Talk:Oswald of Worcester

Anti-monastic reaction
It's a nice article, but I was a bit disappointed that it didn't have more on the anti-monastic reaction. That's something that none of our articles really cover in any meaningful way. Not this, not Dunstan, nor Æthelwold, nor Æthelwine, nor Ælfhere, nor even King Edward himself. There's a big hole in the story.

I've wondered about writing an article, or maybe bunging something into the Edward the Martyr piece, but I'm not sure that I understand the subject very well. John's piece in the Campbell, Wormald & John Anglo-Saxons blames Oswald in some measure, and in a line of argument that brings to mind Mac Fhirbhisigh's law: "It is customary for great lords that, when their families and kindreds multiply, their clients and their followers are oppressed, injured and wasted." Except that in this case it is the clients and followers of Ælfhere's affinity who are oppressed, &c, so that Oswald's many relatives could share in the good things. But this would not explain Æthelwine and Ely, so that can only be part of the story. Any takers? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you're not looking at me! I agree it's a hole in the articles, but I don't think I really have access to enough of the sources, nor understand the time frame enough to do it justice. I can do "nice articles" on Anglo-Saxons, but it's pretty obvious that they aren't a driving passion for me. Look at this compared to say Ranulf Flambard, and you can see where my main efforts go. Deacon? Mike? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I was glad to see you had an article up for GA review; I added one of my own to the queue, and figured I should come out of retirement to review someone else's. Yours are always a pleasure. Just a few quick comments:


 * 1) "A hagiographical life was written soon after his death, and he was soon hailed as a saint." (Lead) is a very awkward sentence, perhaps if only because it uses "soon" twice in the same sentence.
 * 2) "He was also related to the cniht Osulf, who received land while Oswald was bishop of Worcester" (Early life). Since most people are not going to know what a cniht is, it should be wikilinked or very briefly (half a sentence tops) explained to contextualize the information and elucidate why it is important that he was related to a "cniht" named Osulf.
 * 3) "Even if he did not travel to Rome, Oswald was active in ecclesiastical affairs at York until St. Dunstan obtained his appointment to the See of Worcester." (Return to England) The pronoun ("his" appointment) could be ambiguous to someone with limited knowledge of the topic.
 * 4) "Oswald attempted to restore monks to Ripon, but the attempt was unsuccessful." (Return to England) I feel this sentence is really out of context... to an informed reader (ie. me), it means nothing.
 * 5) There may not be a problem with this but, as with Baldwin of Exeter, please be sure that the circumstantial capitalization of words like "bishop," "archbishop" and "emperor" are consistent.

You know the drill. Seven days, a couple of changes, let me know. Cheers, CP 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey good to see you again CP! I'm on the road this weekend at a horse show, so it'll be tomorrow night before I can really dig into these changes, which look fairly easy but will need my brain to be thinking bishops and not horses. Just thought I'd let you know why I hadn't jumped on these like I usually do. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! Cheers, CP 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

replies - I think I got everything. Thanks muchly for the review, yours are always good! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Changed to "A hagiographical life was written shortly after his death, and he was quickly hailed as a saint." This work better?
 * 2) Don't have an article on "cniht", which isn't exactly a "knight". If I didn't bring the correct books on this trip, I can either just link to vassal or knight, where it's sort of explained, or cut the information. I did link it, but if you're not comfortable with this, I can cut the information.
 * 3) Clarified. Also threw in a free clarification of "see".
 * 4) I cut it since it's not really very developed in the sources. Ripon was a older monastic foundation, but given the fact that he didn't actually suceed... I figure it's tangential.
 * 5) As I understand it, Bishop of (Place) is captialized, bishop without a place isn't, unless it's saying "Bishop Oswald". I did another pass trying to make sure everything is consistent. These sorts of things come up from people trying to be helpful, but it's a pain...


 * I'll try to get back to this during the week, but it may be as much as a week or so before I have reliable broadband again. Hopefully I will be able to at least check on things, but I can't promise anything. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to worry, everything looks great and I will be passing the article as a Good Article! Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)