Talk:Edith of Wilton/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 14:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy to review the article.
 * @Amitchell125, thanks. Much appreciated.

Lead section / infobox

 * Unlink Wulfthryth (twice) where it is a duplicated link.
 * Done, thanks for the catch.


 * If there is doubt about her being offered the throne, how could she definitely have refused, as it appears from the text she did?
 * I think the controversy is that it even happened, that she was offered the throne in the first place. There's disagreement amongst scholars about it, which is presented in this article; Ridyard believes that the offer was "highly improbable," while Hollis disagrees. The reasons for their disagreement are stated in the text of this article. If she was offered the throne, she refused it, which I think it clear from what's said here.
 * Understood. AM


 * Link St Denys; translation (Translation (relic)).
 * Done.


 * the archbishop – I would include his archdiocese here.
 * Done.


 * at time - ‘at times’?
 * Yes, thanks for the catch again.


 * Elevation – this word has several meanings, I would readers by moving to sainthood so that the text reads ‘elevation to sainthood’.
 * Okay.


 * she chose to enter the religious life from the age of two – this is a rather startling idea, so perhaps a quick explanation of the story behind this incident might be useful here.
 * I respectfully disagree, since it's startling only from our modern sensibilities. Would a compromise be in the lead, since the story is told in the body, something like: "...from a very early age..."?
 * "...from a very early age..." sounds OK. AM
 * Got it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

1 Life

 * I would divide this section into subsections, especially as the first paragraph is mainly about Edith’s parents, and not her.
 * Sure. Although I'm not opposed to long sections, as long as they aren't overly long. Done.


 * Link Wiltshire; Kent; lay member of the community (Laity); dissolved (Dissolution of the monasteries).
 * All done.


 * the only daughter of Edgar the Peaceful and Saint Wulfthryth; St Dunstan – these people weren’t aware of this version of their names when they were alive, shouldn’t they be Edgar, Wulfthryth, and Dunstan here? Also Saint Æthelwold.
 * But isn't it standard to include their official names the first time they're introduced?
 * I used MOS:CHANGEDNAME as a guideline, which says to avoids anachronisms. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know about that policy. Learn something new everyday. I changed them as per your suggestion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Scholar Sabine Baring-Gould’ - ‘scholar Sabine Baring-Gould, writing in 1875’ might be better, as the quote you have included uses rather Victorian language.
 * Okay.


 * Link Miniature (presumably Miniature (illuminated manuscript); Edgar the Peaceful; genealogy in the captions.
 * Done. More later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would paraphrase the long quotation beginning “very striking with its gold…” (as per MOS:QUOTE).
 * I understand that this is a long quotation, but I'd like to keep it, even if we put in a quotebox or note, because paraphrasing it would get into interpreting it. Sometimes keeping the flowery language used in older sources enhances the test because it's often a good example of how someone like Goscelin felt about their subject.
 * I'm happy of the idea of a quotebox. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I've thought about it a bit more, I think that it better belongs in a note. Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don’t think embroidery needs to be linked in the quote (see MOS:LINKSTYLE).
 * I again respectfully disagree because embroidery was a specific art/craft that female religious like Edith engaged in and represented a real contribution to their communities.
 * Understood. AM


 * "the obscurity of the cloister" - I wouldn’t bother quoting a dictionary here, why not simply ’instead choosing to remain at Wilton with her mother’?
 * Again, respectfully disagreeing. Farmer isn't a dictionary like Webster's; it's more of a hagiography. I'd like to keep it because it emphasizes Edith's choice to reject life as a royal.
 * Understood, and keeping the text makes sense. I was more bother with the quote marks. AM


 * Goscelin, however, relates a story about Edith - should this not read 'Goscelin, however, related a story about Edith' as he is not alive? The use of the present tense in this way occurs throughout the text
 * According to MOS:BLPTENSE, we can use the present tense for statements made in literature like Goscelin and academic writing, and we use the past tense for news and marketing materials. Most of the sources in this bio fit into the first condition.
 * Understood. AM


 * The article contains text that could be removed to make it more concise (it is either redundant, repeats what has been said already, or states the obvious) In this section, for instance, I found:
 * but most historians, including Edith's hagiographer Goscelin, state that she was Edgar's wife;
 * I don't see how this is redundant; it conveys three scholars' opinion about the controversy regarding the marital status of her parents. It's also how I've chosen to deal with the fact that scholars disagree about it.


 * in order to provide her with the best possible education;
 * But it states that her father hired the two chaplains for that reason.


 * a story about Edith that Ridyard considers similar to many stories told by hagiographers to emphasize both the royal status of many saints and their choice to renounce it for the religious life;
 * Again, this is another portrayal of when scholars disagree about Edith's status as a nun vs. lay member of Wilton.


 * worn by royalty;
 * Clothes and jewellry worn by royal as opposed to those that were not.


 * ''and wore, as Baring-Gould put it, "gay clothing";
 * I thought Baring-Gould's description of the clothes too good not to include. How about replacing it with: "wearing what Baring-Gould calls..."


 * Scholar Katie Ann-Marie Bugyis reports that;
 * Is your issue with the word "scholar"? If so, I've removed it; if not, let me know and I'll fix it.


 * wrote, in his prologue to her biography, that the Wilton nuns told him that she was in the habit of reading and praying. He also;
 * Removed that sentence about Goscelin's prologue and added the word "praying" to the list in the following sentence.


 * ''in an anecdote Hollis calls a possible "hagiographic invention"';
 * Changed to: "Dunbar relates an anecdote regarding Edith's dream about losing her right eye, which Edith believed foretold her brother's imminent death" and moved the phrase "hagiographic invention" to few lines later: "Hollis states, even though she calls the story a possible "hagiographic invention"..."
 * throughout the Middle Ages.
 * Changed to: "A seal, created during Edith's lifetime was adopted and used as its official emblem until Wilton Abbey the abbey was dissolved in 1539."


 * It might be useful to go the rest of the article yourself, seeing what else could be 'thinned out'.
 * Okay, will do.

2 Death - 6 Works cited

 * Link translation (Translation (relic); calendars (Calendar of saints); almshouse (note correct spelling); Cnut.
 * All done, including spelling correction.


 * Ridyard 1998 and Ridyard 2004 don’t appear to exist.
 * Fixed 1998. Don't see any instances of Ridyard 2004; could you please point it out to me?


 * For the sake of consistency, the retrieval dates should be removed.
 * But the retrieval dates are all from sources able to be accessed online. The others (Bugyis, Hollis, Ridyard) are from books not online. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

On hold
I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 8 September to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Amitchell125, thanks for the review. I believe that I've addressed all your comments, including your request that I thin out repetitive material. Looking forward to further feedback from you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Christine (Figureskatingfan), everything looks OK except for Ridyard and Hollis. There are two versions of Ridyard cited—Ridyard 1998 and Ridyard 1988—and the latter isn't sourced. Also, there are two versions of Hollis cited—Hollis 2004 and Hollis 1988—and the latter in this case isn't sourced either. I'll let you sort that out, and go ahead with passing the article. Thanks for all your work, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Amitchell125, thanks so much! I've corrected the ref errors, so all is good here. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)