Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Justus/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [1].

Justus[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Justus/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because it's been copyedited several times by Malleus, been through a very helpful peer review, and now is ready to shine on the big stage. Well, as much as any medieval bishop can shine... Yet another (and hopefully last) of the Gregorian mission bishops, this guy's a bit more shadowy than even Mellitus, since we don't have the gout or the miracles to colour up his life. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review no problems Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tech bit no dabs, no deads, alt text present and appropriate, I fixed presumed typo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was one problem with the alt text: the Saints Portal used a purely decorative image but did not mark it with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. I fixed that and the alt text is fine now. Eubulides (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to dream about Gregorian bishops (this may be non-actionable)

I promise you that this one is the last one for a while. They raised the requirements for Featured Topics, so I had to bring two more bishops up to FA standards...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justus (occasionally Iustus) Given that Latin lacked a "J", wouldn't it always have been Iustin in the Latin texts? In other words, isn't one just a transliteration of the other?

Yeah, but one modern author has decided to say "Iustus" .. why I do not know. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'~~'Rochester seems a bit terse even as a heading - Bishop of... perhaps~~

Sounds good. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+ Support (after discussion) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not the most exciting of the bishops, is he? Nevertheless, a clearly written and (I take it from reading the commentary on the talk page here) a comprehensive article. Awadewit (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, he wasn't supposed to hit FAC, but they changed the requirements for Featured Topics and he was more FA-able than my other choices... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - All sources meet WP:RS. Awadewit (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Overall excellent and of a professional standard. Just a couple matters of clarification that tripped me up while I was reading:
- "survives in the Textus Roffensis and a copy based on this" Unsure what "this" is referring to.
  - clarified to "... survives in the Textus Roffensis, as well as a copy based on the Textus in the 14th-century Liber Temporalium." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two seemingly contradictory sentences are confusing me: "after Laurence's death, Mellitus became Archbishop of Canterbury" and then "Bede's account of Eadbald's conversion states that it was Laurence, Justus' predecessor at Canterbury". The former suggests that Mellitus succeeded Laurence as Archbishop of Canterbury (which I believe is true), and the latter suggests (at least to me) that Justus succeeded Laurence directly.
  - Predecessor doesn't always mean immediate, unfortunately. I could drop the "predecessor" and make it "Bede's account of Eadbald's conversion states that it was Laurence, an earlier Archbishop of Canterbury..." if you like. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nah, that would just be weasel-wording on my account. I wasn't aware of the scope of that word, clearly. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, concerns addressed! --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.