Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyfeilliog/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 14 August 2024 [1].

Cyfeilliog

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyfeilliog was a bishop in south-east Wales in the time of Alfred the Great. He is best known for having been captured by the Vikings and ransomed by Alfred's son Edward the Elder for the large amount of forty pounds of silver. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

I am unable to find anything to pick at in this fine article, so I shall simply support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • It is unsourced and apparently created by an editor who has long since disappeared. All the other maps I can find in Commons are not as good and equally unsourced. There is a map in Lloyd's History of Wales, and as he died in 1947 it is presumably out of copyright. Can I scan and upload it? It is over size (9x11 ins) but I can presumably either shrink it or scan part of it. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds as if it will work to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I have replaced the map but I am not sure what the licencing details should be. Can you advise please? Does it look OK? It is a cropped version of c:File:Medieval Wales map Lloyd.jpg. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. Give the full details of the source, similar to eg File:Battle of Cape Ecnomus map.svg. I would suggest adding Lloyd's birth and death years, just to show that that we have death plus 70 years braces to the CC licence belt. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog but the Ecnomus map has licence {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Presumably I cannot use that as I just scanned the map. Can you advise what the licence should be in this case? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you do the two things I mention above, then I believe that a {{PD-old-70}} tag should be sufficient. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a hiccup. I have this work first published in 1901, with a second edition in 1912. Is that correct? Do you know if the same map featured in either of those? If it did, on what page? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, except that the first edition was in 1911. I will ask for a scan of the map - if there is one - in the first edition to check. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog it is the same map in the 1911 edition. So can I use {{PD-Art-two|PD-old-100|PD-1923}}? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that is valid. I think {{PD-old-100}} will suffice. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog I have added an image of the cryptogram tracked down by UndercoverClassicist. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest cropping that image, and/or adding a caption that more clearly points the reader to the top right? It's not totally obvious which bit is the cryptogram (it could be the marginal note about two thirds down, for example). It might also be worth cropping out the Cambridge UL copyright claim, as Wikimedia's position is that Cambridge can't claim a copyright purely by virtue of scanning the thing (edit: but perhaps they could for the scale ruler, so another argument for cropping?). UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this -- very much so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

A really excellent article, and no doubt some tricky source-work to pull it all together. As ever, the below are thoughts and suggestions rather than demands:

  • Can we give a pronunciation guide at the top?
  • Welsh orthography is very consistent between spelling and pronunciation: see Help:IPA/Welsh or, if you like, you could reference something like this guide from Aberystwyth University. Given that very few Anglophone readers will pronounce Cyfeilliog anything close to what's intended, the benefits of adding at least an IPA transcription seem to greatly outweigh the costs. In policy terms, I'd say that this is the same principle as WP:CALC (that making a routine calculation isn't OR): if we have a good source for how all of those morphemes are pronounced, it's a routine calculation to string all of those together. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you sort this out and cite your source as you understand it? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone and done this using Help:IPA/Welsh (erring on the side of South Walian pronunciations). As the template automatically links there, I believe that's the usual practice for "citation" where the name is pronounced as "normal" in the language. I haven't written a respell, deferring to your point above about it being more subjective. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I reading this right? It looks like you added Modern Welsh pronunciation to the Old Welsh name. My understanding of the diachrony of this is that there is no way /au/ would have been pronounced [ai] in Old Welsh. This paper (p. 7) shows that /au/ monophthongizes to /o~ɔː/, which is indeed confirmed in the Modern Welsh orthography (-auc → -og) . Unless I misunderstand, this should be removed before promotion. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair cop -- I've removed the IPA for the Old Welsh. Is this something you think you'd be able to put right? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't see this! The short answer is no. For one, I'm not terribly well-versed in Old Welsh. For another, a brief look through some literature I have on hand seems to indicate that there is some debate as to the precise phonology (esp. the emergence of the pitch accent). Plus, medieval manuscripts are notoriously finicky wrt to spelling vs. phonology. I think best-case of me taking a stab at it is I blatantly violate WP:SYNTH. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bartrum 1993 citation: check formatting of AD. Currently one letter has a dot, one doesn't, and both are spaced: our MoS advises no dots or spaces (and to make that change in a title per MOS:CONFORMTITLE)
  • I would spell out the d. in the first line or, at minimum, use the abbreviation template.
  • Cyfeilliog is probably the author of a cryptogram (encrypted text) in the Juvencus Manuscript: the tone here sounds as if we expect readers to know what the Juvencus Manuscript is; I must admit that I didn't. Suggest "the book of poetry known as the Juvencus Manuscript" or similar? I think we've got space in the lead to play with.
  • Bit of a problem now with in the ninth-century collection of poetry known as the Juvencus Manuscript, which would have required a knowledge of Latin and Greek: what's the antecedent of which? As written, it's "the ninth-century collection...", but I think we mean it to be "being the author of that". UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but some historians are sceptical as they think that this date is late for a bishop active in the 880s.: we don't really explain this in the text, but it sounds like a pretty weak objection to me: surely he could have been consecrated in his twenties or so, and it's not ridiculous to have therefore died in his sixties or seventies? Do Sims-Williams and Davies give any more detail here? On another note, "are sceptical" sits slightly awkwardly: I think it's the combination of it being so explicitly mind-reading and so clearly present-tense. Perhaps better as "some historians consider this date too late for..."?
  • The souces do not give any more explanation, but it is not correct that he could have been appointed in his twenties. He was a priest, and the minimum age for consecration as a priest was 30. He was probably a monk for some years before becoming a bishop, so he was most likely born before 850 and would have been around 80 by 927. This was old for the time. Sceptical sounds OK to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that seems a bit more solid, though at least personally I'd take that more as "may be a bit too late" rather than "definitely false". Augustus, Augustine and Jerome all lived well into their seventies, for example. But this is probably now better dealt with below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider translating Rhodri Mawr?
  • It would clarify that Mawr isn't strictly a name, for non-Welsh speakers. It would also avoid the 'easter egg' effect, where some of our readers will pick up information here that isn't available to most. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mercia, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom on the eastern Welsh border, traditionally claimed hegemony over most of Wales: I am not a huge fan of traditionally for a few reasons: one, all traditions are invented: was this 'tradition' years old, decades old, centuries old...? Secondly, was this really a matter of people piously observing tradition, or a matter of the Mercians having lots of rough people with sharp things ready to enforce that 'tradition'? Suggest something like "which since the sixth century [or whatever] had claimed/asserted..."
  • This is the wording usually used by historians, and I think it conveys the position better than alternatives.
  • Do they put a date on it at all? I imagine that most of these historians are writing for people who know a little bit about the period, so won't assume that this stretches (e.g.) into the fifth century CE or earlier.
  • It went back to the early ninth century. There were claims in some periods of the eighth century, but the position then was more variable. I have changed to "Mercia, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom on the eastern Welsh border, had claimed hegemony over most of Wales since the early ninth century." Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're updating the map, could we perhaps shade in the area claimed by Mercia?
  • In 881, Rhodri's sons defeated Æthelred in battle, but he still continued to dominate the south-east Welsh kingdoms, and they sought the protection of King Alfred the Great of Wessex. Is "they" the sons of Rhodri or the south-eastern [NB adjectival form] Welsh kingdoms?
  • Should Anarawd get a name-check as to the defeat of Æthelred?
  • On the maps front, this one, with a few additions and sources to support, could be used as a starting point, perhaps cross-referenced with the Lloyd map?
  • all the districts of right-hand [southern] Wales: the word for "right-hand" and "southern" (de) is the same in Welsh, so I think we can just say "southern" here -- it's not some metaphor or odd turn of phrase; there's not really another way to say it.
  • Also interesting that it is evidence against the claim made by some historians that Asser's biography is a fake by a later English writer. The claim is now rejected, but I have not looked into the arguments closely enough to see whether this point has ever been made. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellipsis (...) typically has a nbsp before it and a regular space after.
  • the king of Glywysing: as we've fairly consistently capitalised King in this context, I'd do so here.
  • Page ranges take an endash (looking at n. 5 in particular)
  • I don't, unfortunately: the important rule here is that ranges (of pages, dates, etc) take an endash. More broadly, endashes are used if you would pronounce or think of the mark as "to" or "and" (so pp. 9–10 ('pages nine to ten'), the London–Edinburgh train ('London to Edinburgh'), the Oxford–Cambridge rivalry ('Oxford and Cambridge'), a Lee–Enfield rifle ('Lee and Enfield'). UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in Latin, with each letter being the Greek for the number of the letter in the Latin alphabet.: not sure I've quite grasped this one: did the writer simply use e.g. the first Greek letter for the first Latin letter, the second Greek letter for the second Latin letter, and so on? I'd be interested to know what they did with y, in that case, as there are only 24 letters in Greek and quite a few Ys in Welsh...
  • It is in Latin, not Welsh. The source says "The cryptogram uses a code based on the Greek letters for the numbers 1-23, each of which replaces the appropriate Latin letter in the inscription." To avoid copyvio, I have "It is in Latin, with each letter being the Greek for numbers one to twenty-three replacing the number of the letter in the Latin alphabet." Does this look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interesting thing (no, honestly) is that there's a couple of ways to do it: if you could send the original over by email, I'd be very interested. At the moment, "the Greek for" sounds like it would be the Greek word: if we'd said "each letter is the English for that number", we'd expect to be reading "one, three, seventeen" or so on. How about "the Greek numeral", perhaps with a link to Greek numerals? The question-mark is whether the writer used the numerical system or simply swapped in the letter with the same number (in other words, is L written as λ or as ΙΑ?), but I'll be able to see that from the text. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea how to do that. I could probably send it to you by WhatsApp. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have actually managed to dig out the cryptogram here, and he has used the numerical system (so Cemelliauc becomes Γ Ε IB E ΙΑ ΙΑ Θ Α Κ Γ -- 3, 5, 12, 5, 11, 11, 9, 1, 20, 3. I must admit that I can't make the rest of it work, partly because I don't think I'm reading all of his Greek letters correctly (and possibly haven't got the Latin alphabet in the same order), but it's definitely Greek numerals, so suggest with each letter replaced by the Greek numeral for the number of the letter in the Latin alphabet.UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no errors in Greek in the cryptogram: if I've understood the system correctly, surely this only means that the author knew (or could look up) the order of the Greek letters: the language skill is in the Latin, surely?
  • This did occur to me, but Davies said that she had been unable to copy the cryptogram without errors, and it would have been extremely difficult for someone who did not know what he was copying. I have written "very difficult", not impossible. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Delete "very"? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be wise. Might have something more intelligent to say when I've seen it, mind. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've managed to get hold of Davis' big book on the Juvencus manuscript via a certain online repository: there (p. 27), she only avows that the scribe must have known the Greek alphabet and understood the cipher (and therefore that the scribe is almost certainly the Cemelliauc/Cyfeilliog who composed it, rather than a later copyist). She doesn't credit him with knowing the Greek language, and indeed points out on p. 28 that some of his 'Greek' letters are rather more Insular-Latin than Greek. I think we can now clarify these details a little. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and this would have been very difficult to achieve unless the writer knew the language: see above: if it's simply a matter of letter-matching, I'm not convinced.
  • which was an unusual accomplishment in the period: well, it was in Wales. It was pretty normal in the Byzantine Empire, probably/maybe still a Thing in Italy, and wasn't all that unusual in Ireland, at least in the C8th. Pedantic, perhaps, but I'd specify "in Wales", "in most of Western Europe", or similar.
  • I am not sure that the source supports your interpretation. It says "Eriugena is credited with a knowledge of Greek far exceeding that of his contemporaries" and "So the evidence points to a considerable disparity between the study of Greek in Ireland and that among Irishmen on the Continent, supporting Laistner's view of Greek in Ireland being almost non-existent." He does question the latter comment on the basis of later medieval material. The comment in the Cyfeilliog article that knowledge of Greek is rare is based on Michael Lapidge's encyclopedia entry on the Continental scholar Israel the Grammarian. That obviously would not apply to Byzantium or Moslem areas. I could add "in Europe". That would not be strictly correct as Europe technically includes Byzantium, but I do not think it would be misunderstood. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not quite where the article ends up: Moran's point is that the evidence makes it look as if Greek was almost absent in Ireland, but he goes on to argue that this is an artefact of how our evidence base has been formed: he argues that at least some Irish people had a basic understanding of Greek and the tools to pick up a more advanced one. The other tricky area is southern Italy, particularly Sicily, which remained under Byzantine control for quite a while and where Greek has survived in tiny patches into the modern day (see here, p. 444ff). I think "Europe" is still too broad, but "most of Western Europe" would be fine, or you could take another approach and say something like "outside regions where it remained a spoken language"? Certainly, by even the most optimistic models of the survival of Greek in the west, being able to read and write it fluently as a second-language learner was impressive (though again, I'm not convinced that knowing or being able to look up the Greek numerical system is really the same thing as that). UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cryptogram is in a different handwriting from the rest of the manuscript: not sure handwriting is a countable noun: in a different hand or in different handwriting.
  • Is McKee's the only reconstruction of the cryptogram? Especially given that we've got lacunae, I'd be surprised if there's not some level of uncertainty or debate. Would be nice to include the 'ciphertext' and the Latin, if we've got them.
  • There probably are no other reconstructions as Davies says that the cryptogram has been ignored in recent years. She copies the version by Whitley Stokes, which she says is "apparently" based on decipherment by John Rhŷs and his daughter Olwen in the 1890s. My Greek is non-existent, but I can email you a scan of the Greek and Latin versions if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but as the source for the document: can we clarify this: do we mean "the person who tells us that the document existed" or "the person who came forth with the document"?
  • This is complicated. Edward Williams's 1796 History of Monmouthshire contains a tract dated 1729 ascribed to David Williams, allegedly based on a transcript received from the forger Morganwg. Some scholars have objected that the tract cannot be genuine as David Williams died in 1720, but Sims-Williams argues that some manuscripts date the tract 1719 and the 1729 date is probably a misprint. I am not sure how much of this detail is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does sound like we can reword "source" to be clearer: perhaps something like "the manuscript was initially brought to scholarly attention by the forger Iolo Morganwg"? We certainly seem to have other sources to say that the document existed, even if there are doubts as to whether it was genuine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not quite right. There is independent evidence of the 1719 tract, but not of the original ancient document. I think you have been misled as my wording was inaccurate. I have changed it to "He is included in a list of abbots of Llantwit said to have been in a "very decayed and rent" parchment recorded in a tract dated 1719, but as the tract was based on a transcript by the forger Iolo Morganwg, scholars are uncertain whether the list was genuine." Does this look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha! Yes, that's perfectly clear and seems to be spot on as to what's known and what's uncertain. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to a Canterbury list of Professions of Obedience: what are those?
  • Three clerical witnesses to Cyfeilliog's charters also witnessed those of Bishop Nudd, and another three those of Bishop Cerennyr, probably because these bishops were Cyfeilliog's predecessors, and he inherited members of their episcopal households. Cerennyr was active over the whole of the south-east, suggesting that he had a superior status.: it's taking me a bit of work to get through why these two people are important here. So Cyfeilliog succeeded these men (both at the same time?) as bishop, but Cerennyr (did he come first or second?) seems to have been a bigger cheese than (his predecessor/successor?) Nudd? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we briefly introduce the ASC, in particular by date?
  • I prefer to leave out a date because it gets into complications which are irrelevant to the article. The different versions of the ASC were written at different times and give slightly different dates for Cyfeilliog's capture. Dorothy Whitelock dates it 914 and her date is mostly accepted by Anglo-Saxon historians. Welsh historians sometimes date it 915, but on this point I prefer to rely on Anglo-Saxon specialists. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there would be value in a rough date (early/second decade of the C10th?), but I can see the argument. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His diocese probably covered both areas: both being Ergyng and... Gwent? Would clarify.
  • (about 120 acres (50 hectares)): can we avoid the double brackets by, for example: – about 120 acres, or 50 hectares –
  • on the Severn and the Afon Meurig: afon just means "river", so if it's just the Severn, it should just be the Meurig.
  • modii should be in Lang templates as Latin.
  • granted Villa Caer Birran: can we add something like "the estate of Villa Caer Birran"? Was the "Villa" part of its name, though, or was it a villa/manor called Caer Birran?
  • She gives a translation of the charter: "King Arthfael gave Uilla Cair Birran, with four modii of land, to bishop Cyfeilliog; ?; c. 890, bounds." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'd render that as "the village/manor of Caer Birran" (remembering that Latin doesn't really do capitalisation), but this is now the last outstanding issue and it would be wrong to ask you to edit a source, however trivially, on the say-so of an anonymous peanut-thrower on the internet. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in puro auro": lang template. The MoS would prefer that we lose the quote marks, but I can see the argument for them.
  • of the worth of his face, lengthwise and breadthwise: I may regret asking this, but how do you calculate the worth of someone's face?
  • Well, indeed! From what I can find out about the term (see here p. 471 and here, it sounds as though "face-worth" meant "money paid to apologise for an insult" -- in other words, 'face' as in 'loss of face'. Again, I'm a bit uncomfortable leaning too heavily on an interpretation from a single source that doesn't seem to be corroborated by any others, and if anything seems at odds with them. Davies (p. 130) glosses "worth of face" as "compensation for insult". It's a tricky one: barring any additional sources, my preference would be to cut "lengthways and breadthways" as unimportant and/or unclear, and to explain "worth of his face" as meaning something like "in compensation for the loss of dignity". Certainly, I wouldn't leave in what seems to be an obscure legal term that will almost certainly mislead readers (neither Davies nor anyone else suggests that any skull-measuring went on here). UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is compensation for insult and the article says so. Sims-Williams quotes the charter: "pretium faciei suæ longitudine et latitudine in puro auro". He translates it "in length and breadth", whereas Davies has "lengthwise and breadthwis". I think it is interesting and well supported. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it absolutely clear in the translations whether they think "lengthwise and breadthways" refers to the face or the compensation? As I read it, it's most likely to a pretium (piece of compensation), which was made up entirely of gold (that is, "lengthwise and breadthwise of pure gold"), given in compensation for an insult. I'm struggling to make longitudine et latitudine modify faciei suae in a way that would sound right in Classical Latin, but medieval writers may have had different ways of doing things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came across this book, which does talk about a practice of demanding a chalice with a golden cover as broad as the Welsh king's face in recompense for insulting him. I'd be interested to see exactly what our sources have to say on this one, but I should probably withdraw my earlier objection -- it may not be the worth of his face so much as the size of it that was in question, but it does seem like what it says on the tin. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • described as "a holy virgin": would that be a nun?
  • In 914 Cyfeilliog was captured by the Vikings, and the event was recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: are we absolutely certain that the recording happened in 914 (not 915, for example?) If not, would lose the "and" and break the sentence instead.
  • For consistency, we should give the place of publication for the ODNB.
  • It's not usual to give the season in "Summer 2000a" unless there's another one for e.g. the Winter. As written, the "a" makes it look as if there's going to be a Summer 2000b.
  • Sims-Williams citation: doesn't Llandaf have an extra f?
  • Why does Wareham come before Sims-Williams in the bibliography?

UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • A few replies done -- absolutely no quarrel with most, but there are a couple of tricky ones where I've made some tentative suggestions, or at least tried to make sure I've been clear as to the concern. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again for your very thorough review. The map is now in place if you would like to edit it. I think I have now replied to your points apart from endashes, which I am not sure how to deal with. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- this has been an interesting and at times arcane process; I've enjoyed digging into cryptograms, face-worth and villas, and thank you for your patience with me while I've done so. By your leave, I'll sort the endashes myself, and maybe come back to the map at some point -- the first is a quick fix and the second absolutely optional. Very nice work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • UndercoverClassicist thanks for amending the alt text. The reason I made it a placemarker is that an editor has deleted the alt text on a couple of my FAs on the ground that it duplicates the information in the label, and another editor explained that the alt text should be a placemarker because its only effect is to display the label text instead of the file name. I do not know if that is correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to pull you in contradictory directions, but that really isn't what alt text should do. The idea of alt text is that, as far as possible, readers who can't see the images can get the important visual information conveyed to them. It's true that it shouldn't duplicate the caption, but my alts didn't -- I used the alt text to give the visual information (that is, convey what the image looks like), while the caption's job is to convey what the image is and why it matters. Our own MOS:ALT is not universally loved, but the RNIB have a very concise guide here, which might be of use, or there's another from Harvard here. While there's some debate as to what constitutes the best alt text, personally I don't see how an article can meet MOS:ACCIM (which, as part of the MoS, is an FAC criterion) if it consciously doesn't try to use alt text -- that guideline includes Images and icons that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Dudley Miles, my comments:

  • "a knowledge of": Remove the "a"?
  • "called in Old Welsh Cemelliauc": consider rephrasing to "called Cemelliauc in Old Welsh"? The latter phrasing flows much better.
  • Consider linking to Llandaff in the Diocese section?
  • Introduce who John Edward Lloyd was?
  • Were medieval English pounds equal in mass to modern pounds? If so, consider using the {convert} template to include the weight in kgs, in both the lead and body?
  • In the biblio, link to: Peter Bartrum, John Blair (historian), Andrew F. Wareham?
  • You could consider expanding the lead to at least 3 paragraphs, I believe 4 is the FA criteria. I think there is enough material to do so, if not you could split the lead into small paragraphs.
  • We could add a picture of Edward the Elder here. Wdyt?
  • For the alt texts, why have we just left placeholders? We have only two images so adding the alts for them will take you very little time.
  • An editor has deleted alt text on several articles I have edited on the ground that it repeats the information in the label. I understand that the alt text just makes readers see the label instead of the file name, and it should therefore just be a placeholder. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have the time, I would appreciate if you could look into my recent FA nom, linked here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC
  • "He is recorded in charters" there's a comma splice here that jars a bit, partly because of the changing tense in the middle. It may be well to split (full stop or sc), but I leave it up to you
  • Just wondering why FN 37 is in the form "p. 24 n. 6, pp. 68–69" and not just "pp. 24 n. 6, 68–69"

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • I see from UndercoverClassiccist's comments above that you were planning to replace "According to a Canterbury list of Professions of Obedience" with "According to a Canterbury Cathedral roll" but it appears that did not happen? I think it would be a good change.
  • "The Asser who was the biographer of Alfred the Great spent a year ill in Caerwent at this time": we haven't given a date so there's no referent for "at this time". Around 885, I assume, looking at Asser, which I wrote so long ago that I can remember little of it.

That's all I can find to comment on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Imma ping Ealdgyth here as I think she's the resident expert on this field. Is Arthur Bannister this guy? Looks like otherwise we are dealing with major publishers and reputable authors, with my usual caveat about this not being a topic I am deeply familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth, are you able to have a look at this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial

[edit]
  • Maybe tweak "praises a priest called Cemelliauc in Old Welsh", as by one reading (not the one you intend) is that the praise was given in Old Welsh, whereas you mean that the name was Old Welsh. So: praises a priest, in Old Welsh, called Cemelliauc or praises a priest called, in Old Welsh, Cemelliauc.
  • In the transl/cription of the cryptogram, the language template should use Cemelliauc rather than Cemelliauc.
  • Why name a historian from 1939 but not those who later disputed him?
  • What does "a disagreement between their households" mean, more precisely?
  • Perhaps ...are sceptical because they this as late for someone..., avoid repetition of date, tighten.
  • Tyrhtel would appear to have been the Bp of Hereford during the relevant period.
  • Tyrhtel lived over 100 years earlier. There were several Bishops of Hereford during the period.
Completely bizarre of me. Yes, I guess I intended to link this chap; why I didn't I have no idea.
  • Also the ISBNs are inconsistently formatted. Completely anal, I know, but consistency need not be a luxury... a mixture of 978-1-3-5-0, 978-1-5-3-1, 978-0-2-6-1. I think the latter is your most common atm. SerialNumber54129 15:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's me, DM. Another good read. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 15:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Excellent, clear and wholly readable article. My only quibble is that in the lead "The location and extent of his diocese is uncertain" gives us two nouns with a singular verb, but I don't press the point ("fish and chips are a good supper" -v- "fish and chips is a good supper" – a case can be made for both). Tim riley talk 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to resolve this complex question must be... to get double portions of fish and chips *mmmm* SerialNumber54129 17:13, 7 August 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cyfeilliog/archive1&oldid=1240356754"