The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:51, 1 June 2011 [1].
Liber Eliensis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because this is one of the more complete articles on this important if not very famous historical work. Begun as a compilation to help buttress the religious house's claims to property, it turned it something a bit more over the years. I believe I've found everything possible to add to this (except for where the Liber has been used as a source). It's had a very thorough GA review, a Peer Review by a complete non-medievalist (thanks Rod!) which helped muchly, and a copyedit by Malleus. Deacon's helped out with some pointers to things that I needed to cover. I present to you the Liber Eliensis, a composite work from the 12th century, which I began to help fill out the Nigel of Ely article, but eventually, like Topsy, it grew beyond its modest beginnings... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Seriously, none of the images in the article are from this century, or the last one for that matter, making PD status easy to determine. The image description pages all check out, and the captions all meet the criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I haven't done any spot checking because a) Ealdgyth's reputation doesn't warrant it and b) they're all books most of us are unlikely to own. The sources all check out as reliable based on the reputations of the publishers alone. Two quibbles: the Fairweather citation and second van Houts citation list the publisher as "Boydell", but the Paxton citation lists "Boydell Press". (The text of the article uses the latter as well.) The second is that when works are cited as a component of a book, the author of the overall work is listed in "First Last" rather than "Last, First" order except in the second van Houts citation. ("In Harper-Bill, Christopher and Elizabeth van Houts." instead of the expected "In Christopher Harper-Bill and Elizabeth van Houts.") Imzadi 1979 → 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Both ELs and dabs are fine. Imzadi 1979 → 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Ok, I'm hardly an historian, but at heart I am an Anglophile. In general, given my lay background, I've found the article to be easy to digest and well written. Overall, the article reads and flows well to me, and so I'd be happy to support. I've left a few comments about the prose on the the talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Support - although I am disappointed that Ealdgyth can't read minds, the article itself is definitely FA-quality.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 16:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Leaning support with comments.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
reply
Support: the usual high standard; comprehensive and well-sourced. Ucucha 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Comments reply
Ucucha 08:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
remarks needs legacy or impact section to show why it's important rm2dance ( talk)
Support - maybe the earlier comments took care of any outstanding issues, or I've read too many articles recently, but I can't even find a nit-pick after reading through twice. Nice work; interesting read. Thanks for writing this. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 00:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:51, 1 June 2011 [1].
Liber Eliensis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because this is one of the more complete articles on this important if not very famous historical work. Begun as a compilation to help buttress the religious house's claims to property, it turned it something a bit more over the years. I believe I've found everything possible to add to this (except for where the Liber has been used as a source). It's had a very thorough GA review, a Peer Review by a complete non-medievalist (thanks Rod!) which helped muchly, and a copyedit by Malleus. Deacon's helped out with some pointers to things that I needed to cover. I present to you the Liber Eliensis, a composite work from the 12th century, which I began to help fill out the Nigel of Ely article, but eventually, like Topsy, it grew beyond its modest beginnings... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Seriously, none of the images in the article are from this century, or the last one for that matter, making PD status easy to determine. The image description pages all check out, and the captions all meet the criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I haven't done any spot checking because a) Ealdgyth's reputation doesn't warrant it and b) they're all books most of us are unlikely to own. The sources all check out as reliable based on the reputations of the publishers alone. Two quibbles: the Fairweather citation and second van Houts citation list the publisher as "Boydell", but the Paxton citation lists "Boydell Press". (The text of the article uses the latter as well.) The second is that when works are cited as a component of a book, the author of the overall work is listed in "First Last" rather than "Last, First" order except in the second van Houts citation. ("In Harper-Bill, Christopher and Elizabeth van Houts." instead of the expected "In Christopher Harper-Bill and Elizabeth van Houts.") Imzadi 1979 → 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Both ELs and dabs are fine. Imzadi 1979 → 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Ok, I'm hardly an historian, but at heart I am an Anglophile. In general, given my lay background, I've found the article to be easy to digest and well written. Overall, the article reads and flows well to me, and so I'd be happy to support. I've left a few comments about the prose on the the talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Support - although I am disappointed that Ealdgyth can't read minds, the article itself is definitely FA-quality.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 16:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Leaning support with comments.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
reply
Support: the usual high standard; comprehensive and well-sourced. Ucucha 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Comments reply
Ucucha 08:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply
remarks needs legacy or impact section to show why it's important rm2dance ( talk)
Support - maybe the earlier comments took care of any outstanding issues, or I've read too many articles recently, but I can't even find a nit-pick after reading through twice. Nice work; interesting read. Thanks for writing this. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 00:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply