Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edith of Wilton/archive2

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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2023 [1].

Edith of Wilton[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the late 10th century Benedictine nun, abbess, and saint. This is the second FAC nom; I withdrew the first one because a reviewer requested that I consult other sources. I've done as they requested, so I believe that this bio is now ready for its review to continue. These souces were the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which I used mostly to support other claims already made, and Rollason's Saints and Relics in Anglo-Saxon England, which was slightly more helpful. I also went through the unaddressed comeents from the first FAC. St Edith is an interesting and at times humorous individual, so please enjoy. Looking forward to further feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 03:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling[edit]

Fixed.
Not fixed: Hudson, Yorke, Pratt, Watt § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 05:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. I'll go on the record, though, that it's not my practice to put the sfn template for websites or sources I only use once. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC criteria do include "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes" (emphasis added). Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment
  • British spellings should be used per WP:TIES. I can see "canonization" in the lead, so check for any others -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that was the last word to fix. If anyone else sees any that I've misssed, please point them out. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some further dodgy spellings:
  • "center" (probably not too important as is in alt-text).
  • "Yorke inisist that Edith's seal was another indication of her status and independent weath" – this doesn't appear to be in English of any kind.
  • "is skillfully juxtaposed" – the source spells the adverb the English way: "skilfully".
  • "Edith "had obtained forgiveness from the Lord for all but one of Ælfgifu's offenses, and that she would not cease to intercede for Ælfgifu until she obtained pardon for this offense" – the source uses the English spellings – "offences" and "offence".
  • "her mother's favor" – should be "favour".
General comments to follow shortly, Tim riley talk 11:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: I believe that I've dealt with the British spellings, with some much-appreciated assistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • "of abbess for three convents" – "for" seems a strange preposition here: one might expect "of"
  • "after the murder of her half-brother ... she might have been offered the English throne" – I think you probably mean "may" rather than "might" here: that is, it is possible that she was offered it, rather than that she could in unspecified circumstances have been offered it.
  • "praised by their contemporary, William of Malmesbury, for their prayers" – as they had more than one contemporary, the phrase "William of Malmesbury" is a restrictive (defining) one rather than a non-restrictive (describing) one, and the commas should not be there.
The above three points all fixed.
  • "her innocence and "virginal fecundity" – I realise this is a quotation, but it would be helpful to have a gloss of this seemingly oxymoronic phrase.
Ha ha, I dunno what it means either, which is why it's a quote. I suppose the easiest fix is to remove the phrase.
  • "an indication of her status and weath" – typo
Fixed.
  • "According to Ridyard ..." this sixty-word sentence could do with chopping in two; I got lost half-way through and had to go back to the start.
Yah, too-long sentences are something I'm working on. Easy fix; I just separated it into two, after "heavenly."
  • "and as Ridyard states, was "firmly grounded ..." – I'd be a bit cautious about the "as" here, which reads like Wikipedia's endorsement of Ridyard's view. (And regardless of that there is either one comma too many or one too few.)
Removed the phrase "as Ridyard states"
  • "Goscelin claims that he wrote the Vita" – another phrasing I recommend caution about: "claims" may suggest to some readers that Goscelin's assertion is untrue or at least dubious.
Okay. There were actually two instances; I replaced "claims" with "reports" in the first, and with "states" in the second.
  • "Dunstan received another vision by St Denys" – does one receive visions by rather than of a saint?
Fixed.
  • "For instance, after King Cnut was saved from a sea storm through Edith's intercession" – this is mentioned twice, and at each mention it is stated as a fact that Edith's intercession saved the king from a sea storm. No doubt Cnut believed this, but I doubt if it can be recorded in 2023 as objective fact.
Well, I disagree. I think it's a real-world perspective problem, but I went ahead and changed it to the Historical present tense.
  • "The only other miracle Goscelin records that occurred during Edith's lifetime was his anecdote about Æthelwold's attempt" – the prose here says that the miracle was the anecdote rather than the attempt and its upshot.
Removed "his anecdote about"

I hope these few points are of use. – Tim riley talk 12:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. Thank you very much. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good evening Mr riley, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Tim riley talk 06:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources[edit]

Hi Christine. In my comment on your previous nomination, the principal source I suggested was Yorke's article, "The Legitimacy of St Edith". This is possibly the most important and certainly the most extensive discussion of her. It should be consulted, although of course I do not know whether it has points you have not already covered. As I said, if you email me, I can send you a copy. Other sources which may be helpful are the ODNB articles on Wulfthryth and Wulfhild

Also, you said you would delete Dunbar but it is still there. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for emailing me the Yorke article; you'll see that I used it quite a bit. I checked the ODNB articles you suggested, but choose not to include anything from them because they either supported points already made or were irrevelant to Edith. I also deleted Dunbar as per your request. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, several paragraphs end without a citation; I would suggest rectifying that early on in the FA process. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: there was just the one; fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See [2]] on churches dedicated to Edith. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For discussion on this see User talk:Dudley Miles#St Edith and sources
I've added the info from this source and even found an image of one of the churches dedicated to Edith. I've always thought that this bio could use more images, so I'm happy that I was able to find it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think some care is needed in using Bugyis. She is obviously an RS, but her book is about the central Middle Ages, and she may not always be reliable on the tenth century.

You cite her for saying that Edith was abbess of Wilton, but she cites the Wilton Chronicle of 1420, written over 400 years after Edith's death. William of Malmesbury also said that she was abbess of Wilton, but Goscelin does not, and it is rejected by Anglo-Saxon specialists. Sarah Foot points out that it cannot be true because Edith lived under the authority of her mother as abbess of Wilton until she predeceased her. (Veiled Women, II, p. 231).

Goscelin doesn't write about Edith until over 100 years after her death, and he's an accepted authority about Edith and Wilton. I think this brings up the challenge we have in writing WP bios about medieval figures: scholars don't always agree about every aspect of their lives. Some say Edith was abbess; others don't. It's not up to us to make a decision as to who's correct, but it's our responsibility to summarize what the sources say. I could add something about this controversy, and cite Foot by stating something like, "Sarah Foot disagrees that Edith was abbess at Wilton because Edith lived under the authority of her mother." Scholars also disagee if Edith was abbess anywhere, which is addressed her. Anyway, what do you think of that solution?
Bugyis' specific area of medieval studies may not the tenth century, but she's a well-respected scholar and trustworthy, anyway. She discusses Edith in The Care of Nuns to support her point that medieval nuns served the Church and their abbeys in non-traditional ways in roles that were traditionally for males. Bugyis cites Edith as an example of one of the women who did that. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your description of Edith as Wilton's patron saint is also problematic. You cite Hollis, but she does not use the term. You also cite Bugyis and say "A seal was created during Edith's lifetime and was adopted and used as its official emblem until Wilton Abbey was dissolved in 1539." Also "The seal demonstrates the Wilton community's "confidence in its ability to represent their patron saint as the guarantor of their documents' authenticity, and in her guarantee's enduring significance to those in and out of the community"." Both statements cite Bugyis, but she was referring to the later history of the abbey in the period leading up to its dissolution in 1539, and you give the impression that she is talking about the whole history the abbey after Edith's death. I have never seen the term "patron saint" used in an Anglo-Saxon context and it seems anachronistic, although I cannot find a source to say when it came in. The earliest usage cited in OED is 1703. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bugyis is the only one who specifically refers to Edith as a patron saint of Wilton and it's in a quote, so I kept it and removed the other references. Perhaps Bugyis is using the term in the general sense, as a figure that supports another person, institution, or community? Hopefully, this addresses your concern. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Related to the sourcing, there are no citations pointing to the ODNB, but the source is listed as being used. I find that strange because I clearly remember the ODNB being cited several times in the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead, I corrected the mistake, so the ODNB is fully represented now (p. 1, ref27). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Gog. The sources look OK, but I think that this one needs a detailed source check as I have come across several cases where the text is not supported by the cited pages, as detailed in my comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

Some of my comments are follow ups on point in the comments on sources section.

  • You state in the lead that Edith was abbess of Wilton and below that she was appointed abbess of three convents including Wilton. You cite Bugyis for this. Bugyis states that the original source, Goscelin, does not give the name of the third convent but a chronicle of 1420 names it as Wilton. There is a distinction in Wikipedia between High Quality and Reliable Sources. Bugyis is an RS but she is a specialist on the later Middle Ages, and she is not an HQ for the Anglo-Saxon period. RSs should not be used unsupported for controversial statements. HQ sources are Anglo-Saxon specialists, and they all say that the third convent is unknown. You are using an RS to make a claim denied by HQs. This is wrong and the claim should be deleted. Sarah Foot specifically denies that Edith was abbess of Wilton and she is sceptical of the whole story of Edith's appointments as an abbess. She describes it as "somewhat implausible" and suggests that Goscelin confused her with other women called Edith (Veiled Women, II, p. 231). I have made these points above but you insist on retaining the statement that Edith was abbess of Wilton.
Okay, I've made some cuts as per your request. Please let me know if what I did fulfilled your requests; if not, I'll do my best to remedy them.
  • The paragraph starting "A seal was created during Edith's lifetime and was adopted and used as its official emblem until Wilton Abbey was dissolved in 1539." is misleading, as I have pointed above but you have not replied to my points. This statement and one below about Edith being a patron saint are by Bugyis about the late history of the abbey up to its dissolution in 1539. Other statements in the paragraph are about the Anglo-Saxon period, but you mix the points together to make them all apply to the whole history of the abbey after Edith's death. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I cut most of Bugyis' statements about the seal, including her reference to Edith as patron saint. Please let me know if I resolved your concerns; if not, let me know how I can better do that. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edith of Wilton (c. 961[1] – 16 September 984[2]) was an English nun, saint, and the only daughter of Edgar, King of England". 1. "Nun" should not be unqualified. As you say in the next paragraph, she may have been a secular member of the community. 2. I would say "only known daughter". It is likely that he had other unrecorded daughters.
I removed the word "nun" and replaced it with the phrase "member of the community at Wilton Abbey", even though she had a ceremony in which she was dedicated to the Wilton community to live out her life as a nun. Added the second phrase you suggest, even though it stated that she was the only daughter of Edgar and Wulfthryth.
  • "Edgar probably abducted Wulfthryth from Wilton; when Edith was an infant, Wulfthryth brought her back to the convent, and they both remained there for the rest of their lives." This is only one version. Yorke and Hollis, who are the leading authorities on Edith, both believe that Edgar married Wulfthryth, and that the marriage was dissolved when she returned to Wilton. The lead should reflect this.
Changed as per request.
  • "When she was 15 years old, Edith's father offered her the position of abbess of three convents, but she declined. In 978, after the murder of her half-brother, Edward the Martyr, she may have been offered the English throne, which she also refused." You should make clear that most historians reject both stories.
I removed the paragraph, since it may delve into WP:UNDUE territory. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chapel was consecrated by St Dunstan, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who foretold her imminent death and that the thumb on her right hand would remain uncorrupted. She died three weeks later, at the age of 23, on 16 September 984 and was buried at the chapel she built as she had instructed. Dunstan presided at her translation, which occurred on 3 November 987; her thumb, as Dunstan had foretold, had not decomposed." This treats hagiographical inventions as facts.
  • "According to Hollis, Edith's rich and elaborate wardrobe was vindicated when a candle was accidentally dropped into a chest that stored her clothes; the chest was burnt but her clothes remained untouched and the chest remained in the convent as a reminder of the miracle." Hollis is relating here what Goscelin wrote, not treating the supposed miracle as fact."
  • A general problem is that you several times report claims of miracles as facts. You need to make clear that historians do not believe them. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dudley, I disagree that historians don't believe that the miracles happened. Historians report on events from the perspective and worldview of the people they're writing about, who believed that these events actually happened. When someone is evaluated for sainthood, even in our modern era, the investigators look for evidence that the miracles occured in history. I don't have Hollis in front of me right now, but I suspect that she knows that and that she reported the miracles from the perspective of Goscelin, his contemporaries, and the contemporaries of St Edith. Ridyard and Bugyis certainly write from that perspective. Insisting that the miracles couldn't have been real is a kind of OR and is placing our modern sensibilities on bios about saints, something that WP editors shouldn't do. Other bios of saints treat their miracles and visions as facts; for example, Julian of Norwich, an FA (see the Visions subsection). Henry (bishop of Finland), another FA, calls his vita a legend, but it can argued that it treats the miracles it describes in the same way. I could go on, but I suspect you get my point. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get your point and I wholly disagree. I do not know of any case of a reliable source treating miracles as fact. Wikipedia is written from the point of view of the rational accounts of modern historians, not reporting medieval (or modern) delusions as facts. The visions sections of Julian reports her visions; it does not treat miracles as facts. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Dudley. Reliable, high-quality sources should not be reporting miracles as fact (regardless of personal religious belief), and if a source being used does report them as such, then it is neither HQ nor reliable, and it needs to be excluded from this article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. So I just went through and made changes as per your requests and suggestions. I hope that it's satisfactory to you all. I also think that all the sources that support the miracle claims are HQ. BTW, for saint articles, whose status of sainthood depends upon their "reported" miracles, there needs to be a discussion of them in their WP bios. At any rate, it is also my hope that this disagreement doesn't get in the way of this bio's promotion to FA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles and Unlimitedlead: I have one more thing to add to the above discussion: I can't tell you how tired I am of having to use my thick skin everytime I come to FAC to make sure that articles I work on get the recognition they deserve. "Delusions", really? I don't mind that you disagree, but could you please demonstrate some respect and decorum? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Figureskatingfan, I am sorry if you feel that way. FAC is not and should not be a hostile place. It has always been oriented towards the development and recognition of quality articles on Wikipedia. While it is often easy to get heated online, I can vouch for Mr. Miles; as someone who has worked with him for over a year now, he is not the kind of person who engages in disrespectful behavior or any rudeness. If you have experienced any hostile feelings from myself or Mr. Miles, I sincerely apologize, but I can assure you that it was neither my intention nor his intention to cause any ill feelings. As someone who has been educated in Christian theology for well over a decade now, I understand your frustration, but it is important to remember that Wikipedia is a secular and neutral encyclopedia that must account for a non-biased perspective of the world. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Christine I do try to be polite to other editors and I did get carried away using the word "delusions". I apologise for that. I hope you have not found any of my other comments disrespectful. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead and Dudley, I appreciate the apology. However, Dudley's comments demonstrate his bias; first, that belief in miracles, which was the worldview of saints like Edith and her followers, is delusional. Seoondly, in his comments below he assumes that a young child is unable to make a choice for the religious life, which also demonstrates his bias towards the inclusion of young children into a religious community. Accounting for a non-biased perspective of the world requires that we demonstrate respect for different beliefs and lifestyles, even for those with religious and spiritual beliefs and practices. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe in miracles, but neither do the reliable secondary sources we are summarising in our articles, including religious ones such as Sarah Foot, who is a Church of England priest. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to reflect the views of these editors. As to an infant making a choice for a religious life, I do not see anything in the main text to support the comment in the lead. So far as I know, no one ever thought that infants were competent to make such a commitment. In the early medieval period it was thought acceptable for parents to make the choice on behalf of children too young to decide for themselves. From the eleventh century, church leaders found this increasingly unacceptable and insisted that someone entering a religious life had to be old enough to be able to make their own decision. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that there is a simple solution. If you precede accounts of miracles with an expression like "Goscelin wrote that..." then that will deal with the problem. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That seems like a reasonable solution that will allow this nomination to continue on without further tensions. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made this change as per your request. I also changed the wording about Edith's dedication. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am puzzled where you got the page numbers 1-3 in Yorke's ODNB source. The online version does not have page numbers and Yorke can hardly be the first article in the print version.
Fixed.
  • There is confusion in the dates you give for Edith's birth and death. You cite Yorke, 2008, p. 145, for c.961, but she says there 962 to 965, and you cite Hollis p. 270 for her death on 16 September 984, but Hollis says nothing about Edith's death on that page. It is known that Edith died at the age of 23 on 16 September, but the year is uncertain (Yorke ODNB). Foot says she died 16 Sep 984 (Foot p. 228), but other historians are more cautious. Yorke discusses the issue in 'Legitimacy', pp. 102-104. She is sceptical of a date as early as 961 as it would mean that Edgar had a child by a second marriage at the age of 19, which is possible but she thinks a later date is more likely. Hollis gives Edith's dates as c.961-984 (p. 245) and in ODNB Yorke gives 961x4-984x7, but in 2008, as I said above, she revises the birth range to 962-965. 965 seems late as in ODNB Yorke says that her death cannot be later than 987. I suggest that you give her dates as 961x4-984-7, with a note covering historians' discussion. See also Ridyard, pp. 40-41, n. 125.
The confusion was in the lead; I clarified it by adding the circa template to the dates there. Please refer to note c, which already follows your suggestion and includes a discussion about how estimates to Edith's death have influenced estimates of her birth. It also states in the Birth and childhood section: "Barbara Yorke reports that Goscelin, Edith's hagiographer, is unclear regarding the exact date of her birth.[3]"
  • "their marriage was dissolved. They remained at Wilton Abbey for the rest of their lives." This is confusing as "their" and "They" do not refer to the same people.
Fixed.
  • "Edith chose to enter the religious life". She can hardly have chosen it as she entered as a baby.
  • "who foretold her imminent death and that the thumb on her right hand would remain uncorrupted". "Dunstan presided at her translation, which occurred on 3 November 987; her thumb, as Dunstan had foretold, had not decomposed." This is stating miracles as facts, and the first part is absurd. If he foretold her death and she then died then that would probably be psychological cause and effect rather than a miracle. I would delete.
Instead of deleting, I changed the wording here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was the only daughter of King Edgar and Wulfthryth, who was of noble birth, received her education at Wilton Abbey, and later became its abbess.". As discussed above, historians do not accept that she became its abbess, and it is not in the source cited.
Removed the word "only."
  • I was querying the description of her as abbess of Wilton, not as only daughter.Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got it. Removed mention of abbess. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her brothers, Edward the Martyr and Æthelred II". For clarity, I suggest "Her half-brothers".
But we don't know if they're her half-brothers or step-brothers, which is why the more inclusive "brothers" is used. Yorke even calls them her brothers, with no qualifiers.
  • "Edgar arranged for Edith the best possible education at Wilton by employing "two foreign chaplains",[20] Radbod of Rheims and Benno of Trier." This rather understates their status. Radbod was a leading scholar and Benna an artist. I can amend if you wish, although it will take me a couple of weeks to get access to one of the sources.
But that is what Yorke calls them (2003, p. 105). I suppose the easiest thing to do is to remove the phrase "two foreign chaplains".
  • "According to Hollis, Edith's rich and elaborate wardrobe was vindicated when a candle was accidentally dropped into a chest that stored her clothes; the chest was burnt but her clothes remained untouched". I would say "According to Goscelin". As you say in the note, he is the source and it will avoid attributing belief in the miracle to Hollis.
Done.
  • "According to Hollis, Goscelin reconciles the apparent contradiction between Edith's humility and her rejection of her royal status" You cite Hollis p. 251 for this, but there is nothing on that page about humility and rejection of royal status.
Reworded to remove all reference to her humility and rejection.
  • "Barbara Yorke states that despite her rejection of her royal status, she retained special advantages and wealth." Yorke rather says despite Goscelin's claim of Edith's rejection. Your wording wrongly implies that Yorke endorses Goscelin on this.
Changed to "Yorke reports Goscelin's implication that Edith held positions of power and influence at her father's court and probably at the courts of Edward the Martyr and Æthelred II, her brothers and that despite her rejection of her royal status, she retained special advantages and wealth." Done to remove any indication of Yorke's endorsement of Goscelin.
  • This is ambiguous as to whether her rejection of royal status was true. As her seal is conclusive evidence against it, I think you need make clear that it was a hagiographic trope (or leave it out). Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done as requested. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done for now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Hollis, Goscelin reports that Edith was obliged to wear fine clothing". "According to Goscelin, though, she wore them reluctantly and with a cilice underneath." These statements are cited to Hollis p. 251, but there is nothing on that page about reluctance and a cilice. As you state below in reporting Yorke's comments, historians do not believe Goscelin's claims about Edith's humillity and wearing a cilice.
  • "Goscelin uses this explanation to justify other behaviours". I do not understand what this comment refers to.
For the above comments, I did some cutting and re-wording. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yorke reports Goscelin's implication that Edith held positions of power and influence at her father's court and probably at the courts of Edward the Martyr and Æthelred II." Discussions of Edith's importance are confined to sources which are specifically about her. General histories, such as Frank Stentons Anglo-Saxon England and Higham and Ryan's The Anglo-Saxon World do not mention her. She is only mentioned in passing in the ODNB articles on Edgar, Edward and Æthelred, and also in the biographies of Æthelred by Ann Williams, Levi Roach and Ryan Lavelle. The consensus of the great majority of reliable sources - by the failure to mention any role she played - is that she was not politically significant, and for balance you should point this out. The first paragraph of the 'Political and religious influence' section gives a very misleading view of the consensus of historians' opinions.
Clarified 1st sentence as per your suggestion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley, what you've said above ventures dangerously in OR territory. There is no source that supports what you call her "passing mentions." The only source that comes close is Yorke's one sentence at the beginning of her "Legitimacy" article, which I've included to satisfy your insistance for more balance. I agree that Edith's importance is confined to sources about her, but that doesn't mean that she wasn't as important as those sources seem to convey, or that she's unimportant because other sources don't mention her. At any rate, I hope that my addition follows your suggestion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said the paragraph is very misleading. Yorke did not say "Although Yorke states that Edith did not have a prominent role in accounts recording the politics of the period". She said that Edward and Æthelred are prominent in accounts of the period and Edith is barely mentioned. This is much stronger and confirms what I say above. She questions the received opinion on the ground that Goscelin, the only source to claim that Edith was influential, deserves to be taken more seriously. This is all spelled out and should be explained by you. Even so, you exaggerate how far Yorke endorses Goscelin. You several times cite p. 106 for Yorke's views, but on p. 105 she states that she is giving a summary of Goscelin's work, thus relating not endorsing his claims. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed wording in sentence to "According to Goscelin, as Yorke summarises..." Hopefully, this deemphasizes Yorke's support of Goscelin's claims. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment below. I was not suggesting that you de-emphasise Yorke's support of Goscelin's claims. She does support them and is alone is going against the consensus that Edith had no political role whatsoever. Goscelin is the only source to claim that Edith had a political role and other historians reject his account by implication by ignoring it. Yorke spells this out and it is a crucial point which needs to be spelled out in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your wording is still very misleading: "Although Yorke states that Edith did not have a prominent role in accounts recording the politics of the period" Yorke wrote that "Edith barely merits a mention", which is much stronger. I suggest something along the lines of: "Histories of the politics of the period only mention Edith in passing, but Yorke argues that claims in her Vita by Goscelin that she and her mother played an important role in the intrigues concerning the succession to Edgar should be taken seriously." (Yorke, p. 97) Dudley Miles (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, with slight differences in wording. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your wording still does not make clear that all statements of Edith's influence are solely Goscelin's claims. I have edited to clarify - of course change to the wording you think is better. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles, it's fine; I'm okay with your changes. Sometimes it's best for reviewers to just go in and make the changes themselves when there's obviously miscommunication regarding what they want the nominator to do, so I appreciate it. Hopefully now we can move forward. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Very little is known about Edith's governance of the three convents, which might have been Wilton, Nunnaminster, and Barking, outside of Goscelin's works about her." Goscelin says Nunnaminster, Barking and a third one which he does not name. Historians make several guesses as to the third one (or disbelieve all of them), but specialists do not think it was Wilton. This should be made clear.
Easy fix: I removed the list of convents.
  • "Both Edith and St Eadburgh of Winchester, abbess of Nunnaminster Abbey, were praised by their contemporary William of Malmesbury". Eadburgh was not abbess and William was not their congtemporary.
Ok, I removed the misleading phrases.
  • "Goscelin relates, in an anecdote Hollis calls a possible "hagiographic invention",[36] that in 978, after the murder of Edward the Martyr, Edith's brother, she was offered the throne by opponents of Æthelred II". You cite Hollis p. 246 as calling it a possible "hagiographic invention", but it is not in the source cited.
I don't have Hollis in front of me anymore, so I'm taking your word for it and removing the phrase.
  • "Edith had a dream about losing her right eye, which Ridyard calls "highly improbable"[37] and "the creation of an eleventh-century hagiographic imagination which found in the story of Edith's rejection of the earthly a poignant illustration of her devotion to the heavenly"." Why is this relevant in the middle of the tale of Edith being offered the throne?
I think I was using it as support of her legitimacy. You're right; it doesn't work there. I'm not sure it fits anywhere, so I removed the sentences.
  • "Hollis that it probably occurred" This is ungrammatical.
Yes it is. Thanks for the catch.
And I'm all caught up now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask (as a drive by comment), why is File:Edith of Wilton - MS Royal 14 B V.jpg just floating around and not situated in the article itself? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how that happened. Put the image below, in the first section. Thanks for pointing it out. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dudley, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to be very careful in describing Edith's supposed appointment as abbess of three nunneries. You have referred to Foot's scepticism, and should also mention that Ridyard disbelieves it (pp. 41-42). In referring to it you need to use phrases such as "according to Goscelin".
I changed the wording as you request.
  • "Edith refused the positions, preferring instead "the obscurity of the cloister"." This should be attributed to Goscelin rather than stated as fact. Also you need to explain that Goscelin says that she did finally agree, as references to her management of thre nunneries below do not make sense if she refused.
I think that confusion is that Goscelin wrote that she was abbess of all three convents, but that she initially refused the appointments. To fix it, I added the word "initially", which hopefully clears it up. I added a phrase about Foot, so I think it's clear that there has been disagreement about it, but that Bugyis takes Goscelin's word for it. Ref35, from Buygis, supports the claim about Edith's management.
  • "Very little is known about Edith's governance of the three convents outside of Goscelin's works about her." This should be attributed to Bugyis.
See above; it already does as you ask. Did you want me to add "according to" again?
  • "According to Yorke, though, the story, along with Goscelin's recounting of Edith and Wulfthryth's involvement in the transfer of Edward's body after his murder, was meant to legitimise Edward's succession as king." It is unclear what story you are referring to and in any case the comment is not in the source. I would delete the sentence.
Clarified by adding that Yorke was talking about the defense of Edith's royal status.
  • "Yorke speculates that the story might not have been as far-fetched as it would seem, stating that it was "a possibility that Edith would leave Wilton to be married if circumstances dictated". This needs clarification. Maybe "The story that Edith was offered the throne is generally dismissed as hagiographic invention, but Yorke argues that it may not have been as far-fetched as it seems,"
Changed to "Yorke dismisses the claim that Edith was offered the throne as a "hagiographic invention",[40] but Yorke also argues that it may not have been as far-fetched as it seems,"
  • This is wrong. It should be "Historians generally dismiss the claim..." Dudley Miles (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed wording, to better follow the source, to: "According to Yorke, the claim that Edith was offered the throne has been dismissed as a "hagiographic invention"..." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goscelin describes two relics of Edith's rule over Nunnaminster, both of which he considered full of mystical significance and were still used by the community when he wrote about them." This is from Bugyis, who states that Edith was not regarded as a former abbess in Nunnaminster sources, but nevertheless accepts Goscelin's claims about the relics as facts. Maybe "Bugyis states that Edith was not recorded as a former abbess in Nunnaminster sources, but Goscelin described what he regarded as two relics of her rule..."
Done.
  • "As Bugyis states, the alb "reflected the virtue she prized most in a monastic leader—humility",[42] a duty the Benedictine Rule required from its monastic leaders. Bugyis also states that Edith might have placed herself as Magdalene on her alb in order to represent her commitment to serve the poor and the outcast.[42] Edith's choice of the costly gems, golden thread, and pearls might have also demonstrated the conflict between her roles as abbess and as the king's daughter, as well as a way to inspire her sisters and to provide them with a model of her kind of service and leadership to the community.[23] The alb also demonstrated that "the liturgical and pastoral ministries of medieval monastic leaders were often inextricably entwined"." Comments such as "As Bugyis states", "Edith's choice of the costly gems" and "The alb also demonstrated" all imply that the alb, and thus Edith's abbacy of Nunnaminster, are facts. You need to make clear that they are claims by Goscelin interpreted by Bugyis.
I believe that my changes follow your suggestions here.
  • "In c. 894, Edith used her own funds to build a chapel". 894 is obviously a typo. It would be better to say shortly before she died as in the sources.
Oops, thanks for the catch. Done as requested.
  • "Goscelin reports that the chapel was dedicated by St Dunstan; towards the end of the ceremony, foretold that she would die in three weeks." It would be better to replace "reports" with "states" to avoid implying that he really told her to her face that she was about to die.
Done.
  • "Dustan was impressed by the way she made the sign of the cross, described by Hollis as executed "idiosyncratically and repeatedly"" This is not in the source.
Cut phrase.
  • "Dunstan clasped her right hand, and weeping, said, "Never shall this thumb which makes the sign of our salvation see corruption"." You should say "According to Goscelin, Dunstan clasped..."
Done.
  • "Edith died at the age of 23, on 16 September 984" This is not in the source, and the exact year is not known.
Removed sentence.
  • You cite ODNB as p. 1. This should be omitted as there are no page numbers in ODNB.
Done.
@Dudley Miles, addressed above comments. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that I objected to the term "patron saint". I have now found a source for the term at Ridyard p. 148. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You did, thanks for finding that. Changed back the two references to Edith as patron saint. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to say that Eve died 1125 was abbess and was followed later by Godiva died 1090.
Hmm, it could be that those dates were their respective tenures as abbesses, but the source doesn't make that clear, so I removed the dates.
  • "Much of the information Goscelin gathered about Edith came from Brihtgifu (d. 1065)," I would add "directly or indirectly". It is not clear whether Goscelin came to England that early.
But the sources don't specify if Brihtgifu's information was procured in either way. Goscelin might have gotten the information through written correspondence, but that's also conjecture.
  • "Bugyis considered Edith's choice to serve as a godparent important part of Edith's role as a spiritual mother as a part of her duties as abbess because monks and nuns were forbidden to serve as godparents beginning in the sixth century." I do not follow this. You say Edith was to be godparent and then that it was forbidden.
Changed to: "Bugyis considered Edith's choice to serve as a godparent an important part of Edith's role as a spiritual mother and as a part of her duties as abbess, even though monks and nuns were forbidden to serve as godparents beginning in the sixth century." The implication made by Bugyis is that it was another way that Edith subverted traditional duties as an abbess and as a woman religious. Bugyis never clearly states this, but it's strongly implied. Do you think I should state the implication here? Bugyis trusts her readers to get the implication and I think that our readers are capable of it, too.
  • "Her status as a saint is supported by the listing of her tomb at Wilton in On the Resting-Places of the Saints (the Secgan)." You need a few words explaining this document.
Even though it's linked? But okay, done.
  • "which the Wilton nuns "must have been aware from the outset of at least some of those political implications and of their potential usefulness"." The grammar gets lost here.
Solved by breaking it into two sentences, thusly: Goscelin compares Cnut's connection to Edith, especially her piety and miracles, to her familial affections. The Wilton nuns were probably aware of Edith's familial awareness, as well as their "political implications and of their potential usefulness".
  • "According to Ridyard, Edith "terrorized those who were foolish enough to invade the lands of her church and instilled fear in the hearts of those who might be tempted to emulate those invaders".[69] For example, when a man named Brexius seized land owned by the abbey and refused to make amends on his deathbed, one of his relatives who was also a nun at Wilton, reported having a vision in which she witnessed "the rough treatment"[69] at the hands of Edith. Ridyard also reports that not only did Edith protect the convent's properties, but she also protected, at times violently, "one further possession which was essential to its prestige, its prosperity and even its identity—the body of St Edith herself".[69] It was also reported that Edith protected the right of the Wilton community to control her remains and the relics associated with her life and burial. For example, a woman trying to steal the linen frontal from Edith's tomb was miraculously immobilised. Goscelin relates another miracle, of uncertain date, in which a nun ordered a dying child's mother out of the room where Edith's mother Wulfthryth died because the nun thought it was disrespectful. The mother brought the baby to Edith's shrine by mistake, but the child was miraculously healed." These comments should all be attributed to Goscelin. Ridyard merely relates what Goscelin wrote.
Done as requested.
  • "It was also reported that Edith protected the right of the Wilton community to control her remains and the relics associated with her life and burial. For example, a woman trying to steal the linen frontal from Edith's tomb was miraculously immobilised. Goscelin relates another miracle, of uncertain date, in which a nun ordered a dying child's mother out of the room where Edith's mother Wulfthryth died because the nun thought it was disrespectful. The mother brought the baby to Edith's shrine by mistake, but the child was miraculously healed." "It was also reported" is too vague. This is presumably from Goscelin, but the comments are not in the source cited.
Yes, that's an error. Not able to find these accounts, so I removed them.
  • You should also give the story of Cnut questioning Edith's sanctity because she was a daughter of a lustful tyrant. This is in Yorke 2008, p. 143. Yorke does not give the end of the story, in which Edith miraculously terrifies Cnut into submission, and I can add this if you do not have a source for it (Williams of Malmesbury's History of the Bishops).
Yes, I'd appreciate that. Why didn't Yorke include it? ;)
Thanks as always.
  • "Edith's cult did not seem to have been established in the Wilton community until c. 1040, when she reportedly appeared in almost identical dreams to Ælfgifu, the wife of Æthelred II (who promoted Edith's cult) and Ælfflæd, wife of King Edward the Elder." This is wrong. The source says that she appeared to Ælfgifu and Ælfhild, mid-eleventh century future abbesses of Wilton, not long dead kings' wives. In view of the number of errors, I wonder whether it would be best if Christine withdraws the nomination and does her own thorough source check before re-nominating. Gog the Mild and Serial Number 54129 what do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but I'm inclined to agree. It looks like a detailed spot check might just produce more of what Dudley's uncovered, and that would be dispiriting for the nom. And myself, for that matter. SN54129 15:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129, @Dudley Miles: But why would we have to do that? Dudley is almost finished with his review and he's been doing a thorough and excellent source review as he's been going along. It seems like most of the errors, for some reason, are with my summarization of Hollis, so what would you two think about removing her from this bio? Much of her article doesn't add all that much to this bio, anyway. I also think, to be frank, that this review demonstrates a difference of opinion and philosophy between Dudley and I, although I think that we've been working things out as we're going along. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in outlook between me and Christine has not proved to be a problem in practice. The problem is the reliability of the sourcing. I do at least two thorough source checks before I nominate an article. This one does not seem to have been checked by the nominator at all. This puts an excessive burden on reviewers, and it is not a solution to remove a major source./ Dudley Miles (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator request[edit]

  • I would like to see a source to text fidelity spot check, per Dudley's comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Source spot check[edit]

Placeholder. SN54129 14:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't access Bugyis, Hollis, Rollasson or Yorke 2003. If anyone can send them over, that would be appreciated. SN54129 15:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sent email regarding this request. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by David Fuchs[edit]

Forthcoming this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose while there's a lot of good here, overall I found the text difficult to parse and left me with questions throughout. I get that the sources cannot be authoritative or certain about many elements of the story, but at present the article text is constantly fighting with itself and leaving me no idea what the consensus is on certain matters, or if something is settled or just one view of what happened.[reply]

  • What's the reasoning for the citations in the lead? Is there that much fighting about her dates of birth or that she's an English patron saint?
  • "Edith's parents might have been married, but when Edith was an infant, Wulfthryth returned with Edith to Wilton Abbey and their marriage was dissolved" If we're not sure she was married, it's weird to say at the end of the sentence their marriage definitively existed to be dissolved.
  • "Few miracles were attributed to her that supported Edith's canonisation and her cult did not become popular and widespread for 13 years after her death" If the point is that her popularity didn't manifest for 13 years, it seems like saying "...widespread until 13 years after her death" is a clearer way of stating this.
  • "and received her education at Wilton Abbey." Was this Edith, or Wulfthryth? With the structure of the sentence, it's unclear.
  • "Barbara Yorke reports that" — who? And why does this discussion about her DOB come two sentences after the mention of her DOB?
  • "Yorke also reports that modern scholars are uncertain regarding Wulfthryth's status." As in she might not have been of noble birth, or something else? The following sentences make me think it's about Wulfthryth and Edgar's relationship status, but then we run into the same issue as the lead with regards to the marriage dissolution. It also just feels like we spend a ton of words and namedropping to just say "we don't know if they were married or not", and could be tightened to be succinct and clearer.
  • "Stephanie Hollis believes that" who?
    • This sentence is a good example of another place where excessive wordiness gets in the way and the text seems to argue with itself; Hollis seems to simultaneously suggest that Edith was a lay member, but then backtracks and says it's unclear. So which is it?
  • Is this description of when Edith was two and got presented with presents from her ceremony dedicating her to religious life, or another occasion? If the former, why is it again divorced from the proximate mention?
  • "Edgar arranged for Edith the best possible education at Wilton by employing "two foreign chaplains",[20][7] Radbod of Rheims and Benno of Trier.[21][7]" According to whom? We've just gotten a bunch of "so and so said Y", so is this something the sources all agree upon?
  • "According to Goscelin, Edith's rich and elaborate wardrobe was vindicated" vindicated to whom? The section suggests but doesn't clarify if her and her mother's lifestyle was the subject of criticism, despite the subheading.
  • Not knowing anything about 10th century English politics, the stuff in "political and religious influence" just flies over my head. I think the article desperately needs some context about what was going on that nobility would be trying to curry favor with Edith. The entire Career section suffers from this, partially I think due to facts not being arranged in a more chronological order.
  • "Very little is known about Edith's governance of the three convents outside of Goscelin's works about her." Edith's possible governance, surely, since we've just spent three sentences suggesting it's not likely she actually held those positions?
  • "along with Goscelin's recounting of Edith and Wulfthryth's involvement in the transfer of Edward's body after his murder" and suddenly, murder? Never followed up on?
  • There's places throughout where I think there's an overuse of quotes. Why does "from existing books" need to be quoted instead of just saying Goscelin drew on oral testimony and prior written records? This especially gets bad in the Sainthood section, where the quotes by Ridyard seem rather breathless and excessive (I don't think scholars are uncritically saying that god struck some workmen blind?)
  • "Goscelin [wrote Vita Edithe] because Wilton "needed the assistance of a powerful supporter""—who said this?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Girth Summit[edit]

I'll try to do a more thorough review over the next couple of days, but a few points jump out at me from a skim over.

  • "Many of the miracles that occurred later..." Shouldn't that be 'miracles that were reported later'? We surely aren't stating as fact that miracles occurred?
Changed.
  • 'For example, she appeared to Æthelred, to an official with a rank second to the king, to an "unnamed secular magnate", and to Dunstan.' Same sort of thing - I've got no problem with us wording this so that we say that these people reported (or similar synonym) that she appeared to them; we shouldn't say that she did in Wikipedia's voice.
Also done.
  • 'Cnut, who became king of England in 1016, had a devotion to Edith after she seemingly interceded on his behalf and seemingly saved him from a sea storm, the reason, along with wanting to associate himself with Æthelred and his family, he built Edith a golden shrine storing her relics.' This sentence doesn't work for me. First we've got two instances of 'seemingly' very close to each other, which should be reworded. Secondly, I think it probably needs splitting - something like this might work: 'Cnut, who became king of England in 1016, had a devotion to Edith after it appeared that she had interceded on his behalf and saved him from a sea storm. This, along with wanting to associate himself with Æthelred and his family, inspired him to build a golden shrine to store Edith's relics.'
Good suggestion; I followed it with one difference: I replaced the first word in your second sentence ("this") with "his experience" because I don't think it fits an encyclopedic tone. You can change it back if you like, though.
  • '...and as a result Edith's feast day is widely kept.' Is her feast day widely kept? I was raised a Roman Catholic, and I've never heard of it. Should this be reworded, some that we're indicating that it was widely kept at the time?
You were probably raised as a Roman Catholic in the U.S., and no, St. Edith isn't as well known there. In Southern England, yes, she's well-known. Although (forgive this digression, please), I was chatting with one of my church lady friends from my parish and mentioned that I've been working on this bio and she told me that St. Edith was her confirmation saint. And she grew up near Deadwood, North Dakota! ;)
No - I was raised in Scotland, but my mother is English, and I've spent much of my adult life in England (Bath, then London, currently in York). I've still never heard of St Edith's day. I don't know what we mean by saying that it is 'widely kept' (and even if it were widely celebrated today, wouldn't it be a bit of a leap to say that Cnut's recognition of her directly led to that? Presumably there were lots of other saints that he recognised, who are not widely celebrated today). Girth Summit (blether) 14:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'For example, after a pilgrim from Saxony, along with his twelve companions, were sentenced to being shackled together for a year, which resulted in perpetual movement that did not stop when they were released. The pilgrims travelled to Wilton, slept before Edith's tomb for three days, and woke up to find himself healed, thus releasing him from judgment of his crimes.' I can't make out the initial sentence - the whole thing seems to be building up to a verb which never comes. Plus I'm a bit confused about how being shackled to twelve companions would bring about perpetual movement? The second sentence is also confused - the subject of the sentence starts out plural (the pilgrims), but then switches to singular 'woke up to find himself healed'. The whole paragraph needs a bit of sorting out.
I can see the confusion. I was trying to explain that one of the thirteen men condemned in this way was a pilgrim who travelled to Wilton for Edith's healing. I think my changes have made it clearer. The "perpetual movement" is how both Goscelin and Bugyis described it.
Both sentences are still ungrammatical in a number of ways. How about this: "For example, a pilgrim from Saxony and his twelve companions were sentenced to being shackled together for a year, which resulted in perpetual movement that did not stop when they were released. The pilgrim travelled to Wilton, slept before Edith's tomb for three days, and woke up to find himself healed, thus releasing him from judgment of his crimes." Girth Summit (blether) 14:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Girth Summit (blether) 17:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a couple of comments above regarding two concerns I already raised. If those were addresses, and if David Fuchs's points were to be addresses to his satisfaction, I would probably be in a position to support. Girth Summit (blether) 14:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for nine weeks and has garnered just the single general support. With a wall of comments that cause it to feel more like a PR than a FAC. I keep checking in, seeing things happening and thinking that I will give it a little longer, but unless the nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I posted the comment above David has formally opposed promotion and Dudley has repeated their dissatisfaction with the sourcing. There is no sign of a consensus to promote forming and so I am going to archive this for the issues identified to be worked on off-FAC. The usual two-week hiatus rule will apply.
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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Edith_of_Wilton/archive2&oldid=1167804816"