Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ælle of Sussex

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 22:39, 13 June 2007.

Ælle of Sussex

edit

Passed GA; I've tweaked it some more and hope it is now ready for FA. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment Thoroughly enjoyed the article, and have made various notes below. Overall seemed well written and referenced. Short, obviously, but seems to give a thorough coverage given the lack of contemporary evidence. Can't comment on MOS issues very far, but seemed fine to me, bar one comment below.
  • 1st para of lead – should make the location clear i.e. “Sussex, England” or similar.
  • “The information about him is so limited that it cannot be said now with certainty that Ælle even existed.” – strike the “now”?
  • “A significant victory at what is now Pevensey is reported to have ended with the Saxons slaughtering their opponents to the last man” - “significant” and “to the last man” don’t seem backed up by the main article, which says “and there killed many Welsh and drove some to flight”, and reasons for it’s significance aren’t discussed.
  • “Pagan raids on the southern and eastern shores of England” – I think you ought to either substitute “Pagan” with more specific detail (You mention Saxons, Jutes etc later), or put “pagan” in context.
  • “sufficiently troublesome by the later third century” – “later” should be “late” or “latter half”?
  • Chronicle quotes in Early sources – perhaps make it a little clearer that they are quotes, with quotation marks perhaps?
  • “The Chronicle was put together about four hundred years after these events, and its source for this information is unknown. It is known that the annalists used material from earlier chronicles, as well as from oral sources such as sagas, but there is no way to tell where these lines came from.” – the section after the last comma seems fairly redundant, given you’ve stated the source is unknown in the first sentence.
  • “this may indicate a period in which Anglo-Saxon dominance was interrupted in some way.” – can I just check that this is supported by the ref you give?
  • “at about 692 or perhaps slightly earlier” seems a slightly vague way to say a date is vague – “at or about 692”?
  • “There are other early writers whose works can shed light on Ælle’s time…” – this paragraph seems not to be very well linked to the immediate subject. Perhaps you can link in what those sources can tell us about Aelle, or the Sussex of his time?
  • Evidence from placenames in Sussex (And should it be place name? That’s what you use further on) – could you confirm this analysis is from the sources?
  • Has anyone argued against Aelle’s existence with anything stronger than “The evidence is weak”? Claiming contradictory sources, etc? If so, that view should be mentioned, if not, then fine.

* "Aelle's Reign" is repeating the title in a header - see WP:HEAD "Avoid restating the subject or title of the article or of an enclosing section in heading titles"

  • Aelle’s Reign – something that troubled me from this section is that it represents the analysis of various scattered sources, and it wasn’t clear to me whose analysis it was. If, as I imagine, it’s Stenton’s, perhaps it would be better to make that explicit?
  • The article spends a lot of time repeating the vagueness and uncertainty of the evidence. I wonder if it would be better to state the issues with the evidence clearly (as it does), but then carry on without qualifying the evidence repeatedly?

Some of these are more opinion on my part than definite points - feel free to tell me why I'm wrong :) J.Winklethorpe talk 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed comments. Responses below, prefixed by the first few words of each of your points.
  • "1st para of lead . . ." Done.
  • “The information about him . . ." Agreed; done.
  • “A significant victory at what is now Pevensey . . ." This refers to the 491 annal. I've done the easy part and fixed the lead to make the reference unambiguous. I'll have to dig out the source that talks about the significance of the battle; I'll add another note here when I've done that. I think it's the completeness of the victory, and the fact that it is at the far end of Sussex, so could be seen as establishing control of what became the kingdom of Sussex.
  • “Pagan raids on the southern and eastern shores . . ." The raids were not only by the Saxons, but I don't think there's a lot of detailed sources on this. The best answer is probably to put it in context by pointing out the limits to Roman and Christian dominion in Northern Europe, and then mention that it was from these pagan peoples that the raids came. I'll do that and post another note here when it's done.
  • “sufficiently troublesome by the later third century . . .” Changed to "late".
  • "Chronicle quotes in Early sources – perhaps make it a little clearer that they are quotes, with quotation marks perhaps?" I'm not sure about this. I think the quotes would look a bit ugly, but the real difficulty is that the translation used is composite. There's a footnote here that gives the details and citations. The result is that I'm not really quoting a source. I was hoping that the footnote covered this adequately. Do you feel these details should be in the main text? I thought that might be a little too much interruption of the flow.
  • Ah right, looking at the footnote again it does explain it.
  • “The Chronicle was put together . . ." I cut the earlier clause of the two that were redundant, rather than the later; it seemed a better construction.
  • “this may indicate a period . . ." Yes, it's supported; however, what is in Stenton includes reference to Mons Badonicus. That is, he points out that given that we know Mons Badonicus occurred, the long gap in the bretwalda dates between Ælle and Ceawlin implies that "the English advance against the Britons was suspended for at least a generation". So I am not being completely accurate in the quote. The reason is that that's a synthetic argument, and I felt the article flowed better by saving the synthesis to the final section, since there is so little definite to say about Ælle anyway. So I trimmed it to the essential point derived from the source I was discussing in that section, the Chronicle. Let me know if you think that works.
  • Yep, that's fine.
  • “at about 692 or perhaps slightly earlier . . ." I checked Kirby on this and I had a slight mistake here -- the charter gives the date as 692, but that may be a later addition to the charter. So I think "at about 692" is close enough. Since the charter doesn't bear directly on Ælle I don't think this needs to be discussed in the text.
  • “There are other early writers . . ." The intention here was that that sentence should serve as a lead-in to discussion of Gildas and Procopius -- those are the "other early writers". Does this need revision?
  • It was actually the whole paragraph that concerned me, because it lacked a positive mention of Aelle or the Sussex of his period. What can be inferred from Gildas about Aelle's Sussex? Reading again, I'm now understanding that Procopius is backing up the idea of a pause in the Anglo-Saxon incursions. Possibly I was a little dense on first reading of the paragraph.
  • "Evidence from placenames in Sussex . . ." I'm making them all "place name"; I don't have a strong preference so I picked one and made it consistent. I think "place-name", "placename" and "place name" are probably all supportable, so I picked the one I thought was probably the British English spelling. As for the research, yes, it's in the source. Blair makes it pretty clear these names are used by historians as evidence of very early settlement.
  • Fine
  • "Has anyone argued against Aelle’s existence . . ." Not that I am aware of. The version of the article that was there when I started work (here) states in the lead that he is a legend, though the body softens it to "could be fact or fiction". I couldn't find anything at all to support the definite assertion that he's only a legend.
  • That's fine then.
  • ""Aelle's Reign" is repeating the title in a header . . ." OK -- would a section title something like "The historical Ælle" do? Or "Interpretations of the sources"?
  • Just "Reign" would suffice, but it's up to you.
"Reign" it is, then. Mike Christie (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aelle’s Reign – something that troubled me . . ." Yes, it's Stenton. The footnotes are all to Stenton for the argument; I'd like to suggest that that's sufficient. I hate to introduce Stenton into the main text here, since I think that would distract from the argument itself. It's true I can't cite anyone else who constructs this whole argument, but I think it's reasonably mainstream.
  • All fine then. If anyone else finds the same issue, I think a short note in the footnote would satisfy.
  • "The article spends a lot of time . . ." This echoes a criticism made of my last FA nom, Æthelbald of Mercia, so I suspect this is an area I need to be careful in. I will do a pass specifically looking for this and will post another note when I've done so.

More to follow on the three points I marked above as outstanding. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some replies and strikethroughs above. I'll watch the page and follow up as necessary. Thanks, J.Winklethorpe talk 08:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A significant victory . . ." The passage I was thinking of when I wrote that is in Stenton; he talks about it as evidence for steady west-to-east progression against stiff resistance; and he also cites the lack of place names of British origin as evidence for a large Saxon incursion. I've taken "significant" out of the lead, where it doesn't have any context, and I've added those thoughts drawn from Stenton to the place names section and the last section. Diffs in two parts, here and here. Mike Christie (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Pagan raids . . ." I have dropped the word "pagan" in favour of an expanded explanation of the origin of these peoples. Source was in Campbell, already cited, so there's no extra footnote. Mike Christie (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There are other early writers . . ." I've tweaked the text slightly; let me know if it needs more. Mike Christie (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The article spends a lot of time . . ." OK, I think this must be a blind spot of mine. I pasted a copy into Word and highlit all the "probably" and "least-document" comments, and such like; I just don't see a natural place to cut. Can you give some specific pointers? Thanks. I think that's the last of your points I had not responded to. Mike Christie (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses. I've struck through everything and changed to support. On the last point, I'll have another good read through and see what I can do. In the meantime, it's not enough to withhold support on. J.Winklethorpe talk 08:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection on my last point, I realise I underestimated the paucity of sources and level of uncertainty in anglo-saxon history, and the article reflects this accurately. If I wasn't already supporting, I would be now. J.Winklethorpe talk 19:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's hard to see what relevance the picture currently given prominence in the infobox has to the article. I think it would be better to move one of the other maps to the top of the article (the non-C18th one is best, in my opinion), or to find a picture of the name Aelle in a historic document. Ycdkwm 09:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reversed part of the change you just made: you put "three" instead of "3" in the 477 annal. Swanton (the source for this translation) uses the digits to indicate that the original annal used Roman numerals rather than words for the numbers. This is a distinction worth preserving in general because certain kinds of scribal error are possible with digits but not with words. In this particular case there's no likelihood of scribal error, but since this is mostly quoting Swanton I think it should preserve his usage. Change it back again if you disagree, but I thought this was the right way to do it.
As for the picture, I agree it's a stretch. The problem is that I can find no pictures that refers to Ælle. The earliest mss that I know of that might have a use of his name would be Bede and the ASC, but the few pages I have images of don't include his name. I agree that the modern map is better; I included the 1780 one because it shows the Owers, and that's really the closest connection to Ælle that I can find anywhere. If I use the modern map in the infobox it will shrink to unreadability, and I don't think I can then reuse that modern map lower in the article -- or at least a GA reviewer asked me not to use an image twice in that way. So putting the modern map up top would render it less useful. The result was that I figured snipping out the Owers from the image and enlarging it would give the reader an image of something specific. I'm fine with changing the infobox to one of the other images if you think it's necessary, or removing the image from the infobox without replacing it, but I wanted to explain my reasoning for the way I've done it. Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing 'three' to '3': fine, I see your reasoning. My copy of the AS-C says 'three', which was why I edited the quoted text, but it is probably a worse edition than Swanton's. Regarding the image: it's unfortunate that a better one doesn't exist, and I see what you mean about the map being resized too small. My personal philosophy is that almost any image is better than no image because it makes the article more visually identifiable, so I don't see why (in the absence of an alternative) the current picture in the infobox shouldn't stay. Ycdkwm 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found an image of page in the Parker Chronicle that included Aelle's name, so I've switched to that. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. I would like to see a larger scan, if possible, so that something like "Aelle's name incribed in the Parker Chronicle (AD ###)" would fit underneath as a caption. Perhaps more of the words next to the name? In any case, it's an improvement over the inset of the sandbars. -- Yamara 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to force a caption into the infobox? I didn't think that could be done. The page of the Parker Chronicle is also uploaded at Image:Parker chronicle f. 5a 455-490.gif, so please feel free to chop and have another go; or if you can tell me how to do the caption I can have a try. Note there are two places Aelle's name shows up. Mike Christie (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it can be done. Just add:
| caption=caption text here
This can be inserted after the image line, or probably anywhere. Try it out in preview.
Also there's a typo in the caption of the full manuscript page: "Ælle's name, spelled "Elle", can be sent in two of the entries" -- Yamara 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done; thanks for the tip. I fixed the typo too. Mike Christie (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. I think it looks better now. It would be nice if you included a thumbnail of the scan of the whole page that you uploaded. Perhaps move one of the two maps up or down a section, then include the scan next to the bit on the AS-C? The green map would fit nicely in the 'historical context' section. (I would do this myself, but you've done a lot work on the article, so I'm leaving the decision up to you.) Ycdkwm 08:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion; I've done just that. How does it look now? Mike Christie (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This can stand as one of the best Wikipedia articles. However, I do have a few queries:
  1. Several websites, and our own article on the Battle of Mons Badonicus, claim that Ælle may have led the Saxons there. This is repeatedly sourced to recent scholars. Could we find out whose theory it is, and then mention it in the text?
  2. Is "Mearcred's Burn" the actual text in the translation of the Chronicle used? "Mearcred's Creek" appears widely online, while "Mearcred's Bourne" is a more likely form for south eastern England. Google Books turns up an early C20 study which mentions lukewarmly a theory that it is the Battle Bourne in Windsor Great Park - perhaps this might be worth mentioning.
  3. The article should probably clarify what is meant by "Welsh" in the Chronicle.
As for a picture, I seem to remember John Speed's Heptarchy map having an (obviously imaginary) depiction of Ælle. If it would be of interest, I could scan it in, as it is in the public domain. Warofdreams talk 17:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Per your comments:
  • Mons Badonicus. The only websites listed in that article that refers to the claim that Ælle led the Saxons is this one. I took a look around and it says that it's based on this book, which I don't have. Reading the reviews at Amazon, it appears to be a good faith attempt to review the archaeological data, though there are also some negative comments about speculation there. I don't know anything about the authors or how well-accepted this suggestion is. (It sounds plausible to me, but it also sounds like guesswork.) I think the best thing is to put a note on the talk page saying that it would be good to add a note to this effect if it can be sourced to a scholarly suggestion rather than just speculation. The Phillips/Keatman book might be good enough, if they hold academic positions; I just don't know about them.
  • Yes, Swanton gives it as "Mearcred's Burn". The underlying original OE text is "Mearcrædes burnan" in the A text, "Mearcredes burnan" in the E text, again according to Swanton. Swanton simply says it's "unidentified". The book you link to is interesting; I didn't know anything about this author, but he does appear to have academic credentials. I found this link which describes him as having a "vivid imagination" and being a "picturesque historian"; this gives me enough pause to want to see another opinion on the location of Mearcred's burn before adding his suggestion, particularly since Swanton is so unequivocal. I think again that the best thing is to note this on the talk page for further research.
  • "Welsh"; yes, it should. I had thought of that but had not remembered to do it. I think I have a reference somewhere that covers this usage; I'll see what I can dig up and will post another note here when I've done so.
  • Picture: Well, this has come up before. There was a discussion about this at another FA; I argued there that an imaginary picture with nothing else to recommend it is probably not worth it. I was talking about the EB 1911 pictures; you can see another one at Egbert of Wessex. I think if there's a picture that is notable in some way, because although imaginary it is a notable piece of art, then that would be great. If it's a serious attempt at an accurate depiction, that could also work. Beyond that I'm inclined to stick with things like the line of text that's there now. This is mostly an aesthetic judgement on my part, though, so if you disagree, please go ahead and add it. Mike Christie (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've now added a sentence (reffed to Swanton) about the "Welsh" and the "British". I'd have liked to add a note saying that since the British were ultimately penned into Wales, which held out much longer than England, the two terms were likely to be synonymous to the West Saxon annalist who wrote those lines. However, I can't find a source for this assertion; it seems plausible, but I think it should have support from a source before it goes in. Mike Christie (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at these points. I rather agree with you on Godsal; perhaps some further details on this may turn up at a later date. On Mons Badonicus, I suspect that there is a stronger reference than the apparently rather imaginative Phillips and Keatman. In the 1972 British Battlefields, Philip Warner writes that the Saxon force "was reputed to have been led by one Aelle but this can hardly have been the Aelle who had first appeared in 477" [because he reasons the date of the battle as 516]. By the 2004 Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, we have "It has been thought possible the English leader was Aelle of Sussex"; it seems to me that there is enough discussion of this to merit a mention in the article, although rather a cautious one. Lastly, I've added the picture I mentioned, thinking that it is a reasonably notable work, but I'd be happy to discuss its inclusion further on the article talk page. Warofdreams talk 01:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks fine, and Speed's notability is enough to make it a worthwhile addition. I have commented on the Mons Badonicus issue on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support This is the second great Anglo-Saxon monarch article in a week. A nice followup to Aethelbald of Murcia. Just a minor aesthetic fix: The two images in the "Early sources" section are squeezing text between them. On my monitor resolution, this leaves like 4-5 words per line, and is hard to read. Try bumping the manuscript image up a paragrapgh and the map image down a paragraph. That would improve readibility. Also, the phrase "the 491 annal" is awkward and does not have enough context. Consider rewording to explain better what this source is. Otherwise, though, a fantastic read.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the image, but couldn't get rid of the overlap completely. If I move the upper one any higher, it would have to start against the title, and I think that looks ugly; if I move the lower one lower, it will stick out below the end of the section. I think this is as far as they can go and still look OK; is it enough? I have also rephrased "the 491 annal" to "the Chronicle entry for 491", which I think is clear enough, given the earlier listing of the Chronicle entries. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to full support. The images no longer clash, and the 491 entry is clearer. Great article! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: interesting article on a difficult to research subject. Thanks for acting on my comments. Ycdkwm 08:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent article, and thanks for responses to comments and suggestions. The A-class review at Wikiproject Biography that I started looks like it will be tabled pending this FA review; if the FA fails, we are welcome to submit an A-class review again. So far, editors at the A-class Biography review found Ælle of Sussex within the scope of Wikiproject Biography... which I believe speaks to the thoroughness of the article's comparative research, given that the subject has barely a half-dozen mentions in all known records. -- Yamara 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, I echo Yamara's final comments. I've only ever read two biographies of Aelle, both were single paragraphs. Excellent work. DrKiernan 07:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ælle_of_Sussex&oldid=138012044"