Talk:Gregorian mission/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The article generally satisfies GA criteria, but I have a few comments:

1. In the lead the sentence When Edwin died in 633, however, his widow and Justus were forced to flee to Kent. mentions Justus, but does not explain who he was.

   Fixed. Should have been Paulinus, not Justus. For some reason, I get those two confused all the time. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

2. In the first section This native British Church developed in isolation from Rome under the influence of missionaries from Ireland. You mean that British church (before Roman legions left) was developed under the influence of Irish missionaries? Or that it developed under their influence after departure of Romans?\

   After the legions left is correct. Clarified in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

3. In the 'Arrival and first efforts' section This theory contradicts Bede's version of events, however. What was Bede's version of events? The article does not mention it.

   Clarified that the whole paragraph before dervives from Bede. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

4. in 'Relations with the British Christians' the meaning of the following sentence is unclear for me This would have been a two-edged sword, as not only would the British have been unwilling to preach to the invaders of their country, but the invaders themselves saw the natives as second-class citizens so would have been unwilling to listen to any conversion efforts. Please, clarify.

   Changed to "This problem had two aspect, the first being that the British have been unwilling to preach to the invaders of their country, and the second that the invaders themselves saw the natives as second-class citizens so would have been unwilling to listen to any conversion efforts." which hopefully explains it a bit better. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Another issue was political, as the missionaries would have been seen not only as agents of the Roman church, but as agents of the invaders, who were attempting to expand into the western part of Britain at the time of the meeting at Augustine's Oak. This is indistinguishable from the first reason, in my opinion.

   I got lost in my own metaphors. I meant the Roman church as a third political force. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

6. In 'Spread of bishoprics' I read About the time that Edwin died, a member of the East Anglian royal family. It is better to say "In 633, when Edwin died, ...", because the year of his death is mentioned further in the text.

   Changed to include date of death. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

7. In 'Aspects of the mission' the sentence The historian Henry Mayr-Harting argues that in addition, most of the Gregorian missionaries were concerned with appearing with the Roman virtue of gravitas, and this would have limited the colourful stories available about them. needs clarification.

   expanded a bit on what gravitas was Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

8. The second paragraph in 'Aspects of the mission' duplicates the last paragraph in 'Relations with the British Christians'. These paragraphs should probably be merged.

   Cut the duplicated information from the second occurance. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

9. In 'Legacy' the first sentence reads The last of Gregory's missionaries died in 653, when Archbishop Honorius died on 30 September. I suggest "The last of Gregory's missionaries, Archbishop Honorius, died on 30 September 653."

   done. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

10. The missionaries developed the idea that an archbishop needed a pallium in order to exercise their archiepiscopal authority derives from the Gregorian mission If "derives" is the predicate, it needs a subject, I guess.

    Changed to "The idea that an archbishop needed a pallium in order to exercise their archiepiscopal authority derives from the Gregorian mission... " which hopefully is less convoluted. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

11. The article still contains weasel words like "also", "in addition", which in many cases are unnecessary.

    I wasn't aware that "also" or "in addition" were weasel words. They may be unneeded, but adding of additonal information usually requires some sort of connection in order to make it clear. Suggestions of other spots to cut them would be welcomed, I have a great tendancy towards wordiness. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

    I removed some of words myself, so it is not a problem now. Ruslik (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I will read the article the second time tomorrow and provide more comments. Ruslik (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I have two last comments/suggestions:

1. In the note 1 there is a sentence However, as Gregory in his letter of 601 to the king and queen strongly implies that the queen was unable to effect the conversion of her husband, the problem of the dating is likely a chronological error on Bede's part, which I do not understand. What is the connection between his wife's inability to effect the conversion and Bede's chronology. Please, clarify.

   Explained a bit more. Basically, if Bede's dates are right, Aethelbert was convereted by someone other than the mission, but both Bede and Gregory state that the mission converted Aethelbert so Bede's dates must be off. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

2. I think the article might benefit from additional images. For instance, this one of St. Augustine and this one of Gregory look good to me.

   I've added two images, but not those. The Augustine one has no source for where its from, so when this article goes to FAC, I'd just have to remove it. The Gregory one, I prefer to try to get as close as possible in time to the subject of the article. Gregory's portrait there is from the 17th century, while the one I put in is from the 10th/11th, much closer in time and much closer in feel. I also put in a manuscript image of St Boniface in the legacy section. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, the article currently meets all GA criteria, and I will promote it. Ruslik (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

FA review

Is there someone who can tell what miss in this article to reach FA stat? --Vojvodaeist 09:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

British or American spelling? If the former, there's 18 words spelt with a zee that need to be changed. Ning-ning (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not native speaker so I cannot help about it. Can you make these corrections?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Left the book titles alone though. Ning-ning (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)