Wikipedia:Peer review/Stigand/archive2

Stigand

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to go to FAC at some point and the last PR only got me comments from the bot.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I recently reviewed Robert of Jumièges, Stigand's predecessor at Canterbury, so some of these comments may be similar. Another interesting article, and I will again try to look at it from a FA/FAC standpoint. Most of my comments will be fairly nit-picky. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

• This is also a fairly short article and while there is no length requirement for FA, some more background might help make the article clearer. My guess is that this is about all that is known about him, but I think more background would expand it a bit in the process.
• Since Elmham is a redirect to Norwich, should that name change be mentioned (although perhaps not in the Lead)?

Elmham was moved to Norwich after the Conquest, and after Stigand's death, thus I've not explained this in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since the illustration from the Bayeaux Tapestry spells his name "Stigant", should this alternate spelling / version be mentioned?

This is the only place I see that alternate name given. All modern English sources call him "Stigand".

• Is there any sort of guess as to his year of birth?

None that I've found in print. The ONDB doesn't give a guess.

• Again, the main suggestion I have is to provide context for the reader WP:PCR to make things clearer for those not as familiar with this era of history.
• Here are specific examples where more context is needed
  • Provide the years of the reigns of Canute, Harold Harefoot, and Harthacanute so we know the time frames
    • Done
  • Add coronation date for Edward the Confessor
    • Done
  • Make the family relations clearer among last four kings - three of these are half brothers, right?
    • done
  • Explain the royal feud with Earl Godwin of Wessex briefly
    • Attempted.
  • Briefly expalin Robert of Jumièges history - what did Stigand have to worry about not repeating as bishop?
    • Clarifiied a bit.
  • Why not name the two successors to Pope Leo IX ?
    • Done
  • Shouldn't "his brother Æthelmaer" be mentioned earlier?
    • done
  • since before the days of Dunstan - can a year be given too?
  • Expand on Stigand may have been behind the effort to locate Edward the Atheling and his brother Edmund after 1052, possibly to secure a more acceptable heir to King Edward.[15]

Attempted expansion

• • After the death of Harold... seems a very low key way to introduce the Norman Conquest
    • Heh. Striving for "encyclopedic" tone. Working on. Added in "at the Battle of Hastings". I hesitate to say "After hte Norman Conquest" because most historians don't see the Conquest as ending with William crowned king, the current consensus is that it lasted at least until 1070, most feel 1075 or 1086 is a better date.
  • that he received his own pallium from Benedict X, an anti-pope.[38] should anti-pope be mentioned whne he gets the pallium?
• Need at least a comma in When Harthacanute died, Stigand appears to have acted as the chief adviser to Canute's widow, Emma of Normandy[,] mother of both Harthacanute and Edward the Confessor, who succeeded Harthacanute.[3] The Edward the Confessor part is a bit awkward as written

Overall quite interesting and what is there is well done, I just think it needs more background and context for clarity. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and was hoping the PR would point out areas where the non-medievalist would have issues of context. THanks a bunch. I'll get to work on these, some while I'm on the road, but more probably when I get home from a trip. Thanks for all the help! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)