# Talk:Lyfing (archbishop of Canterbury)

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lyfing (archbishop of Canterbury)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 11:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome
Good day User:Ealdgyth: I will be your reviewer for this, the first GA nomination of the article Lyfing (archbishop of Canterbury). As you know, I am an apprentice-reviewer, much much less experienced than you. Also consider that I have no prior knowledge of the subject. Please tell me when I go wrong.
I start a first traverse.


### Before the article content
English variety and date style. - I was about to criticise the position of the "Use British English" and "Use dmy dates" templates at the end of the article but found after having consulted MOS:LAYOUT more closely that even if the list of components ranges these two templates as "1.7", i.e. under "1. Before the article content", the Note (a) in this list states that "These templates can also be placed at the end of an article.". So the position of these two templates in the present article is perhaps somewhat unusual but does not contravene the Rule 1.b of the GA Criteria, which prescibes compliance with MOS:LAYOUT.
Infobox - The infobox uses <BR /> in the parameter "other_posts". I wonder whether this is fine for GA. It looks as if MOS:NOBR is one of the many MOS rules that are excluded from the GA Criteria.


### Lead
Only paragraph, 1st sentence, note (a): ... Living, or Ælfstan ... - I was astonished to see that Living is bold whereas Ælfstan is cursive. Is this intended? In the sction "Early career" below Ælfstan is not italicised. You cite ODNB online, which many readers cannot access because of the subscription requirement. Would it not be better to cite the print book available in Internet Archive, which I would cite as:
*{{Cite encyclopedia|last=Mason |first=Emma |editor1-last=Matthew |editor1-first=Colin |editor1-link=Colin Matthew |editor2-last=Harrison |editor2-first=Brian |editor2-link=Brian Harrison (historian) |date=2004 |title=Lyfing (d. 1020) |encyclopedia=[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]] |volume=34 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |location=New York |pages=857–858  |isbn=0-19-861385-7 |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_0198613849/page/857/ |url-access=registration}} at https://archive.org/details/isbn_0198613849/page/857/ (offensive remark discussed below struck out with apologies).
I've fixed the bolding - but I follow WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT - I use the online version, so the online version is what I cite. THe online version is updated - unlike the print version. As an aside - most wiki editors will be able to access the ODNB through the wiki library and all British users will be able to access the online version through their local libraries. That doesn't begin to include any other libraries that offer access. And may I suggest that its a bit ... condescending ... to tell someone with over 15 years experience on wikipedia, over 50 FAs, and over 100 GAs ... how to cite something? I'm not really offended, but if you did that to some other editors, it might offend. Just a suggestion.
Dear Ealdgyth. Thanks for your careful comment. I looked up WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. In my opinion it applies to cases where a statement was found not in its original author's publication but in somebody else's intermediate publication where it is quoted or paraphrased. —With regard to the "Cite book" I gave, I added the way how I would have cited it, because I am unsure about the way I cite. Experienced editors often correct my citations. Just recently someone removed the parameters |location=, |url= and |url-acess= in one "Cite book" I had added, saying "location" is old-fashioned and URLs are unusual because ISBNs suffice. But I, apprentice-reviewer, here sit struggling to find the sources I need to read to understand the subject better and to do the spot-check that seems to be required. Why should some Wikipedian go out of his way to withhold that URL from me? Sorry, I think I talk too much. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Still about "condescending". Another reason I gave the {{Cite book}} as I did was that I wanted to include the URL I found for ODBC, volume 3634. I find these URLs are not so easy to find in Internet Archive. Best regards. Perhaps there is a way that you could suggest how I could formulate my remarks more humbly to avoid the bad impression I made. Perhaps I must avoid "I" and imperatives and use "might" and "IMHO". Sometimes comments that could be seen as criticism could be presented as a question. Probably I should avoid proposing Wikicode or prose excerpts without losing clarity or if I do make sure I present it as a possible and not "the" solution. However, WP:RGA prescribes "When reviewing an article, do not just describe its shortcomings, provide suggestions to fix them." With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
—Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


### Early careeer
Header - Careeer -> Career (typo)
Only paragraph, 2nd sentence: He was abbot of Chertsey Abbey from about 989.[1][3] - The sentence might beg the question "until when Lyfing was abbot" and the reader might expect an answer to that question. The answer can be found in the two citations you give.
Only paragraph, 3rd sentence: He became Bishop of Wells in ... - The reader might profit from a link on "Bishop of Wells" to Bishop of Bath and Wells


### Archbishop
1st paragraph, 1st sentence: Lyfing was unable to go to Rome for his pallium ... - This sentence might be a bit long. The following pieces might be turned into sentences or clauses (1) The see of Canterbury is a metropolitan see whose newly appointed holder should obtain (buy!) a pallium from the pope in Rome (2) Lyfing could not consecrate new bishops without the pallium (3) As he could not go to Rome, Lyfing delegated consecrations of bishops to his colleage of York, who had a pallium. (is this offensive or simply helpful?)
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence (beginning): By 1018, however, he was acting as archbishop, having returned to England from Rome .... - Should the reader deduce that Lyfing had by then obtained his pallium?
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence (end): ... who became king in 1016.[9] - Would it be possible to rearrange the text so that 1016 is mentioned before 1018 to respect chronological order?
2nd paragraph, 5th sentence: The Lanalet Pontifical, a 11th-century pontifical in ... - Should it not be an 11th-century as "11th" starts with a vowel when spoken (eleven)?
2nd paragraph, 5th sentence (again): The Lanalet Pontifical, a 11th-century pontifical in manuscript produced in England ... - The repetition of "pontifical" might be avoided by linking to liturgical book instead of pontifical.


### Death and legacy
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: He was buried in Canterbury Cathedral,[1] and after his death he was ... - Perhaps better "his remains were"?
—With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


### Archbishop (revisited)
1st paragraph, 1st sentence: ... the symbol of archiepiscpal authority ... - Taken out of context, the cited apposition might be misunderstood as meaning that all archbishops have palliums, whereas in reality only metropolitan ones do. The article Archbishop states that most archbishops are metropolitan but cites two exceptions: the Archdiocese of Avignon, which lost its metropolitan status in 2002, and the Archdiocese of Trnava, which lost it in 2008. IMHO it might be better to say "metropolitan" than "archiepiscopal" authority.


### Death and legacy (revisited)
The word "gallery" (below) might be misleading and "apse" might be better. I apologise for the length of the explanation below, which might be nothing new to you.

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... the gallery of the north transept ... - This is word-by-word how Robinson (1918) page 59 (https://archive.org/details/saxonbishopsofwe00robi/page/59/) describes the location to where Lyfing's remains were first moved. The north transept never had a "gallery" but an apse. Willis (1845), p 39 (https://archive.org/details/architecturalhis00will_1/page/39/) explains that Gervase in his Tractatus de Combustione et Reparatione Cantuariensis Ecclesiae used "porticus" (arcade) to mean an apse. Lyfing's remains were moved to an apse attached to the north transept on the eastern side. When Lanfranc's new quire was built, Lyfing's remains were moved to the northern apse of the northern transept on the new quire. This apse contains an altar to St Martin as Willis's map shows (page 38).
—With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
—Dear Ealdgyth. Thanks for all your comments. I learned a lot from you. The more I learn about GA, the more I see that there is hardly anything else than English spelling and grammar corrections that can be demanded. Being 2nd-language this is not my strong point. Even if "gallery" (see above) is untrue, as long as a reliable source says so, it passes GA. The correction you graciously conceded on the bolding is not required for GA as GA:BOLD is beyond the criteria. Of course your article passes. I must think better about the way how I do these reviews to make sure I comply the WP:CIVILITY and GP:GANOT. I do reviews because Gog the Mild asked me 12 reviews as quid-pro-quo for the A-class review Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. Also, I was invited to the June 2022 Backlog Drive by Buidhe. I know well I am not really up-to-scratch. Thanks for all your kindness. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)