Talk:Peter of Canterbury/GA1

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

I did a quick copy edit, please check. OK, some nitpicks now
 * Note 2 (d. 605x11) - I don't understand what this means
 * that's the original title for the article, so I can't change it. What it means is that they feel that he died between 605 and 611. (X is historian for between in this context.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * so he probably died after that.- Reads a bit oddly, perhaps after that date?
 * done. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Career - do saints/bishops have careers? Life maybe, but no big deal
 * Well, the last time I named a section like that Life it got whacked out. We'll see what happens if I change it back to life (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * buried hastily nearby, but Bede reports that after a light illuminated the grave every night, the locals realised Peter was a saint and exhumed him and buried him again in Boulogne. - perhaps the second "buried" could be "re-interred"?
 * done. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some more inelegant repetition: "later" twice in one sentence, "convert" and "converted" in another
 * fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As a member of the Gregorian mission, it is presumed that Peter was native of Italy. - not obvious to me, perhaps clearer as It is presumed that Peter was native of Italy, like the other members of the Gregorian mission.
 * much better than my phrasing, done! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Laurence, another of the missionaries, perhaps fellow-missionary Lawrence?
 * Done, and I fixed the verb tense too. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is possible that he died on his return from the Council of Paris -  perhaps during is clearer
 * done. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * confirmed in 1915. I have no idea how saints are accredited. Can this be expanded to clarify? Eg ...by Pope Fred VI or ...at the Conclave of Reykjavik'
 * Confirmed (it's linked the relevant part of canonization) means that although his sainthood predates the offical canonization process, in 1915 they went back and did some paperwork and said "Yeah, he'd make saint now even with the paperwork requirements". I don't know who did the confirmation though. Just that it happened in 1915. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that there is no image of this guy, is it worth adding a pic of the abbey? jimfbleak (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Abbey buildings LONG antedate him, so it'd be a picture giving a wrong image of what the area looked like when he was there. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Formal bit
 * 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:

Many more priests? jimfbleak (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)