# Talk:Philip de Thaun

Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Bartlett England Under the Angevin and Norman Kings p. 675
Bartlett England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings p. 656
Given the titles, are these one or two books?  7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, same book. Just a half-awake editor... fixing now. Good catch, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest you use sfn format.  I can add it if you are Okay with that.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I"m good with this format, thanks. I just ordered some books through ILL to hopefully flesh this out a bit more. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
'nuf said.  Good luck.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

article
-- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philip de Thaun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


### Starting review
Starting first read-through. Comments later today or else tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 15:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Clearly of GA quality. A few carps and quibbles before I cut the ribbon. All merely suggestions for you to accept or reject as you wish.

Lead
I struggled with the logic of the first two sentences. If PdT was "the first Anglo-Norman poet" he must ipso facto have been the first known Anglo-Norman poet to write in  any language. I think the opening would be more helpful if you omitted the second "Anglo-Norman".
"A further poem is likely authored by him" – if we're in BrE, as I suppose us to be, this would be more idiomatic as "A further poem is probably written by him"
His last poem is Le Livre de Sibile" – the last surviving, or known poem, perhaps? He may have written others that are lost, one imagines.
Writings
"likely by him" – again, "likely" in this context is not a BrE idiom (heaven knows why not) and the longer and woollier "probably" is the norm.
Comput
"secular priests" – I'm guessing secular means non-monastic, but on the face of it the term looks strange, almost oxymoronic, and brings one up short. Is there a suitable article to link to?
"using as its sources Bede, Chilperic of St Gall, Pliny the Elder, and Garlandus Compotista" – is there any reason for the order? Not chronological or alphabetical. Importance, perhaps? I merely ask.
Bestiary
"with legendary animals and information indiscriminately mixed with more reliable information" – this doesn't quite work, it seems to me: the first lot of info is not itself legendary. Perhaps something on the lines of "with details of legendary animals indiscriminately mixed with more reliable information"?
"Philip may have written the Bestiarire partly due to the interest" – I'm sorry to bleat on pedantically, but though in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", in formal BrE it is not so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
"just accended the throne of England" – I assume this is just a typo, but I don't dare alter it, just in case.
Philip's work is also one of only two French writers" – the work is not a writer. There's a "that of" missing, I think.
Notes
"This manuscript is in the Bibliotheque Nationale" – the Bibliothèque nationale, please, with grave accent on the first word and lower case "n" on the second.
Those are my few comments. When you have considered which, if any, you wish to act on we can proceed to the medal-awarding ceremony. I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold, unless you wish it. – Tim riley talk 18:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I got all of these - the order has no meaning, past Bede - Bede's the medieval authority on the computus, so he's got pride of place here. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

All impeccable now, in my view. Certainly meets the GA criteria. A pleasure to review. − Tim riley talk 07:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I had to add a sentence to an existing article for an assignment, I added a small detail to the bestiary section about the phoenix. tried to add in a way that didn't affect citation. I also corrected the spelling of Philippe's name throughout the article.
DaisyBearP (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The name used should be the same as the title of the article - which uses the name from the one biography of Philip. As for the insertion - inserting information into an already sourced paragraph must be done by making sure that the information is supported by the already existent citation. I do not think that Mermier actually supports the information inserted. "Philippe’s description of the bird follows the stylistic language of the Latin Physiologus B version whereby the phoenix’s three days of self-immolation, rebirth, and maturity to adulthood is used to symbolize the resurrection of Christ." was added but there is nothing in Mermier about "stylistic language" nor does it support that the aniimal's "three days of self-immolation, rebirth, and maturity to adulthood is used to symbolize the resurrection of Christ" - Mermier says that the phoenix is the symbol of Christ only, not anything else. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I totally understand and appreciate your feedback. His name is properly spelled Philippe though not Philip. The information that I inserted is absolutely from that source just not from that page. It's from page 75. I wasn't sure how to change the page numbers and I didn't want to mess the source up.   DaisyBearP (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)