Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelbald, King of Wessex/archive1

< 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 by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2018 [1].

Æthelbald, King of Wessex edit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelbald was the first of four brothers who were successively Kings of Wessex, the youngest of whom was Alfred the Great. This is a short article as very little is known about Æthelbald, but still the fullest account of him anywhere so far as I know. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • There's some repetitious phrasing at the end of the first paragraph of the lead: we have "kept Wessex", "kept Kent", and "keeping the west" five times in two sentences.
  • Revised taking account of the conflicting views on the division of Wessex. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the sources unambiguous in taking Æthelbald's genealogical connection to Cerdic at face value? I know Cerdic is generally thought to be real, and not a legendary figure, but I'm sure I recall discussions in Yorke or Kirby about how kings of Wessex might have manufactured connections to Cerdic.
  • I too remember reading about doubts about Cerdic. Historians do not qualify when talking about descent from him being required for æthelings, but added "believed to be". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Æthelwulf's death, you say Æthelbald then became the king of Wessex, which is confusing because Æthelbald was already king of Wessex -- "Most historians state that Æthelbald kept Wessex" is a couple of sentences above. I think some qualification is needed.
  • Done. (I am thinking of writing an off-Wiki article defending the minority view). Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Æthelwulf left a bequest to Æthelbald, Æthelred and Alfred, with the provision that whoever lived the longest was to inherit the whole: I think this could be expanded with more of the details that Keynes and Lapidge give in their long footnote on p. 314 -- the mention of Æthelwulf's bookland, and his probable desire that the land be undivided. I see from "it may have been intended to provide for the younger sons" that this is not undisputed, but the details are interesting and relate directly to Æthelbald.
  • The views in the p. 314 footnote are contested - in my opinion rightly - by other historians. I went in to a little more detail in the Æthelwulf article but I did not think I needed to repeat the discussion here. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With two reliable sources noting suspicions of S 1274, it might be worth adding a parenthetical "(possibly forged)" or something similar, despite Keynes.
  • I am doubtful. Looking at the comments on charters listed in Sawyer there are plenty that are agreed to be fakes but very few which are agreed by all reliable sources to be genuine. The comments by Nelson and Dumville were passing remarks which pre-date Keynes's detailed study of a set of mid 9C charters, including the two of Æthelbald, arguing that they were products of a royal writing office. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles by Lawrence on the forged coins, cited in Grierson and Blackburn, are available on Google Books; it might be worth adding a citation directly to those sources, since Lawrence goes into more detail than G&B do.
  • Done. (I could not find the first in Google books but I found it in Jstor.)
  • if so Æthelbald's early death allowed Æthelberht reverse the intention: looks like a word has been omitted?

Looks good; just the minor issues above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All the above looks good. Before I support, there are some inconsistencies in location usage in the sources -- some have locations and some don't. There are also some hyphens in the page ranges. This script flags both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Mike. I have run the script and added the missing locations. I am getting error messages because ODNB sources do not have page numbers. Do you know how I fix this? Also I have run the script for fixing hyphens but I am still getting errors messages for hyphens in pg ranges. If you do not know the answers to these queries I can raise them with Lingzhi. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Lingzhi has retired, or at least is not currently active. As far as I'm aware the script will still show errors in some cases that probably don't apply, so it's a bit annoying; I leave it enabled all the time since I just ignore the errors once I've looked at them, but you could also comment the script out once you've used it. The dashes script is also not working for me; I don't know who maintains that. I've been having problems with the nominations viewer too so I thought it was just me but perhaps it's actually broken at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Mike. What does "comment the script out" mean? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you edit your commons.js to have a "//" in front of the script line, it will turn it into a comment, which means it won't run -- it's just inactive text sitting in that file. When you want to use it, you can delete the "//" again and it will become active. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Just a few things.

  • "three kindreds" I'm not sure what this means. Families? Clans?
  • It means something a bit wider than family and much narrower than clan - maybe extended family and its ancestors or branch of Cerdic's descendants. I cannot think of a good word to replace kindred - unless kin group is better?
Maybe link to an appropriate article, or Wiktionary definition?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no suitable article on Wikipedia. I could link to the Wiktionary definition, although it is a bit vague and I do not know how to do that.
  • "to the family of royal and princely allies which Charles was creating.[19]" consider something like "coalition" for "family".
  • Coalition is too strong as they never acted together. I have changed to "network".
  • "S 1274 is the first surviving West Saxon charter to require a contribution to fortification work, " I might say "oldest" for "first".
  • Changed to "earliest".
  • Has anything been said about his reputation in the past 1100 years?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • William of Malmesbury condemned him but his comments were copied from Asser. R. H. Hodgkin also adopted Asser's views in 1935, but modern historians do not given an opinion, I assume because the only source is Asser and he was obviously biassed against Æthelbald. It is difficult to say anything without POV, but I will have a think about it. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. Seems up to standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129 edit

This is a nice article, and well out of my comfort zone, with is fun. I made a couple of (what seemed to be) obvious tweakes, but feel free, of course, to revert. I'll probably come back again, but just quickly—do you not think that the 3X filius regis is slightly repetitive? Just a thought. Best of luck with this! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the second one to "with the same designation".
Thanks for the comment and edits. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

Fantastic topic - I'm thrilled to see this here.

  • I get twitchy when I see a quote without a citation, as currently appears in the lead! There are a few instances further down the article, as well.
  • The quote in the lead is repeated and cited in the main text. I cannot see any uncited quotes below - can you advise where you see problems? I have followed what I understand to be usual practice in not giving cites in the lead, although I think there is a case for giving duplicate cites for quotes only. Ian do you have any advice/views on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: I support the idea of duplicate citations for quotes. I also support following quotes (or sentences containing quotes) with a citation, even if the sentence is "captured" by a citation later. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, although citations in the lead are generally discouraged on the assumption that everything in the lead will be supported by cited statements in the main body, my understanding is that quotes in the lead are an exception and should be cited no matter what. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ian. I have added a cite to the quote in the lead and also put cites next to quotes, except for one case where it was too complicated and the source of the quote is obvious in the citation. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wikilink to Viking would be helpful. I assume that these are Danes? Or am I being imprecise if I say that? (A wikilink when you mention "Cornishmen" would probably also be useful.)
  • Links given for Vikings and Cornishmen. I think all the leaders of Viking armies in England were Danish in this early period, but I did not think it was necessary to go into that. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, as Æthelstan was old enough to be appointed king ten years before Alfred was born in 849 and Æthelbald took part in battle in 851; some historians argue that it is more likely that the elder children were born to an unrecorded earlier wife." I'm not a fan of the semi-colon when you're starting the previous clause with "as". How about: "However, as Æthelstan was old enough to be appointed king ten years before Alfred was born in 849 and Æthelbald took part in battle in 851, some historians argue that it is more likely that the elder children were born to an unrecorded earlier wife." or "However, Æthelstan was old enough to be appointed king ten years before Alfred was born in 849 and Æthelbald took part in battle in 851; consequently, some historians argue that it is more likely that the elder children were born to an unrecorded earlier wife."
  • I find the phrase "went on pilgrimage" a little elliptical; is it standard in the literature?
  • I am not clear what your point is. I think "went on pilgrimage" has a standard meaning and it gets 119,000 hits on google.
  • Sorry for being cryptic; I would probably say "went on a pilgrimage". I defer to you, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after Æthelwulf's death in 858, Æthelbald forced Swithun to lease him an episcopal estate at Farnham. Ecgberht was buried in Winchester and Æthelwulf at Steyning in Sussex,[c] perhaps because Æthelbald was unwilling to have him buried in Wessex, while Æthelbald and Æthelberht were buried at Sherborne" I think the significance of all this could be more clearly spelt out.
    This is a tricky one. Barbara Yorke pointed out the relevance of the split between Sherborne and Winchester in 1984, but her comments have been largely ignored by other historians, perhaps because she published in an obscure journal. I think I am in danger of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH, so I have cut down my comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think the significance of "Carolingian prestige" could also be explained.
  • Expanded as "Another factor was that Judith was a great-granddaughter of Charlemagne, and union with her gave Æthelwulf a share in Carolingian prestige." OK?
  • " and since Kent had only been conquered thirty years previously, it was hardly part of a previously united kingdom, [25]" Has something been lost, here?
  • Expanded as "and since Kent had only been conquered thirty years previously, it did not make sense to speak of it as having always been a less important part of the kingdom." OK?
  • It was the punctuation problem as much as anything; I was worried part of the sentence was lost. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having to stop there, sorry: only able to review in snatched moments, I'm afraid! Very interesting so far; please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final pointer:

  • Could we have a slightly more explicit description of what the charters concerned?

Interesting read. I think it's a little tricky to follow in places, but that may be unavoidable. We also have slightly different comma philosophies, but I've tried not to let that influence my edits/recommendations! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the thorough review. Are there other places where it is tricky to follow? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of readers have queried the word "kindred", so I have changed it to "family". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have another look through soon and flag anything that jumps out at me; it may have been my problem rather than yours! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Josh, are you able to have another look now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay.

  • "At the beginning of the ninth century, England was almost wholly under the control of the Anglo-Saxons, and the Midland kingdom of Mercia dominated southern England; but in 825 Ecgberht decisively defeated the Mercians at the Battle of Ellendun, ending Mercian supremacy." I don't really like that semi-colon. Can I suggest splitting this into two sentences?
  • "Client kingdom" is a technical term; could we have a wikilink? We currently seem to have a redirect to satellite state. Is that accurate?
  • I have linked although it is difficult to say whether it is accurate as virtually nothing is known about Cornwall in the ninth century and client kingdom is historians' best guess. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as "a charismatic sanctification which enhanced her status, blessed her womb and conferred additional throne-worthiness on her male offspring." These" Can I recommend including a citation right after the quote? Also, per MOS:LQ, we should generally "Keep [periods] inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence", so the period should probably be outside of the quotemarks here.
  • "To her father's fury, soon afterwards she eloped with Baldwin, Count of Flanders, and their son Baldwin II married Alfred's daughter Ælfthryth." No complaint, just saying that I love this fact. Not so much a family tree as a family web.
  • These marriages were unusual. Marriages between English and Continental royalty were very rare except in the 910s and 920s when English prestige was at its height due to the defeat of the Vikings. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his thegn, Osmund" Was Osmund his only thegn? If not, it should probably read "his thegn Osmund" or "one of his thegns, Osmund". A wikilink would also be helpful.
  • Linked. On "his thegn" this is a difficult one. It is the wording in the charter, but the king was the lord of the thegns and they were all his thegns. All the wordings, including mine, could be wrongly taken to imply that there were thegns who were not the king's men. I could change it to "a thegn called Osmund" or I could add a note explaining. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern I have is simply grammatical; his thegn, Osmund only really works if Osmund is his only thegn. You could just remove the comma, or you could perhaps switch things around to something like "Osmund, one of the king's thegns". Josh Milburn (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "a thegn called Osmund" as I think "Osmund, one of the king's thegns" might imply that there were thegns who were not king's men.Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • overlord is also a technical term without a wikilink
  • I do not think there is a suitable article to link to. Overlord has a different meaning. It seems OK to me but I could change it to "that Æthelberht was not subordinate to Æthelbald" if you find overlord unclear. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your call. I think it's fairly obvious, but it does strike me as a technical term. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only the year of his death is known, but as his father died in January 858 and he ruled for two and a half years thereafter, he probably died in about July 860. He was buried at Sherborne in Dorset and he is not known to have had any children." Maybe it'd be nice to note here what happened to Judith. (I know it's mentioned above. Maybe I'm wrong.)
  • I do not think it needs repeating.
  • "as "two and a half lawless years"; adding" again, I really don't like that semi-colon. I think it should probably be a comma, but it may be more readable if you split the sentence.
  • I wonder if the Electronic Sawyer source could be better formatted?
  • You could use {{cite web}}? Something like : "[url Pagetitle]". Publisher. Accessed date. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think this is a really great article on a tricky subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the kind words and the very helpful review. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is basically where it needs to be for FA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

The date field of the PD images should state when the original image was first published, not when it was uploaded or scanned. The rest looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks FunkMonk. Images are
  • Scan of illustration in 14C manuscript. I have changed the date to c. 1350.
  • Plaque in Sherborne Abbey. I do not know the date but I assume the correct date is when it was photographed.
  • Scan of coins from book. I have changed the date to 1893 when the book was published.
  • Are these OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine now! FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

Only three very minor quibbles:

  • Division of the kingdom
    • "had a stronger claim to the throne than him" – because I'm old and pedantic I should prefer this to read "had a stronger claim to the throne than he had".
  • Reputation
    • "Bishop Asser" – first time we've had his job title mentioned: perhaps that would be more appropriate at first mention in the main text?
  • Sources
    • I'm not sure of your rationale for adding authorlinks. For instance, David Dumville is linked twice out of three mentions of him, and Janet Nelson (with and without a middle L) is linked for half her six mentions, but Pauline Stafford is linked from all three of hers.
  • My rationale is that it is best to shove links in whenever I think of it and check that only the first source is linked before going to FAC. Unfortunately I forgot the last part. Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, other than to add my support for an enjoyable, highly readable article: well and widely sourced, as fully illustrated (I assume) as available resources permit, and even-handed in presentation of conflicting accounts and interpretations. – Tim riley talk 11:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

The sources have already had something of a piecemeal review, above, from several editors including me, but if the coordinators would like a formal review I'll gladly do one. Tim riley talk 18:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, the coordinators would be most grateful if you could conduct a formal SR...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right ho. Here it is:

  • All the sources cited are evidently of high quality and relevance. The books used come from a representative spread of dates, most of them being from recent decades.
  • Presentation of sources is uniform. ISBNs: from a sample cross-check (ISBN 0-19-822261-0 and ISBN 0-521-56350-X) I think the MoS stipulations on 10-v-13-digit forms have been met. One of the ISBNs has gaps instead of hyphens, but what the Hell. The only two formatting quibbles I could come up with were one missing "UK" in a location and a few hyphens in date ranges which should have been en-dashes, all of which I have taken it on myself to tweak to save time detailing them here.
  • So, following the excellent guideline for reviewers to the best of my ability, I declare this source review fine and dandy. Tim riley talk 19:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Æthelbald,_King_of_Wessex/archive1&oldid=858687977"