I would say that the lead is somewhat to long. As you know, I'm personally not disinclined to more substantial lead sections, but I think there should be one fewer paragraphs. The article has 15,826 readable characters (of which the lead is about 2,500); according to
MOS:LEADLENGTH, three paragraphs would be appropriate for an article of this length. Points you could consider condensing include the details about the fictions biographies (second para.) and his cult (fourth para).
'the Danes' demand': the initiated reader might not know that the Danes belong to the Great Heathen Army. I'd would be ideal if there was a recognisable connection between Army and the demand.
'The saint's remains were temporarily moved from Bury St Edmunds to London for safekeeping in 1010': this is quite specific for the lead and comes as a surprise since it's not been said that his remains used to be at Bury St Edmunds. Perhaps one could exchange this sentence for a different piece of information elsewhere in the lead.
The "Death" subsection requires some context on the Scandinavian invasion. I know that the citations speaks largely for itself, but it might be more informative to just paraphrase its content and add some explanatory material.
'SCE EADMVND REX— O St Edmund the king!' I guess the translation is about right, but I wonder where the 'O' comes from - it's not in the Latin. However, you'd be right to follow the source if this is their translation.
'as atonement for the sins of his forefathers': I find the language somewhat unencyclopaedic unless it repeats the words of a source (in which case there should be inverted commas).
'by Edmund's intercessions' seems inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. I have not looked at the source, but I suppose something like 'which the population ascribed to Edmund's intercession' could work.
This section might need to be reorganised: since the exposition is so murky, the reader needs to infer the this document had the title Passio Sancti Eadmundi. A real introduction to the text itself and the genre of passio is needed. The current text reads like a plot summary. If it is, no footnotes are needed (
WP:PLOTCITE). The last para. gives what seems like a critical evaluation of the passio. This should be communicated more clearly + contain more than just the view of Gransden.
Done, this section clearly needs more work done to it. AM
The content of the section is not well defined: several written 'artworks' are listed, mostly form the Middle Ages. What distinguished them from those in the 'hagiographies and legends' section?
Apart from these points, I noticed that the structure of the article appears wayward: from the 'Veneration' section onwards, no consistent principle of organisation is used and the sections overlap in their content. I imagine a more coherent layout would need to be found. I hope my pointers will be of some help to you. Do let me know when this article goes to FAC. I will be happy to raise new points of detail there. Best,
Modussiccandi (
talk)
20:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Edmund is first mentioned in the 870 annal of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle compiled 20 years after his death. Based on the article, I understand he was first mentioned on his coins.
I am still uncertain whether coins or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contain the first written reference to Edmund. When mentioning numismatic evidence, do you refer to memorial coins? It is unclear.
Borsoka (
talk)
02:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)reply
In 925 Æthelstan founded a community to take care of his shrine. Perhaps monastic/religious community or abbey/charterhouse? Perhaps "Edmund's shrine"?
Some of them have a legend that provides evidence that the Vikings experimented with their initial design. What is the connection between the Vikings and the coins?
In section "Cult at Bury St Edmunds", the chronology is still unclear. I think the first three paragraphs should be consolidated in order to reflect the sequence of events: his cult promoted and flourished until 910, his shrine develops into a popular pilgrimage centre, his remains are translated to London, Cnut founds the abbey...
Chronology in section "Relics at Arundel" is unclear. Who is Cardinal Manning? Why did he receive relics in 1874? I assume the new shrine mentioned in the text is the Basilica of St. Sernin.
I would say that the lead is somewhat to long. As you know, I'm personally not disinclined to more substantial lead sections, but I think there should be one fewer paragraphs. The article has 15,826 readable characters (of which the lead is about 2,500); according to
MOS:LEADLENGTH, three paragraphs would be appropriate for an article of this length. Points you could consider condensing include the details about the fictions biographies (second para.) and his cult (fourth para).
'the Danes' demand': the initiated reader might not know that the Danes belong to the Great Heathen Army. I'd would be ideal if there was a recognisable connection between Army and the demand.
'The saint's remains were temporarily moved from Bury St Edmunds to London for safekeeping in 1010': this is quite specific for the lead and comes as a surprise since it's not been said that his remains used to be at Bury St Edmunds. Perhaps one could exchange this sentence for a different piece of information elsewhere in the lead.
The "Death" subsection requires some context on the Scandinavian invasion. I know that the citations speaks largely for itself, but it might be more informative to just paraphrase its content and add some explanatory material.
'SCE EADMVND REX— O St Edmund the king!' I guess the translation is about right, but I wonder where the 'O' comes from - it's not in the Latin. However, you'd be right to follow the source if this is their translation.
'as atonement for the sins of his forefathers': I find the language somewhat unencyclopaedic unless it repeats the words of a source (in which case there should be inverted commas).
'by Edmund's intercessions' seems inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. I have not looked at the source, but I suppose something like 'which the population ascribed to Edmund's intercession' could work.
This section might need to be reorganised: since the exposition is so murky, the reader needs to infer the this document had the title Passio Sancti Eadmundi. A real introduction to the text itself and the genre of passio is needed. The current text reads like a plot summary. If it is, no footnotes are needed (
WP:PLOTCITE). The last para. gives what seems like a critical evaluation of the passio. This should be communicated more clearly + contain more than just the view of Gransden.
Done, this section clearly needs more work done to it. AM
The content of the section is not well defined: several written 'artworks' are listed, mostly form the Middle Ages. What distinguished them from those in the 'hagiographies and legends' section?
Apart from these points, I noticed that the structure of the article appears wayward: from the 'Veneration' section onwards, no consistent principle of organisation is used and the sections overlap in their content. I imagine a more coherent layout would need to be found. I hope my pointers will be of some help to you. Do let me know when this article goes to FAC. I will be happy to raise new points of detail there. Best,
Modussiccandi (
talk)
20:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Edmund is first mentioned in the 870 annal of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle compiled 20 years after his death. Based on the article, I understand he was first mentioned on his coins.
I am still uncertain whether coins or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contain the first written reference to Edmund. When mentioning numismatic evidence, do you refer to memorial coins? It is unclear.
Borsoka (
talk)
02:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)reply
In 925 Æthelstan founded a community to take care of his shrine. Perhaps monastic/religious community or abbey/charterhouse? Perhaps "Edmund's shrine"?
Some of them have a legend that provides evidence that the Vikings experimented with their initial design. What is the connection between the Vikings and the coins?
In section "Cult at Bury St Edmunds", the chronology is still unclear. I think the first three paragraphs should be consolidated in order to reflect the sequence of events: his cult promoted and flourished until 910, his shrine develops into a popular pilgrimage centre, his remains are translated to London, Cnut founds the abbey...
Chronology in section "Relics at Arundel" is unclear. Who is Cardinal Manning? Why did he receive relics in 1874? I assume the new shrine mentioned in the text is the Basilica of St. Sernin.