Talk:Wihtburh/GA1

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

Reviewer: asilvering (talk · contribs) 23:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * Sources not checked: Dumville, Fairweather, Pestell; others verified.
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Comments
Hi ! Thanks for your all your recent work on expanding this article. I've checked off the obvious things and will have a look at the sources soon. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , the infobox states that she is venerated in the Orthodox church, but the article cites Blanton to say that her cult was relatively small and local. Are we sure she's venerated in the Orthodox church? -- asilvering (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are I think, correct in querying this. Infobox amended unless the information can be verified. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The legend is commemorated in the town sign in the centre of Dereham. Can you find a source for this? I'm happy enough calling this WP:SKYBLUE if not. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Now cited. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The large church at Dereham has a plan that is possibly indicative of its former status, and a chapel dedicated to Wihtburh. I don't see this information in the source, but I might be missing it. Can you quote the relevant part here? -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Refs corrected, something got misplaced, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The article doesn't mention, as Blanton does, that Anna was the first East Anglian king to convert to Christianity - probably worth mentioning here? -- asilvering (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As the first of the East Anglian kings to convert was Anna's ancestor Eorpwald, I'll have to ignore Blanton's error. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, haha. Thanks for the save. -- asilvering (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I also think the article should also state more clearly that references to Wihtburh only appear in later, 10th- and 11th-century records. It says a few times that Blanton has suggested her heritage is a fabrication, and it mentions the later sources, but it doesn't draw the line between the two. It wouldn't be WP:SYNTH to do so - Blanton states it outright. Blanton also discusses at some length Ely's motivations, which should appear somewhere in the article, probably under the "legend" heading. -- asilvering (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, text amended accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Careful with invented to enhance her status - it's Ely's status, not Wihtburh's, that Blanton is talking about. -- asilvering (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Wihtburh is mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle... Blanton's source for this is Christine Fell - can you check this against Fell's article, and cite Fell's article instead? -- asilvering (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to this article, but have included Pestell (p.90) as a ref, as he states this information as well. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) her limbs were flexible, her cheeks were rosy, and her breasts were firm. Adding a bit of context might be useful here for readers wondering why someone would be so interested in the state of a saint's breasts. Blanton gives some on p. 139 if you want to grab that. -- asilvering (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Other manuscripts originating from Ely shows that the cults of Wihtburh and Seaxburg was planned to complement the cult of Æthelthryth as part of an [ideology] of kinship in connection with the monastery. Something's gone a bit weird with this sentence - looks like it was originally formatted as a quote and then rewritten? The wording is close enough to the source that it should be a quote, but the words have been shifted around enough that it's not really possible for me to just add quotation marks to fix the problem. -- asilvering (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) East Anglia was an early and long-lived Anglo-Saxon kingdom in which a duality of a northern and a southern part existed, corresponding with the modern English counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. I have the 2014 edition, not the specific one cited in the article, but it doesn't quite agree: The unique shire names, ‘Northfolk’ and ‘Southfolk’, imply that the kingdom had an early duality, but this need not pre-date the creation of two dioceses in 680. (p. 158). Honestly I don't know that this is particularly important for the article anyway, so I solved this one myself by simply taking out the "duality" bit and leaving what I think is the important information - if you don't like this solution, by all means solve it however you prefer. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy with your amendment. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The historian Barbara Yorke has commented on the issue of this traditional date for Wihtburh's death, which would have meant she died at a great age. Hm, I would say this misrepresents what Yorke is saying. ("The traditional date for her death of 743 is also rather late for a daughter of Anna and it may be that we do not know her true identity.") Yorke isn't saying that Wihtburh must have been old at her death; she's saying that someone who died in 743 is not likely to be the child of a ruler who died 90 years previously. I don't recall any of the sources Blanton used making reference to her death at an advanced age either, and that does seem like a strange omission, especially in light of all the vernal/fecund imagery. I've removed the mention of her advanced age from the lead entirely; up to you how you want to address this sentence in the body. Unless we've got some scholarship referring to a medieval source that talks specifically about her age at death I think it's best not to describe her as old. I wouldn't normally say that doing basic math counts as WP:OR, but I think this gives the wrong impression too easily. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've cited her old age using a different source. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) After discovering the theft, the people of Dereham set off after the tomb-robbers All Yorke has is that "her bones were shamelessly purloined", so I removed this footnote. Did it come from another page, or another work by Yorke maybe? -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The text at this point is cited using Pestell (p.90), which is I think correct. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A traditional story relates that... The story in the footnote only says "miraculously supported by the milk of two does", with none of the other details. The footnote at the end of the paragraph covers the whole thing, so you could simply remove the footnote on this sentence entirely - but maybe you want to use it somewhere else for its description of the church? Up to you. I left it in for now. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My error, ref now moved. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) According to the story, a local official did not like Wihtburh, or her miracles. He decided to hunt down the does with his dogs and prevent them from coming to be milked. The source doesn't attribute these motivations to the ranger. It just says he was wicked. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Thanks for this one. Text amended, and ref added accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Above comments now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! I'll get back to this later today. And of course feel free to contest or revert any of the little changes I made to the article myself. -- asilvering (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, almost done. I'd like to have a look at Pestell, but that means going to the library, so it's a tomorrow job. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By the way, please avoid editing contentious or inaccurate text yourself during a review, see WP:GAN/I for more information about this point. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm guided by #4: In the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself. If you find any of my edits contentious, by all means revert, edit, or question them! All of my changes since the last round of comments are here . I believe I've explained the reasoning for everything that isn't extremely minor (like adding a space), and believe requiring you to make any of these changes by individually listing each in the review would be a waste of your time and effort. -- asilvering (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't manage to get into the library, but having checked the images and the rest of the refs, I don't see any reason to hold the review into next week. Thanks again for your work on this! -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)