelations of Divine Love, the earliest known book in English to be written by a woman. I would be great if her article was to be promoted before the 650th anniversary of her revelations, in 2023. It has been peer-reviewed and copy-edited since gaining GA status in 2019. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

This is my first time participating in FAC. I copy-edited this article as requested by Amitchell125 and corrected/updated citations and template usage. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 03:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up the map and the stained glass multi-image
Done. The church drawing (made in 1828) is now not there, as a larger map caused a sandwiching issue. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125: I could try to remake the map with less dead space, if you think it would be helpful --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: Thanks, not sure if it's worth the effort, as it's a complicated map to remake. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Preobrazhenie.jpg needs a US tag
I'm guessing that the none of the articles with the template Template:Christian mysticism have been at FAC before, so the image has never been challenged. It was uploaded to the Russian Wikipedia in 2005, and it's source is not given. I'll see if I can replace the image in the template with one whose source can be verified.Amitchell125 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Map_of_Norwich_(c.1300)_by_Woodward.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?
Sorted, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image now gone (see comment above). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria—Is this a pass for image review? (t · c) buidhe 00:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chiswick Chap

[edit]

Fascinating article on a major subject.

  • The 'Background' sentence "Julian was alive ... " needs to be split into two. Probably shouldn't be using "overwhelmed" twice in succession either.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a number of them" - perhaps "some of them".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map of Norwich: perhaps "south of the castle" or "towards the bottom of the map" would help those who don't know where Ann's Staithe is.
Caption amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "refers to Kempe travelling to Norwich" - perhaps "mentions that Kempe travelled to Norwich".
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Julian was largely unknown until 1670," - clearly this doesn't apply to her lifetime.
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It became known still further" - perhaps "It became still better known".
Agreed, sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contemporary monastic and university authorities might not have challenged her theology because of her status as an anchoress." Perhaps the intended meaning is "Her status as an anchoress may have prevented contemporary monastic and university authorities from challenging her theology."
Thanks, your version is definitely better. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliot actually uses "All shall be well" not once but three times in "Little Gidding", surely worth saying. It might be appropriate to quote a few lines of the poem including one of the mentions. Eliot's use of Julian's saying is discussed by Barbara Newman; she notes that it serves "as a refrain, much as it does in Julian's own Revelations of Love", that it was a "very late addition" to the poem, and that Eliot corrects Julian (as he saw the matter) by adding "By the purification of the motive" before Julian's line "[In] the ground of thy beseeching", as he disagreed with her theology. Perhaps something of all this deserves saying, though the detail probably belongs in the article on the poem.
All done (I've put some of the Newman details in a note). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super.

That's all from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Chiswick Chap, all now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon

[edit]

With the caveat that I am no domain expert or even a native speaker, I have some comments about this interesting article. Mostly minor things, but I have 2 comments about the structure.

  • It looks like the body of the article assumes that the reader has read the lead, a very fair assumption. But I've always thought the body has to start from scratch and pretend this is not the case (I've looked around but so far have been unable to find a relevant rule in MOS). In this article it is assumed that the reader has read the lead and thus does not introduce topics in the body I expected to be introduced. For instance "Little of Julian's life is known. She provided a few scant comments about the circumstances of her revelations in her book Revelations of Divine Love," to me does not really introduce the revelations but assumes the reader already knowns about them. This approach is unusual. But perhaps it is still fine. Perhaps more knowledgeable reviewers can shed light on this issue.
I've amended the the text of the article to reflect the comment you've made here, which is I think an entirely valid one. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is shewings in italics? why in quotes?
Italics/quotes now gone, wictionary link inserted instead to help readers understand the word is archaic. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • being completed soon after her recovery, and a much longer version, today known as the Long Text, being written many years later --> do we need these 2 uses of "being"?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The English city of Norwich --> link Norwich
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • During her lifetime the Black Death --> link Black Death
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ruthless to the point of vandalism". --> ruthless to the point of vandalism." see MOS:QUOTEMARKS
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15 visions of Jesus, and a sixteenth --> 15 visions of Jesus, and a 16th, according to my interpretation of MOS:NUM
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ever became a nun --> delink nun, instead link first instance of nun
Nun Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book now commonly known as Revelations of Divine Love was written in manuscript form by Julian in two versions, now known --> would it be possible to avoid the repetition of known?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Julian's writings are unique, as no other works by an English anchoress have survived, although it is possible that some anonymous works may have been written by women --> This confuses me. The lead says "She wrote the best-known surviving book in the English language written by a mystic, Revelations of Divine Love, which is also the earliest surviving book in English known to be written by a woman." These are not the same sets of statements. Perhaps you mean to say here something along the lines of "Julian's writings are the earliest surviving English language works by a woman, although it is possible that some anonymous works may have been written by women. They are also the only surviving English language works by an anchoress, and the best-known surviving book in the English language written by a mystic." But I don't know if the sources support these claims.
I've worked on the text using your suggestion. I can't cite the most obvious bit (that her book is best-known work by an English mystic), so that's now gone. The rest I have cited using Leyser and Windeatt. Thanks for your help here. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that looks better. Just one thing about where it now says "some anonymous devotional works may have been written by women". By using devotional you make the reader wonder about anonymous non-devotional works. I don't think devotional is needed or helpful here. Same in the lead.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Julian's writings was largely unknown until 1670 --> were
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • based his book on the 86 chapters and about 63,500 words of the Long Text --> this may be personal preference but I would restructure this section and start this section with descriptions of the short text and the long text, including the number of chapters and words, and not fold that information into a sentence about someone else writing centuries later.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • by his Providence." --> by his Providence".
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a daring likening --> is this a neutral enough point of view for an encyclopedia?
Sentence amended to reflect the idea that she wasn't daring at all (not sure how that managed to be slipped in). Amitchell125 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • me or anybody else". --> me or anybody else."
Done.Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • one is able to radiate it". --> one is able to radiate it."
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pope Benedict XVI dedicated his general audience --> do we really need to say this twice? And if yes, then we should have consistency in the spelling of General Audience.
Thanks for spotting that, text deleted accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anglais 40. Bibliothèque nationale de France. Retrieved 11 November 2021 --> other reviewers are more knowledgeable than me but I'm not sure you need that retrieval date here. Only in the reference I think.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Happy to do a spot check of the sources later on, if needed, once a few more reviewers have given support. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon, your comments are now addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all fine except the "devotional" I mentioned above. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All fine now. I Support on prose. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

In the infobox it says; "Died: After 1416 (aged 73–74)" - if we don't know the specific year when she died then how do we know that she was 73 or 74? If all we know is that she died after 1416, does that not mean that she could have lived until 1420 and died aged 77? Or 1430 and died aged 87? Apologies if I am missing something obvious...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ChrisTheDude—infobox amended, as i agree with your comment. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I think this is an outstanding article – beautifully written, well presented, admirably illustrated and well and widely sourced. I have struggled to find anything to quibble about, and these are my meagre gleanings:

  • Lead
    • "English language works by a woman … may have been written by women" – not entirely felicitous, perhaps. Possibly "may have had female authors", shorter, active rather than passive, and avoiding repetition. (Same in the main text under Revelations of Divine Love.) Just a suggestion – feel free to ignore.
Not ignored. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal life
    • "the church in Norwich that her cell was attached to" – more formal, and I suggest more pleasing, to say "…to which her cell was attached"
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As plague epidemics were rampant … as a result of plague" – I think you could profitably lose the last two words, avoiding the repetition without harming the meaning.
Thanks, done as suggested. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "almost no references were made of her writings" – unexpected preposition: wouldn't "to her writings" be more usual?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to the British historian Henrietta Leyser" – is Mrs Leyser's nationality relevant here?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Julian's shorter work … was likely to have been written" – We have a slight muddle of tenses here. I think perhaps either "is likely to have been written" or "was probably written".
Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theology
  • "the medieval scholar Caroline Walker Bynum" – You might tweak this. We infer that she is a modern scholar of mediaeval history, but that isn't quite what the sentence says. The phrase "medieval scholar" conjures up a Roger Bacon or an Alcuin of York rather than a 21st-century academic.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • St Julian's Church
    • "continues to hold services on a regular basis" – perhaps rather a wordy and woolly way of saying it holds regular services?
Point taken, sentence now amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literature
    • "Sydney Carter's song … was released in 1982" – strange verb: do you mean published?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all I can manage by way of carping. I am most impressed. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 02:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley—thanks for your praise, and also your comments (now all addressed). Amitchell125 (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very pleased to support. Clearly meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 15:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass

[edit]

References

  • #14: Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter. Also, what makes this work reliable, and why not use the works cited in it instead?
Sorted - ref replaced with another citation. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #18: The other ODNB works are cited in full in "References"—without using a shore cite that links to "Sources"—and this one should be too.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #22: Should have a full citation.
​ I used {{Britannica | id=ID | title=TITLE }} from Template:Britannica (there is no author for the article). Is this not the correct template? Amitchell125 (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #50: British Library can take a link. Archived URL should be added as backup.
Done, but Template:Cite archive doesn't show the archive information, so it remains hidden. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #62: Ditto and ditto. What is "Belonged to William Amhurst Tyssen-Amherst, Baron Amherst of Hackney" doing here?
Ref amended to remove superfluous text. It's a reliable source as it come come the British Library's catalogue. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #69: I'm not sure what the convention here is for citing the Bible, but it seems that it should at least mention that it's citing the Bible.
If you could find anywhere (e.g. in the MOS) which says what the convention is, I'd appreciate it. Jesus (an FA) uses something like my style, other articles, like Proverbs_1–9 (not an FA) have more text. Ref amended, see what you think. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #82: The Episcopal Church is the publisher, I think, not the author.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #85: What makes this reliable? Why not cite the underlying article instead?
Still looking for the original article, but a news item from the National Catholic Register has been used in the meanwhile. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #91, #92: Is Marilyn Oliva the author of these?
Yes, refs amended accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Lots of publishers can take links.
​ Nobody's asked me to do this before, and FAs don't seem to link publishers as you suggest. Is there guidance on linking publishers somewhere? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of publishers are missing locations.
Locations now added. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baker 1993: This is the only JSTOR source which uses {{registration required}}. Generally speaking, I think it's not needed, but either way, it should be consistent.
Agreed, template removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blomefield & Parkin 1805: Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter. OCLC not really needed since you already have a free link, but no biggie.
|name-list-style=amp added. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Butler-Bowden & Chambers 1954: Inconsistent use of initials for first names. Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
Sorted. Full names now included (one person's name cannot be done). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bynum 1984: Inconsistent use of {{registration required}} rather than "url-access = registration" parameter.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliot 1944: Ditto re OCLC.
​ Not sure what is meant here, as the OCLC looks OK. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was making the same point regarding the OCLC as for Blomefield & Parkin 1805. But it's not a big deal. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Groves 2010: Does the acronym need to be in the cite?
​ I'd prefer it to be left there, as the organisation is invariably known by its memorable acronym. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leech & Ward 1995: Pre- and post-nominals not needed in cite. Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rawcliffe & Wilson 2004: Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tanner, Previté-Orton & Brooke 1932: Inconsistent use of initials for first names. Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
Source amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upjohn & Groves 2018: Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watson 1993: Speculum can take a link. Is there a reason this isn't cited in the article?
Thanks for spotting that, text now moved to the Further reading section (for now). Amitchell125 (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watson & Jenkins 2006: Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

  • Foster-Gilbert 2018: Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salih & Baker: URL? If not, ISBN or OCLC? Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Many thanks for these comments, now all addressed. I have responded to some of them: #22, #50, #62, #69, #85. Lots of publishers can take links, Eliot 1944: Ditto re OCLC, and Groves 2010. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Julian_of_Norwich/archive1&oldid=1060424637"