Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ælfheah of Canterbury


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009.

Ælfheah of Canterbury

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

I am nominating this for featured article because... It just may be the shortest article I ever nominate at FAC. Mainly, Ælfheah is known for getting his head bashed in by some Scandinavians, which habit of not ducking well earned him sainthood. Definitely a "good-bishop", he has the canonization papers to prove it. As usual, copyediting by Malleus. It's so short, there wasn't much I could do to ruin the prose...Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum - dash tool has been requested, I would love to have a pic closer in time to him but have been unsucessful, and if the two Saints sites are too borderline for folks, I can remove the information easily. He's only 946 words! Wow! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Image review: singular image is free by GFDL. No issues here. Very weird image though... it looks like he is putting up a "V" sign with his would-be murderers about to bash his head in... Jappalang (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not take the image or carve the thing.. I agree, it's very .. odd. (Of course, what do you expect from a guy who refused to be ransomed?) But it's the closest I've gotten to an image of him. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Peace, baby. Morenoodles (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done. A lovely article. Yes, this should be an FA (and then I want to see Rumwold an FA too). Although I feel compelled to add that I know nothing about the subject so can't really judge. Morenoodles (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Very well-done. Karanacs (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Life section
 * It would be easier for uninformed readers if you said who Dunstan was, rather than requiring use of a link. From the Dunstan article I gather that by 984 he had retired from Canterbury. So I suggest you say: "Probably due to the influence of Dunstan, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Ælfheah..." etc
 * Actually, Dunstan was archbishop until his death in 988. Our article on him sucks, those headings are misleading. I have, however, clarified and added in Dunstan's dates as archbishop. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "...elected to the Bishopric of Worcester" is wordy; why not "elected Bishop of Worcester"?
 * Malleus got this. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "...that same year" – "same" is redundant
 * Malleus got this too... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "He went to Rome..." - why did he go?
 * For the good ole pallium. Explained what that was and why he went. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You should lose the comma after "While at Canterbury", or the one after "Saint Dunstan", but you shouldn't keep both. Incidentally, why has it become the style to write out "Saint" instead of "St"?
 * Malleus fixed this. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest add "which was" before "composed"
 * I believe Malleus got this. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "He introduced..." For clarity this should be "Ælfheah introduced..." –
 * I'm not seeing where this is, did Malleus get this? Yes, he did, I see. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"In 1006 Ælfheah succeeded Aelfric as Archbishop of Canterbury, taking St Swithun's head with him as a relic. He went to Rome in 1007 [say why] and was robbed during his journey. While at Canterbury he promoted the cult of St Dunstan, ordering the writing of the second Life of Dunstan, which Adelard composed between 1006 and 1011. He also introduced new pactices into the liturgy, and was behind the Witenagemot's recognition of Wulfrige of Sherbourne as a saint in about 1912,"
 * ...but there are problems with this sentence, which conjoins two quite unrelated clauses (liturgical practices and St Swithun's presumably decapitated head) with an "and". In fact, the whole paragraph reads rather bittily, and could do with some reorganisation. How about this:-
 * Malleus fixed...Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Raided into England" is odd wording. Suggest "raided England"
 * Fixed. I believe I was aiming for the connotation that they didn't just raid the coast, but inland, but it's not needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Check spelling: Ælfheah has acquired an extra "a". This might be an alternative form, or just a typo.
 * Typo. All his alternate spellings drop the silly Æ. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A "who" is necessary before "managed to escape"
 * fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Death Section
 * It's a bit odd to have a section called "Death" when the actual death is recorded in the previous section, called "Life". Why not make the last sentence of the Life section the first sentence of the Death section?
 * fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What is meant by "E version"?
 * Strictly speaking the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is actually several different chronicles. "E" is one version, sometimes called "Peterborough Chronicle". I can try to explain it (which will take a bit of time in the article) or I can change "E version" to "Peterborough Chronicle version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Veneration: I find the sentence beginning "Along with Augustine of Canterbury..." very awkwardly phrased. In the first place, one can't be the only something along with someone else. The beginning needs to be: "Ælfheah and Augustine of Canterbury were the only Anglo-Saxon..." etc, but the rest of the sentence needs sorting out, too.
 * Malleus played with this, let me know if that works for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: All the fixes were OK except one and I've now done that myself. Thank you Æaldgyth for another scholarly contribution. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally (this isn't a comment or criticism of the article, just an expression of surprise) I am amazed to find that they had church organs in the 10th century. I had not previously heard of one nearly that early. You certainly live and learn with WP. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support—it's a bit comma-crazy for my reading tastes, but that is really a subjective matter since none of the commas are ungrammatical. One request for clarification: Can you provide some explanation of why he would bring a saint's head somewhere? Was that a normal practice in those days? -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It states he brought it as a relic. Yeah, it's kinda gruesome, and it was indeed common (they also snuck into shrines in the middle of the night and stole relics...) but movement of saint's relics was pretty common. Would linking to relic help some here? I'm afraid most of my sources just presume that folks know all about relic trading and movement and how they were venerated in the Middle Ages... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A link to relic would help. I just went off and learned that a body part of a saint is considered a "first class relic". Well, color mine the opinion of the uneducated masses. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Linked to relic and also added a bit more on the sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe he was just a wild and crazy guy. What the masses want to know is: Where are the references in popular culture? Which episode of the Simpsons is based on his life? But this is a pretty good article as is. Yes, first St Ælfheah, then St Rumwold, and eventually St Hubbins. Morenoodles (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support – Comments - five nitpicks actually. I do not like "probably thanks", "While Bishop" (During his time as ), "for its operation", (to operate it),  "as well as" (and),  "Also captured during  the sack, (passive voice how about,  Godwine (Bishop of Rochester), Leofrun (abbess of St Mildrith's), and the king's reeve, Ælfweard  were also captured during the sack.)  Graham Colm  Talk 11:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've copyedited all but the "while bishop" one, which is a wording I prefer to the wordier "during his time as bishop"... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You "FAC" people are a funny bunch. One person objects to the use of the passive--for no reason, and I hope not because an unreasoned dislike of the passive is a distaste faithfully passed on [passive!] by generations of mediocre teachers of English prose--and suggests its replacement by, ahem, a different use of the passive: and the long-suffering author unquestioningly obliges. Morenoodles (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support.  Nancy Heise    talk  17:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS
 *   | Does not use a citation template -- TRU  CO   21:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not an error. It's how the ref is formatted. All of the citations use that sort of hand formatting, and citation templates aren't required. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.