Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ealdred (archbishop)


 * 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 Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009.

Ealdred (archbishop)

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's as complete as I can make without spending way too much money on rare books, I've had it reveiwed at GA, PR and then Malleus and David ran their fine-toothed combs over it, as well as Johnbod contributing art history bits. This is the companion piece to Stigand, Ealdred was the other archbishop in England during the end of Edward the Confessor's reign and the start of William the Conquerors. Ealdred crowned Billy Boy, as well as being one of the more well traveled bishops of his time, having visited Germany, Hungary, France, Rome and Jerusalem. Not a terribly religious man, he's another on of those "Bad-boy bishops" although not nearly so bad as Stigand. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Tentative support—psshh, bad-boy bishops are nothing, I wanna hear more about them lecherous popes! I just realized I forgot to finish that copyedit I promised, I'll get back to you. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Images: File:Harold2.jpg is missing an original date of creation (making the author death tag improper), and File:Bayeux Edward Funeral.jpg is a mess from the stupid commonsbot transfer and contains no information on what the image is, author and date. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On the funeral image, I've added below a source and such like information for it. While that may not be the exact source of the image, it's a correct source, with page number, etc. Harold's pic also has that information placed below. Both are from the Bayeux Tapestry, made sometime shortly after the Conquest in 1066, so it's well into PD. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, it just needs to say that clearly, I did some cleanup to the image description pages, this is kinda what I was looking for in future reference. Anyhow, I finished my copyedit and images meet criteria, so I support. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources look OK. Links checked out with link checker tool. :) Budding Journalist 18:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Support: I missed the peer review, so this has been my first reading. Although it has apparently been copyedited, there are were numerous prose errors in the article which needed attention. These have all been corrected and my various other suggestions acted on. Good stuff!! Brianboulton (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As a general point, the word "probably" occurs rather frequently in the article. I understand the need to be tentative when sources are inspecific, but synonyms like "perhaps" or "maybe" etc could be used for variety.
 * Changed some to "likely"s one to "perhaps" and eliminated one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bishop and royal adviser: Ref [14] is best moved to the sentence end alongside [15], rather than keeping the ungrammatical comma after "abducting the abbess".
 * done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Diplomatic travels
 * The opening sentence of the last paragraph: "Ealdred administered Ramsbury due to the departure of its bishop, Herman, to the continent" is virtually repeated later in the paragraph: "Ealdred was given the see of Ramsbury to administer while Herman remained outside England." Only one of these is necessary.
 * Copyedited the first sentence to : "Ealdred became involved with the see of Ramsbury after its bishop Herman got into a dispute with King Edward over the movement of the seat of his bishopric to Malmesbury Abbey. Herman wished to move the seat of his see, but Edward refused permission for the move." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The following sentence: "Herman got into a dispute with King Edward over the movement of the seat of his bishopric to Malmesbury Abbey, which Herman wished to do but Edward refused permission for." Inelegant, with some rough phrasing, and a prepositional ending. Suggested rewording: "Herman, who wished to move the seat of his bishopric to Malmesbury Abbey, was in dispute with the king who refused permission for the move."
 * See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Welsh affairs and Jerusalem
 * I'm not sure that this section heading really covers the content. The first para is about Welsh matters, the second about Jerusalem, but the third is about something else entirely.
 * "Welsh affairs, Jerusalem, and Worcester" is the new section title. This is really a grab bag section, Ealdred spent so much time traveling it's kinda hard to deal with things ... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The king once more employed..." Suggest "The king again employed..." is better
 * done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Edward sent the embassy..." For clarity, "Edward sent Ealdred..."
 * done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "...but the oath may not have had any obligation on Gruffydd's part to Edward" Can you explain why this is so? Also, "to Edward on Gruffyd's part" would be better
 * We don't know the specific wording. Gruffydd had no obligation to attend Edward's court nor help him in war, so it appears that it was a pretty meaningless oath. I've clarified it a bit more in the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The diocese" - should specify the Hereford diocese
 * done. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This sentence: "Ealdred was granted the administration in order that the area might someone with experience with the Welsh in charge." Missing words?
 * I have found and replaced the stray "have" that had wandered away. It is once more in position between "might" and "someone". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "In 1058 made a pilgramage..." Who did?
 * See! Told you he was a bad-boy bishop, he escaped! I've returned Ealdred to his proper place between "1058" and "made". Tricksy, tricksy bishops... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Archbishop of York
 * "Another concern..." As you have early mentioned a few "reasons", this "concern" ought to become a "reason".
 * done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The intro to the William of Malmesbury quote should read: "William of Malmesbury says that Ealdred, by 'amusing the simplicity'..." etc - otherwise the grammar is wrong.
 * done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence beginning "Because the position of Stigand..." is convoluted, and should be broken up for the sake of clarity
 * Changed to "Because the position of Stigand, the archbishop of Canterbury, was irregular, Wulfstan sought and received consecration as a bishop from Ealdred. Normally, Wulfstan would have gone to the archbishop of Canterbury, as the see of Worcester was within Canterbury's province."


 * After the death of Edward the Confessor
 * Harold is mentioned by name four times in the one sentence beginning "Stigand's position..." Is rewording possible, to avoid repetition?
 * Reworded to "... and as earl Harold had not allowed Stigand to consecrate one of the earl's churches, so it is unlikely that Harold would have allowed Stigand to perform the much more important royal coronation." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "...center on the fact that..." seems unwieldly phrasing. How about: "...rely on no other source naming the ecclesiastic..."
 * reworded to " ... rely on the fact that no other English source names... ". The fact that no other English source names it is an important distinction here. Norman sources rather loudly proclaim Stigand as the cleric. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "loot" sounds rather colloquial. "Plunder" sounds better
 * I rather like loot though. It's used often enough in the sources... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest insert "ceremony" after "William's coronation"
 * done. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Link required on "thegns"
 * done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ealdred's curse seems a strange mixture of ancient and modern English - "Thou are..." etc. Can you confirm wording as stated?
 * That's how Bates translates it. I don't own a copy of W of M that's not in the original Latin (and honestly, my Latin is so rusty that any translation I did would be wildly inaccurate). Bates is just the handiest of the translations, and the most "poetic" so I used his. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Legacy
 * A paragraph break should be given after "Wulfstan II of Worcester"
 * done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The long sentence beginning "He built the monastic churches..." could really do with splitting.
 * done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is, as usual, an impressive piece of scholarship, but attention is needed to these details. Support now indicated, above. Brianboulton (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I'm sorry I don't have any comments to offer for improvement. I did some research into the pope's refusal to elevate him to another see and asking him to give up his present one based on charges of simony. I did not know there were other views of this event and I think the fact that Ealdgyth presents all of these versions is a sign of a quality piece of scholarship. Nancy Heise    talk  16:44, 16 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.