Talk:Wulfstan (died 1023)

GA on hold

 * 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:

This is only my second GA review, so if I am being too harsh please say so. I like the article, but I think the Legacy section could be fleshed out more. However, I know sources from this time period can be pretty scarce, so if the information is just not available please say so! Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, not too harsh. Some of what you want just can't be done, because of the nature of the sources. It's not known what happened with his books. Some still exist, but they are scattered all over the place. I filled out what I can on his writing legacy, but with the Norman Conquest, writing in Old English pretty much stopped, so although he had influence for about 60 years after his death, his language pretty much died out after that, which kills your ability to leave much legacy. How much influence he had on other preachers is unknown, there jsut aren't many manuscripts of sermons, so his influence there is unknown (although if I had to guess, it would have been pretty strong). The inference is that his laws remained in effect, because the four last Anglo-Saxon kings didn't issue law coded, and neither did the Anglo-Norman kings, but English law is Common law so the non-issuing of law codes isn't a sign that the necessarily stayed the same. I reworded the bit to make it clear about the saint thing (it was the cults part, definitely an obscure reference on my part, I've made it explicit.) I took your suggestions on the Works section. And I reworked the lead, hope that makes more sense. We know that he became archbishop in 1003, but all we know about the worcester appointment is that it was about 1003. Let me know if there is anything else you see that needs changing?
 * The only thing I do different is that when I put an article on hold, I don't use the "nay" icon, I just leave it blank. I think it makes it easier psycologically on folks to not see that red icon screaming at them if the nomination is just on hold. I use the fail icon when the article really fails. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the new format. Sorry I didn't get to this yesterday (I somehow volunteered myself/was volunteered to write next week's Dispatch ;))  GA passes now! Karanacs (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

De Anticristo
The homily spellings De Anticristo and De Antichristo are both present in the article, the second spelling in the sentence immediately following a sentence using the first. While both to be valid spellings per sources, is there a reason to keep both spellings within the article? -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say go with the first spelling. I didn't add that section though, so I'm not sure which is the typo, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In her edition of Wulfstan's homilies, Bethurum follows the the spelling "De Anticristo" according to the rubric for this homily found in a manuscript known as Junius 121 (Bethurum's MS G). This is the only manuscript which supplies a rubric for this homily. It seems good practice to cite the homily according to the title as Bethurum printed it . Further, many of the Wulfstan manuscripts read 'Cristus', without the 'H' (a Graecism). This was likley the spelling that Wulfstan himself preferred.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Second only to ...
I reworded this back to the previous statement, as a statement that he was second only to another writer needs supporting statements from a number of sources to back it up, and I didn't see any sourcing for that. It probably shouldn't even state "considered one of the two major writers" since I don't think that's sourced in the article either. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates
The dates in the article come from either the 3rd edition of the Handbook of British Chronology or from his ONDB entry. If there are newer sources for dates, change them out but please source that. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazing
Just wanted to say what amazing work has been done on this article that I started years ago when I noticed confusion about different Wulfstansm and tried to clear it up. Not in my wildest dreams could I think that there would be so much to say about him. :) --Regebro (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Works
I think the works section has grown enough to require splitting off into a Works of Wulfstan II, Archbishop of York article. If no one objects, I'll try to work that around at some point. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Enthroned vs Consecration.
Why the discrepancy? Why is consecration listed as 1002, but enthroned as "unknown"? What's the diffeence between these two actions?Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Consecration is the ... well... consecrating of the bishop/archbishop. Enthroned is the actual formal sitting of the new bishop/archbishop in his cathedral. They often do not coincide. Note that I'm not really in charge of the infoboxes. If I had my choice, we'd use "elected" but, that's me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues with GA criteria
The article contains information without a citation and unresolved original research tags. Does it still meet the GA criteria? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wulfstan II
It is noted in several other articles (see Wulfstan (died 956), Wulfstan (died 1095), and Archbishop of York) that this Wulfstan was also known as Wulfstan II, but that fact is not mentioned anywhere here. Additionally, this fact is not cited in any of those three articles, so it would be nice this could be cleaned up a bit. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 23:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He is rarely called Wulfstan II, but I have found a reference for the name. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)