Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Cragh/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Laser brain 04:35, 20 December 2010 [1].

William Cragh edit

William Cragh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum; Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the story of a 13th-century Welsh rebel who was hanged twice, pronounced dead, and then brought back to life by the intercession of a saint. It's not the longest article ever to have been nominated at FAC, but I think it's comprehensive nevertheless. As I'm a medieval history dunce Ealdgyth generously helped me with sourcing and good advice throughout the expansion of this article, so she deserves some recognition for that as well as my thanks. Naturally though any errors of omission or commission are mine alone. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick comments / thoughts / notes:

  • No dab links or EL problems: although the one EL requires a subscription to read in full, the point for which it used is visible from the free preview.
  • Is there any particular reason why you give page-specific references to Barlett, but not for the 13 references from Hanska's 18-page article?
  • In the final section, should "thirty-eight years after the new saint's death" be "38 years" per MOS?
  • I'm not sure that a generic picture of gallows is a great lead picture (because it is so generic; perhaps move it back into the body of the article and do without a lead image?
  • The photo of Swansea castle is OK but, with the vehicles in it, not great. Unfortunately it's in a god-awful location in Swansea city centre and it seems hard to get good pictures of it without including the modern-day horrors of Swansea architecture. Would this suitably licensed Flickr image be any better? There are some earlier depictions in the Swansea Castle article of it in a less-ruined state, but the sourcing ("old picture that I scanned") isn't great and the user seems to be globally inactive, alas...
  • Is the category Category:1310 deaths right?

BencherliteTalk 21:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replies
  • Bartlett is a book, but Hanska is a journal article, simple as that. It's a convention I've always used.
  • It's "thirty-eight years" because it follows "17 April 1320", and "17 April 1320, 38 years ..." looked a bit odd to me.
  • I like to have a lead image, but I've got no objections to moving the gallows back into the body of the article.
  • I don't think I'll get away with the licensing given for the images in the Swansea castle article, but I'll check out the your Flickr suggestion.
  • At one time before I started work on it the article did claim that Cragh died in 1310, but the truth seems to be that nobody knows anything about him after 1307, so I'll remove that.
Thanks for taking a look. Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. I'll try and have another proper look at it later on to see if I can find anything else. BencherliteTalk 15:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on all issues related to sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Comments[reply]

  • Baggeham or Baggenham?
  • "john Young" - is that the capitalization used in the sources?
  • Is this the Classen source? If so, the title needs to be amended slightly and you should note that Classen is the editor (and probably cite the chapter author)
  • "Crucial to the canonisation process was to gather evidence of miracles that Cantilupe had performed since his death" vs. "crucial for a favorable outcome to a canonization process - the miracles he had performed since his death"; "he had heard that Cragh was still breathing when the gallows collapsed" vs. "He had heard, however, that William Cragh was still breathing when the gallows had collapsed"; "It originated in William of Malmesbury's collection of miracles attributed to the Virgin Mary, written some time during the early 12th century" vs. "It originates in a collection of miracles attributed to the Holy Virgin written by William of Malmesbury in the early twelfth century" - paraphrasing is a touch too close, reword?
  • "with great fear and trepidation" vs "with great fear and apprehension" - that's a direct quote, so it should be exact
  • I read the source as saying that he was 45 at the time of the investigation, not the hanging - do you have another view?
  • Check volume and issue number for Hanska. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies. Blimey, this is a tough gig!
  • It's Baggeham, my mistake, now fixed.
  • With only two substantial sources I was a bit concerned about the possibility of too close paraphrasing so I'll rewrite the sections you've identified insofar as that makes sense, quote directly, or delete them. Some phrasing like "He had heard, however, that William Cragh was still breathing when the gallows had collapsed" are a bit difficult to sensibly reword other than in the way I already did. But actually as the chaplain wasn't there, and the executioner who certainly was there stated unequivocally that he believed both men to be dead, I think I'll just remove that anyway and avoid the problem. I believe that the other issues have now been addressed as well.
  • I think that Classen is correctly cited now.
  • Trepidation changed to apprehension, as per source.
  • On reading Bartlett again I think you're right; Cragh said was 45 at the time of the papal commission, not at the time of his execution. I'll fix that.
  • I've fixed the issue number for Hanska's article.
Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just a few more small issues:
  • You've left the "footote" under Classen, but as the bibliography entry is now under Goodich the link between the two is broken
  • I'm somewhat confused by your referencing system for journals. Why is "Vol. 26 No. 15" (Keen) written as 26 (6)? Why does Hanska include only the volume number, and that where the Keen citation places the issue number? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mainly down to my incompetence I'm sorry to say. Should all be fixed now. Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about the guy's names William ap Rhys. I find it surprising that a thirteenth century Welshman would have an English first name, rather than being a Gwilim — is this an Anglicisation?
  • William Cragh — also seems strange, not his Welsh name, but difficult to see why an Anglicised form would give a Welsh surname. It may be that you can't answer these, just checking if we know.
  • 13 men (in lead) — I'd actually be inclined to spell out the number here, but no big deal
  • Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana — what's wrong with the English Vatican Library?
  • Swanith — is this an Anglicisation, I'd expect Swanydd
  • ''William de Briouze's stated belief that he had died of natural causes in about 1305 — is this the elder of that name. Last mentioned was the younger, who, being present at the same commission would have known he was alive. I'm confused
  • Replies. There's no explanation for why his name was given as William rather than Gwilim, but I'd conjecture it might have something to do with the fact that he was giving evidence to the commission in Welsh through a translator.
  • I've not even seen an explanation of why he was call "scabby", so again, no explanation of why he had an English first name and a Welsh surname.
  • I'm quite happy with "thirteen", but for consistency I've also spelled out "eighteen" and "thirty-eight". I think for a consistent appearance they all ought to be numbers or words. I've got no strong feelings either way, except that the numbers be in the same format.
  • Vatican Library has the virtue of being simpler as well as the title of the wikipedia article, so changed.
  • No explanation as to why his mum's name was recorded as Swanith rather than Swanydd, but again I'd suspect that it's an artefact of the translation of Cragh's testimony from Welsh into Latin.
  • The elder William de Briouze was dead by the time of the papal commission, he'd died shortly after Cragh was hanged, about 17 years earlier. I'll try to make it clearer that it was the younger William de Briouze. The witnesses didn't all give evidence at the same time or place; de Briouze had given his evidence before Cragh showed up. I probably ought to try and make that clearer.
Thanks for taking the time to read through the article. Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

  • Lead
  • "Cragh's resurrection was one of thirty-eight miracles presented" - In the last paragraph, it says that this was NOT accepted as a miracle. So maybe it was one of 38 candidates presented for acceptance as a miracle.
*Background
*"Rhys ap Maredudd, found the post-war settlement "not to his liking"," - needs citation.
*"Cragh is believed to have taken part in the rebellion on the Welsh side." - Who believes it? Why?
*Execution
  • The paragraph which begins "His [Cragh's] face was black and in parts bloody" is from William de Briouze's testimony. As it stands in the article it is unattributed leaving the reader wondering where it comes from.
*Resurrection
  • "Cantilupe had died in Italy on 25 August 1282; his flesh was buried in that country after having been boiled from his bones, which were taken back to England. Cantilupe's tomb at Hereford Cathedral soon became the centre of a "pilgrim cult", and miracles began to be attributed him." This quick bit of history does not seem to fit in to this paragraph.
*"on bended knee, she asked Saint Thomas de Cantilupe to ask God to restore life to William Cragh" - This is a quote. It needs attribution.
*"with great fear and apprehension" - another quote. Whose words are they?
Nice article overall. I would be glad to see it as a Featured Article soon. Doug (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies
  • Well, it's a fine point. Cragh's resurrection was certainly one of 38 miracles examined by the papal commission, and it was included in their report to the pope, so they didn't reject it as a miracle. We have no idea why the pope and his advisors didn't consider that it supported Cantilupe's canonisation, so it seems like a step too far to conclude that they didn't consider it to be a miracle.
  • Every citation supports everything preceding it, so the "not to his liking" was covered by ref #4. But on reflection it didn't add much anyway, so I've replaced the quotation by "unsatisfactory".
  • I've changed "Cragh is believed to ..." to "Cragh probably ...".
  • The paragraph beginning "His [Cragh's] face was black" is preceded by "what he saw convinced him that Cragh was dead, as he recounted" (I just added the "as he recounted"), to make it clearer that the words are those of de Briouze himself.
  • I've separated the details of Cantilupe's death and pilgrim cult into a separate paragraph, which I think it probably deserved anyway.
  • The words "on bended knee ..." are those of Lady Mary, which I've clarified.
  • "with great fear and apprehension" were the words of the chaplain, which I've clarified.
Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to read through and comment on the article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Further Comments

  • Well, the final paragraph says it was submitted for consideration as a miracle and rejected. So the comment still stands.
  • The quote "not to his liking" appeared to be an unsourced quote from Rhys. The change removes this problem so struck out.
  • "probably" OK - struck out
  • good change - struck out
  • "I've separated the details of Cantilupe's death -etc" -- Good idea but you don't seem to have done this.?
  • Mary's quote - Yes - struck out
  • chaplain's quote - Yes - struck out.

It's a good read. The points may seem a bit pedantic but the standards for FA are tough. Keep it up. Doug (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replies. Not pedantic at all, just helpful observations, for which thanks.
  • I understand the point you're making about the miracle, but as a confirmed antitheist my view of miracles is much the same as my view of witches, they don't exist and they never existed. So it's a bit like arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. What is certain is that Cragh's resurrection was presented to the papal commissioners as a miracle for their consideration, and after investigation they in turn presented it to the pope as such. What is unknown is why the pope and his advisors rejected the account as one of the miracles supporting Cantilupe's canonisation; there is absolutely no evidence that the pope didn't consider it to have been a miracle. I think what is very likely is that Cragh very sensibly went along with the miracle story to save himself from being hanged a third time, but that's conjecture. But I maintain that saying "Thirty-eight posthumous miracles attributed to Thomas de Cantilupe were examined by the commissioners" is correct; that 12 were subsequently rejected by the pope and his advisors is not the same as saying that they weren't miracles. It may have been, for instance, that the pope considered that the evidence collected was in some way flawed, we have no way of knowing, but that's a fish of an entirely different colour. On a straight body count many people believed it to have been a miracle; that the pope may have been unconvinced is really neither here nor there. It may have been, for instance, that the Vatican had a policy at that time of not taking into account resurrections when considering canonisations, we simply have no way of knowing.
  • I was certain I'd split the Cantilupe stuff into a separate paragraph, but maybe I forgot to save the preview. Anyway, this is what it looks like now.
Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made a couple of edits a while back. Covers all we know about the man nicely. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You've persuaded me about the miracle wording. All my comments have been addressed now. Doug (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Doug (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – sorry I haven't anything constructive to add. The article clearly satisfies the criteria and it's a damn good read! Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. One was redirecting, but I fixed that.--PresN 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text check - All pictures pass on this count. -- Doug (at Wiki) 16:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piping in here, but alt text isn't a requirement for FAs at this time. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may have crept back in under the guise of the accessibility guidelines, but it's hard to keep track. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FA criteria say that the article should follow the style guidelines. Manual of Style (Accessibility) includes, under Images, "Images should include an alt attribute". The checker is up there in the FA toolbox. It's an easy guideline to follow anyway. Doug (at Wiki) 00:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? You might want to check out the archives of the FA criteria pages as well as the alt text pages where this was discussed and no real decision was able to be reached about what constitutes "good" alt text. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about good alt text seems to have stalled somewhat, but the accessibility guideline still demands that all images have alt text. There have also been changes to the way that tables should be defined, but who can keep up. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, I've looked at those. I'm just quoting the present state of the FA criteria. In my reading of that and MoS(Acc) it is very easy to comply. (which this article does!) Doug (at Wiki) 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all my very minor concerns, above, were resolved and I can't think of anything further. Sorry I took a while to get back here with my support, MF. BencherliteTalk 00:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_Cragh/archive1&oldid=1046371314"