Talk:Liber Eliensis/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Some quick notes to start off with...

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There's a few odd bits of prose - I'll give it a copyedit, then go through and mark anything that still seems not to work.

   • Background: "The northern histories were produced foundation stories of the various Cistercian houses in the north, along with other works." - was something else meant to be added in here?

   • Actually, this did not need the "were" there... now reads: "The northern histories produced foundation stories produced foundation stories..." which should make a lot more sense now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   • The last sentence in "Sources" is a bit awkward - it makes sense, but it doesn't feel right, and I'm not sure how to rephrase it.

   • Reworded to: "It is possible that the information on Hereward originally came from orally transmitted tales that were written down, likewise for the information on Byrhtnoth." which hopefully makes more sense. (I agree the original wording was ... blech!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   • The last sentence of "Contents" is also a bit odd - it seems to cut out. Is it just meaning to say that these are examples of listed gifts, or was there meant to be more?

   • Reworded to: "Many of the gifts to the abbey church are described, such as the altar cloth given to the abbey by Queen Emma (d. 1052), wife of both Æthelred II (d. 1016) and King Cnut (d. 1035) are described and a short history of the circumstances of the donation related." does that help? It was meant more as an example, not as a broad listing of gifts, which would take up almost as much as the Liber itself! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   • I suspected it was meant to be an example, but I wasn't sure if the "Thus..." was going to lead to a related discussion.

   Otherwise, looks broadly MOS-compliant. I'll have another check for grammar and punctuation later, once I've recovered from looking at it for a straight couple of hours!

   Phrasing looks pretty good now, thanks! I can't see any obvious stylistic infelicities left; if I to turn up anything, it'll be a matter of trivial copyediting, so I think we can call this bit passed. Shimgray | talk | 15:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All looks good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Some things which might benefit from more detail:

   *The authorship debate could be expanded a bit, I think. It was written in two stages, and traditionally by two named people. I'm not clear on this "traditional" view - did they think Richard and Thomas wrote it collaboratively, that it was written by one of the two, or that it was written by one of the two and other unnamed authors? And if so, how does this fit in with the text being written in two stages (early and late) - was this detail only worked out by more recent historians?

   • I've expanded this a bit. The problem is that there are really only a few modern secondary works that discuss the Liber. Blake's latin edition has a very helpful introduction, but there is a severe lack of discussion of this very subject. The recent translator, Fairweather, is NOT a medievalist, nor a historian, so her introduction isn't nearly as useful as Blake's. She specifically refers people to Blake's edition for a lot of information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   • I like the rework - it makes more sense. One small issue, though, is this sentence about Fairweather. I think it's reasonable to tone down her argument if she's a non-specialist, but having a line saying 'she's not a historian' seems a bit... well, it reads a bit like we've editorially decided we don't like her, which is unfortunate! I've tried rephrasing it so the anonymous option seems less prominent - thoughts?

   • I added "a classisicist" and linked it right after, which I hope shows that she's not exactly out of her field but she's not trained to evaluate historical evidence to the same degree as say Blake or Grandsen. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   • That works well, I think. One last quibble from that section - we talk about "the delay in [book II] being brought out". Is "brought out" a bit anachronistic here? It seems to imply something more akin to modern publishing, which is a bit odd. 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   • Changed to "finished" (brought out works too, as the works were in a sense published when they were finished, but it's a fine change.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   *"Influence" is quite short. There's some material on the significance of the work already under the content section (eg/ longest local history, first description of chancery, etc); perhaps move this out into the later section, and discuss the overall historic significance of the work as distinct from its actual content? This looks potentially quite interesting.

   • I've reorganized this a bit, but there just isn't that much in secondary sources about this. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   • The current form looks a lot better, I think - there isn't much, but it goves the sense that there is something and we've presented it all. Shimgray | talk | 19:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   *...and relatedly, is it used as a major source by anyone after Paris and Roger of Wendover, or was it just of local relevance after then?

   • See above, severe lack of discussion...Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   *There's a couple of quotes from contemporary historians, but no quote from the actual text itself. Is there a short passage we could quote, a line or two in Latin and in translation, to give a reader who doesn't know much about medieval chronicles a feel for what they said?

   • There really isn't anything that is "oustandingly" interesting or memorable that has to be noted. This isn't really a "chronicle" it's a "chronicle-cartulary" or basically a set of documents tied together with a rather disjointed narrative. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   • Fair enough. I wondered if there might be something quotable from the internal disputes between them and the bishopric, but it's not something material to the article! Shimgray | talk | 19:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   *The article discusses the textual relationship between the versions, but there's nothing about the "editorial" differences. I know the various versions of something like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle occasionally take very different editorial lines when discussing events; the Liber seems to be quite a slanted work, and do any of the versions differ dramatically from each other in what they say as opposed to the exact way they say it?

   • There really aren't many major differences. Scholars can get excited about the change of a word, but nothing that is markedly different between the manuscripts. Keep in mind the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was actually a series of different chronicles based off the same beginning. Someone created a chronicle, then different monastic houses in England took that basic draft and continued it as well as rewriting the original as it suited them. This is pretty much one work, has only a few manuscripts, and quit being updated after about 1175 or so. It never go popular enough to be extracted that much, so it's pretty unified. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   • Excellent. Is it worth mentioning this explicitly ("...apart from minor textual variations, the surviving manuscripts are broadly similar in their content") or is it something we can just leave implied?

   • I'd rather leave it implied. The ASC is a rather unique case in medieval manuscripts, it's usually assumed that most are reasonably idenitical. Where the derivitive MS differ, we already discuss them Ealdgyth - Talk 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   • Speaking of the manuscripts, I note we have manuscripts A, B, E, F, G. Are there no C or D? Shimgray | talk | 19:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   • C and D are given in Blake's abbreviation list, but he never discusses them.. so no idea why they aren't discussed. Did I mention that this work hasn't received much secondary coverage? (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   *Is there any academic opinion of the two modern translations? If one is considered much more useful than the other, it's probably worth saying so.

   • There is only one translation, actually. Blake's edition is just a printing of the Latin or Old English text. Fairweather's is the only translation in full. I've tried to clarify this a bit more in the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   • Good good. Shimgray | talk | 19:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No obvious problems

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   One image, nice and easy :-). I take it there's no chance for an image of a fragment of the text? Not essential, of course, but it might brighten the second half up a little.

   • Neither edition (Blake or Fairweather) contains any illustrations. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall: I think that's everything, now - well done, and thanks!

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: Shimgray | talk | 11:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)