Wikipedia:Peer review/Edmund the Martyr/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edmund the Martyr[edit]

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

I've listed this article for peer review as part of its preparation for FAC. Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Modussiccandi[edit]

Lead
  • I would say that the lead is somewhat to long. As you know, I'm personally not disinclined to more substantial lead sections, but I think there should be one fewer paragraphs. The article has 15,826 readable characters (of which the lead is about 2,500); according to MOS:LEADLENGTH, three paragraphs would be appropriate for an article of this length. Points you could consider condensing include the details about the fictions biographies (second para.) and his cult (fourth para).
Done (please comment). Happy to take another look if needs be. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I will take a look at the new lead tomorrow. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New Lead[edit]
  • 'an annal': could be removed. I think it's enough to know that he appears in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the term 'annal' might be confusing.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'the Danes' demand': the initiated reader might not know that the Danes belong to the Great Heathen Army. I'd would be ideal if there was a recognisable connection between Army and the demand.
Done.Amitchell125 (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a possible link for 'cult'?
Cult (religious practice) used. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps add a brief introduction for Abbo of Fleury.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The saint's remains were temporarily moved from Bury St Edmunds to London for safekeeping in 1010': this is quite specific for the lead and comes as a surprise since it's not been said that his remains used to be at Bury St Edmunds. Perhaps one could exchange this sentence for a different piece of information elsewhere in the lead.
Text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 'patron saints'.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
King of the East Angles
  • An inline citation is needed at the end of the first paragraph.
Text now removed (it was rather vague, anyway). Amitchell125 (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should 'Edmund was descended from the ancient nobility of his race' be in inverted commas because it's virtually a verbatim translation?
Agreed, now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'It is known that...' could be omitted.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give a translation for EADMUND REX AN. and EADMUND REX.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Death" subsection requires some context on the Scandinavian invasion. I know that the citations speaks largely for itself, but it might be more informative to just paraphrase its content and add some explanatory material.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Memorial coinage
  • Æthelstan is linked twice and should have a brief introduction on the first occasion.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure whether 'a coinage' is the proper usage. Perhaps a 'series of coins'?
Agreed, now amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edward the Elder is not introduced.
Done, citation required (to follow). Amitchell125 (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'the design based' is not syntactically connected with the preceding sentence.
Sentence now split. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 'pennies' and 'half-pennies'?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'SCE EADMVND REX— O St Edmund the king!' I guess the translation is about right, but I wonder where the 'O' comes from - it's not in the Latin. However, you'd be right to follow the source if this is their translation.
It might be best to leave the translation be, as more than more reputable source uses it. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 'legend'.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't link 'England'.
Unlinked here, but where England refers to the medieval kingdom, there is a link to the appropriate article. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Veneration
  • The comma after 'King Canute' is unnecessary.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Canute.
Done (citation to follow). Amitchell125 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'as atonement for the sins of his forefathers': I find the language somewhat unencyclopaedic unless it repeats the words of a source (in which case there should be inverted commas).
Sentence deleted (it can't be verified, and similar stories about his crown being deposited elsewhere exist) Amitchell125 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what 'arose' means here.
Paragraph amended to emphasise the growth of the town. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could 'later' be specified?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the material in the infobox does not feature in the article (which IMO it should), its entries need to be referenced
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'It was traditionally claimed' is vague. There has to be more precise information on this tradition.
Paragraph amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'by Edmund's intercessions' seems inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. I have not looked at the source, but I suppose something like 'which the population ascribed to Edmund's intercession' could work.
Agreed, sentence now amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • M. R. James and Charles Biggs should not be called Dr.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'they remained': James and Biggs or the relics?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passio Sancti Eadmundi[edit]
  • The first sentence contains no new information, it seems.
Sentence deleted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The historian Susan Ridyard' has already been introduced
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd remove 'cruelly'
Removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term passio is only introduced in the third paragraph. It should come at the start with an explanation.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'went seeking' needs copy editing
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Here, here, here,": in the lead it says that the Latin was 'hic, hic, hic'. This should also be reflected here if it is to remain in the lead.
Text amended (to the OE words). Amitchell125 (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Gransden?
Explained. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section might need to be reorganised: since the exposition is so murky, the reader needs to infer the this document had the title Passio Sancti Eadmundi. A real introduction to the text itself and the genre of passio is needed. The current text reads like a plot summary. If it is, no footnotes are needed (WP:PLOTCITE). The last para. gives what seems like a critical evaluation of the passio. This should be communicated more clearly + contain more than just the view of Gransden.
Medieval hagiographies and legends
  • I wonder why the passio is not included here.
You're right, so I've the passio section here. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Geoffrey of Wells if possible.
Done, just. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'later': when and in what text?
  • '(Bishop Humbert of Elmham)' and '(probably Bures St Mary in Suffolk)' could be turned into prose.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'present day': see above
Sorted, this may need to be expanded upon, though. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Edmund's death bears resemblance to the fate suffered by St Sebastian, St Denis and St Mary of Egypt' was already mentioned earlier
Duplicate text removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'is said' by whom?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Patronages[edit]
  • 'During the 15th century, St George replaced Edmund as the patron saint of England': this fact has not been brought up yet.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'began': is there any more detail available?
Paragraph expanded slightly, more to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In art[edit]
  • Could this section be turned into prose?
Done, this section clearly needs more work done to it. AM
  • The content of the section is not well defined: several written 'artworks' are listed, mostly form the Middle Ages. What distinguished them from those in the 'hagiographies and legends' section?
Quite (see above). Amitchell125 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from these points, I noticed that the structure of the article appears wayward: from the 'Veneration' section onwards, no consistent principle of organisation is used and the sections overlap in their content. I imagine a more coherent layout would need to be found. I hope my pointers will be of some help to you. Do let me know when this article goes to FAC. I will be happy to raise new points of detail there. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I'm aware that none of this was introduced by you. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments, Modussiccandi, all of which are welcomed. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka[edit]

  • Edmund is first mentioned in the 870 annal of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle compiled 20 years after his death. Based on the article, I understand he was first mentioned on his coins.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still uncertain whether coins or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contain the first written reference to Edmund. When mentioning numismatic evidence, do you refer to memorial coins? It is unclear. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text is hopefully now clearer, as Edmund's own coinage provides the earliest evidence, something that I didn't properly explain before. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is note 2 necessary? Its text is repeated in section "Death and burial" (although the two quotes are slightly different).
Agreed, note now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is not the term "Annals of St Bertin" italicized? Or why is the term "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" italicized?
Italicized the former. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need Old English quotes in the main text? Perhaps, they could be placed in notes.
I think we do, and would rather keep them in. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they do not improve the article's prose. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Text now placed in a note. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Haegelisdun the place where he was killed?
No one is sure of this, text amended to reflect the uncertainty. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 925 Æthelstan founded a community to take care of his shrine. Perhaps monastic/religious community or abbey/charterhouse? Perhaps "Edmund's shrine"?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Guthrum?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of them have a legend that provides evidence that the Vikings experimented with their initial design. What is the connection between the Vikings and the coins?
Good spot, text now clarified to explain that Guthrum was a Viking. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...creation ... of the geographical ... area... Could a geographical area be created?
No—now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear chronology: the establishment of the abbey is mentioned after creation of the Liberty of St Edmund in favor of the abbey.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

....More to come. Borsoka (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: in case they forgot, and @Amitchell125: if they want to get started on the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until my remarks remain unnoticed, there is no point in continuing my review. :) Borsoka (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, I was awaiting for more review comments to come before starting work on them... No worries Amitchell125 (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In section "Cult at Bury St Edmunds", the chronology is still unclear. I think the first three paragraphs should be consolidated in order to reflect the sequence of events: his cult promoted and flourished until 910, his shrine develops into a popular pilgrimage centre, his remains are translated to London, Cnut founds the abbey...
Thanks for your help here, section restructured accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If his cult declined after 910, why was the abbey built under Cnut?
This will have been sorted when the above comment is addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Basilica of St. Sernin" or "basilica of Saint-Sernin"?
Basilica, now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronology in section "Relics at Arundel" is unclear. Who is Cardinal Manning? Why did he receive relics in 1874? I assume the new shrine mentioned in the text is the Basilica of St. Sernin.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What types of relics were given to Archbishop Herbert Vaughan?
The source only mentions "certain relics", now quoted as such in the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edmund's followers found his head but the villagers recovered it. The villagers appear in the story without introduction.
Sorted.Amitchell125 (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the "the three crowns" are depicted on Edmund's banners. They are mentioned without introduction.
Correct, now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edmund's cult is analysed from comparative perspective in Gábor Klaniczay's monography about royal saints. You may want to use this book as well ([1]). Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the find, it looks interesting. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is thought to have been of East Anglian origin... This statement in the lead is not verified in the main text.
  • ...he was canonised by the Church... This statement in the lead is not verified in the main text.
  • Consider mentioning in the lead that he is also venerated in Toulouse.
  • In section "Cult at Toulose" consider first mentioning that a list mentioned Edmund's relics in 1425. Borsoka (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This are my last suggestions. Thank you for this interesting article. Good luck for the FAC process. Borsoka (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Edmund_the_Martyr/archive1&oldid=1074777521"