Jump to content

Talk:Council of Reims (1148)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCouncil of Reims (1148) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 9, 2011Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Council of Reims (1148)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a period I have studied, but it's a subject I have.

Resolved
  • Could the discussion of the proceedings be expanded a little? Do you mention all canons? As for the "dispute between two Norman abbots", what was it about, and what was the conclusion? Who were the people tasked with coming to the conclusion?
Resolved
  • I get the impression the article could be made significantly easier on the eye with some images. It'd be good if you could choose a lead image (one of Eugene would be best). We don't have one of Gilbert, but we do have a nice one of Bernard of Clairvaux.
  • Perhaps the references would look a little better if you moved each reference out to a "works cited" section, and cited them in the footnotes as "Smith, p. ##" as appropriate?
    • I'm hampered by the fact that this was how Srnec set the article up when he split the information out from the main Council of Reims article - we're not supposed to change referencing styles if we're not the primary editor. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would argue you are now the primary editor, but there's certainly no problem with us discussing the matter and concluding that it is the best way forward- I think it is, as it avoids the unecessary repetition; if you agree, I don't see any great harm in swapping it. If Srnec disagrees, I'm sure the three of us can discuss it and work something out as appopriate. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting subject and the article's got great potential, but it needs some smoothing out first. J Milburn (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second read through

[edit]
  • Still feeling a lead image would be nice; if you don't want to over-illustrate, perhaps move one of the two already used up? Both are of subjects integral to the article.
  • "and was supposed to be in Trier," implies the summons was meant to be in Trier
  • "on Boethius' De Trinitate" links?
  • Still not sure about the references- do you feel the style I suggested would work better, personally? A different style?

I think part of the reason the article comes across as a little chaotic is that it was a chaotic event... No paperwork, change of venue, people fired for not turning up, no one had a copy of a book... Madness. Anyway, I guess my concerns are mostly aesthetic now. J Milburn (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it was a very chaotic event. The main reasons people even pay attention to it are 1) The great story of Theobald fleeing England in a fishing boat to attend and 2) Gilbert's trial that was held sorta-kinda at the Council. Obviously, I ended up here because of working on Theobald, and like a lot of my work, it just sorta kept growing and growing. Doubtful I'll take this to FAC, the chaotic nature of the event makes it just not very tidy and easy to deal with at FAC. I've dealt with all of the above, but there isn't an exact article on the Boethius work that got Gilbert in trouble, so I liked linked the treatise title to the subsection of Boethius' article that at least contains a mention of the work. If that isn't good for you, it's easy to remove. The references - normally I do references like in Hygeberht (coming to FAC soon! Copyedits and comments very welcome!), which is close to what you're looking for, but I don't really wanna get into a pissing match with Srnec over the issue. He probably won't complain, but... why look for trouble? And this article is so short that it's not really that big a problem to deal with the referencing style as it is. If you really feel it should be changed, I can do it, but since I'm not planning on FAC, I've not bothered before. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My "two cents" are that it would probably be best to switch the referencing style- you're now the primary author, and we both feel that your way would be stronger. I'll leave it up to your call. In any case, it feels strong enough to promote now; congratulations! J Milburn (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As none of the religion sections seemed appropriate, I have added it to European history. I have no objection to it being moved. J Milburn (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]