Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Herman the Archdeacon/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Herman the Archdeacon edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I wrote this article because Herman is one of the very few early medieval people who did not have a Wikipedia article but was significant enough to have an ODNB one. I should be grateful form comments before I take the article to FAC. Pinging Mike Christie and Tim riley.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • The paragraph starting "Herfast came into conflict" doesn't give us a contextual date till 1070. Is it the case that Lanfranc's letter, in the middle of this dispute, is how we know the date, and that's also how we know the approximate start of Herman's tenure with Herfast? If those guesses are correct, I think it would be helpful to the reader to connect the dots between the evidence and the narrative of Herman's life a bit more. For example (and this is just a suggestion) we could change "Herman was probably born before 1040 as between around 1070 and 1084 he held an important secretarial post in the household of Herfast" to something like "Herman was probably born before 1040 as a letter of about 1070 refers to him as being in the household of Herfast". Then the second paragraph could pick up the thread with something like "The 1070 letter that mentions Herman was part of a conflict between..." As I say, this is just an idea and not something I think is really necessary.
  • Looking at it again, both Herfast and Lanfranc were appointed in 1070, and Licence thinks the letter was written soon afterwards as it appears to be written before Herfast submitted to Lanfranc, which he did early on. I have revised taking this into account. Does it look OK now.Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably precentor, and perhaps later on prior": took me a minute to parse this -- I couldn't figure out what to do with "on". How about "perhaps eventually prior"?
  • Licence thinks that Herman may have filled a gap in the recorded priors after c. 1095. I have amended to give the date. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A manuscript dating to 1377 includes seven miracles assigned to Herman which are not in the Miracles": what does "assigned to Herman" mean? "Thought to have been written by Herman"? If so I think "assigned" is historian-speak and we should rephrase for the general reader.
  • The writer of the manuscript wrote that he got the miracle from Herman. I have amended to "assigned by the scribe". Is that OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not your problem, but I see our article on Goscelin says he died c. 1099 which seems definitely wrong given there's evidence of him as late as 1107.
  • I will try to look at this. Barlow gives Goscelin as "in or after 1107", but it see that Licence is more specific, saying he was last recorded writing a hagiography after a saint's translation in 1106. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who was Bishop of Thetford from 1091 to 1119 (Norwich from 1094 or 1095)": I don't understand the parenthesis, or at least I didn't till I read Herbert de Losinga's article; I thought it might mean he became Bishop of Norwich as well. I suggest putting the information about the seat of the see moving in a footnote where it can be given more clearly.
  • "In 1090/91 Herbert had bought the bishopric of Thetford for himself": suggest rephrasing to acknowledge that Herbert's position as bishop of Thetford, and the date, has already been mentioned. Perhaps "Herbert had become bishop of Thetford by purchasing it from [Anselm, I presume]" without needing to give the date. And if 1090/91 is necessary here, we should make that the date at the earlier mention.
  • Revised. I wrote that he purchased it from William II. Is this not clear? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give Licence's full name when you mention him in the text.
  • I give his full name and link him in the first sentence of the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goscelin's text attacks Herbert's enemies, including Herman": it's not clear at this point why Herbert would consider Herman an enemy. Herman has been a monk for years by the time Goscelin's text is written. If this is because of On the Heresy Simony we haven't mentioned that yet.
  • Clarified that Herbert considered Herman an enemy as he supported Baldwin's resistance to Herbert's attempted takeover. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find to comment on. Concise and interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good to me. The only thing I would suggest is making it "(the seat of the see moved to Norwich...)", for readers less used to ecclesiastical terminology, but that's just a suggestion. I look forward to seeing this at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking again, I see that Herfast and Herbert are often referred to as Bishop of East Anglia, so I have amended accordingly. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, but then perhaps "bishopric of Thetford" should also be amended? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim edit

Precious little from me. A few suggested tweaks of the prose – nothing to frighten the horses.

  • Life
  • "According to Bury's fourteenth-century archivist" – this is the first mention of Bury in the main text, and perhaps it would be as well to give it its full name here. And, if memory serves, the MoS prefers "14th-century" to "fourteenth-century" (though I certainly don't and I hope you get your version through FAC unscathed).
  • "He was an enthusiastic preacher who enjoyed displaying Edmund's bloody undergarments" – we are not formally introduced to King Edmund until the second para of the next section, and his passing mention here comes rather out of the blue. A certain amount of rejigging might be in order.
  • Miracles of St Edmund
  • "Herman's work was exceptional … a far more impressive scale in the 1120s" – that's quite a hefty quote (138 words). I think it's just about OK, but don't be surprised if an FA reviewer takes issue with such a long verbatim quotation.
  • "and only includes the miracles" – there are some aspiring pedants who would insist that this should read "and includes only the miracles", but all four editions of Fowler, from 1926 to 2015, deride such silliness, and recommend the natural usage such as you have here. Forewarned is forearmed and all that.
  • "and like Herfast he was ultimately unsuccessful" – does the "ultimately" add anything of value here?
  • Clarified that I meant that Herbert carried on after Herman and Baldwin died. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1090/91" – the MoS is all for an en-dash here (1090–91) rather than a slash.
  • Deleted as Mike pointed out that I have already mentioned the date above. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
  • "d. Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale de France" – the French seem to keep changing their rules about capitalisation, probably to confuse us poor Anglo-Saxons, and the current approved form, in French, of the national library is evidently Bibliothéque nationale de France, with a lower-case "n" in the second word.
  • I saw that nationale is lower case and changed it on the principle that sources are erratic on capitalisation so I always go on my view of what is correct. Do you think that I should go by the source? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bibliotheque nationale de France certainly lower-cases the "nationale": thus, but I doubt if anyone is going to make a fuss either way at FAC. (I only spotted it because I've been bitten in the leg by French capitalisation more than once, as here for instance. Drives me autour du virage!) Tim riley talk 18:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Tim riley talk 18:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. This enjoyable and instructive article is clearly of FA standard to my way of thinking, and mind you ping me again when you take it to FAC. Tim riley talk 14:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mike and Tim. Answers and queries above. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Herman_the_Archdeacon/archive1&oldid=1087668253"