Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mellitus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 20:04, 12 December 2009 [1].

Mellitus[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth, Malleus Fatuorum
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because while he's not a bad boy bishop like some we've seen, he's arguably one of the more important linchpins in the Gregorian mission. Saintly, the most impressive thing you can say about him is that he supposedly performed a miracle by stopping a fire from spreading. He had his human side too, as he suffered from gout. I present you with hopefully the next to last Gregorian missionary (you're going to see Justus later) at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This needs a lot more work. I only read the lead, but the first sentence isn't a sentence, and the rest contains basic grammatical and typographical errors. I'd suggest taking this for a strong copyedit before bringing this here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I had Malleus copyedit it .. three times. And LingNut looked it over also. And I don't see where you're not seeing a full sentence in the first sentence "Mellitus (died 24 April 624) was the first Bishop of London and the third Archbishop of Canterbury..." has a verb right there, unless "was" has suddenly become not a verb? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is fixed now but your "and" was in the wrong place - I and others have fixed some errors in the first two paragraphs, but there's more remaining. Also, if you mention the works of people like Bede, you really need to cite the primary source (should not be difficult) rather than a generic citation of the DNB.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally try to avoid citing primary sources, as then folks think the article is researched from primary, rather than secondary works. The only time I cite primary sources is when I'm quoting directly. It's a philosophical difference, but perfectly acceptable doing either way. Deacon and Angus cite primaries much more than I do, I will admit. I'm just uncomfortable with it, and as I trained as a historian I'd rather not give myself the temptation of interpreting primaries myself. I'll have Malleus look it over again, he's really the copyeditors and polisher, I just assemble the information and do the research. In fact, I had meant to co-nom Malleus on this, can Sandy or Karan do so for me? (I never get that right...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be using the phrase "basic grammatical and typographical errors" in a sense that I don't understand Scott. Your "corrections" were at best stylistic, and at worst introduced an element of awkwardness ("patron kings"). --Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I missed the sense of that. It had "The death of his patrons Kings Æthelberht of Kent and Sæberht of Essex around 616...", which confused me. Your placing of a comma "his patrons, Kings" makes it sensible now. nevertheless there was an error or two in the original there. I fixed some other typos and I'd guess there's more. As for primary sourcing, I generally think secondary is fine, except when a well-known primary source like Bede is mentioned in the text, when that's the case, the reader would expect a reference. It isn't so much from a verification point of view, so much as from a pointer of where to look. I strongly suspect that the DNB will give the reference from Bede, in which case it should be put in the footnote for the reader's benefit. Footnotes are not all about showing what sources you used, they are also about pointing the reader and defining what the text says. If we are speaking of chapter of Bede, let's say which one.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been added, but I've also kept the DNB citation, so that I don't get other reviewers (and there is at least one at FAC who regularly reviews) who will think if I just source it to Bede, I've done OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review The only image is appropriate, fully sourced and correctly licensed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • technical review No dabs, links work and sub-only is labelled as such. Alt text is present Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments At least no horse featured with this bish. The usual thoughtful work, but some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deaths of his patrons, Kings Æthelberht of Kent and Sæberht of Essex in around 616, forced Mellitus to leave London and take refuge in Gaul. - surely the first mention of a reversion to paganism should be here, otherwise it's not obvious why he did a runner?
  • I've added the reversion to paganism, as you suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • urging the King to act like the Roman Emperor .... The King was also urged - too many urges?
  • Perhaps. I've changed the second to "encouraged". --Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theuderic's grandmother and regent. - do we know her name?
  • Yeah, it was right before the phrase you just quoted. I suspect the qualifying got removed in a copyedit in the interests of conciseness. I've clarified to "along with Brunhild, who was Theudebert and Theuderic's grandmother and regent." which should clear up confusion. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • some were forged in the 1060s and 1070s at Canterbury. - not important, but do we know why?
  • Part of the Canterbury-York dispute, if you want the gory details, read there. Main reason I mention them here is so that it's clear that there aren't many contemporary references to Mellitus, and that some that in the past were thought to be valid, aren't. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Note 1 Another Gospel should gospel be capitalised here?
  • Hm.. I would think yes, but I tend to be a bit old-fashioned that way. We are referring to a type of proper work, just like the Bible. Usually it's capitalized by medievalists. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some citations with multiple pages have p., some have pp., need consistency
That's all for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support my concerns above have been satisfactorily addressed, and I'm sure that you will be able to resolve Awadewit's points, so I'm happy to go for promotion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support A bishop I finally know something about! Wow! :)

  • My lord, how'd you know about this guy before? (If it's because of all my bishop articles, obviously, I've been doing a bit too much on the Gregorian mission...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My boyfriend is taking this class about the Christianization of Europe. While reviewing for his midterm, we got to the term "Gregorian mission" and I was like, wait, I know tons about that. I reviewed an FAC about it. :) Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is a little unbalanced, with that little second paragraph. I also think it can be expanded a bit. For example, I would mention the famous "Epistola ad Mellitium" and more from the "Bishop of London" section.
  • I've rearranged and added a bit about the Epistola (yet another article I get to write.. whee!) and about Mellitus going to Italy in 610. That look better? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you say what is so special about the letter in the lead? Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL... I don't know yet, I've barely started assembling the sources to write the article. It's obviously important because lots of folks talk about it, but I wouldn't begin to venture a guess at this point without more research. This is NOT my field of specialty, where I can wing it without research. So for now, all I can say is... everything I read about Mellitus mentioned the letter, but I'm sure I'm going to have to dig deeper into literature topics and theological topics before I can write the article on it. I promise I'll update the lead here when I write the article on it, how about that? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does hint at what I thought was so important about it: "While on his journey to England, Mellitus received a letter from Gregory allowing Augustine to convert pagan temples to Christian churches, and to convert pagan animal sacrifices into Christian feasts, to ease the transition to Christianity.[4] Gregory's letter marked a sea change in the missionary strategy,[16] and was later included in Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum." - Perhaps something along these lines could be included in the lead? Awadewit (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, good. I wasn't sure what you were getting at there. I thought you wanted the grand "historiographical view" on the long term importance of the letter and what bearing it had through out English history and literature, which I'm not ready for. I've added "... which suggested ways to help the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons." which sounds like it'd get what you wanted in? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In letters, Pope Gregory I called him an abbot, but whether this was a rank bestowed on Mellitus to ease his journey to England, or whether he had previously been abbot of a Roman monastery, is unclear. - Could you explain why the rank of abbot would ease his journey?
  • I've clarified to "...but whether Mellitus had previously been abbot of a Roman monastery, or this was a rank bestowed on him to ease his journey to England by making him the leader of the expedition, is unclear." Brooks' just gives that, basically.Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episcopal church built in London was probably founded by Æthelberht, rather than Sæberht, but a charter that claims to be a grant of lands from Æthelberht to Mellitus is a later forgery - I would separate the forgery bit into a new sentence - it was a bit difficult to understand all of this in one easy read.
  • It's all those Anglo-Saxon names, with the ligatures, I know... aren't they fun to read? I've reworked this a bit to "The episcopal church built in London was probably founded by Æthelberht, rather than Sæberht. Although Bede records that Æthelberht gave lands to support the new episcopate, a charter that claims to be a grant of lands from Æthelberht to Mellitus is a later forgery." to make it a bit clearer to the non-medievalist.

The lead issue is the only one keeping me from fully supporting. Awadewit (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to full support. Awadewit (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support now. The copyediting has been attended to, and the content was always good.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 2c checked here mostly great, some fixits or questions. 1c looks good.
  • Support..and I thought this was going to be an article related to diabetes mellitus...but seriously, looks fine. There are possibly a few too many 'Mellitus' in the flow of text but only a couple jumped out as able to be easily replaced with pronouns. Good work and good read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support • Ling.Nut 03:29, 12 December 2009 (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/Mellitus/archive1&oldid=1046368942"