Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deusdedit of Canterbury/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 19:12, 4 July 2011 [1].
Deusdedit of Canterbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because as usual, it's time for a bishop/archbishop. This one is a rather obscure (even for a pretty obscure field) early Anglo-Saxon archbishop of Canterbury. In fact, he was the first native holder of the office. Not much is known about him, and a large chunk of what is written about him concerns the controversy over his death date, so this article is a bit more "historian-centric" than many of my nominations, as it is mainly concerned with the historiography rather than the poor guy's life. Passed a GA review a while back, has had two separate copyedits by Malleus. I've pretty much mined anything about this guy out, unless someone knows of something else - which I would gladly incorporate. The pic is also my own, it's not the best, but there aren't many others that will work, as his tomb doesn't survive. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Re the pic, the caption should tell us precisely where this location is, geographically. This information doesn't appear to be in the text of the article, either. According to ODNB it is "the porticus of St Gregory in the abbey church of St Peter and St Paul, Canterbury (later St Augustine's)". Also, you refer to the marked graves of three other guys; are the markings the three rectangular stones to the right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)The lead and the text say "he was considered/regarded a saint". By whom was he thus regarded? I imagined that sanctification was a rather more formal process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)- Formal canonization by the papacy wasn't required until the 11th century, and only became "normal" in the 9th-10th century. Prior to that it was a very informal process - people (including the laity) would consider someone a saint and if cult was paid, they were a saint. That simple. We don't know why Deusdedit was considered a saint, but likely it was because he was considered holy in his life. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose nitpicks
some rather clumsy repetition in "...and was the name of a recent pope,[1] Pope Deusdedit, who was pope..."- ...and again, with "The main argument was put forward by Grosjean, who argues that..."
"all of the new bishops" → "all the new bishops"- "The one exception was Damianus..." → "The exception was Damianus..."
The connector "thus" needs to be preceded by stronger pronunciation than a comma ("...1 September, thus the date of Honorius' death...")"His feast day is designated as a major feast day, and is included along with a number of other early Canterbury archbishops in the Bosworth Psalter." This needs "those of" inserted after "along with"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)
I wonder about the appropriateness of the "Legacy" heading, since there seems to be none. In any event the first sentence of the section looks misplaced, and perhaps should be located at the end rather than as the opener.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)Balance: It is a little odd that the section dealing with historians' arguments about Deusdedit's precise death date is considerably longer than the section that deals with his life and works. I am sure you've wrung every last bit of information about him from your considerable sources, but the extent of dates and calculations relating to his death is a bit overwhelming, and quite hard to follow. I wonder if any simplification is possible?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)- It's already considerably simplified, and unfortunately I need to follow the sources, which mostly discuss him in terms of his death date - which tangentially has an impact on the dating of the Council of Whitby, a major event in Anglo-Saxon history. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are mainly minor points that can be quickly disposed of. A separate comment on the sources appears below. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, let me know if there is more I can do to resolve these concerns! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I have one outstanding prose point - see above. I can't offhand think of a better heading than "legacy"; if I come up with an idea, I'll let you know. I take your point on the "balance" issue. So, another bishop done and only 1,500 to go. Good writing! Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: All sources look fine, no formatting issues. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blackwell Encyclopedia or Encyclopaedia?
- "the name of a recent pope,[1] Pope Deusdedit, who was pope from 615 to 618" - can this be rephrased to avoid so many popes?
- Who was Bishop Colman?
- "The main argument was put forward by Grosjean, who argues" - avoid that tense shift
- "was translated to the new abbey church" - probably better to wikilink translated here rather than in the next sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review
- The caption for the infobox image needs clarification, both in the article caption and the image description page. In the article caption it mentions that Deusdedit is buried in an unmarked grave in the image. Where? Between the top two stones, the bottom two, off to the side? In the back? Out in the grass? Since we can't see it ourselves we need to be told it. Also, the fact that Deusdedit is buried somewhere in that image isn't even mentioned in the image's description page.
- Is there a painting, statue, bust, death mask, etc. of what this person looked like when he was alive? If so, that needs to be put in. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The location of his grave is not exactly known - he was buried near these guys, but where in relation isn't known exactly. I can't say more than that he's somewhere in the area. The guy died in 664, there ARE no paintings that would reflect what he looked like - anything I'd add would not be contemporary. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Oppose?)
- The article mentions that he is a saint, however it does not mention anything of how he became one. I'm not Catholic, so I could be totally wrong, but I was under the impression that sainthood was only granted after a lengthy (and well documented) series of steps. His notability is derived from his status as an archbishop or his status as a saint, however the coverage of both of those points is minimal. What did he do in nine years as archbishop? What led to him becoming a saint? It seems like this article dosen't give good coverage to important parts. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- His sainthood predates the formal canonization process. (note that I addressed this above to Brian also). I've linked to the relevant article in the lead. As for what he did while archbishop - nothing is really known. I've mentioned every tidbit about him that's known - our main source, Bede, barely mentions the guy, mainly in connection with his death. The article doesn't cover some parts because there is nothing there to cover - the sources (both primary and secondary) don't allow it to be covered. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Ucucha, with some comments:
Why are the other people with graves nearby not linked in the image caption in the infobox?Does the hagiography survive? I understand it is likely unreliable, but perhaps some of the details it would provide are relevant for inclusion in this article; they might tell us about the way he was revered as a saint.
Ucucha 03:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review - I'm stepping out this moment for an art fair and will get to these two things tonight. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've linked the names, and added a tiny bit on the Santco, or haigiography. It's such a late date that it's generally considered a completely useless bit for the actual facts of Deusdedit's life. THe fact that it was written is useful, but mainly for the 12th century, rather than the 7th. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Even if it's useless for D's actual life, some summary of the hagiography's contents could be useful to expand on whatever limited cult may have developed around him. Ucucha 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, it's not been published, just exists in manuscript form, so I don't really HAVE access to it. (The fact that it's listed as a manuscript in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is a strong indication of its still unpublished status). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Even if it's useless for D's actual life, some summary of the hagiography's contents could be useful to expand on whatever limited cult may have developed around him. Ucucha 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've linked the names, and added a tiny bit on the Santco, or haigiography. It's such a late date that it's generally considered a completely useless bit for the actual facts of Deusdedit's life. THe fact that it was written is useful, but mainly for the 12th century, rather than the 7th. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review - I'm stepping out this moment for an art fair and will get to these two things tonight. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.