The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that medieval historian Dorothy Whitelock called the Liber Eliensis "unique among post-Conquest monastic histories"?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Since I was invited to comment, I'll do so. The general reader would probably find it more interesting if you had a better background section, covering the literary context. I.e. it is a fairly normal "local history" or "cartulary narrative" produced in England in the era after the Norman Conquest. Gransden's background chapter (you can log out of google once you've reach your limit and then read on ... various ways to trick it) and this. Gransden claims it is the longest of these, a claim worth citing.
I think if you decide to expand it more, a separate section for authorship is probably necessary. Authorship isn't really background, but central to these texts. Just expanding the debate, why historians have sometimes believed it was these monks, why they believe it was authored (here at the community's request), and so on. The MS section might benefit from tabulation, and more discussion of the pros and cons of E versus F (which is what you'd expect to read). The article is decent in size, but you can take heart that the sources you are already using give you plenty of room for expansion should you desire it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS, can you expand on this: Along with those works, a work on the benefactors of the abbey was used. A bit enigmatic! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so basically expansion of what's already there, not so much that there are big gaping holes of missing sections (I haven't inadvertantly done the manuscript equivalent of say... leaving out the "coronation" section for a king). That was my main concern. I really did NOT pay much attention to manuscript and literary studies! U of I has Grandsen's works, I'm just waiting on them returning to check them out for myself. Thanks, Deacon. So much easier for someone ELSE to see things than for you to see what's missing in your own work. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just raised a possible issue concerning mention of this chronicle on the talk page for Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, here, and I've just spotted the same possible issue in the present article. I'd be grateful for a response. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
