Talk:Edith of Wilton

message: To have an article which purports to be based on books by the likes of Karkov and Ridyard include this sort of stuff is worse than including it in an unreferenced article. It might lead our readers to think that this too is based reliable material when in fact it's anything but. Anyone who ever wanted a practical example of how adding "referenced" material to a bad article could make it into a worse one need look no further. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, but I'm not so sure. Agnes Dunbar wasn't Ridyard, and she may have been credulous but she must have had a source, good or bad, although I admit it isn't clear. The chances are it's Goscelin. And I'm afraid that is the way our unsophisticated ancestors used to carry on, so it doesn't strike me as incredible. Anyway, please leave it with me and I'll try to find a better source. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've done some work on it, and you're clearly right, firstly because Canute was a small child or else not born at all when Dunstan died, and secondly because Goscelin has a quite different story. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wrong Thing 

message: This source (https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/06/making-a-good-impression.html), even though it's from a blog, might be a good and useful source for this section. The trouble with it currently, though, is that the text in the last part of section isn't supported by anything in this source or from the second source used, so I've removed it as per WP:BURDEN. Fortunately, I've found another source to replace much of the possibly-disputable content: the marvelous book by Katie Ann-Marie Bugyis (see Bibliography). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Seal section

message: Greetings, I just nominated this for DYK and was a little confused because I couldn't find the review page except via page history (it can be found here) at the top, in the Good article banner (for comparison, it is linked in this article).
 Do you know why this happened? –LordPickleII (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @LordPeterII, I'm not sure, perhaps there's a bot that was supposed to transclued it but did not? Hey, would you withdrawing the DYK nom? I wanted to wait until April Fools, just for this hook or something like it: "...that Edith of Wilton was called "the laziest saint in England"? I've never had a DYK on April 1, and I thought that this would be perfect for it. I mean, that's one of the reasons I submitted it to GAN in the first place. I probably should've stated my intentions here, but it never occurred to me that someone else would bother to submit it to DYK. ;) Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, sorry! Didn't mean to steal it from you, I just thought I'd nominate some quality articles before they're ineligible. Anyway, I could also just switch the hook and go for April's Fool with the current nom? I think you'll still get credited as the author, and I have QPQs to spare. But if you prefer, I can also withdraw and let you have a fresh start. –LordPickleII (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @LordPeterII, no that's fine if you continue the nom but moved it to the April 1 section. I just figured that it was too early, again probably not. Thanks for nominiating it in the first place! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, I'll switch to your hook and April's Fool then (you can ofc participate in the nom discussion). Nominations for April 1 are accepted year-around, you just have to nominate in the usual timeframe (~seven days) after achieving GA status. It'll be a long time in the hold for this one, but I believe the record is longer ^^ –LordPickleII (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: Why is the GA review not linked?