Talk:Hygeberht/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Commencing review[edit]
Like everything in which User:Ealdgyth has had a hand, this looks in excellent shape. The article is interesting, stable, well-written (with a couple of minor exceptions discussed below), neutral, with good quality references (see additional points on this below), and sufficiently broad. It contains little content regarding the views or actions of the article's subject, and I am taking it on good faith that this is an (unsurprising) limitation resulting from the sparse original sources.
A few points:
- When I see the heading "background and early life" in a biography article, I assume it to mean the background of the article's subject. In this case, however, it is almost entirely the background to the creation of the archbishopric. Perhaps the heading or structure could be altered to more accurately reflect this.
- The following two sentences each need an in-line citation: "Perhaps as early as 786 the creation of a Mercian archbishopric was being discussed at Offa's court. Offa disliked both the region of Kent and the archbishop of Canterbury, Jænberht."
- As a lay reader, I have no idea what a "pallium" is. Perhaps as a consequence, the meaning of the first of the sentences quoted below is lost on me, while the second reads as a kind of non-sequitur. Might a re-write of the first sentence that gives meaning to the term "pallium" also resolve the issue of the connection between that sentence and the next? "In 788, the bishop of Lichfield, Hygeberht, received a pallium from Pope Adrian I at Rome.[9] Throughout his episcopate, Jænberht of Canterbury was his senior and enjoyed precedence, though upon his death, Hygeberht became the foremost prelate in England."
- What are "suffragans"?
- Coenwulf's argument to Leo III is made with reference to blaming "the problems encountered with the Lichfield archdiocese on Adrian's incompetence". However, I am not clear what problems these are. If this is a reference to the unpopularity of the creation of the second southern archbishopric, then I would re-phrase this passage so that it is cast in similar terms, eg "the unpopularity of the Lichfield archdiocese on Adrian's incompetence." If it is believed to be other problems, their nature unknown, then add that point to make it clear. And who is Adrian? If this is a reference to Pope Adrian I, then as a lay reader I am lost - because this is both the first time there is reference to him having done anything other than post Hygeberht an item of clothing, and because it seems remarkable for a king to send an envoy to the pope seeking ecclesiastical reform, and to try accusing his predecessor of incompetence as a strategy to garner support.
- The source says "Coenwulf and his counsellors reminded Pope Leo that Gregory the Great had originally intended two metropolitan sees, one at York the other at London and blamed the descision about Lichfield on papal ineptitude - Pope Hadrian (another way to spell Adrian) presuming to dimiish the authority of Canterbury simply because of Offa's enmity towards Jaenberht and the men of Kent. The papacy did not respond well to this criticism of Hadrian, and Leo retaliated sharply in 798. First the poe asserted that it was upon evidence presented by Offa that Hadrian had based his judgemente, Offa testifying that it was the unanimous wish of all that a pallium be sent to the bishop of Lichfield. Second, he refused to transfer all metropolitan authority in the southern province to Londo on the grounds that whatever Gregory's original intentions, Canterbury now possessed the primacy by ancient right." I get that the king and his advisors were being stupid, and making a bad argument to the new pope (grins). Suggestions on how to word this understandably to the non-medievalist gratefully accepted (this whole episode of the archbishopric of Lichfield is delightfully obscure in the sources...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure whether the reference to a Kentish rebellion etc helps one understand the trajectory of Hygeberht's career. Can this section be simplified slightly, or would omission of such information simply leave the reader confused as to the delay in the abolition of the archbishopric? My suggestion would be along the following lines, but i will leave it in more expert hands: "Leo ruled initially against the king's plan,[13] but relented in 802, returning all jurisdiction to Canterbury: Æthelhard announced the decision at the Fifth Council of Clovesho in 803.[16]"
- Reworded. The rebellion being put down was important, as it allowed Coenwulf to feel secure in his domination of the archbishopric of Canterbury. Changed the sentences to read ..."In 801 Coenwulf put down a Kentish rebellion, and the king was once more able to assert his authority in Canterbury and feel more secure that the archbishopric was under his control. Finally, in 802.." which hopefully makes it more clear. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is it quite fair to refer to "His opponent at Canterbury, Æthelhard"? While we apparently know that Offa disliked Jænberht, is there any concrete evidence that these two archbishops were "opponents" rather than, for example, pawns in a larger exercise? Just a thought.
Will stay apprised of developments. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Just about done[edit]
This is looking good.
- I see how difficult working with the sources has been regarding the fate of the archbishopric. I have attempted a re-write of the para, mindful of the quote provided above. I hope it remains sound. Ealdgyth, can you check through the article for consistency in treatment of Pope's names, I have removed a switch between Adrian and Hadrian in that para, but you may want to be sure that a consistent approach to titles is also taken.
- I have inserted a [citation needed] tag at one point that I hope you can deal with.
- My own preference with in-line cites is to use them every time a significant fact is stated, even if it means citing the same ref three times for three sentences. I am not a fan of placing a ref at the end of a para, particularly in a wiki, where multiple editors can contribute, restructuring paragraphs and articles, so that refs can become separated over time from material with which they were intended to be associated. Though i suspected that, as you have indicated, the ref at the end of the sequence of sentences covered the facts in all of them, I favour repeating the cite. You have been around here a lot longer than me though, and if you reckon that works and will remain stable, I won't argue.
If you can just look at the fact tag, i think we're done. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's been my experience with all these bishops that things rarely change on them unless I do something. This isn't the case with other articles, granted, but the rate of change on bishops is glacial. I've never had any issues with this style of citation at FAC, and my personal preference is to stick with it unless you're really insistent on cites on each sentence. The copyedit was fine, and the fact tag is cited like the above, to the first footnote following. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, that's fine. We're done. I'll update tags etc. Congrats on yet more of your fine contributions. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's been my experience with all these bishops that things rarely change on them unless I do something. This isn't the case with other articles, granted, but the rate of change on bishops is glacial. I've never had any issues with this style of citation at FAC, and my personal preference is to stick with it unless you're really insistent on cites on each sentence. The copyedit was fine, and the fact tag is cited like the above, to the first footnote following. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)