Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liber Eliensis/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 11:51, 1 June 2011.

Liber Eliensis

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is one of the more complete articles on this important if not very famous historical work. Begun as a compilation to help buttress the religious house's claims to property, it turned it something a bit more over the years. I believe I've found everything possible to add to this (except for where the Liber has been used as a source). It's had a very thorough GA review, a Peer Review by a complete non-medievalist (thanks Rod!) which helped muchly, and a copyedit by Malleus. Deacon's helped out with some pointers to things that I needed to cover. I present to you the Liber Eliensis, a composite work from the 12th century, which I began to help fill out the Nigel of Ely article, but eventually, like Topsy, it grew beyond its modest beginnings... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, none of the images in the article are from this century, or the last one for that matter, making PD status easy to determine. The image description pages all check out, and the captions all meet the criteria.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Image review:

I haven't done any spot checking because a) Ealdgyth's reputation doesn't warrant it and b) they're all books most of us are unlikely to own. The sources all check out as reliable based on the reputations of the publishers alone. Two quibbles: the Fairweather citation and second van Houts citation list the publisher as "Boydell", but the Paxton citation lists "Boydell Press". (The text of the article uses the latter as well.) The second is that when works are cited as a component of a book, the author of the overall work is listed in "First Last" rather than "Last, First" order except in the second van Houts citation. ("In Harper-Bill, Christopher and Elizabeth van Houts." instead of the expected "In Christopher Harper-Bill and Elizabeth van Houts.")  Imzadi 1979   →   16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Source review


 * thanks for the review. I've corrected those issues, I hope. There are previews available for Fairweather, Grandsen, Owen, and Companion to the Anglo-Norman World, if anyone wants those links. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Both ELs and dabs are fine.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Links

Ok, I'm hardly an historian, but at heart I am an Anglophile. In general, given my lay background, I've found the article to be easy to digest and well written. Overall, the article reads and flows well to me, and so I'd be happy to support. I've left a few comments about the prose on the the talk page.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose
 * Support: Based on my reviews, there's only one sentence that may or may not be an issue, and I have every confidence that this minor quibble can either be fixed or safely ignored.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - although I am disappointed that Ealdgyth can't read minds, the article itself is definitely FA-quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Leaning support with comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "has been identified with an official of the monastery"? That seems quite vague
 * I'm confused by why you find this vague. It's deliberately vague because there is not a specific statement that the Richard possibly may have been an author MAY have been the same Richard who was an official in the monastery. It's a shortened description of the longer discussion in the body. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's just the wording that's confusing me a bit - "has been identified with" is not a phrase I'm familiar with. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Another theme is the miracles worked by the monastery's patron saint, Æthelthryth, and the gifts of land to Ely." - presumably those are two different themes?
 * I think what you're wanting is "Other themes are the miracles worked by the monastery's patron saint, Æthelthryth and the gifts of land to Ely." now? You were being a bit TOO short and concise in your review here.. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "the abbey-turned-cathedral church of Ely Abbey" - phrasing
 * But the abbey did get turned into a cathedral church ... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a) the phrase refers to an abbey that used to be an abbey but was then a cathedral church, b) according to the "letter" of MOS:DASH the second hyphen should be a dash, but doing that would make things even more confusing IMO. Can this be phrased differently? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Went with the wordier "The Liber Eliensis was written Ely Abbey, which later became Ely Cathedral when it was converted into a bishopric in 1109." ... that work? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Elisabeth van Houts feels...van Houts felt" - why the change?
 * Usual to mention the full name on first mention and the last name only later. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Me being too concise again - I wondered why the tense change from "feels" to "felt". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Fixed. I obviously need to sign up for a "reviewer mind-reading course." Will try to squeeze that in soon. (grins) Anyway, this got changed as a side-product of removing the "feels" below. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "His basis for this belief was internal" - this will likely confuse non-scholars
 * Is "His basis for this belief came from the contents of the work..." better? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "inclines toward the belief that" is rather wordy
 * Looks like Malleus got this one earlier. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikilink "see"?
 * Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "The northern histories produced foundation stories of the various Cistercian houses in the north, along with other works" - the northern histories produced other works?
 * Blech, that was bad. Let's try "The northern histories record the foundation stories of the various Cistercian houses in the north, along with other information relating to those houses."? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Lesser used sources" -> "Lesser-used sources"
 * Fixed. (Malleus beat me to it) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "a number of saints' lives, including some written by" - the Vita explanatory text included in the next paragraph would help here
 * Fixed by linking Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why the double link to hagiography?
 * Was requested by an earlier reviewer. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * When were the Danish invasions?
 * Added dates for that and for Edgar's reign. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "20 and 30 miles" - do you mean 20 to 30?
 * Malleus got that. (I double checked with the source that there wasn't some specific reason I chose "and" originally, and there wasn't.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Boydell or Boydell Press?
 * Got that earlier Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fairweather, Janet (trans.), ed (2005). Liber Eliensis. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell. ISBN 978-1-84383-015-3." vs "Fairweather, Janet (2005). "Introduction". In Fairweather, Janet (trans.). Liber Eliensis. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press. pp. xiii–xliv. ISBN 978-1-84383-015-3."? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed.


 * Compare shortened vs regular title for Paxton
 * Blech! Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Blackwell Encyclopedia or Encyclopaedia?
 * Encyclopaedia - fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * FN 38: why include publisher not work here?
 * Probably because I only later included the work in the reference - fixed now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * FN 46
 * No page numbers because I'm citing the whole work as existing (it's citing "Janet Fairweather has produced a recent English translation of the Latin, published in 2005 by the Boydell Press." where just citing the entire thing is appropriate) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So a translation by Fairweather is cited to Fairwether...? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed now... (why is it always the "fine print" that bites my butt?) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in how multiple authors/editors are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * think we got all these to be last name first. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "In Lapidge, Michael; Blair, John; Keynes, Simon; Scragg, Donald." vs " In Lapidge, Michael; Godden, Malcolm; and Keynes, Simon." Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And thanks for the review, as always. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: the usual high standard; comprehensive and well-sourced. Ucucha 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Comments
 * Second paragraph of lead contains some rather short, choppy sentences. Also, "It is a typical example of a type" may be better as a "It is a typical example of a kind" or something similar to avoid the repetition.
 * Malleus copyedited on this... see how it appears, and I/we can always take another stab at it. We aim to please here! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't like the frequent use of "feels" in "Background and authorship"; it suggests that the historians are writing down whatever they feel like, rather than engaging in serious research.
 * Every single "feel" (I really did use a lot of them, wow!) is gone, replaced with more sober, scholarly words. (Even though, in the end, it boils down to what they all "feel"...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Janet Fairweather, a classicist and a recent translator of the Liber, suggests that it may be entirely anonymous"—not sure what this means. As I understand it, the work is certainly anonymous in the sense that it doesn't say who wrote it, but that doesn't change the fact that someone must have written it.
 * Let's try "Janet Fairweather, a classicist and a recent translator of the Liber, suggests that it may have been written by someone other than the traditional candidates."? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "a history of the see of Bath and Wells"—why is there no link?
 * Per above, linked. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I was unclear here—this entry is in the midst of a series of works that have links; why is the name of this history not linked? Ucucha 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because my source doesn't name it (I'm assuming this work didn't survive). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "The work describes the area around the abbey for 20 – as being filled with unburied corpses"—are you sure the miles in use then were the same as the mile we use now?
 * I didn't originally have a conversion listed, but Imzadi wanted one in the review above. As the source for this states plain "miles" I'm going to go with they converted it. In the end, if they used a roman mile, it's not so far off as far as guesstimates anyway. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Ucucha 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is judicial liberty piped to negative liberty, a seemingly unrelated philosophical concept?
 * Because someone linked it besides me. Link removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there something else to link it to? It's not a well-known concept, and a blue link (or inline explanation) would be helpful. Ucucha 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do an inline explanation, we seem to lack an article that would explain it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Added. And I'm not going to try to explain what the royal rights were in a Hundred (county subdivision) - that's an article that'd take a LONG time to write. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reference to Blake 1962 (first in "References") looks odd, with Blake given as both author and editor.
 * See if my change works for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha 08:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the review... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

remarks needs legacy or impact section to show why it's importantrm2dance (talk)
 * Disagree, along with all the other reviewers who have responded to the same comment in other reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be the "influence" section. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - maybe the earlier comments took care of any outstanding issues, or I've read too many articles recently, but I can't even find a nit-pick after reading through twice. Nice work; interesting read. Thanks for writing this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 *  Comments  Nice work, but I have some nitpicks  Jimfbleak  -    talk to me?  15:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * complete manuscripts of the work are complemented by a number of partial manuscripts—Is it possible to avoid the repetition of "manuscripts"?
 * Not really, unfortunately. There isn't a different correct word that can be used. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * who reigned from 1109 to 1133 — I know they were princes of the church, but is "reigned" correct?
 * Yeah, it correct, but changed to "in office" instead. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The historian Antonia Gransden is inclined to believe that the work is by Richard... Blake, however, thinks that Richard was the author —: Why "however" if they are saying the same? Or should one of the Dicks be a Tom?
 * Nah, it was trying to highlight that Blake isn't convinced totally, but I've removed the "however" to make things clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The northern histories record—what northern histories, none listed are north of Peterborough?
 * I've changed the first sentence of this paragraph to "The Liber is one of a number of monastic histories written during the middle and later 12th century, when a number of monasteries in both northern and southern England produced works devoted to recording the histories of their religious houses and local areas." To make it clear there are histories both north and south (and no, Grandsen doesn't enumerate the northern ones by name... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * the foundation stories of the various Cistercian houses in the north... — Why only Cistercian?
 * Because that's what Grandsen says - she doesn't mention others. I wanted to make sure it was clear that we weren't discussing other northern houses than Cistercian. (If I had to guess, it's because there are very few other northern houses BUT Cistercian, but she doesn't make this point so I can't either...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * King Cnut visiting the monastery and singing an Anglo-Saxon song—I thought he was a Dane?
 * He was. But the Liber records this episode. He likely was biligual (or however you spell that silly word). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They would have increased the desire of others to be buried there... In addition, each new burial of a notable bishop or layman would increase the likelihood that others would wish to be buried at the monastery—isn't this repeating the same point?
 * Yes, it is. (Granted, part of teaching is repetition, but .. ) I've removed the sentence starting "In addition...". Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * judicial liberty—red-linked and unexplained. The rest of the sentence has a different ref, so presumably not an explanation
 * It is the explanation, but it's such a fundamental concept in medieval studies that I had to go to a different source for a source for the explanation. No. I'm not writing the article explaining it, because quite honestly it's not my specialty and I hate legal history. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * US states—Could these be written in full in the references? We poor limeys don't necessarily know if MA is Maine, Maryland or Massachusetts.
 * Why? You've never objected before that they weren't. I'd be more inclined to just remove the publication location information totally, honestly. The publisher is the most important bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its now pipelinked. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support and one follow-up I'm happy with responses except last. The fact that I haven't raised the point before doesn't make it invalid. Most states are obvious (TX, NY) or can be guessed from the city. Malden MA could be in any state beginning with Ma as far as I know.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.