Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nicholas of Worcester/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 February 2024 [1].

Nicholas of Worcester

edit
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas was Prior of Worcester in the early twelfth century. He was the leading follower of Saint Wulfstan of Worcester and fought for the rights of monks in the church in a period when they were despised by the Norman bishops. He was a source of information for historians such as William of Malmesbury and Eadmer, who held him in great respect. He was of unknown but "exalted" descent, and may have been a son of King Harold Godwinson. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - passed

edit

-- ZooBlazer 20:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional images after inital review:
  • Used in the newly added infobox - includes alt text, is properly licensed, and its use fits with the information/subject of the article

Support by Borsoka

edit

General remarks:

  • I think the article needs an infobox and Wulfstan's picture should be moved from the lead.
  • Perhaps a picture could be added to each section.
  • What about pictures of Worcester cathedral and a manuscript of Malmesbury's chronicle?
  • I think information about Wulfstan should be radically shortened in the lead.
  • Perhaps: "Nicholas was the favourite pupil of Wulfstan/Wulfstan of Worcester, the last surviving Anglo-Saxon bishop, who was influential in transmitting Old English culture to Anglo-Norman England."?
  • The two sentences solely about Wulfstan are "Wulfstan, the last surviving Anglo-Saxon bishop, lived until 1095. He was regarded as a saint in his lifetime, and he was influential in transmitting Old English culture to Anglo-Norman England.". This is just over one line out of nine lines. There is some white space in the nine lines, but it is still well under a quarter, and I think it is important context. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead contains 201 words and 38 words are dedicated exclusively to Wulfstan. Its nearly 20 %.
As a second opinion is asked: I would cut He was regarded as a saint in his lifetime from the lead, but leave the remainder: he was influential in transmitting Old English culture to Anglo-Norman England is justified by the following statement that Nicholas carried this work on: we need to know what it was before we talk about how it continued. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review:

  • Do we know when Nicholas was born?
  • Is Malmesbury's report of Nicholas's exalted ancestry accepted by modern scholars? As far as I remember this was a hagiographic topos in the period.
  • It was a topos about the saints who were the subjects of the hagiographies. William of Malmesbury is the most respected Anglo-Norman historian and he was writing about a friend. No one has suggested that his comments were a topos so far as I am aware. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Mason's theory about Nicholas's ancestry widely accepted or criticised?
  • According to William of Malmesbury, Harold "had a particular liking for Wulfstan, to such a degree that in the course of a journey he was ready to go thirty miles out of his way to remove, by a talk with Wulfstan, the load of anxieties oppressing him. He was so devoted to serving Wulfstan and doing what he wanted that that the holy man was as ashamed to ask something as Harold was willing to comply". Delete (its relevance is unclear and no secondary source verifies its relevance in the article's context."
  • Wulfstan's closeness to Harold is accepted by scholars, and William wrote that Nicholas's father was a close friend of Wulfstan. This is the basis of Mason's theory and the quote illustrates that. I do not cite original sources solely for facts, but translations of them by leading scholars are the correct sources for quotations in my opinion, and this practice has not (so far) been queried by other reviewers of my articles. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Wulfstan's closeness to Harold is mentioned in the following sentence, so we do not need details. (2) As I have been several times reminded during FAC reviews, WP:PRIMARY says: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
  • I am surprised that WP:PRIMARY is that lax about primary sources. I do not cite them for facts, only for illustration. I think the quote is helpful for that, but I have added a secondary source. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. William of Malmesbury wrote that Nicholas's parents were close friends of Wulfstan, and in the sentence before the quote I cite Mason as saying that Harold was the most likely father as he is singled out as a close friend. The long quote on Wulfstan and Harold illustrates Mason's case. Historians also cite Wulfstan's active assistance in securing northern support for Harold's seizure of the throne, but I have not mentioned this as it seemed excessive detail. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR is putting forward a statement or theory based on original research. I do not base a statement or theory on the primary source, just provide it as illustration, and my use is therefore not OR. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My tuppence here: I see the WP:SYNTH (part of WP:NOR) question, but I think we're on the right side of it here: It's best practice (WP:PRIMARY) only to bring in primary sources for interpretative work (such as this) when they've already been brought in by secondary sources to make the same argument: my impression from the footnoting is that this is exactly what's happened here, though I haven't done a source review to verify. If no scholar has ever cited this passage as evidence of Harold's closeness to Wulfstan, it would be OR for us to do so.
    On a separate issue, though, it is a long quote: this has its own tradeoffs (per MOS:QUOTE) in terms of tone, narrative coherence and focus. I would encourage reducing it to a key kernel and summarising the rest: to me, the bit about being willing to go thirty miles out of a journey is quotable, while the precise wording (as distinct from the point) of the second sentence doesn't add much: I'd suggest something like:

    According to William of Malmesbury, Harold "had a particular liking for Wulfstan" and would be "ready to go thirty miles out of his way" to speak to him, which William wrote would "remove [from Harold] ... the load of anxieties oppressing him".

    UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems a bit clumsy to me. How about just cutting the second sentence and having "According to William of Malmesbury, Harold "had a particular liking for Wulfstan, to such a degree that in the course of a journey he was ready to go thirty miles out of his way to remove, by a talk with Wulfstan, the load of anxieties oppressing him." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, that seems a little verbose, but it's swings and roundabouts as to whether you'd prefer to sacrifice a bit of elegance for concision, or a bit of concision for elegance -- I think either solution would be fine. As the source isn't under copyright, we don't have the WP:NFCC requirement to use as little of it as possible, which would normally push us towards concision. I might be tempted to bracket out "to such a degree that" to "[and]" or "[such] that", but again, there's arguments either way. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it is preferable to give a full quote so that the reader can see exactly what the author said, and an ellipsis should preferably only be used to delete an irrelevant passage. Borsoka. I have cut the statement that Wulfstan was regarded as a saint in his lifetime from the lead and UndercoverClassicist is happy on the SYNTH point. I have cut the second sentence from this quote. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know when Nicholas became monk?
  • A date of c.1080 is sometimes given, but the only basis for this appears to be that he was sent to Lanfranc, who was Archbishop of Canterbury between 1070 and 1089, so I thought it better to give Lanfranc's dates rather than repeat the guess.
  • I think all scholars accepting Nicholas' association with Athelstan should be mentioned before listing scholars who reject their theory.
  • I have done this. I have cited at the end of the discussion the only scholar I have found who disputes Darlington's theory. Other scholars treat Æthelred and Nicholas as different people, but it is unclear whether they are aware of the theory.
  • ...and was described by William of Malmesbury as "his revered pupil", and "his particular favourite among his pupils". Could this quote from a primary source be verified with a reference to a secondary source?
  • Nicholas was probably involved in the production of the fraudulent Altitonantis... Could this PoV be attributed to a scholars?
  • William wrote:.... Could the long quote from a primary source be verified with a reference to a secondary source?
  • William of Malmesbury wrote that as prior, Nicholas... Could the quote from a primary source be verified with a reference to a secondary source?
  • Eadmer complained that English nationality debarred a man from achieving high office in the church, however worthy he was. I think the link between this sentence and previous sentences is unclear. Perhaps: "In the period, as Eadmer complained, English nationality usually debarred a man from achieving high office in the church, however worthy he was."
  • Yes, but the relationship between the two sentences is unclear.
  • Benedictine monks became dominant in the English church in the reign of King Edgar, .... they selected William de Corbeil, an Austin canon I think this paragraph could be moved to section Background.
  • ...the queen's chancellor... Who is she?

Thank you for this excellent article on a nearly unknown church leader. Reading about his life allowed me to better understand the history of early 12th-century England. Borsoka (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I cannot support the promotion of this otherwise excellent article because of the two pending issues. Neither do I oppose its promotion so I let other reviewers decide. Borsoka (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "was born around the time of the Norman Conquest and was prior" - I would mention what he is notable for before making the comment about his birth, which I would move into the second sentence
  • "was appointed to the see" - link for "see"? Not everyone will know what this means
  • "was canonized in 1203" - British spelling is canonised
  • "Wulfstan baptized Nicholas as a child" - British spelling in baptised
  • "he would not go bald so long Wulfstan lived" => "he would not go bald so long as Wulfstan lived"
  • "support legal claims by the monastic commnunity " - there's a stray N in the last word
  • "Janet Nelson comments" - can we get some context as to who she is/was? Currently it reads like she was just a random member of the public.....
  • There's a random space before ref 70

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit
  • There's no wikilink anywhere for King Edgar (or some of his family members mentioned in the 'Assistance to historians' section), unless I'm missing it.
  • This might just be my ignorance, but I had to look up the word sedulous. I'm not saying you shouldn't use it, just flagging!
  • Do we know anything about Warin? Is he worth a redlink and/or a line in the section about Nicholas's death?
  • How sure are you about the comprehensiveness of your lists of reprintings of the letters? At the moment, you give the impression that these are the only reprintings.
  • I have checked and I have listed the reprintings recorded by historians, but it is always possible that they may have missed one. I am confident that it is the most comprehensive of any list of his letters. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reads really well; you don't need me to tell you this, but there are some great little stories, and compelling quotes. I made some very small edits, which I encourage you to review. (I've not looked closely at the sources or images.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Interesting article. Not much from me, given this is very nicely written:

Family and early life
  • Is there a reason you have "Life of Wulfstan" (fully italicised), but "Life of Dunstan" (only partially italicised)?
  • Life of Wulfstan is the translation of the Latin title. The title of the life of Dunstan translates as The Life of the Blessed Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury and Confessor. As this is such a mouthful, I abbreviated to Life. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be worth adding a comma after "Life of Dunstan" – "Dunstan an Æthelred" looks like a Saxon-Welsh name (I know it's not, but with "ap" being a Welsh patronymic, it looks like it could be)
Monk
  • "to suppport his case": this is taking the p! Three is excessive
  • I lose you here. What is your point?
  • You have three p's in "supppppport"
Assistance to historians

I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

edit

How on earth have I missed this FAC till now! Shall peruse forthwith and report back very soon. Looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 21:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely sorry to say that I have failed to find anything to carp or quibble at in this top-notch article. I wouldn't mind a gloss on the word "vill", but I don't press the point. I am happy to add my support for the elevation of this article. It is a splendid read – fascinating would not, I think, be too strong a word – well and widely sourced, evidently balanced and comprehensive, and nicely illustrated. – Tim riley talk 22:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your kind words Tim. I have linked vill. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spot-check upon request. It seems like source formatting is consistent, minus several which-information-is-available thingies. Most sources appear from reputable authors, although this isn't a field where I have a deep knowledge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2024 (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/Nicholas_of_Worcester/archive1&oldid=1209880989"