This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point and am looking for prose help, as well as help with finding any missing context that might be needed for a non-medievalist.
Ealdgyth -
Talk18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Colin's comments: I know very little English history so amply qualify as a non-medievalist. Here's some initial comments from the first two parts. More later if this is helpful.
"was the fourth Archbishop of Canterbury, in England." The ", in England" jarrs. Is it necessary? We mention England a few words later, just in case anyone doesn't know where the Archbishop of Canterbury lives.
"books brought to England by Mellitus". I don't know who Mellitus is. I see it is wikilinked later but I need it here. I see from his article that he was believed to have come on the 601 mission too, which explains why he is being mentioned in connection with the books Justus travelled with. Can we give some context here?
Just noticed the article spells "traveled" with one "l". Is this written in US English? Just asking.
It should be in Brit English, but I usually have Malleus check over these types of articles because I'm a yank, thus catching all my mistakes (I've finally gotten "favour" down..)
Ealdgyth -
Talk19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not really following the point about "but examination of...one possible survivor". Why the "but"?
"the returning missionaries" I'm confused about "returning". I thought they came to Britain, not returned to Britain?
this paragraph came from another article (easier than retyping the whole big lot!) but a couple of typos obviously occurred. One of the 601 missionaries was actually returning (Laurence) but the others were new. Easier to just remove the "returning" from here, where it is unneccessary detail (the article it came from was Laurences, obviously).
Ealdgyth -
Talk19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)reply
"force the conversion of his followers" Is "followers" the right word? Doesn't a king have "subjects"?
"Subjects" has a connotation that isn't quite correct in the early medieval period, especially here. The nobles, etc. were more "followers" than "subjects", as they could (and did) desert these kings (who were really not able to enforce their will on the peasants) so followers is a bit more correct.
Ealdgyth -
Talk19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)reply
"The King was also urged to destroy all pagan shrines" I'm wondering why this is a separate sentence rather than just run on from the previous as "and destroy all pagan shrines". Did that urging come from someone else, or was that behaviour not "like the Roman Emperor Constantine I"?
Nope, just a relic of how I put articles together, which is to throw up data in bits and pieces then rearrange as needed. Sometimes that means that sentences aren't always real long.
Ealdgyth -
Talk17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Did they succeed? Did the king convert his subjects and destroy the shrines?
We don't really know if he destroyed them all, nor do we have a lot of evidence about how many were converted. On reflection, I've removed the sentence about hte letter, as it's really peripheral to Justus.
Ealdgyth -
Talk17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)reply
"another of the missionaries who was Bishop of London" this reads like there were several missionaries who were "Bishop of London". Do you mean something like "who was another of the missionaries and who was Bishop of London"?
"He then consecrated Romanus as his successor" a little ambiguous if "he" is Justus or Boniface, particularly when Boniface's actions continue to be described in the following sentence with an "also" linking back.
How long is the poem about him? If short, could it be reproduced here or linked to?
I have no idea. I have no idea if it's even been translated from Latin, honestly. If it has, it might still be copyrighted depending on the date of translation. For that matter, transcribing manuscripts may very well be copyrighted.
Ealdgyth -
Talk17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)reply
What a shame we only know bits of his life and not even the year of his death.
We know more about him than some other Archbishops of Canterbury... see
Feologild. And the ABCs are much better off than some of the other early medieval English bishops...
Ealdgyth -
Talk17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)reply
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point and am looking for prose help, as well as help with finding any missing context that might be needed for a non-medievalist.
Ealdgyth -
Talk18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Colin's comments: I know very little English history so amply qualify as a non-medievalist. Here's some initial comments from the first two parts. More later if this is helpful.
"was the fourth Archbishop of Canterbury, in England." The ", in England" jarrs. Is it necessary? We mention England a few words later, just in case anyone doesn't know where the Archbishop of Canterbury lives.
"books brought to England by Mellitus". I don't know who Mellitus is. I see it is wikilinked later but I need it here. I see from his article that he was believed to have come on the 601 mission too, which explains why he is being mentioned in connection with the books Justus travelled with. Can we give some context here?
Just noticed the article spells "traveled" with one "l". Is this written in US English? Just asking.
It should be in Brit English, but I usually have Malleus check over these types of articles because I'm a yank, thus catching all my mistakes (I've finally gotten "favour" down..)
Ealdgyth -
Talk19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not really following the point about "but examination of...one possible survivor". Why the "but"?
"the returning missionaries" I'm confused about "returning". I thought they came to Britain, not returned to Britain?
this paragraph came from another article (easier than retyping the whole big lot!) but a couple of typos obviously occurred. One of the 601 missionaries was actually returning (Laurence) but the others were new. Easier to just remove the "returning" from here, where it is unneccessary detail (the article it came from was Laurences, obviously).
Ealdgyth -
Talk19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)reply
"force the conversion of his followers" Is "followers" the right word? Doesn't a king have "subjects"?
"Subjects" has a connotation that isn't quite correct in the early medieval period, especially here. The nobles, etc. were more "followers" than "subjects", as they could (and did) desert these kings (who were really not able to enforce their will on the peasants) so followers is a bit more correct.
Ealdgyth -
Talk19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)reply
"The King was also urged to destroy all pagan shrines" I'm wondering why this is a separate sentence rather than just run on from the previous as "and destroy all pagan shrines". Did that urging come from someone else, or was that behaviour not "like the Roman Emperor Constantine I"?
Nope, just a relic of how I put articles together, which is to throw up data in bits and pieces then rearrange as needed. Sometimes that means that sentences aren't always real long.
Ealdgyth -
Talk17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Did they succeed? Did the king convert his subjects and destroy the shrines?
We don't really know if he destroyed them all, nor do we have a lot of evidence about how many were converted. On reflection, I've removed the sentence about hte letter, as it's really peripheral to Justus.
Ealdgyth -
Talk17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)reply
"another of the missionaries who was Bishop of London" this reads like there were several missionaries who were "Bishop of London". Do you mean something like "who was another of the missionaries and who was Bishop of London"?
"He then consecrated Romanus as his successor" a little ambiguous if "he" is Justus or Boniface, particularly when Boniface's actions continue to be described in the following sentence with an "also" linking back.
How long is the poem about him? If short, could it be reproduced here or linked to?
I have no idea. I have no idea if it's even been translated from Latin, honestly. If it has, it might still be copyrighted depending on the date of translation. For that matter, transcribing manuscripts may very well be copyrighted.
Ealdgyth -
Talk17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)reply
What a shame we only know bits of his life and not even the year of his death.
We know more about him than some other Archbishops of Canterbury... see
Feologild. And the ABCs are much better off than some of the other early medieval English bishops...
Ealdgyth -
Talk17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)reply