Talk:Christianity in Medieval Scotland/GA2

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 12:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for taking this on. I should point out because it may save a lot of work, that all the suggestions from the GA1 were implemented, as far as possible, before re-submission, especially the issues of clarity and captions.--SabreBD (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I sort of started from scratch anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

General: I think I could pass this one as it stands, regarding the GA criteria. It is a really interesting read, and covers all the required ground. Several of my points are rather picky, and are perhaps aimed more towards FA level, where I think it may be worth heading at some point. So feel free to argue. Good stuff, though. (As you may gather, I have some background in this area, particularly the earlier stuff.) Sarastro1 (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Picky is good, done in the right spirit. I welcome any advice that might point forward for the article. I also think you have spotted some errors I missed, so I pretty much plan to work through the points below.--SabreBD (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and feel free to tell me to get lost on any of the points! Sarastro1 (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Christianity in Medieval Scotland includes all aspects of Christianity in the modern borders of Scotland, between the end of the Roman occupation of Britain in the fifth century and the Renaissance and beginnings of the Reformation in the early sixteenth century.": A slightly clumsy introduction. Do we really need to define the scope so rigidly? And this may be a case where the bolded title is not needed in the first sentence.

 Done I usually get pulled up when I assume a level of knowledge here, but I have removed the definition of the period and linked to [Scotland in the] Middle Ages. Looking at WP:LEAD I think the title does lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, so I think it is probably best to keep this in bold.--SabreBD (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a link for "found", as this may be obscure to non-specialists?

Sorry which "found" is this, or did you mean "founded"?--SabreBD (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, founded, found, foundation: anything that links to the idea. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find anything that seems helpful, despite quite a lot of looking. I guess any article on "monastic foundations" would end up being a redirect to monasticism.--SabreBD (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There is evidence to suggest that Roman occupation brought Christianity to the north of the Province of Britannia": Is it worth specifying what this is, either in the main text or a note?

 Done I just included it in the sentence.--SabreBD (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• "who had close links with the island of Ireland": I don't think we need to say that Ireland is an island. And it also sounds a little odd if you try to say it aloud.

 Done I think that was there to stress that there was no Irish kingdom, but probably unnecessary, so I removed it.--SabreBD (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Later Columbian influence": Should this be "Columban" rather than "Columbian"?

Ha, yes, not relevant now because of the following point.--SabreBD (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Later Columbian influence would extend to the Hebrides.": A little ambiguous. Does this mean the influence of Columba himself, or his "style"? Also, do we need "would extend" rather than "extended"?

 Done It is really his successors, so I changed this to Iona.--SabreBD (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• "In the seventh century, St. Aidan went from Iona to found a church at Lindisfarne off the east coast of Northumbria,[11] from where its influence spread into what is now south-east Scotland.": Dangling participle here: the subject of the first clause is St Aidan, but transforms to the church in the second.

 Done I split it in two and clarified the second part.--SabreBD (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• "His Life of St. Columba stressed the saint's piety and miracles and elevated him to become the apostle of North Britain in general": And…and…and. Perhaps reorganise this a little.

 Done In the end I dropped the miracles and..., its the geographic bit that matters.--SabreBD (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• "It has been suggested that this process began early": Who has suggested? Possibly better to alter this so that the next sentence begins "The process may have begun early;…"

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In addition the poem Y Gododdin, set in the early sixth century and probably written in what is now Scotland, notably does not remark on the Picts as pagans.": "Notably" rather interrupts the flow of this sentence and could be safely removed. Also a little POVish.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Conversion of the Pictish élite seems likely to have run over a considerable period, beginning in the fifth century and not complete until the seventh[17] and conversion of the general population may have stretched into the eighth century.[10]": Is it worth explicitly making the point that it is impossible to know anything for certain about all this, given the scare evidence, and the limitations of what is available. (For example, Fletcher's Conversion book goes into a lot of detail about this, although not specifically about Scotland.) Or you may feel that these sentences are enough.

I was relying on the opening sentence of the paragraph: "The means and speed by which the Picts converted to Christianity is uncertain" - is that enough?--SabreBD (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• "These cemeteries are suspected, or known to be Christian, because of their proximity to a church, or because of Christian inscriptions found in them.[19] These burials…": Successive sentences beginning "these".

 Done removed one.--SabreBD (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• How far was Scotland Christian? The early sections describe the different "areas" and influences. Were all these Christianised? To what extent? Are there examples of pagan survival? Did the (possible) surviving Christians contribute to this process at all? Any clashes? (And I appreciate that the answers may be unknown)

The answers are pretty much unknown, we have a bit of difficult archaeology and some unreliable saints lives. Neither throw much light on paganism. Our best evidence for pagan "survivalism" is in later medieval practices within Catholicism and it is very difficult to read that back into the eighth century. It may be best just to let the reader make their own mind up.--SabreBD (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem; that subject is a minefield anyway! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Also, how deliberate was this conversion? Was there a "master plan" (such as the Gregorian missions in England) or was it just random? If so, can we say what prompted it? Why so many in such a short time? (Again, Fletcher covers some of this if you feel it is needed)

My copy of Fletcher is at work, but I may be able to find it online. Will come back to this one.--SabreBD (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, it's not essential for GA. The Fletcher stuff (my copy is temporarily inaccessible!) is fairly general and goes from Roman times when no-one bothered much with conversion to the big push of the 7th century onwards. More for background really. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless I managed to find an online copy and added a sentence. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at this and see if it helps and is sufficient.--SabreBD (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Why are italics used for "Celtic Church"?--SabreBD (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:ITALICS is that they are preferred to inverted commas for emphasis, but they could just be removed if you think the emphasis is unnecessary.--SabreBD (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary but the choice is yours. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed them. I think it is still clear.--SabreBD (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• "The Celtic Church is a term which is used by scholars both to describe a specific form of Christianity with its origins in the conversion of Ireland traditionally associated with St. Patrick, which later spread to northern Britain through Iona, and as a general description for the Christian establishment of northern Britain prior to the twelfth century, when new religious institutions and ideologies of primarily French origin began to take root in Scotland." Horribly long sentence. I think a little reworking may be needed.

 Done Divided into three.--SabreBD (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Perfect now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• "The Celtic form of Christianity has been contrasted with that derived from missions from Rome": Contrasted how?

I think the bit about tonsures, Easter and other differences covers this.--SabreBD (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Subsequent missions then helped convert the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms": Doesn't quite match the previous sentence; these are the Celtic missions which went into those kingdoms, presumably.

 Done It was referring to missions from Canterbury. Assuming it is clear from what has gone before that both sorts influenced Northumberland.--SabreBD (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In addition scholars have identified significant characteristics of the organisation of Irish and Scottish Christianity as, relaxed ideas of clerical celibacy, intense secularisation of ecclesiastical institutions, and the lack of a diocesan structure, making abbots (or coarbs), rather than bishops, the most important element the church hierarchy.": I'm not entirely sure this makes sense. Missing word?

 Done I broke this into two sentences - hopefully clearer.--SabreBD (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• The evidence suggests that the Synod of Whitby may have been more-or-less ignored at first in Scotland; is it worth saying so explicitly.

 Done - sort of. Not quite sure if that can be fitted in here. Whitby was only about Northumbrian observance of course and it is difficult to say "Scottish Christianity" here as there isn't a Scotland. I added a phrase that should make it clear that this is only about Northumbria.--SabreBD (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps a word or two on what Cluniac reform meant, and how this contrasted with the existing Celtic church may be useful for the general reader.

There is some of this in the next section. I tried to fit it in here but it broke up the point.--SabreBD (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• "with Robert I carrying the brecbennoch": Noun plus ing form. Better as "Robert I carried…"

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• "between those who back the church council as the ultimate authority in the church and those that backed the papacy": Mixed tenses here.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is there anything more, other than the parts included, which could be said about architecture in the period? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Well there is a whole article on this at Church architecture in Scotland. Since I wrote that perhaps it is difficult for me to judge what also fits here. I may have erred on the side of caution, not wanting to keep rewriting the same article. I will take another look.--SabreBD (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I added some information on early churches and Romanesque styles, both of which fit with major influences. It might be good to have something on Gothic styles, but I cannot work out where it would go, so might have to give that some more thought.--SabreBD (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing: Forgot to add this earlier: spot checks reveal no problems and sourcing looks very good. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, I think that is all the suggestions dealt with as much as I can.--SabreBD (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Everything looks really good. Passing now, and maybe you should think about aiming this at FA in future. I think a PR and a few more eyes and it would be ready. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for a very helpful review and recommendations.--SabreBD (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)