Talk:Jænberht/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There were a few bits of bumpy prose which I am copy-editing as I go. If I mess anything up, or you otherwise disagree, please feel free to revert.
 * Nothing looked like it did any damage, thank you for the copyedits! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Besides the issue with Lichfield, during Jænberht's archbishopric he held councils.": This comes across as a little inconsequential. Is it important enough to go in the lead or could it be strengthened to "During his archbishopric, Jænberht also presided over Church councils in England."?
 * Took your suggestion, mostly. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "and was considered a saint after his death": Could this be improved to "consecrated" as "considered" does not sound very official, and I assume it was. Or another word if consecrated is too strong/POV. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, considered is the correct word. If they go through the formal canonization process, they are "canonized" and consecration is for when they are elevated to a bishopric. Jænberht was never actually formally canonized, so "considered a saint" is correct - it was never "official". Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jænberht himself was on good terms with Egbert.": Can this be made more precise? What did they do? However, I appreciate the answer is probably not known.
 * Yorke, who is the source for this, just states "Jænberht himself was on close terms with Egbert.". Yorke bases this off of Brooks, who cites a charter where Jænberht is mentioned as the king's friend. So, nothing much beyond what we've got here. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Offa attempted to bring the archbishopric to London, but when that effort failed...": How did it fail? Presumably, Offa could have done it if he wanted, since he was capable of creating it in the first place. And I don't quite follow if the archbishopric in this sentence is Canterbury (i.e. he wanted to move it) or the third archbishopric later created at Lichfield.
 * Clarified a bit. Offa did want to move Canterbury's archbishopric to London, but the papacy refused permission. The papacy had ultimate authority here, and they refused to allow it. They did, however, allow the creation of a third archbishopric later. We're not quite sure why they refused permission to move Canterbury but allowed the third archbishopric (which didn't last...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Offa's removal of the Kentish dynasty": Does this mean he "deposed" (for want of a better word) the kings of Kent? If so, it could be made a little clearer.
 * Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He refused to crown Offa's son as... what? King of Mercia?
 * Well, probably as a sub-king. What title kings held in this period is rather fluid. Usually, they were just crowned "king" and not "king of something". Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "A rumour was also current..." I have changed this to "contemporary rumour" but was it at the time of Paris, or from Jænberht's time?
 * Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * " After his death, Offa at a council held at Clofesho and granted some privileges to the Kentish churches.": Is this a sign of reconciliation? I think the significance may need spelling out here.
 * Heh. It's not clear, so I've just removed the sentence ... Hindley doesn't explicitly make that connection and it's really pretty peripheral to Jænberht. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that much reason was ever needed, but why was he made a saint? He doesn't seem to have done much that was err... holy! I would imagine some reason had to be given! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He wasn't formally canonized, so it basically boils down to a bunch of folks soon after his death thought he was holy and promoted his cult. The canonization process doesn't really begin until the 11th century, so prior to that it was all a PR exercise - and we have a lot of obscure saints who ... well.. for want of a better phrase, aren't particularly saintly. Jænberht is one of those. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Everything else seems to check out fine. The only references I have access to check out fine. Some images may look nice, but would really only be there for the sake of it and there is not much point if there is nothing worthwhile. A good, informative article which is easy to follow. I'll place it on hold for a week, but there should be no problems really. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for the review... let me know if there is anything else you can think of that needs to be done. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)