Talk:Berhtwald

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Berhtwald/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 12:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written; a few suggestions follow

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No problems, well researched, reliable sources used.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Can see no problems here, nothing deficient when compared to the ODNB article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Fair, neutral and well-balanced.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems, all recent work seems to be improving the article to GA level

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images=no problems. Would be nice to have an image, of course. I'm sue you'll add one if one is available.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• No links to disambiguation pages
• No dead external links

This was an interesting read and very close to passing GA with just a few minor suggestions/queries. I am know nothing about medieval bishops which will hopefully be an advantage here. (Actually I know a bit more now, especially having just read Wilfrid too!) My concerns are to do with the clarity of the prose for ignorami like me. Feel free to disagree of course, and none of these will be sticking points, but I shall wait for your response before listing the article.

• "...appointed Berhtwald as the first Anglo-Saxon Abbot of Glastonbury in 667" - I presume the capital A is correct here and that you're using "Abbot of Glastonbury" as a title - just thouht I'd check! Elsewhere, you have King of Wessex, but king of Kent, should these be consistent?

• Fixed, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think there could be a few more wikilinks to help add context. For example:
  • You could link "charter" to Anglo-Saxon charters; although it's a fairly common word, linking to that article would give some good background
    • Linked to charter in one spot and Anglo-Saxon charter in another. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Æthelred of Mercia
    • oops. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • council - ecumenical council?
    • An ecumenical council isn't what this council was though, as an ecumenical council is of the entire church from many different countries, and this was a local council. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • perhaps Bearsted
    • done Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • perhaps Ripon
    • done Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • primate - to primate (bishop) I presume, if there's nothing more specific
    • Unfortunately, that article is pretty much too late in coverage than what this period is. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• I have no idea if there's a suitable synonym for consecration, but if there is, or if you could reword it somehow, you could avoid the repetition of the word four times in three sentences (second paragraph of "Election as archbishop")
  • Not really, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• When you mention that Berhtwald is the first of the continuous series of native-born archbishops, I'm interested, but not knowing anything about this topic, I'm wondering where the others came from. I don't know if this is necessary, or possible, but perhaps you could (without dumbing down too much) explain why up until then they often weren't native?
  • They weren't native because most of the Gregorian missionaries were Italian, and until they died off, they tended to monopolize the office, and then after there were a couple of native ones, one of hte native archbishops died at Rome while visiting the pope and the pope appointed a Greek monk as archbishop Theodore of Tarsus. Berhtwald followed Theodore, and most remaining archbishops have been natives (there are a few exceptions, but very few comparatively). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• In the "archbishop" section, in the sentence beginning "However, another privilege, usually referred to as the "Privilege of Wihtred", although claiming to be a grant..." I found the although to be a little ambiguous when I first read it, as if "claiming to be a grant from Wihtred" contradicts "usually referred to as the "Privilege of Wihtred"" rather than "is actually a ninth-century forgery". I hope that makes sense!
  • I reworded this, so see how it works now? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Much of Berhtwald's time in office coincided with the efforts of Wilfrid to regain the see of York, and to reverse the division of York into smaller dioceses, and Berhtwald was opposed to Wilfrid's position." - the last part of this sentence sounds a little awkward to me, as if it should be a separate sentence, or have a semicolon or something.
  • Fixed, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm wondering if somehow, somewhere in the article you could make it a bit clearer who Wilfrid is. I quickly worked out that he was another bishop, and then I went to read his article, but a little bit of background might help, either in the lead
  • I've added a bit here... let me know if it's enough. I really don't want to redo Wilfrid's article here... that'd be overkill! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have another read through, but that's all I can see for now. I'll put the article on hold to allow you to address or respond to the above. --BelovedFreak 13:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It'll probably be Monday or Tuesday before I have a chance to get to this (quite honestly I wasn't expecting such a quick review!) as I'm getting married this weekend and am a trifle busy. Shouldn't be a big issue, just a bit of concentrated time needed and that's one thing I don't got right this minute! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, congratulations & best of luck. Don't worry about it! --BelovedFreak 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Think I got it all? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I reviewed this so soon before your important weekend, if I'd looked properly at your talkpage beforehand, I'd have realised. I hope everything went well. Thanks for addressing these concerns. I'm happy with the changes you've made. It would be nice if there were appropriate articles to link to in some cases, to give the reader more background, but I'm happy with your explanations there. Good work! --BelovedFreak 17:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Berhtwald

2nd paragraph from top:
"Berhtwald's period as archbishop coincided with the end of Wilfrid's long struggle to regain the Archbishopric of York..."
Shouldn't it be "Bishopric of York"? The first archbishop was Wilfred's successor, Ecgberht, when York was elevated in 735. Norman Zavlandid (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed correct, and it's now been corrected, thank you! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Glastonbury...?

While ferreting for yet more stuff on the ecclesiastical history of Reculver, I stumbled upon this from 1946 by Gordon Ward, in which the idea that Berhtwald had once been abbot at Glastonbury is explicitly rejected (p. 26): no detailed argument is presented, but Ward effectively pins the blame on Searle's Onomasticon. Thing is, looking at Bede, Nicholas Brooks's work on Canterbury, a paper by Susan Kelly on the Reculver charters ("Reculver Minster and its early charters", in Barrow & Wareham (eds.), Myth, Rulership, Church and Charters Essays in Honour of Nicholas Brooks, 2008) and the Blackwell encyclopedia, I find no mention of Glastonbury in relation to this Berhtwald – Glastonbury isn't even in the index for the edition of Bede that's cited for this article. But looking at the PASE, I see it has "Beorhtwald 5" as abbot of Glastonbury early in the 8th century and within the period that the present Berhtwald (as "Beorhtwald 6") was firmly ensconced at Canterbury.[1] Do you think Ward is right? Or am I missing something? Nortonius (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Gone. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Great! I felt in need of another pair of eyes on this, so much appreciated. Nortonius (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And I've just removed the bit about Bede, Berhtwald and Meare, because Bede doesn't mention it and per Abrams, Lesley (1996), Anglo-Saxon Glastonbury, p. 91, n. 88.[2] Nortonius (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)