Talk:Æthelhard/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It feels like a while since I've reviewed a history article.

• "was Bishop of Winchester then Archbishop of Canterbury in medieval England" Implies he was the only one

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Kentish monarchs and with a rival archiepiscopate" Both the phrases could do with linking/explaining- to someone who doesn't know much on the subject...

• Linked. It's explained a bit more in the body of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "a monastery" Do we know a name?

• No, it's just an abbey that was there. A great number of abbeys that existed in England prior to the Viking invasions of the 9th century didn't survive the Vikings, so we don't know much about them. This is one of those, apparantly. Louth later had a Cistercian abbey, but that was founded in the 12th century. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "King Offa of Mercia consulted Alcuin of York over proper procedure, as the archbishopric of Lichfield was a new creation" Mention before then that Offa was involved? And if I'm reading this correctly, Offa talked to Alcuin because, despite Hygberht being in authority, Alcuin was more trustworthy/experienced?

• Not quite clear why Offa consulted Alcuin - possibly because Hygeberht would have been considered involved, but Stenton doesn't speculate on why Offa consulted Alcuin. I've jiggled this a bit, see if it works a bit better? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You say that he "consulted Alcuin of York over proper procedure, as the archbishopric of Lichfield was a new creation." It's not clear to me what the relationship between the consultation and the fact the archbishopric was new is. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • They didn't have any precedent for the consecration/enthronement of a southern archbishop when there was another southern archbishop. Previously it would have been done by either the gathered bishops of the archdiocese or by the northern archbishop, York. However, there was now a southern archbishop besides at Canterbury, so Offa wasn't sure if Lichfield, York, or subordinate bishops should do the ceremony. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Coenwulf" Link? If we don't have an article, we should, and a redlink is appropriate

• He's linked in the lead - I generally don't repeat links from the lead in the body of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "In this proposal, Canterbury would regain its status as the only archbishopric south of the Humber and that Æthelhard to return to Canterbury." This sentence doesn't make sense

• Oops. NOw reads "...and Æthelhard would return to Canterbury." which is correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Alcuin had previously stated that Lichfield had been elevated because of a "lust for power", not through any consideration of the merits of the plan." Whose lust?

• I believe Kirby means Offa here. Switched to the article now saying "Alcuin had previously stated that Lichfield had been elevated because of a "lust for power", presumably by Offa, and not through any consideration of the merits of the plan." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Hadrian" Link?

• Linked Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Eadberht, who he blinded and imprisoned." Whom?

• I assume you meant that "who he" should be "whom he"? Fixed, if so. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Hygberht was still being called archbishop in 799. Pope Leo was involved in disputes in Rome during 799 and 800, and was unable to spare attention for English affairs." These two sentences seem unrelated.

• I've added in some connecting phrases, see if this works a bit better? Events are ... a bit confused about this whole thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "embassy in to Rome 801" Rephrase?

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "and excommunicated Eadberht and authorized" And and

• Reworked. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "authorized his expulsion from Kent if he persisted in keeping Æthelhard from Canterbury" In what way was Eadberht "keeping Æthelhard from Canterbury"?

• I've reworked this section, as the chronology seems to have gotten confused somewhere. (Not sure how, honestly... probably my own error!). This should make more sense now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Æthelhard resolved to go to Rome" Did he go? "resolved to" almost implies that he never managed

• Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Cyneberht is a dablink. J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Æthelhard presided over at least eleven synods, and possibly one more." Do we not know any more details than this?

• No, not really. Documentation for most church councils in the period is very scanty - most of the time we only know of a council being held because some charter mentions that a council was held - doesn't usually tell us what went on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• "He was later revered as a saint, with a feast day of 12 May, but his cult was suppressed by Archbishop Lanfranc in the late 11th century and never was revived." More details about his sainthood? His cult? Why Lanfranc didn't like him?

• No real details possible, honestly. He was considered a saint prior to the formal canonization process, so basically a bunch of people thought he was a saint, so they paid him cult. Lanfranc suppressed a number of these sorts of cults after the Norman Conquest, but the details of why exactly he suppressed each one are unclear. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A great little story, and a nice little article. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - I've tried to deal with all of the above, let me know if you discover more issues from my fixes. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Category:Bishops of Winchester?

I've added the category myself and promoted. Generally a nice little article- interesting subject matter and well sourced and written. It's a little complex in places, but I think that is to be expected with a scholarly topic like this. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)