Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hermeneutic style/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC).

Hermeneutic style

 * Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the elaborate style of Latin in Anglo-Saxon England. It has received a peer review and passed GA. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support, with a couple of suggestions.
 * I don't really like the end of the first section (the bit about the different meaning of the phrase). Besides being self-referential, it seems somewhat out of place at the end of a section, after hermeneutic style has already been established by the preceding text to have a certain meaning. Do you think it could be added as a footnote in the lede? If not, maybe you could put it at the beginning of that section instead of at the end.
 * I have put it as a note to the end of the definition section. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks just right this way, I think.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As a minor point, could you please change one or two uses of "the Continent" to "continental Europe" to help readers who might not be familiar with the other usage (just in case)?
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In England: "According to Scott Thompson Smith, "Æthelstan A"s charters..." The way the quotes are used here makes it a bit confusing and unclear whether or not it's meant to be possessive. I suggest "According to Scott Thompson Smith, the charters of "Æthelstan A" are..." to avoid confusion and quotation mark strangeness.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Other than those minor points, I can't find anything to criticize. You've done a great job on this topic, which I confess to having never heard of until reading your article.-RHM22 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. I will follow up your suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, everything looks good now. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK
 * All images are PD-old or PD-art/PD-old and have sufficient source information - OK.
 * File:Apuleuis.jpg - added some background information to image summary. - OK as illustration. His depiction differs vastly within Commons:Category:Apuleius, but this depiction has some source information to clarify the situation. GermanJoe (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much.

Comment
 * fixed some MOS:ENDASH issues in references, I have not checked in-text dashes and hyphens though.
 * "Lapidge 1993" - I'd put the reprint information within the full citation, it's a bit distracting in the reflist. Template:cite book has orig-year for such details (see template documentation for usage info). GermanJoe (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to deal with this. The book is a reprint of essays, and where I cite his view in the article as held in 1975 it is relevant that the essay was originally published then, but I also cite other essays not from 1975. I cannot see a field in the cite book template for a note saying that one chapter was originally published earlier. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just a suggestion, but I would personally just use the 1993 citation, since you mention explicitly both times it's cited that the opinions are from Lapidge's 1975 essay. Alternatively, if you have the 1975 work, add it separately to the bibliography. GermanJoe may have a better suggestion; I'm not known as an expert formatter by any means.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe has a good idea. I can't remember a case in the past, where "old" reprints and new research were cited from the same book. Noting the original article title (somewhere in the citation) might help to reduce this confusion, not sure. GermanJoe (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So each essay in the book is from a different time? If so, I see your options as follows: you cite the essay directly as originally published, or you include full bibliographic details for each essay - using either orig-year as GermanJoe suggests, or this method - or you combine the two and go with something of the form (original details. Reprinted in current details). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, is this an entire essay being reprinted or just someone quoting from an older essay?-RHM22 (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind; I found it on Google Books. See here. Everything is reprinted from other sources. Nikkimaria, can Dudley Miles use the same citations that are used in the acknowledgements section, to make it a bit simpler?-RHM22 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everyone's helpful comments. I have been looking at whether I have access to the original 1975 article in the journal Anglo-Saxon England, and so far as I can tell I do not, although I have only just got access to JSTOR and I am not yet familiar with it. I cite extensively from the paper, but I only mention the 1975 date twice where it is relevant. I have thought of putting an efn note with name= against each mention of the 1975 date with an explanation of the date discrepancy. Another alternative is to go to a library which has the original paper and photocopy it. Further comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like this specific article is not in JSTOR (but feel free to double-check) :/. The only journal entry for him in 1975 is "Some Remnants of Bede's Lost Liber Epigrammatum". GermanJoe (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After some testing this ref works for the situation: " " . Having this short ref, you can define a separate citation for the Lapidge 1975 article with all "old" biblio info (note: "sfnm" would work too, but doesn't allow flexible additional text between the 2 templates). GermanJoe (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Joe. Sorry about putting you to trouble but I think I have found a better solution. I have arranged for the original article to be emailed to me so that I can cite that directly. I can add a note to the 1975 source that it is reprinted in the 1993 book. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can cite the 1975 source directly, you don't need to mention the reprint (the original source is actually the "better", more authentic source for referencing). And no worries, I actually enjoy such technical challenges :). GermanJoe (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joe. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Refs now changed to 1975 source. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – I reviewed the article for GAN, and commented at the time that it seemed to me of FA standard. I still think so, and the additional images are an excellent bonus. Meets all FA criteria in my view. –  Tim riley  talk    11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. I read this through a couple of times when it was first nominated, and couldn't find anything to comment on then. I've now read it through again and came up empty-handed again. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Note -- correct me if I missed it but I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review - all OK
 * Consistent citations (fixed a few more MOS:ENDASH issues), full bibliographic details provided - OK.
 * Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Some minor cleanup points:
 * Can't comment about content reliability in details, but the used sources are all recent academic books and journals from historians and other topic experts - OK.
 * Approx. half the sources are based on Lapidge, but considering the article's scope and his apparent influence on this specific area of research this is to be expected - OK.
 * Adams - publisher location is discouraged (somewhere deep in the MOS), when the city is part of the publisher's name (check throughout)
 * I cannot see anything about this in WP:CITE and I think it is better to be consistent on what details are shown. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks a bit odd (Cambridge, Cambridge) close together, but if nobody has strong feelings about it, it should be OK as is. But I had to mention it in the review :). GJ


 * Anglo-Saxon England - is used several times, but with 3 different formats for publisher info.
 * GermanJoe I do not understand what you mean. The formats all look the same to me. Can you clarify? Note: Anglo-Saxon England is a journal, the title of Stenton's book and part of the title of the Wiley encyclopedia. They are all shown the same as far as I can see. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant the journal with ISSN 0263-6751 (assuming it is the same). It is used 5 times with different issues: twice without any publisher info and once without publisher location. You should use the same format for all 5 instances. GermanJoe (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joe. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopaedia - lists all main editors (4) on the cover. "et al." is probably not wrong, but I wonder if listing all 4 wouldn't be more appropriate? (optional)
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

GermanJoe (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks Joe. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All OK now (status updated), thanks for the quick fixes. GermanJoe (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose thanks for your edit. On changing "a considerable number of foreigners" to "many foreigners" at Æthelstan's court, I think this may exaggerate the number. As it is not known how many there were I have deleted the considerable number and changed it to "foreign scholars". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.