Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hemming's Cartulary/archive1


 * 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 Karanacs 14:11, 29 July 2010.

Hemming's Cartulary

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk, Cavila - Talk, Deacon of Pndapetzim - Talk 16:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I'm back? No, really, it's been through a peer review, been picked apart by all three of us on Wikipedia who have any interest in the subject, had a rigorous copyedit by Malleus, and I think it's as ready as it will ever be. No, it's not a bishop, nor a horse. It's a ... dry as dust collection of land deeds from the 10th and 11th century! Certainly one of the most exciting topics to ever grace FAC, I'm sure. Although it's dull as dishwater to read, it's a very important source of historical knowledge, and one of the more important sources of information on later Anglo-Saxon England and early Norman England. I present, Hemming's Cartulary, which has survived fire, the dissoultion of its monastery and almost a thousand years to end up at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is a co-nom with User:Cavila and User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, since I suck at that sort of thing, can someone fix the nom for me? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Ucucha 16:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: a dab link to Leofric, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments: all minor.
 * The first sentence reads rather convoluted. Perhaps remove "in medieval England", which is redundant.
 * removed Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The first sentence says it is a cartulary, the second it comprises two cartularies. I suppose two cartularies together can be a single cartulary, but it still reads odd and is probably better avoided.
 * Not sure how to word this better... a cartulary doesn't have to be composed all at one time, they were often made over time as monks copied new charters/deeds into an already existing cartulary, so it actually makes sense technically. Suggestions on how best to convey this are welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "The scribal hands used are smaller"—smaller than what?
 * Legacy of an earlier version, now says (correctly) "used are small" (this bit was earlier comparing to the hands in the later sections of the work, which are bigger.. the article's been reorganized a few times...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead, but not the body, says the new edition is forthcoming as of 2009.
 * added "as of 2010" in the body and corrected the lead to 2010. Eventually it'll come out (I may have to update this date a few more times before it finally comes out...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Just a couple of quick questions:-
 * Is a fee required for ODNB? I get it for nothing from my local library
 * For those outside the UK, yes, it is. I pay for a yearly subscription to it in the States.

Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even for those in the UK, unless your library subscribes you have to pay. And to access it online from home, you have to be a member of a subscribing library. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is Anglo-Norman Studies (publisher, Ann Williams 1997) the name of a journal?
 * It is a yearly conference publication. Some papers are read at the conference, others are only presented in the volume. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources look fine, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. A very interesting read. There was a sentence I was unsure of: "Another historian, V. H. Galbraith, suggests that instead of being compiled in Wulfstan's episcopate, it was created during the episcopate of Ealdwulf, who was Wulfstan's predecessor in both sees and also held them concurrently." I lost track of what was held concurrently, so I removed that last bit. My apologies if it was an important bit! :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, not really important, it's probalby me being entirely too verbose. Thanks for the support. (I can't believe you found it interesting... are you sure you don't wanna work on medieval bishops?) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I really did find it interesting. I love reading about medieval England. :) Is it just my browser, or is the image not rendering? I can only see the file name. I tried fiddling around with different ways of writing it, and I checked that it was in the form the template recommends, but I still can't get it to display.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's your browser. I tested on my main computer (Mac with Safari) and also checked with my PC in both Firefox and IE, and the photo displayed all three places. Heck, I even checked using my iPad, which also displayed fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, must be me. I've been noticing a few odd things the last couple of days, so I probably need to update my browser or something. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: An excellent article, well written and very detailed and informative. Just a few minor points:
 * In the lead, "losses of property by the church of Worcester" and "losses suffered by Worcester" occur very close together in the 2 paragraphs. Maybe reword one of them?
 * Reworded (using "deprivation" in place of one of the losses) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "British Library MS Add 46204 may also contain charters collected as part of Hemming's work, as they have been identified by some scholars as having been produced during Hemming's lifetime.[4] Others identify them as a copy of the Liber Wigorniensis however." I'm afraid this loses me a bit. Are they charters which were part of the Cartulary but separated at some point, or just others from the same time period?
 * It's really not known if these other charters ever were in the cartulary, if they were collected together and meant to be in the cartulary but just didn't make it, or if they are later copies of things that were once IN the cartulary and now aren't, or if some other reason exists. We're a bit hampered by the fact that no modern edition of the cartulary has yet been produced, so we're still working off Hearne's edition of 1723, which is quite obviously seriously out of date. While some scholars have studied the manuscript, etc, these studies are somewhat fragmented because they are mainly journal articles, not a full length treatment that you'd expect from a new scholarly edition of the work. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgive my ignorance, but when it says "each leaf was mounted separately", what were they mounted on?
 * "The first part of the work is an early 11th-century collection of earlier charters..." Early and earlier in same sentence. Could it be rephrased?
 * Malleus got this one. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Minor point, but when did Finberg call the first section the Liber Wigorniensis (i.e. in what year)?
 * 1961, and it's now added in. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "(not the same as the later Wulfstan)" Er... What other Wulfstan? There are too many of them, anyway! I presume it is St Wulfstan, but I think it needs spelling out a little, even if it is just linking St Wulfstan here, rather than the next section.
 * I've tried to clarify this, let me know if this helped? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is about as clear as it can get; it sounds convoluted, but I don't think that can be helped.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "The historian Julia Barrow believes that the inspiration for the work was the creation of the Domesday Book in 1086": How common would knowledge of the Domesday book have been? Would it been familiar enough to inspire the monks to do something similar?
 * On second thoughts, this may have been answered in the next paragraph.


 * "Julia Barrow has identified" and "Barrow identifies" in consecutive sentences.
 * Barrow now "determines" instead of that second identify. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the second paragraph of the "Liber Wigorniensis" section, there is an unattributed quote which I assume comes from Donald Bullough, who is the last person mentioned and is referenced after the next sentence. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support comments  - nice work, couple of queries I'll jot below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 *  ... usually for three lives - does this mean 'lifespans' like 'generations'?
 * I've changed it to lifespans - although in this case technically it is indeed lives - three lives of the tennants, so if a father took out the lease, lived 10 years after the lease, died, his heir would inherit and then the heir's heir would inherit. It wouldn't matter how long each heir held the lease, that would count as a life. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should domus be linked? A specific term (?)
 * Since in this case, domus is in a quotation, I've not linked it as I believe the MOS says not to link in quotations (If I'm wrong, I won't be surprised). Ealdgyth - Talk 11:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * point taken. no worries. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.