Wikipedia:Peer review/Hemming's Cartulary/archive1

Hemming's Cartulary

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and am wondering if (a) it's too complex for the lay reader who isn't a medievalist, i.e. does it lack context to make the average reader able to understand it and (b) is there anything that is still lacking as far as "expected" information?

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Deacon of Pndapetzim

You might wanna give English translations for your Latin phrases (e.g. Liber Wigorniensis, Enucleatio libelli)

Is Hemming's Cartulary a cartulary, or a manuscript too? I mean, I know it's both, but maybe it should be described as both in the opening line?

Added in "manuscript" right in the beginning. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first cartulary was composed at the end of the 10th or beginning of the 11th century. The second section was compiled by Hemming and was written around the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th century. Traditionally the first section is titled the Liber Wigorniensis, and is mainly organized geographically. The second section, Hemming's Cartulary proper, combines land records with a narrative of the losses of property by the church of Worcester

We're told that the first "section" is organized geographically, and then when we move to the second section we're told what it is composed of. This doesn't make any sense.

I think I've expanded this enough for clarity now Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is, as is normal with leads, not so well written in general (e.g. and is mainly organized). I'm sure time and c/es will fix this.

The second part is Hemming's work and takes up folios 119–142, 144–152 and 154–200.

Out of curiosity, what is in folios 143 and 153?

Here is where we get iffy. I mention what is on the inserted folios later in the Manuscript condition section... should we reorganize somewhat? This is where not having a critical edition of the work hurts, since we can't "borrow" the organization there. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MS Cotton Nero E i and British Library MS Add 46204 may also contain charters collected as part of Wulfstan's work, as they have been identified by some scholars as produced during Wulfstan's episcopate.
Who's Wulfstan? He's not been introduced yet nor even linked yet. :)

Give me simple Anglo-Normans anyday... changed it to "...as part of Hemming's work, as they have been identified by some scholars as produced during Hemming's lifetime." which keeps the whole Wulfstan commissioning the work to the section later where indeed, Wulfstan is introduced. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The documents are connected with narrative, usually given the title of Codicellus possessionum, which helps to explain why and how the cartulary was created.
I didn't get what was meant here.

Does "The documents are connected with narrative, usually given the title of Codicellus possessionum, explaining why and how the cartulary was created." work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You mean that the documents are connected with a/the narrative ... that the title explains why and how the cartularly was created? The narrative does? The documents are? Even then I still don't get what is meant. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try "The documents are connected with a narrative explaining why and how the cartulary was created; the narrative is usually given the title of Codicellus possessionum." That better? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, that is better. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides charters, it incorporates information from the Domesday survey's sworn testimony for the region
Another sentence you might wanna rewrite for clarity (i.e. what is Domesday survey's sworn testimony?).

"Besides charters, it incorporates information from the sworn testimony from the region used to create Domesday Book." that work better? (You mean not everyone knows that Domesday book was created by getting sworn testimony???)

It also contains an accounting of amounts paid to King William in order to regain items the king had taken from the diocese.
Another (an accounting of amounts).

Changed to "...a listing of amounts..." Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it was produced to Wulfstan's successors:

"produced for" Wulfstan's successors? "presented to"?

(fixed it Cavila (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You should, if you can, consult pp. 12–14 of Historia de Sancto Cuthberto (Anglo-Saxon Texts no. 2). As its editor South points out, the Historia is very similar in style and structure to fols. 119–34 of Hemming (the bit called Codicellus possessionum huius aecclesiae) and to the brief biography of Saint Wulfstan.

Do not have access to that, so it appears. I've hunted through U of I's catalog to no avail. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a copy of the edition/translation somewhere, but not of the introduction (apparently too humane to extract more pages from it under the pressure of the photocopier lid). Anyway, I'll track down the book sometime next week. Cavila (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankee. Not sure why U of I doesn't have it... they are pretty good for stuff like that. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you can get it on google books I see [1]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not want to give me page 12, of course. This is why I despise Google Books previews... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see page 12 and can send you an image if you like. Mike Christie (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. This had better be worth the bother to everyone (laughs). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is a list of contents of the MS possible?

Ha, Ealdgyth kicked my ass for doing so : ) She was right, but perhaps a simplified version without an intimidating wealth of detail could help the reader visualise the structure of the MS in terms of contents. Cavila (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could always do a listing of the full folio by folio as a list and link to it in a "see also" or "main article" thing somewhere. It just overpowered the article here. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems encyclopedic to me that an article about a manuscript would have a list of contents if it was going to FA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does, just not a folio by folio listing, which was what was inserted before. I don't have a problem with a small listing overview, but I really think a folio by folio detailed listing is way too much detail. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've thrown up a possible small table on the article talk page, if folks wanna address that there. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we don't need a list that big, but we need one bigger than that (perhaps in a side-box), to give the reader a good overview of what's where. Atm this table doesn't even say where the "Codicellus possessionum" is ... :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, between Cavila and I, we've expanded the table, and I got the stuff in from Historia, and I've placed the table in the article... I'm not wedded to where it's at right now, but it seemed the best fit. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's me with my comments (for now at least). Good work btw! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cavila

There were some issues with the logical order in which the structure, contents, themes and purpose(s) of the work were described. Scholarly views on Hemming's codicellus as a commemmorative work should be treated together rather than separately, obviously. I went ahead and tried to re-organise a couple of things, but an extra pair of eyes might be welcome. Hope to be able to provide more feedback soon. Cavila (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rearrangement looked fine to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]