Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paulinus of York/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 Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [1].

Paulinus of York edit

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I swear it's the last short bishop for a while? Seriously, he's the last link in the Gregorian mission featured topic. He's not very interesting, no whippings by St Peter or bastard children lurking about. Most you can say is that there is some controversy among historians as to when he actually went to Northumbria. As usual, research by myself, copyediting by Malleus. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comments Thorough and well written as usual, but a few quibbles, mainly in the lead

  • in medieval England. – is this necessary? The date is given, and even if you don’t know where York is, England is mentioned twice more in this paragraph.
struck it. However, I will point out in my defence that you wouldn't believe how many folks don't think of 644 as medieval nor know that York is in England. ... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paulinus arrived in England by 604 with the second missionary group. Little is known of Paulinus' activities after his arrival in England. – Well, the article actually says quite a bit more about him, perhaps something like Little is known of Paulinus' activities in the following two decades, which also avoids repetition of arrived/arrival and England
works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • built some churches. Prefer a number of churches as later, but not a big deal
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''built some churches. One of those Paulinus... – presumably not a church, perhaps One of the women...?
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was probably an Italian by birth.[2] They had arrived in Kent by 604, Who they? Intervening sentence has dislocated from subject, need to repeat mission
Switched to "The second group of missionaries arrived... " which also rids me of a stray "had". Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christian and to continue to worship. – practising Christian might be less clunky
Let's try "... Christian and worship as she chose." Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third sentence of Death, I tweaked slightly while fixing a typo, please check it's OK
Still good. Thanks for finding the typo. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting shortly jimfbleak (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your solutions to the last two queries much better than my suggestions;, as to the first, didn't someone say "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography"? (: Good luck, jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • Minor question Do we know what happened to his relics? They seem to vanish from the narrative in the 1080s; do they still exist somewhere, were they destroyed in the Conquest or the Reformation, or do they just vanish from history? Since for a saint, their bones in some ways are their legacy, it's perhaps more important for him than for most. – iridescent 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess they went poof in the Dissolution. Most relics in England did then. Nothing I have says what happened to them, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If the worst I can find is "we don't know where his bones are", that should be enough. – iridescent 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that there are any relics from prior to the Dissolution left in England. There are some that might be with Rufus' bones, but I'm not sure they ever figured out whose they might be (they aren't sure those bones are Rufus' either, for that matter.) What didn't get lost in the Dissolution generally got lost under Cromwell. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I know a bishop fact that you don't! – iridescent 22:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's unsourced (snickers) You know me.. if it's not sourced, it doesn't exist... (Cuthbert's on my "eventually" list along with Becket.. but only after I finish all the others...)Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: no issue with the statue (its sculptor should be dead centuries ago, and if not, the UK has freedom of panorama). The map should not be a GIF, so I converted it to a PNG and used that. Maps are recommended to be SVGs per Wikipedia:Image use policy, but the PNG should suffice at a minimum level. Anyone interested in making an SVG for the map here, please go ahead. In short, no opposable actions for the two pictures. Jappalang (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support Interesting article, though I found the writing a little dense at times.

  • "Edwin promised to convert to Christianity if he won a victory over Wessex, and allowed his new daughter, Eanflæd to be baptised. Unclear, is it "...convert to Christianity and allow his new daughter...if he won a victory over Wessex", or "...if he won a victory over Wessex. He allowed his new daughter..."
It was both (convert and allow the daughter to be baptised) ... I've rephrased to "Edwin promised to convert to Christianity and allow his new daughter Eanflæd to be baptised if he won a victory over Wessex." which hopefully clears that up. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edwin died in his defeat - What makes this a well written phrase, hmm. Not sure how to reword it better though.
Let's try "Edwin was defeated by the Welsh and died at the Battle of Hatfield Chase, on a date traditionally given as 12 October 633." That better? I agree the previous was not good. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few other bits and pieces I can fix myself. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to these in a few, I JUST got in from finishing up fencing outside and I stink to high heaven. Shower calls! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a busy man. Responce in 20 minutes or I oppose. Har. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well constructed and referenced, and a pleasure to read. Tiniest gleanings:

  • Is "due to" as used here passim a US usage where in the UK a noun clause would be needed and "owing to" or "because of" would be correct?
Yes, it is. (after I parsed the grammar-speak.) Changed to "because of". Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for the possessive - my English teachers would have had me write "Paulinus's"
Mine would have shot me if I didn't do Paulinus'. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paulinus was anxious to convert the Northumbrians" - is anxiety the right idea here or was he keen, determined, or some such?
Changed to "wished" I'm not entirely certain that "anxious" wasn't a leftover from the old 1911 britannica, which was the origin of this article, way back when. I've rewritten it almost completely, but sometimes a word or two will linger. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edwin promised to convert to Christianity if he won a victory over Wessex, and allowed his new daughter..." - this is ambiguous. "...and he allowed..." would make the meaning unambiguous.
fixed per Ceoil above. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If Kirby's arguments on the date of Paulinus' consecration is accepted..." - "are accepted" I think.
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His successor at Rochester was Ithamar, the first Englishman consecrated to a Gregorian missionary see. After Paulinus' death he was revered as a saint..." - another ambiguity: perhaps make it clear that the revered person was Paulinus rather than Ithamar.
Fixed. Replaced "he" with "Paulinus". Hate the repetition, but it's necessary. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this is all very, very minor. Let me just add how much I, knowing nothing of the subject, enjoyed the article and found it easy to absorb. Tim riley (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to these in a few, I JUST got in from finishing up fencing outside and I stink to high heaven. Shower calls! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 4 April 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/Paulinus_of_York/archive1&oldid=1138468811"