Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hygeberht/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 SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011.

Hygeberht

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I'd like to introduce Hygeberht, the only Archbishop of Lichfield ever. He's a very obscure little guy, but he held an office that only existed during his tenure of it. We get papal intrigue, royal prestige-seeking, and wild accusations of ... well, you'll have to read the article to see! It's been copyedited by Malleus like four times, because Hygie-boy kept getting put off for other projects, as well as a wonderful review by Mike Christie. He's fairly light reading, nothing dense, and only one illustration. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments There are no issues with the links (external or dab) nor with redirects. The lone image also checks out as having an appropriate license status for use here.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this article a while ago and it's fine work. I have a minor comment or so, but I see nothing that should hinder promotion. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not crazy about the last couple of sentences in the lead. How about: "petitioned the pope to have Lichfield returned to a simple bishopric.  The pope agreed to do so in 803, by which time Hygeberht was no longer even considered a bishop: he is listed as an abbot at the council that oversaw the demotion of Lichfield in 803."
 * I know this is a sentence I wrote myself, but I think this needs fixing (sorry!): "Among Offa's motives may have been his dislike of Jaenberht, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of the men of Kent. A letter to the papacy written by Coenwulf, who succeeded Offa's son Ecgfrith to the Mercian throne, claimed that the idea derived from Offa's hatred of Jænberht and the Kentish people". The second sentence simply repeats the first with the source being Coenwulf.  Can this be compressed to: "A letter to the papacy written by Coenwulf, who succeeded Offa's son Ecgfrith to the Mercian throne, claimed that Offa's motives were his dislike of Jaenberht, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of the men of Kent."
 * "free it from ecclesiastical dependence on Canterbury, in the recently subjected Kentish kingdom": how about "free it from ecclesiastical dependence on Canterbury in the kingdom of Kent, which Offa had recently brought into subjection" (or "brought under Mercian control") -- readers unfamiliar with the period may not realize it was Offa who is the subject of "subjected".
 * Took your suggestions as above (I opted for Mercian control" rather than "brought into subjection") Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good; I restored a sentence at the end of the lead that I didn't mean to suggest should be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I looked over the only two things I feel comfortable doing (sources and files) and I have to say they pass the standards with flying colors. The article reads well but I can't comment on prose due to my dyslexia. Great job. --In actu (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support on citation quality and sourcing. From an n-dash perspective, does the date span in "Anglo-Saxon Church Councils c.650-c.850." require an n-dash (see, "Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England c. 500–1066"). Is this spacing correct on A. D., or could it be A.D.? "The Period of Mercian Rule in Kent, and a Charter of A. D. 811". DOI Works; I don't check plagiarism. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The dash script didn't insert a dash there, so I guess not. The A. D. spacing should be correct for that source (I have to admit it's a pretty obscure little journal, but it occasionally has little gems like this article) but it's also very old-fashioned. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support with comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jaenberht or Jænberht?
 * Fixed to the ligature. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "the recently subjected Kentish kingdom" - subjected to what/who?
 * Fixed per Mike's suggestion above (now reads "... which Offa had recently brought under Mercian control." ) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "to provide for poor people in Rome and to provide lights for St Peter's Basilica in Rome" - the "in Rome" seems a bit repetitive
 * removed second "in rome" Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For those of us who aren't knowledgeable in this area, you might need to clarify archiepiscopal versus archbishopric versus archdiocese, if these mean different things
 * They are all referring to the same thing - archiepiscopal is the adjectival form, the archdiocese refers to the actual territory controlled by an archbishop and is a synonym for archbishopric. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Does "affirmation of faith" refer to faith in the Catholic church or loyalty to Canterbury? If the former, I don't follow the logic of that being because of the elevation of Lichfield; if the latter, perhaps word differently?
 * The source states "profession of faith", I can switch to that but I was wary of too close paraphrasing here. it's not a profession of obedience (as these were required after the Conquest and were considered an innovation then...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Citations note Swanton as a translator and editor, References only as a translator - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support conditionally. Well done! An embellishment to the Project. Just a few things jumped off the page at me:
 * "Jænberht" is of course correct, but "Archæologia Cantiana" should be without the ligature (see WP:MOS; and for searchability).
 * The source has no space for "A.D." in "The Period of Mercian Rule in Kent, and a Charter of A. D. 811".
 * The source has no space after "c." in "Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England c. 500–1066".
 * Please check the source for "Anglo-Saxon Church Councils c.650-c.850". For the date range: spacing of all elements? en dash or hyphen? (Cited in many different ways.)
 * Period missing after initial in "Dugmore, C. W".
 * Latham is normally cited (correctly, I believe) without a colon after "Word-List", and with lower-case "from": "Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources".
 * Fix doubled period: "In Lawrence, C. H.."
 * N oetica Tea? 23:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The actual name of the journal is indeed "Archæologia Cantiana" and it should be cited as that, not under a different spelling.
 * Fixed.
 * Yes, the source does. There is a space equivalent to the "o" in "Conquest" which is directly above the "c. 500-1066" line on the title page. If needed, I can scan the title page to prove this.
 * This is correctly spaced as given on the title page. (missed this first time around) I assume that the slightly longer than an "h" is an endash, and have so changed it.
 * Fixed.
 * Latham's title page has the title in all capitals, all of equal height, making it difficult to decipher what was intended. Personally, I prefer the capital, as it makes it clearer that this is the start of the subtitle, but if it's a major issue, it can be changed.
 * This is an error in the cite template ... it places a period after the editor's name, thus doubling the period. I do not wish to remove the initial's period, lest the template change later to remove that extra period and the citation be off.
 * Thanks for the review, hope you enjoyed the article and learned something... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Some responses, Ealdgyth: N oetica Tea? 01:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The ligature "æ" is not orthographically significant for that Latin word, but a typographical choice that is subject to change. The publisher of the journal itself adopts the standard convention, which is to replace the ligature with "ae" in citation, especially on the web. See also our article Kent Archaeological Society, which has the ligature nowhere on the page. See also major university library catalogues. See also Google Scholar practice. See also WP:MOS.
 * I accept your word, of course, about "c. 500-1066". I was relying on the cover, where the space is lacking, and on the Amazon citation. But the decisive form to use is the form (if any) on the verso of the title page, right? Does that have the space?
 * I am not able to check my copy of Latham till tomorrow; but the vast majority of hits in Googlebooks have no colon, and lower-case "from" (which has not been interpreted as the start of a true subtitle). Note especially Mantello and Rigg's definitive guide.
 * As for the error in the cite template, that cannot be allowed to blemish the article as it appears to the reader, in a featured article. I suggest that you change your citation so that it appears correctly, and include a hidden note to warn subsequent editors not to alter it.
 * Finally, yes of course: I always learn from these things (as we all might ☺). It is a beautiful article, and I congratulate you on your fine work.


 * As for the Archæologica, quite honestly I much much prefer to go with the form used in the source I used, but if it's a major big deal, I'll not fight someone changing it. (Training as a historian makes me shudder at the thought of changing something like this... just .. ugh.) As an aside, the citation for it includes a link to the ISSN and this will take a person directly to WorldCat's holdings of this journal, obviating the need to type in the search term. (Besides, is it really that different than the requirement to insert en-dashes, which are also a typographical choice?) On the Kingship, the CIP data does indeed include the space. You are correct that there is no colon in the Latham, however, the "From..." section of the title is clearly a subtitle (it is in a smaller typeface than the main title). As for the cite template error, in the past, when citation templates have had issues at FAC, they have indeed been allowed to have their foibles. I hardly think that it blemishes the article for the author to be correctly listed, which it would not be if the name was changed to omit the last period. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Ealdgyth, I am at a loss on three points here:
 * The publisher itself and the huge majority of sources online change the ligature into "ae"; WP:MOS recommends dissolution of such ligatures. I have already said this is "not orthographically significant for that Latin word". If we are asked to spell "encyclopaedia" the British way, we are not required to say whether we are envisaging a ligature along the way! It is simply not a part of spelling, but a matter of typographic choice – which is in the hands of the publisher or the cataloguer (and the publisher is Wikipedia, in this case). Do you disagree? Very well, disagree.
 * As for Latham, I have now been able to check my copy. The words after "Word-List" are indeed in smaller capitals than the earlier words: on the dust-jacket and on the title page. But if we are to take that evidence seriously (and very literally literally, in accord with your approach to optional medieval ligatures) we would be compelled to reproduce all of the title in capitals! I don't understand your reasoning: the great majority of academic sources (including many fine medieval scholars and Latinists) and libraries list the work as I have suggested above, so it is not necessary for us to come up with our own aberrant interpretation from scratch. Perhaps we should think, finally, that the publisher (OUP) knows best.
 * For your strange insistence on constructing a reference so that the reader sees two periods after an initial, I am so completely at a loss that I will attempt no further comment.
 * I have twice congratulated you on the article. I have made sound points concerning the citations, based on common publishing standards and Wikipedia guidelines. And I have given my conditional support. I can do no more! The decision is not mine anyway. Do what you will. Good luck with your monumental efforts in producing fine articles.
 * N oetica Tea? 13:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – Excellent work all around on this article, which deserves the star.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.