Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eadbald of Kent
- 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 01:38, 29 September 2007.
Eadbald of Kent[edit]
Another Anglo-Saxon king. Best comparison FA is his father, Æthelberht of Kent. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm nearly done copy-editing this; most of the prose flows in an acceptable manner, and I think it's on par with Mike's other FA's. HansHermans 23:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Comment I started to copyedit this, but I probably won't be done for a few days. Here's one sentence that didn't quite make sense to me:[reply]
- Britain had become fully Christian by the time the Romans left, but the Anglo-Saxons were both illiterate and pagan.
Does this mean that the Romans brought Christianity to the island, but it still wasn't accepted by most people living there? --HansHermans 02:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Romans brought Christianity, and it is thought to have been widely accepted in England, though I'm not sure about Scotland. The Anglo-Saxons had not arrived in Britain at that time. When the pagan Anglo-Saxons came from the continent and conquered the island, Christianity was essentially erased -- Wales, Ireland and Cornwall remained Christian, but England became pagan again. At the end of the 6th century Rome sent missionaries to convert the Anglo-Saxons again; they landed in Kent. So then there was a wave of Christianization starting in Kent, and an existing church to the west that had become disconnected from Rome's authority. Does that clarify it? Mike Christie (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I recall no evidence for Pictish Christianity. But all this should go in the article. How about Roman Britain had become fully Christian, but the Anglo-Saxon invaders were both illiterate and pagan. (Although presumably they had futhark.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I used your rewording; I agree it's clearer. Mike Christie (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I recall no evidence for Pictish Christianity. But all this should go in the article. How about Roman Britain had become fully Christian, but the Anglo-Saxon invaders were both illiterate and pagan. (Although presumably they had futhark.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It may be the lateness of the hour, but I can't actually find a single issue to comment on. J.Winklethorpe talk 23:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I made a few minor copyedits, but overall this is an excellent article. Karanacs 14:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.