Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Cuthbert Gospel/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 GrahamColm 15:00, 17 March 2012.

St Cuthbert Gospel

 * Nominator(s): Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is "the earliest surviving intact European book and one of the world’s most significant books", according to the British Library, who are just about to buy it for £9m ($14M), having had it on loan and on display for over 30 years. In particular it is the oldest European binding still in place. Its 1300 years of history is unusually well-recorded, and long and interesting, sometimes verging on the wierd, and the book has an unusually large amount of scholarship on it. I have had some help from the BL in doing the article. It's not a Wiki-cup entry. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments Support by Redtigerxyz
 * Images
 * File:St Cuthbert Gospel - f.1.jpg: Is tagging with PD-art right? Certainly not a piece of art
 * You don't think calligraphy is art? I wouldn't agree, nor would the various authorities cited, for example in the text section. We have hundreds or thousands of images of calligraphy using art tags. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As per Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright, you need to crop it as it contains 3D elements and PD-art can be used for only 2D work. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It could use the same tag as the front cover one; that Commons link is dead btw. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Corrected Link. Missed a commons. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Excluding you & me, that section is now 3:1 saying the pic is ok. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg: Irreplaceable?? File:Britannica Bookbinding - St. Cuthbert's Gospels.jpg may serve the purpose.
 * Hardly - it's very fuzzy and in black and white, and you can't see the detail discussed, nor of course the colour. I hope the BL will fully release the pic on a CC license in due course - they are certainly keen for us to use it. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let someone else too take a look. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this image is necessary and irreplaceable because it shows the coloring and size of the book. The Britannica shows a book that could be any color and any size, fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * File:StonyhurstGospelText.jpg is missing source.
 * Hmm I didn't upload this, & it's a scan from some book, but which will be hard to say. I have emailed the original uploader, though he is no longer active on WP. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He's pretty sure it's Brown 1967, which reproduces all pages & he had a scan of. I've read most of the literature & never seen it elsewhere. I'll add to file. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Prose
 * "Cuthbert's death in 687" in lead. The lead just said 2 lines ago about the date 687. Repetition.
 * Done Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "It presumably remained in the coffin through its travels after 875, forced by Viking invasions, and was found inside and removed in 1104 when the burial, by then in Durham Cathedral, was once again moved within the building." Confused??? Split
 * Split & rewritten Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * " Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Abbey,.." and "the monastery of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow": IMO, one term can be used throughout.
 * Then the 2nd one becomes "It was written at the Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Abbey during the abbacy of Ceolfrith" where the repetition of "abbey/abbacy" is clunky. I think it's probably no bad thing to make clear that abbeys are monasteries, which perhaps one can't expect all readers to be sure of. All subsequent mentions just say "Monkwearmouth-Jarrow". Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:OVERLINK
 * Morgan Library, Book of Kells linked twice in 1 section
 * Done; don't think there are more like that. A few links a long way apart are deliberately repeated, which is ok. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Anglo-Saxon_cross" is linked twice in Binding. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

-- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Binding: "Although the binding ...." got lost in middle. Split
 * Done Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Who is Roger Powell? Explain with short summary why his views are notable
 * He gets a pretty full write-up later, at the end of the history, & has a linked biography, which mentions his work on this. I've added "the bookbinder" here. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * " It has been suggested that in the St Cuthbert Gospel ... caution by other scholars"
 * Both are in the note, which is enough. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, attribution is needed in text. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This would be too long by the time you have both sides. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Added. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO, "Boisil's book" and "Appeal" should be merged into history.
 * I'll think about that. Boisil is a bit awkward because really he is something of a red herring, but his missing book is the alternative that may be referred to in various sources, if this one is not meant. I thought it was too messy to go into the history, which is pretty long anyway. I would have expected, and may yet get, suggestions to split up the big sections rather than do further merges. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, "Appeal" now merged. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Boisil section also merged to "History", with a little clarification added. Works well actually. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I could not find details like number of pages and their conservation status. I have not read the article thoroughly and may have missed it. But if they exist, such details should be close to the "Binding" section, which also deals with the description of the gospel book.
 * They are both there. The number of pages is in the lead & the rest in the "Text" section, which is where the text is described. The "Binding" section only covers the binding, and is long enough already. The current condition is covered in the "Binding" section and at the end of the "History", which seems appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting merging, but just that the sections "Binding" and "Text" are in sequence. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 05:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The book is not really important as a text, but the binding is very important. I've put the sections in the sequence that I think reflects their significance. In fact both the number of pages & the overall condition (very good) are in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The text is a very good and careful copy" Says who??? This is a view, not a fact
 * Says Brown, and also other experts, as referenced. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So it is an universal view (no expert disagrees), the no attribution is needed in text. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The book begins with 19 lines on a page, but at f42 changes to 20 lines per page" f42 seems to be a page. How are the pages numbered?-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As is usual with manuscripts, the numbering is by folios, denoted by "f" then Recto and verso, which is linked in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've spelt out folio here, and linked it again. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think these should all be ok now. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Looks good. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the lede by Aa77zz
 * The sentence beginning "Although it was long regarded as Cuthbert's personal copy of the Gospel..." is too long for the lead and should be split. Done Jb
 * Why is the citation to Skemer required in the lede? Removed Jb
 * "one of the smallest surviving Anglo-Saxon manuscripts." - there is ambiguity here as 'Anglo-Saxon' can be the language (See footnote 1 at Old English). Perhaps "smallest surviving manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon period."
 * I think this is ok. There is a link to Anglo-Saxons, & I've added "in Latin" just after. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The lede contains "a gift from Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Abbey, where it was written," and "It was written at the monastery of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow during the abbacy". I'm not very sure about this but would it be better to omit the first "where it was written"?
 * Second sentence merged/removed. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Aa77zz (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Support by Truthkeeper88 - first, lovely article, very important, and nicely done. I think the "Binding" section is too stuffed - have you considered separating into subsections? I haven't read it closely but am thinking something along the lines, maybe, of design and color, construction, bla bla. Will get back to it later. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes, I've thought of that & it may well be best. After an introductory section, one the decoration of the covers - or one on the front, one on the back - then one on the construction. I'd have to rearrange a bit. I'll ponder further. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, done a simple one. I may tinker further, but I think it's an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, easier to read now. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding very little to nit-pick - only two comments below:
 * This sentence lost me: "The lines forming the interlace patterns are coloured in the dark blue/black and the bright yellow, but differently, as the yellow in the lower panel colours the left half of the design, but the upper panel begins at the (deviant) left in the dark colour, then switches to yellow once the pattern changes to that used for the rest of the panels, continuing in yellow until the central point, then changing to the dark colour for the right hand side of the design." > Maybe split or something?
 * Split into 3, but it needs to be read in conjunction with photo (in colour). Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Unsupported" > from my reading of it, it refers to the spine. I.e the manner in which the boards & pages were attached, but I'm thinking I might be wrong. I'm a slightly confused here. Do the horizontal cords across the spine attach the boards to the spine, and is the coptic stitching used to attach the leaves together? If so, I'm not sure that's made clear.
 * Pretty much. Coptic stitching uses small threads both to attach the leaves together and to attach them to the boards. Normal binding uses thread for the former and thicker cord for the latter, with the thread knotted onto the cord. I've added a sentence, but I don't think stitching is ever easy to understand in words, for non-sewers, and we don't seem to have really helpful photos. Somewhere there'll be a video which it might be worth linking to. I may restructure the whole thing later. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rejigged a bit; I hope clearer. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it is clearer. I think I may have misread as well. It's an interesting technique. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've moved to support but would like to read it again, so might come back with another comment or two, but essentially, as far as I'm concerned this meets the criteria. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1: This is an outstanding, scholarly piece of work. For once, I am fairly familiar with the period and topic so I can vouch for comprehensiveness and the sourcing looks good. I've quite a list of nit-picks, with which you are free to argue, but nothing major. I look forward to supporting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be worth saying in the lead how it became known as the Stonyhurst Gospel. - I would if it were the main name now, but as it is I'm not sure this is needed. I'll think. Jb - Now added Jb
 * One or two arguable instances in the lead of slight POV phrasing: "finely decorated leather binding", "outstanding condition". But not a big deal if you disagree.
 * Really I think these are ok, and supported by the sources. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "where it was written": Suggests authorship. Created? Copied? - "scribed" seems a bit poncey to me, and this does allow for the possibility, mentioned later on, that the binding was in fact added at Lindisafarne. "Copied" is possible. Jb
 * "It presumably remained in the coffin through its long travels after 875": Not too sure about presumably which suggests editorial judgement. Maybe "probably" or similar? - I'd rather stick with "presumably", which better reflects the arguments for this, which all sources agree with but rests on a number of presumptions, as to when and why the book might have been in the coffin since 698, and to it not being added on any of the numerous other occasions the coffin was probably opened, sometimes to pop other stuff in, as in 930 (see the article on the coffin). All we can be pretty sure of is that it was there in 1104, in pretty good condition. Jb
 * "when the burial was once again moved within the cathedral": I don't think you can really move a burial.
 * I think you can - see a google search. An alternative would be "shrine", which it certainly was by then, but that is less clear. There seem to have been 3 layers of coffin by this stage, so I don't just want to say "coffin". Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "and important visitors were able to wear the book in a leather bag around their necks": Maybe include why they might do so, or it looks a little odd until you read the whole article
 * - It's "It was then kept there with other relics, and important visitors ..." - doesn't that cover it for the lead? Jb
 * I'm not sure that this really covers why they would feel the need to wear it. That would be the obvious question, and maybe a mention of the "charm" aspect is not too much for the lead? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It being worn was nothing to do with it being a charm or amulet, but to do with being regarded as a relic of Cuthbert. I'm not sure how to explain that quickly in the lead, and maybe more needs to be explained lower down. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll leave this one to you. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * More now added on this, from a new source, in the "context" section. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "It is now on long-term loan to the British Library, catalogued as Loan 74" It is worth adding to the lead who owns it now. (Or who owned it if the library succeed in buying it) - Added. I think ok for now; it will all need rewriting in 5 weeks or so, when the number changes etc. Jb
 * Just a thought: Is it absolutely certain that the binding is original, and not a (very) early addition? - Pretty much; that possibility is not even discussed by any of the sources, except that the MS might have been delivered unbound from M-Jarrow & bound at Lindifarne (as mentioned). Both the binding technique and the decoration fit better, as far as can be told, with the date of the text than later. Jb
 * "which should be understood as representing a vine": Slightly cumbersome. Why not just "which represents a vine"?
 * - I'd prefer to be tentative; in fact Brown I think entirely avoids mentioning "vine", though Mynors (in Battiscombe) and Powell use it without demur. Jb
 * I'm fine with tentativeness (if that is a word!), but "should be understood as" is fairly clunky prose and has a hint of editorialising. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, removed. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "It has been suggested that in the St Cuthbert Gospel this design represents Christ (as the central bud) and the Four Evangelists as the grapes": Who has suggested? - Van Regemorter, as the note says. Jb - She's now added to the text Jb
 * I thought that external links were not allowed in the main text, but there is a link to the bible reference. - They are one of the types allowed. Jb
 * "The combination of different types of ornament within a panelled framework is highly typical of Nothumbrian art, above all the Lindisfarne Gospels.": I'm not sure how this relates to the plant motif discussed in the rest of the paragraph. Though it's possible I'm being dim.
 * The previous two sentences discuss the combination of classically-inspired plant motifs with interlace, as on the cover, in crosses and the portable altar, & this continues that, bringing in the framed compartments. The combination of classical/Mediterranean and Germanic/Celtic decorative elements together is the great characteristic of Insular art, and is what makes it a crucial forerunner of and influence on later medieval art. This is just touching on a huge subject, but maybe I need to add a little. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I'll leave this one to you as I've just got the point (yes, I was being dim) but maybe a little more would make it clearer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The stitching of the pages uses "Coptic sewing", "flexible unsupported sewing (produced by two needles and thread looping round one another in a figure-of-eight sewing pattern)"" Requires In-text attribution.
 * - I've clarified which Brown is quoted. If you mean the author should be mentioned in the text, I really can't see why, as this is merely a usefully snappy & simple phrasing of a standard piece of knowledge many of the other sources take longer to say, describing "kettle stitches" and the like. Touched this passage up a little. Jb
 * Personally, I've no great issue with this, but it is part of MoS and should be done in FAs: see MOS:Quote. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That says "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named", but none of these are full sentences. This goes for the others below. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "the closest resemblance is to an even smaller Irish pocket gospels from some fifty years later": Although you are almost certainly right, the clash of "an" with "gospels" jars slightly for the reader. - Yes; went to "gospel book" Jb
 * Not sure I see the need to discuss "supported" binding at such length, when this binding was "unsupported".
 * - The easiest way to explain what "unsupported" means is by explaining what "supported" means, and in the process describing how almost all Western books from shortly after this were probably made with supported bindings, hence the significance of it being unsupported. Or so it seems to me. Jb
 * Happy to go with your view on this one, unless others see it as a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The boards of the covers are now thought to be birch, not limewood as once though": Repetition of thought. Also, who is thinking? Historians? Scientists? Art historians? - gone to "... birch, rather than limewood as previously assumed..." Jb
 * ""imitate very closely the best Italian manuscripts of about the sixth century"" Attribution?
 * - er, the reference immediately after Jb
 * As above, MOS:Quote, I'm afraid. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "which has always been greatly admired": By historians? Contemporaries? Art critics? (This is addressed in a later section, but should be explained here)
 * All of those, and also scholars of biblical texts (with paleographers, the only people who actually read such books right through, and appreciate their legibility), and calligraphers. Maybe if I just add "for their calligraphy"? Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "who may not all have developed at the same pace": Developed in what sense?
 * - In terms of changes in the style, broken down into changes to the formation of individual letters and other aspects; very technical stuff we don't want to go into here I think - this is paleography-lite, though as a specialist Brown is as happy as a pig in mud. Jb
 * Could your answer here be incorporated in the text; i.e. "developed their style"? Not a big issue if you don't like it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Should also be clearer from the rewrite covered below. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Second paragraph of Dating, in particular with reference to the Codex Amiatinus, does not seem directly relevant. Why do we need such detail about a different work. It is not immediately obvious.
 * Rewritten, which I hope clarifies that the Codex Amiatinus provides pretty much the only firm date in the sequence, at 716, so underpinning all the paleological argument for dating. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "by coincidence now bound up with the famous Utrecht Psalter" The general reader will not think it is famous. Also, why does this "coincidence" need to be pointed out? And is the "coincidence" relevant to the article, as the Psalter has not been mentioned until this point?
 * It does at least save having to identify the MS by more cumbersome means, and then having people who check think - "oh, he's made a mistake, that's the Utrecht Psalter"! I don't think there is anything wrong with telling people who don't know it is famous that it is - if everybody could be expected to know that there would be no point & it would just be bathetic, like "famous Taj Mahal".  It clearly is famous as manuscripts go.  It is essentially a coincidence, though an interesting one in various ways, showing the relatively small number of very early manuscripts, and the efforts made to preserve them from an early date, not that I've checked if we know when they were first united, which we probably don't - the current binding was added by Cotton. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to go with your opinion here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Cuthbert was an Anglo-Saxon, perhaps of a noble family, born in the Kingdom of Northumbria in the mid-630s, some ten years after the conversion of King Oswald to Christianity in 627, which was slowly followed by the rest of his people": The last clause, "which was slowly followed by the rest of his people" looks like it refers to Cuthbert, but must refer to the conversion. Perhaps this could be rephrased?
 * I don't really see how "which was" could refer to Cuthbert. I've added "that of" after "followed by" - does that help? Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "when his remains were moved to behind the altar to reflect his recognition, in the days before a formal process of canonization, as a saint": Maybe just "moved behind"? - Hmm, that makes it sound as if they were tidying him away, somehow, when the reverse was the case. Jb
 * "He has been described as "perhaps the most popular saint in England prior to the death of Thomas Becket in 1170."" Who described him?
 * - well Marner, as cited, but other sources could be. I don't like attributing what are fairly standard assertions in the text; then people want you to add who they are and why we should credit their statement. Jb
 * That damned MOS:Quote again, I'm afraid. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "No doubt these and other relics were reverently packaged in cloth and labelled, as more recent relics are.": Is this in the cited source? It looks a little like editorial voice, so a citation for this sentence may be helpful.
 * I think this is ok. There is no actual record, apart from the much later Symeon of Durham, of the arrangements in 875, but Reginald's account of the 1104 opening mentions wrappers or wrappings, partly decayed, for the other relics, and the anonymous account mentions a linen sack apparently containing all the non-Cuthbert bones, which they had no difficulty telling apart, so presumably they were individually packaged. Cuthbert himself was swathed in layers and layers of cloth, on which there is great detail in Battiscombe, from 1104, 1827 and 1899, though the thinner cloths were mostly disintegrated by the 19th century, and no remains seem to have been kept.  Some of the heavier Byzantine silks still survive at Durham. I wanted to avoid the impression that they had a box full of loose bones, which they certainly did not. They also took two later bishops with them, who were still there in 1104, when according to Reginald all the bones except Oswald's head was removed. Maybe I should just remove the "no doubt". Johnbod (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "No doubt" cut. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "the predecessor of the present great Durham Cathedral": Is "great" necessary here?
 * - I don't think this is unduly peacocky; can be referenced if needed. Jb
 * To be honest, I think it could be taken out as it is a little peacocky, and suggests an editorial comment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed, somewhat grudgingly. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ""written in a modest book-hand apparently of the later twelfth century"" Attribution?
 * - Brown, per the reference 8 words later. Jb
 * MOS:Quote again, I'm afraid. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Milner thought that "the binding seems to be of the time of Queen Elizabeth"!" I'm not sure the exclamation mark is encyclopaedic.
 * It is rather a jaw-dropper, and I wanted to convey that. I think a review of Battiscombe called it "astonishingly amateurish" or something - it's the interlace that is really un-Elizabethan. I've added a bit to balance it, as on the text his account was pretty good for the period. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not personally convinced that there should be an exclamation mark, no matter how ludicrous the opinion was! --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "This seems to have been done hastily, as most left offsets on the opposite page from the pages being closed before the ink was dry.": This reads a little clumsily; I initially read it as "left offsets" meaning opposite of "right", rather than "leaving". Also, repetition of pages.
 * - Gone to "...as most left offset marks on the opposite pages from the book being closed before the ink was dry." Jb
 * Sounds good, but I can't see this in the text! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No indeed, I forgot to save it. Done now - I hope there was nothing else in that edit. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

--Sarastro1 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "This seems to indicate that the book was used at least once as the gospel book for a Mass for the Dead, perhaps on the occasion of Cuthbert's elevation in 698." Is this cited? The next ref refers to a specific page, which makes this seem to be slightly OR. - This is strictly following Brown; two pages are cited in fact, though I don't see why more than one would needed to say it. Jb
 * The description in the text of the illustration of Folio 27r may be better placed in the caption of the image. - That would make a very long caption, & the picture itself may be "threatened" - see above. The point is not just incidental as it bears on the possibility that it was used for the mass at his elevation in 698.  Jb
 * The section on "Boisil's book": Is this making the point that this book has been confused with the Cuthbert Gospel? I'm not too sure I see the point of including this here otherwise. - This section has been merged to "History - Durham" and I hope clarified, while you were writing these. Boisil's book has been something of a red herring in the understanding of the St C Gospel, ever since Flambard in 1104, but Brown seems finally to have eliminated it. Jb
 * "and all the examples known to Brown were of John": Presumably Brown the historian mentioned earlier, but maybe make it explicit. - "Julian" added Jb
 * Thanks for these - working through them. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where I've struck, my comment has either been addressed or I am happy with the explanation/reasoning. However, the attribution points are about MoS. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Provisional support : I am happy to support this excellent article as it stands as it almost certainly meets the criteria. I am keeping the support provisional for now simply so that others can chip in. My remaining concerns over one or two phrasing points, and over attribution of quotes in the text are not enough to prevent my full support, but I would like to see what others think first. Also, as I do know something of this period and the type of analysis etc covered here, I would like a few other eyes to make sure that the article is comprehensible and not over-detailed. Once there have been a few other reviews, I will switch to full support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Switched to full support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As above, the MOS says "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named", but none of these are full sentences. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a very careful review! Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jones and Michell or Mitchell? - Well spotted; it's Michell. Done Jb
 * Check alphabetization of References - Done Jb
 * Ranges should consistently use endashes - Run a tool, should be ok now. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in how web sources are notated - done; convenience links to google books not access-dated. Jb
 * Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated - done, insofar as the works are equivalent Jb
 * No citations to Brown 2003 - Coming Jb - Now there Jb
 * Why the doubled dates in the Brown reference entries? - The first are to disambiguate between three Brown books, the second to be consistent with other refs. Jb
 * Be consistent about whether locations are provided for books, and give publisher consistently - Done; a couple of cities left for very obscure publishers in Brussels & Dublin. "Town House Dublin" is the publisher's name, so comma removed. Now it's no longer all done on the kitchen table they seem to use "TownHouse Dublin", but my book has the three words. I've left "Brussels" for "Bibliotheca Wittockiana" as they are pretty obscure, and mainly a museum, though unlike Town House they are easy to find with google. Jb
 * be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced. - Done Jb
 * All done, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments from Jim I saw the 2007 BL exhibition, and that inspired me to review this generally excellent FAC. A few quibbles of course.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * link sarcophagus and blind stylus? - done sarcophagus & stylus Jb
 * link British Museum, Coptic at first occurrence? - done Jb
 * damages in certain places.. &mdash; plural reads oddly to me, why not "damage"? The plural is usually confined to the sense of legal compensation. - actually this is common in describing the condition of artworks, as more convenient than saying "areas of damage" etc. I don't see that other senses can't use the plural too, although I agree they tend not to. OED notes the legal sense is "now always in the plural" but says nothing about sing/plural for the other senses. Jb
 * John 15:5 &mdash; I didn't think we ever had external links in the body of the text, but I would not expect an experienced editor to get that wrong, so can you assure me that this EL conforms to MoS  — We have special templates for them; my FAs like Royal_Gold_Cup and others have them, and the vast majority of relevant religious articles. External links says: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1]" Note is: "Exceptions are rare.  They include use of templates like visualizer, which produces charts on the Toolserver, and external media, which is only used when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia.", and I suppose these. There is a lot of debate at Citing sources/Bible (2010) and Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_18 (2006) but all seem to take inline links for granted & the questions are Wikisource vs. external, and which external.  Jb
 * today in Scotland, but was then in Northumbria &mdash; Twice we are told that Melrose is in Scotland, but you don't give current countries or counties for other locations. Unless you are emphasising its misfortune, I'm not sure you need this, certainly not twice. —- 2nd time removed, but the first is certainly needed. Old Melrose until I recently edited it avoided all mention of Northumbria, which is not good. Most people, including apparently some locals, don't realize that early Anglo-Saxon England went up to the Firth of Forth, which is important here. Jb
 * cultus &mdash; at first glance I assumed this was different to the more familiar "cult", but since it actually redirects to the common word, I'm not sure why you've selected an obscure term in preference to the familiar. — Changed, though actually cultus goes to Cult (religious practice) not cult, and the word is used to try to maintain that distinction. Link moved to an earlier occurence anyway.  Jb
 * house of Wessex &mdash; I'd cap "House..." —- Well it's nice to see someone asking for more caps for a change! It's "Thereafter the royal house of Wessex..."; if it were "Thereafter the House of Wessex ...." yes, but I think the adjectival phrase means no cap, no? I don't feel strongly. Jb
 * Masses for the Dead &mdash; ... but I'd lc "dead".   —  Hmm, knew it wouldn't last!  This is a specific form of mass (aka Requiem) & I think should be capitalized, even in the plural, though it is not always in sources. Jb
 * Brown, Michelle P., &mdash; does she really need two links in consecutive lines of the references? -— Delinked, I suppose not. Jb


 * Thanks for these! Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Great article, I'm happy with the responses and I've indicated my support above  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support – A fine article, combining formidable scholarship with highly readable prose. Only one quibble: "paleography" but "palaeographical" and then "paleographical" – I prefer the middle version, and so, more to the point, does the OED. Anyway, one or the other spelling, please. That really is all I can find to object to. Bravo! – Tim riley (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support with comment: Absolutely gorgeous article that is well written with fantastic images. I had a great time reading (and drooling), so thanks. Only one quibble, slightly on par with Tim's comment above: Other than that, things look wonderful. Great job well done! María ( yllo submarine ) 15:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Two consecutive sentences in the second paragraph of the lead refers to the BL as both "the Library" and "the library"; lower or uppercase L?
 * Many thanks both. Changed all to palaeography/ical and to "library" and "they". Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see a spotcheck on this article. Ucucha (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2 main sources are rare, especially outside the UK (Brown 1969 was originally printed in an edition of 100), but there are 8 of the shorter sources available online, including Jstor. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have access to JSTOR and will be happy to do a spotcheck tomorrow. Is that OK? Tim riley (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds great to me, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Spotchecks
 * I have checked 26 of the 103 references, namely: 1; 11; 23; 24; 26; 30; 31 (Avrin); 34 (Avrin); 36; 37 (Avrin); 50 (Farmer); 51 (Farmer); 52 (Farmer); 53 (Farmer); 54; 55 (Bede); 56; 58 (Farmer); 70; 76 (Milner); 77 (Milner); 88; 89; 98 (Skemer); 99; and 100.
 * Where references refer to both print and online sources I have indicated above the portion of each of them that I have been able to check. I have not got access to the printed sources, but could arrange to have access to the main one, Brown (1969), if necessary, but not till Monday.
 * The statements attributed to these online sources check out, except for ref 88, which points at the info relevant to ref 89, rather than the earlier announcement. This appears to be because of the way the website is set up, with new info overwritten on older info at the same url.
 * Indeed - I've just cut the earlier statement, which is now not needed. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a page number that needs tweaking at ref 23, which should read "pp. 153–154", not just "p. 154". – Tim riley (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for this tedious work! Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


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