# Talk:Seaxburh of Ely

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seaxburh of Ely/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 16:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Some comments below - an interesting article, with just some work needed to unpack and explain a couple of the points in the text.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
1. Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; 
A few bits need a bit of work:

"the daughter of an Anglo-Saxon king, the queen of Eorcenberht of Kent, an abbess and a saint of the Christian Church." I'd lose the first bit about her being a daughter for two reasons. Firstly, her notability can't depend on her parents; secondly, it means that the second bit - the queen aspect - can be misread as being a reference to her mother (the first time I read this I thought she was the daughter of a king and Queen Eorcenberht).
done. Hel-hama (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"the queen of Eorcenberht of Kent" - could this be "the queen of King Eorcenberht of Kent"? It would make it clearer what/who Eorcenberht is without having to click on the link.
done. Hel-hama (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"the translation of the Æthelthryth's remains" - this is grammatically correct, but is there any other option than "translation"? It's just that it's a little bit obscure, and some readers would have to look it up.
done. Hel-hama (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"sarcophagus" - worth linking.
done. Hel-hama (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"her body was discovered to be miraculously uncorrupted" - "was said to have been discovered..."? "was recorded as being miraculously preserved"? I think we need to make clear here that this is the chroniclers speaking.
done. Hel-hama (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"one of the saintly daughters" - unclear from context if "saintly" is being used to refer to their piety, or that they were all saints.
done. Hel-hama (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"by her marriage to Eorcenberht, king of Kent from 640 to 644, and the great-uncle of Mildburh and her saintly sisters" - the second bit confused me. Was Eorcenberht Seaxburh's great-uncle? Who's Mildburh? I also wasn't clear whether these sisters were Mildburh's sisters, or Seaxburh's.
done. Hel-hama (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"within the annal for 640, "Then..." I'd advise you either go for a colon, e.g. "within the annal for 640: "Then..."", or just turn the capital "T" into a lower case, "within the annal for 640, "then..."" - either would be acceptable in terms of the MOS I think.
done. Hel-hama (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"Seaxburh and Eorcenberht had a second saintly daughter" - again, unclear if saintly means pious, or that she was later canonised.
clarified. Hel-hama (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"Seaxburh's marriage was itself of seminal importance in the establishment of monastic life for women during the Anglo-Saxon period." - I didn't understand why the marriage was itself of seminal importance (I can see that as queen she helped the establishment, but this suggested the marriage itself made a difference).
sentence expanded. Hel-hama (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"She perhaps played" - why "perhaps"? You say that she was regent, which sounds like it was pretty certain.
agreed. Hel-hama (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"hagiographer" - worth linking.
done. Hel-hama (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
" she hastened from a well-timed widowhood to that of the life devoted to God" - this reads strangely. If it's a quote, it needs speech marks; if not, I'd reword it a bit.
quote added. Hel-hama (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"According to Yorke, Seaxburh's retirement to Ely is an example of use of the Anglo-Saxon code-law, whereby a married woman remained the responsibility of the paternal side of her family" - This needs explaining a bit more.
done, I may perhaps add more. Hel-hama (talk)
"Sims-Williams" - who is Sims-Williams? Also, do they have a first name like Barbara Yorke?
done Hel-hama (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"John Crook notes that "the miraculous discovery of a suitable coffin is, however, a hagiographic commonplace" - again, worth explaining who Crook it; it might be worth explaining what a hagiographic commonplace is for the casual reader.
done. Hel-hama (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"Seaxburh apparently managed the translation of her sister's remains" - this could mean "managed" as in "carried out", or "managed" as in "coped with" - unclear which meaning is being used.
confusion removed. Hel-hama (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"Bede fails to emphasise the matrilinear succession established there by Æthelthryth..." why "fails"?
amendment made. Hel-hama (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"Seaxburh formed part of the Kentish Royal Legend (also called Þá hálgan), whose subjects were unified by their holiness and royal connections and which Pauline Stafford notes "may have been a Christian alternative to pagan geneaology". The legend was of relevance to the rulers of 10th and 11th century England, as it described an earlier amalgation of royal sanctity. " - I really didn't understand this bit I'm afraid - could you expand perhaps?
done. Hel-hama (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"lists several Lives of the saint" - you'll need to explain what a "Life" is here.
done. Hel-hama (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Yes.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Generally fine. There's a few minor points with the bibliography:
Bertram Colgrave, R. A. B. Mynors lacks an ISBN number
done. Hel-hama (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Some books have location and publisher, some just publisher - you'll need to be consistent.
done. Hel-hama (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The older books could be given an OCLC number - let me know if you don't know how to do this, and I can advise.
Click on here and enter the terms - it should pull up some options. You can then add the OCLC number into the article using the following template: OCLC 12345. This is a unique number that should be recognised by libraries around the world.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
done for Earle (19th century) Hel-hama (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why the Handbook of British Chronology is given a page number in the bibliography.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
done. Hel-hama (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
fn 19 lacks a full stop.
done. Hel-hama (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
fn 30 should presumably be pp.57-58 to be consistent with the others.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
done. Hel-hama (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.

None found.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Yes.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Yes.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Neutral.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; 

Yes.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on the Milton Regis page and keep coming up against the phrase "The records of Ely mention that 'Queen Sexburga, Abbess of Minster in Sheppey, left her life at the Doors of Mylton Church' in 860".  This raises a number of issues.  Some sites incorrectly assume that this was her death which it cannot be; she went on to Ely and in 695 was translating her sister's remains, according to this page.  Assuming then that "leaving her [secular] life" refers to taking the veil, which Milton is being talked about?

Holy Trinity, Milton Regis (founded by St Augustine in 597)
SS Peter and Paul, Milton-next-Gravesend (date unknown to me, but early).
A church within the Lathe of Milton which included the Hundred of Milton which in turn included the area around Milton Regis and most of the Isle of Sheppey, including Minster.
Milton Cambridgeshire (history of Milton), on the road from Cambridge to Ely which likewise had Roman and Saxon origins.
I've listed them in what I think is the probable order, but can anyone produce reliable citations to settle this one please?  For that matter is the nunnery that Seaxburgh founded definately at Milton-next-Gravesend and not Milton Regis? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference to Milton will originally come from an old manuscript - now called Lambeth Palace MS427 - which can be read (with its translation into Modern English) here. I'll see if I can't dig up something more helpful. Hel-hama (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Correct Milton link used.Hel-hama (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Big thank-you, that clears things up.  The use of "Middletune" in successive senttences must be the same place and the island belonging to Milton fixes it as Milton Regis. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)