Talk:Feologild/GA1

This article is being quick failed for GA. It is inadequately developed to meet GA standards. While there may be relatively little known about this person due to limited sources, it is incumbent upon the editor(s) wishing to bring it to GA standards to include as much information as is readily accessible by internet and library search. It currently does not contain key information known about this man. For example: Please continue to expand upon the content. I look forward to reviewing it in the future. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No mention of the king(s) ruling in his lifetime.
 * No mention of where he is buried.
 * No mention of who served before him and who succeeded him.
 * He is known in historic sources under many other names which are not mentioned here. Searching for documentation under these names provides additional detail that can be incorporated into this article.


 * The before and after are covered in the infobox, I generally don't mention them just to mention them. I don't know WHERE he is buried, no source I've found mentions that (if it was ever known). No source discusses him in relation to the kings ruling during his lifetime - so it'd be OR in my mind to mention that, quite honestly. WHAT historic sources? I've checked all the sources given in what I own as well as a google scholar search. We're meant to use secondary sources in our articles, so if you're referring to William of Malmesbury's mention of him - that's covered by the use of secondary sources. See PASE where all the primary source mentions of him are given. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * His predecessor and successor are mentioned in the infobox but your source isn't cited. The sources I found for his place of burial were using alternate spellings of his name and putting them in google books (not google scholar). You're a very experienced contributor so I imagine you'll find the info without a problem. But if you do run into roadblocks, if you would please provide a list of the alternate names you searched under using google books, I will go back and find some urls to pass to you. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, since I have them up, you might want to look at this and this. By skimming the google book sources I saw several other interesting pieces of information that could make this article more complete. I think you'll agree this person deserves as rich an article as can be pulled together with readily available sources - it will just take a little extra digging. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That first link is to a primary source - it's a extract from Gervase of Canterbury and this is why I said I rely on secondary sources - Gervase is about 300 years after Feologild's death and I have to conclude that because no one in the secondary literature mentions this information, it's been concluded by historians that it's not reliable (Gervase isnt' always considered reliable). The second is an article from 1825 - and again, the fact that Brooks doesn't mention this incident when discussing the history of Canterbury is significant - it's probably been discredited. I note that it claims Syred was Feol's successor, which is no longer considered the case - per the Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed) Feol's successor is possibly Suithred but certainly Ceolnoth. No mention of Syred at all, he's been removed as a possible ABC. I'll add the requested citations for the predecessor and sucessor. If you were looking at this work, note that this is obviously not the same person - as the rest of the note makes clear. I point out again that the GA standard isn't "comprehensive" but merely covers the broad aspects of the subject. If I was attempting FA status for this, I'd expect to cover every single solitary mention of the guy, but we're discussing GA status, and that standard is not nearly so comprehensive, and generally restricted to secondary works. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate your approach to source material in trying to ensure that only "tested" information is included, although unless you've seen something definitively disproved in a later source I would argue that it would be perfectly acceptable to include the information with a caveat indicating the limitations on the source's reliability etc. I also understand that the information available in the sources you find reliable is quite limited and restricts the article's length. That being said, Wikipedia's standards for Good Articles state that the article must be "broad" and cover the major elements of the topic. This article does not meet that standard, and regardless of whether or not the limited sources are the cause I do not feel comfortable awarding GA to what amounts to a stub. If you believe a more experienced reviewer would conclude otherwise, please do seek a reassessment. Thank you again for your many high-quality contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)