Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelred I, 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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [1].

Æthelred I, King of Wessex edit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Alfred the Great's elder brother, who led the resistance to the Viking attempt to conquer Wessex until his early death allowed Alfred to become king. Æthelred's reign is also important numismatically. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you don't like.

  • I see there are many references listed that are not used in a citation -- normally these get separated into a "Further reading" section. I don't think that's a FAC requirement but as a reader I'd prefer that.
  • I have checked the references and I can only find one which is not used, the PASE entry for Wulfthryth, which I have deleted. I use harv referencing partly because it flags unused refs, but for some reason in this case it did not work. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the one I noticed; I thought there were others but I guess not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wessex and Mercia were close allies when he became king, and he carried the alliance further by adopting the Mercian Lunettes design: I know what you mean, but I think "carried the alliance further" isn't the right way to put this.
  • Yes I had difficulty finding the right wording. How about: "Wessex and Mercia were allies when he became king, and the alliance became closer when he adopted the Mercian Lunettes design"?
    I had a look in Grierson and Blackburn and they just say "There seems to have been a political motive underlying the adoption", which "established a common coinage in Wessex and Mercia". That speaks to Aethelred's motives, but not to the state of any alliance. However, the quote you give in the body of the article from Lyons and Mackay supports what you have, so I'm going to strike it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was believed to be a paternal descendant of Cerdic: I seem to recall Yorke at least, and perhaps Kirby, saying that the genealogies back to Cerdic were likely to have been deliberately constructed to include Cerdic, as a political requirement for a candidate for the throne of Wessex. In other words it's not at all clear anyone "believed" this. If I'm remembering this correctly, some softening of the statement would be good, even if just in a footnote.
  • There are two issues here: whether the genealogies were fabricated, and whether they were widely believed. I don't think that there is any question that they were widely believed and I am not aware of anyone querying the point. There are doubts about Cerdic in general and Ecberht's descent in particular, and I have added a note on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That does it. If I can find the bit I'm thinking of in Kirby I may post a note to the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- More later, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You describe the Kingdom of Kent as including Essex. Kirby (p. 190 in my 1992 un-revised edition) says Sigered was independent of Kent in 825, and Ecgberht may not have taken control until 829. Perhaps it's a digression to define Kent inline? Maybe a footnote could be used, which would make it easier to cover the unknowns. Abels, p. 31, describes the inclusion of Essex in "Greater Kent" as an effort of Wessex's after the conquest of Kent.
  • This is a difficult one. I think it is important to make clear to readers that when the article mentions Kent it is not just the modern county. Historians disagree about the details of the conquest - Edwards in DNB mentions Sussex not Kent as conquered later. I have deliberately been vague about the timing and I think it is beyond the scope of the article to go into further details. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If your sources support what you have, that's fine -- personally I would make it the uncertainty a bit clearer to the reader, but perhaps you're right that that takes us too far afield. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike I have had another look at this and I think you are right that most historians think that the other SE territories were direct dependents of Mercia in 825, not part of Kent. I have revised to reflect this. Does it look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks fine -- thanks for checking further on that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alliance between Wessex and Mercia was sealed with the marriage of Æthelwulf's daughter, Æthelswith, to King Burgred of Mercia. I think you can cut this. Abels doesn't really support "sealed", which implies the finalization or completion of a process, but in any case you don't need the sentence -- we've already discussed the alliance between the kingdoms and this doesn't add much to our understanding of Æthelred. If you do keep it, I would either move it up in the paragraph to be adjacent to the other mentions of the alliance, or (perhaps better) down to where you mention Æthelred attesting a charter issued by Æthelswith, as context for that sentence.
  • I have moved it up and also mentioned Æthelwulf's assistance against the Welsh. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wulfthryth had two known sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. She may have been Mercian or a daughter of Ealdorman Wulfhere of Wiltshire, who forfeited his lands charged with deserting King Alfred for the Danes in about 878, perhaps because he attempted to secure Viking support for his elder nephew Æthelhelm's claim to the throne against Alfred. This needs rewording -- Æthelhelm was Alfred's nephew, not Wulfhere's.
  • Aah my brain was not working. Of course, Æthelhelm may have been Wulfhere's grandson, not nephew. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The town was between the Thames and Kennet rivers: a minor point, but Reading is still between those rivers. If you could find a smooth way to eliminate the past tense that would be good. Perhaps something like "They occupied Reading on around 28 December, and set about building a ditch and rampart on the southern side of the town, between the Thames and Kennet rivers"?
  • I've never really tried to use the Fitzwilliam coin database, but I had a go just now to see if I could improve on your "152 coins by 2007". Either they don't include everything or I don't know how to query it properly. This search seems to find at least a couple post-2007, assuming the EMC number starts with the year of the find. No need to do anything about this, unless you can figure out how to make the query find all 152 your source mentions.
  • That is a basic stub. History of the English penny (c. 600 – 1066) is a much better article. It was created by a Cambridge graduate student in 2006, but is dated so far as Æthelred is concerned and does not mention him by name. Perhaps have a "main" link at the head of the coinage section? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Up to you, but I never mind linking to bad articles -- to me it's the same principle as redlinks, which are encouraged, after all. It might prompt someone to improve the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is better to link to a good article when one is available. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass; looks very good, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mike. Replies on sources to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The unstruck points above are just personal opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review.

  • All sources are reliable. Peddie isn't a professional historian, but Keynes supports using him for military matters so I think that's OK.
  • He is cited by Abels, p. 129, n. 15, which is how I found him. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have locations for all publishers except for Keynes/Lapidge Alfred the Great.
  • Whitelock (1955) has an ISBN so you probably should add an orig-year parameter.
  • This is a mistake. The isbn is for the second edition, but my source is a 1961 reprint of the first edition. I have changed to the oclc and assume it is correct to give the original publication date. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yorke is linked twice in the bibliography; it's usual to only link the first occurrence.
  • There are stray closing braces at the end of the Beaven citation.

Otherwise sources are fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Æthelred,_King_of_Wessex_coin.png: generally coins are considered 3D rather than 2D. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a photo of an image in an 1899 book. Should the licence refer to the 3D coin rather than the 2D book image of it? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not rather than, in addition to - both should be reflected in the tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria I don't know what additional tag to add. The file you link to has Coin:{{PD-UKGov}}, which does not seem right for an Anglo-Saxon coin. Should I delete the image? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, given the age of the coin it'll be well out of copyright - the combination currently used within PD-Art should actually work if you take it out of that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • I'll have a look soon. Initial thought, perhaps more names and terms could be linked in the image captions? FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I have linked Æthelberht. Are there any others you think should be linked? I cannot see any. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I assumed Genealogical Roll of the Kings of England had an article, but it doesn't. Do we have any approximate date that could be mentioned in the caption of the coin? FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have labelled it as an early Four Line design although the evidence is indirect. All three images in Category:Coins of Æthelred I of Wessex are clearly of the same coin and the first image shows both obverse and reverse. The numismatists Lyons and Mackay have a picture of the reverse labelled Four Line, which I take as showing that the same applies to the image of the obverse in the article. A bit of a stretch but I trust not too much. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps both sides could be shown? FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All changes look good, one last point, perhaps the coin could be shown as a double image with a single caption? See for example the images on the left here:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Welsh and Danish? You do link other mentioned ethnicities.
  • "Æthelwulf died in 858... Æthelbald only survived his father by two years" What did they die of?
  • "the first recorded naval battle in English history" Seems signficant, no article to link to?
  • Æthelberht is linked twice in successive sections.
  • Wulfthryth had two known sons" Wulfthryth and Æthelred? Otherwise it could read as if she already had these sopnd by the time she was married to Æthelred.
  • In the intro you say "Great Viking Army", but in the article body you say " Great Heathen Army", probably best to be consistent for clarity. Or otherwise somehow make the connection between the names ("also called the" or similar).
  • "marched on York and conquered Northumbria", same with East Anglia and Nottingham in the article body; you link other places, why not these?
  • Not sure if this is only for science articles, but should you give metric conversion for miles mentioned?
  • I have never converted in historical articles but I see that other editors do so I have here. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, I wondered whether "æthel" meant the same as my native Danish "ædel", and sure enough, both mean noble (as I just noticed you state in the intro).
  • "an unknown location which was probably the scene of the murder in 757 of King Cynewulf." How is this known, and what is its significance? Could warrant a footnote.
  • Several historians have made this suggestion as both took place at Meretun. However, one historian said that the location is unknown because Meretun is such a common place name, which makes it less of a coincidence so I have deleted the reference to Cynewulf. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between one and one and a half million Æthelred I Regular Lunette coins were produced" How is this known?
  • I am not sure but as I understand it numismatists make the calculation based on finds of single coins (which are thought likely to be a representive sample, unlike hoards). Numismatists estimate total production based on the number of coins typically produced by a die, the number of different dies represented in the coins found, and the number of coins produced by the same die. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review FunkMonk. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado edit

  • Lead
    • Add an explanation that "Æthel-" is the Old English word for "noble" (see Ethel)?
  • The article did have an explanation but I deleted it as I could not find a reliable source. The Ethel article does not have one. I have now found a translation of his name in the DNB article on Æthelred the Unready as "noble counsel" (Æthel-ræd). Thus un-ræd means no counsel and is a pun on his lack of wisdom. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • wl Mercia on first occurrence, as for Wessex earlier in the lead
    • "and the reform coinage of King Edgar the Peaceful a century later.": "Reform coinage" was not familiar to me, but I find usages via Google, for Saudi Arabia or Ukraine for example. The linked article about Edgar I has an image of some of his coins which seems unrelated to any content, but does not mention any coinage reform (probably a deficiency in that article). I suggest wikilinking thus: reform coinage. Reaching the notes, I see that the current note "j" gives a good background, so you could also add a second callout to that note here.
  • Background
    • I've edited the first references to Æthelwulf, to link and explain whose son on first mention.
  • I have moved the first mention of Æthelwulf to the previous paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Viking Invasions
    • Perhaps point out (since the section mentions that Æthelred delayed entering the battle to take Mass) that this is not Æthelred the Unready? I was left wondering why the epithet had not been mentioned (shows how much English history I don't know!)
  • Coinage
    • The term "Floriate Cross" appears without an example. This is an image of the reverse of an Offa penny showing the design.
  • I have added that the illustrated coin is a Four Line, which is stylistically similar to the Floriate Cross. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Lunettes" also appears without an explanation of the term, and I could not find a good wl. The main article for this section also does not really explain what "Lunettes" refers to (but does say they are "very difficult to organise or categorise in any meaningful way.") I did find this image of another Offa coin. It's not clear whether the image in the article also illustrates this, but I suspect not.
  • This is a very difficult area. We really need someone who understands numismatics to write an article on Anglo-Saxon coinage design. One problem is that whereas you can copy a photo of an ancient manuscript in a modern book, you are not allowed to copy a photo of a coin. (According to the rules of Commons, a photo of a 2D image is OK, but not of a coin which considered 3D and requiring skill to photograph, so the copyright belongs to the photographer.) Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be too much of a distraction to try to describe these stylistic details here: as you say other articles dealing more directly with the subject need to be created or improved. --Mirokado (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was answered - it is a coin of Æthelred the Unready. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a response confirming that the original image was incorrect, but no update when the article was corrected. I have added a clarification. I agree that issue has been dealt with. --Mirokado (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mirokado (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review Mirokado. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are welcome! It was a pleasure to read it. I've struck most of the comments, will think a bit more about the coinage... --Mirokado (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the talk page question, still thinking about Four Lines, Floriate Crosses and Lunettes. --Mirokado (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Support: The coinage section is now OK after your work with FunkMonk (above). --Mirokado (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias edit

I only have one comment to make, and that is regarding the following sentence: "When Æthelred's grandfather, Ecgberht, became king of Wessex in 802, it must have seemed very unlikely to contemporaries that he would establish a lasting dynasty." This part comes across as speculative to me, and not really necessary. While I do understand the purpose, I don't think it really adds anything, and removing it wouldn't detract from the overall background of the situation. Other than that I don't see anything else that really stands out. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. This comment is in several other FA articles on Æthelred's father and brothers and was not objected to by reviewers, and I think it does make an important point. However, I take your point that it sounds speculative. How about if I attributed as "Æthelred's grandfather, Ecgberht, became king of Wessex in 802, and in the view of the historian Richard Abels it must have seemed very unlikely to contemporaries that he would establish a lasting dynasty."? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly works for me. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2020 (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/Æthelred_I,_King_of_Wessex/archive1&oldid=947875199"