Talk:Hasculf de Tany

Possibly ...
Hasculf de Tanis - see this ODNB article. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks. Note that another article of Hollister is already cited. You might be interested in an article I did elsewhere https://fmg.ac/publications/journal/vol-12/645-jn-12-10 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have had a go at improving the article based on extra sources I knew.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

What makes ...
David X. Carpenter an expert so that this source qualifies as a WP:RS? While I am of course excited at the concept of the site, and I'm seeing this, do we have a link to cover Carpenter's expertise to cover our butts for using a wordpress blog site as a source? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the concern precisely? I guess it can't be the website hosting because that has no connection to WP policy. One of the critical questions for WP:RS is whether a publication or author has been given the stamp of approval by others in a field. Typically speaking for example, if you get to be editor of a big project, that's by definition enough. OTOH maybe these help. I think they show him to be one of the relatively small number of people being treated as qualified to edit and comment on such materials at the moment for the big publishers:
 * https://boydellandbrewer.com/author/david-x-carpenter/
 * https://academic.oup.com/ehr/article-abstract/132/558/1305/3964608?redirectedFrom=fulltext
 * (BTW, be careful not to confuse with David A. Carpenter.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's more that someone outside the field will look at the website hosting (since it's highlighted by a frequently used script) and freak out unless it can be shown that Carpenter/etc are experts. It's all part of the fun of preparing for GA - you need to have the ability to answer "what makes X a reliable source". Pointing to the fact that he's edited works in this field put out by high-end academic publishers satisfies that problem in advance. In other words, CYA. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Where I can help I will, but of course GA defensive work is sometimes hard to line-up with a concern about the content itself. In this case we have an uncontroversial-looking source (DD) which occasionally contains mistakes or awkward omissions and therefore sometimes needs to be complemented and compared to other sources. Arguably it is more like a tertiary source or even has something of the feel of an online project. While that is a bit awkward for us here, I think it is par for the course in this field. (Indeed Keats-Rohan has written about how she sees it as an on-going project, and supports the "Domesday corrections" website on FMG. My own article published by them was written in that context.) I think we found good solutions in this case, including also Stacey (recent) and Clay (old, but still probably the best explanation of some key points). For some 11th/12th century people there is difficulty to find much that is published. In any case I don't think there is anything very contestable once you lay it all out. Let me know if you see anything needing another source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)