Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelstan A/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC) [1].

---

Æthelstan A

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an anonymous scribe in tenth-century England. His elaborate charters are a key source for the history of King Æthelstan's reign. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Support – I reviewed this article for GAN, and observed at the time that it could go to FAC. Since then the nominator has further refined the text, which to my layman's eye is comprehensive; the prose is a pleasure to read, the balance is sound, the sourcing wide and scholarly, and the images are as good as we are going to get for an article about a person whose identity we don't even know. There are two block quotations from different scholars, and I wondered at first if they should be paraphrased, but on closer reading I think not: the first (Keynes) is so precise that paraphrasing it while remaining on the right side of WP rules would be impossible, I suspect, and the second (Gretsch) has a splendid, robust flavour that it would be a pity to lose. I infer (reasonably confidently) from the red-links in the lead that we can look forward to two new articles from the nominator on related topics; I hope so. – Tim riley talk 08:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. About the red links, I am not sure whether they should stay. They certainly need articles, and I was intending to work on them next, but I have changed my mind. They relate to the later tenth century, which I am less familiar with, and I think it would be better to get the earlier period (including Alfred the Great - a major project) out of the way first. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A pity in one way – I can never remember for five consecutive minutes what "hermeneutic" means, however often I look it up, and it would be nice to have an article – but on the other hand an FAC on such a major figure as King Alfred will be more than ample compensation. Bring it on, as I believe the modern saying is. Anyway, warm applause, as above, for the article at present before us, with or without the red-links. Tim riley talk 16:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately hermeneutic style is a misleading name as it has nothing to do with hermeneutics, which is the theory of text interpretation (whatever that is). The elaborate and abstruse style of Latin popular in later Anglo-Saxon England went out of fashion after the Conquest, and William of Malmesbury described it as barbarous. It used to be called the Hibernian style, but scholars did not like that as it was not particularly Irish, and someone came up with the name 'hermeneutic'. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• That letter is not in the alphabet that most English readers know. I strongly suggest having an explanation of some sort of how to read that letter. Nergaal (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume this refers to "Æ". I am not sure how to deal with it. It has not been raised - so far as I know - with other articles which have Æ, but I see a couple of them such as Ælle of Sussex have the pronunciation. Does anyone know how to do this? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is right, but I'd wait to see if an expert can confirm or amend: /ˈæθəlstæn/ Tim riley talk 11:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. Very helpful as always. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In any case Æ is still a part of English, just a somewhat old-fashioned part. You needn't look too hard to find a text that uses it, e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with Nergaal. I think the bulk of English-speaking readers are aware that some words are, or were, written with the Æ, and I think that an explanation of "how to read" the letter(s) would be tangential to this article, at best. I do not object to adding a pronunciation guide, although I rarely find them helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You disagree to having a footnote? The Britannica example is not that relevant since that name is actually in Latin-ish. Plus youngsters these days might not have actually know this obsolete example. Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added the pronunciation kindly supplied by Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Images are both in the public domain and appropriately captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. Far too many FAs are about video games, and far too few are about scholarly subjects. The article does a good job of making a technical subject readable. I wonder if the WP:LEAD section can be expanded a bit to give a clearer overview of the whole article, and I hope the nominator would put up at least a stub for the two redlinked topics in the Lead, to give readers a better idea of what is being referred to. But these quibbles do not affect my support for promotion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I will work on these points. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead. Does it look OK now? Someone has created a stub for the Benedictine Reform and I will have a go at expanding it a bit and creating one for the hermeneutic style. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Support – looks good and a pleasure to read. Only things I'd do are: link thegn - also "Latin prose revived in the tenth century" - I'd not use "revive" as an active intransitive verb like this...sounds weird to mine ears...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have linked thegn and revised "revive". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

Just noticed this hasn't had one. Long story short, both images are fine. I've added a PD-Art to the first one. One thing, though: A scanner would likely give a much better reproduction than a photograph. It would be nice to improve this image, but "would be nice to" and "necessary" are a long way from each other. Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. I was not allowed to photocopy because the book is too large. I was quoted 29 pounds for a scan, but I was too mean to agree! Also I am not clear how this would work. If I got a library to scan it for me then I could not say it was my own work, and I do not know whether libraries have scanners which readers can use. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the library, I suppose. If it's that much for the scan, you may want to consider Just buying the book for a bit more. - but I was presuming you owned the book, admittedly. Perhaps it's in a library without as many restrictions that someone has access to? Anyway! This is academic if it's not easy to scan, though I'd see if you could get a less-blurred photo, at least. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Apologies. I was thinking it was a different charter which I had to photo in a library. I do have that book (on loan from a library) so I will try to get a better image. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Direct quotes need to be cited in the lead, even if they're cited again later
• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges. Also check page formatting on FN25
• Language for Drögereit?
• Not USA, use US. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review Nikki. I have amended as you suggest. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. A fine piece of work. I have a few minor quibbles.

• The lead says that the style of royal charters simplified after "Æthelstan A"'s retirement, but in the body it says the simplification happened while he was still active.

Revised.

• I think a sentence or two is needed in the first body section giving a brief definition or description of charters. Perhaps the note giving Keynes' definitions could be incorporated into the main text? In the lead, a few parenthetical words such as "(grants of rights to land)" would do. I know this is linked but many readers will be stopped dead at the first sentence without this.

I have added the the words to the lead, but I am not sure about putting the note about Keynes's terminology in the main text. He is already quoted extensively on the character of a diploma in the period, and his views on the distinction between a charter and a diploma are a technical matter.

What you've done seems fine to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• 'The witness lists of the "Æthelstan A" charters consistently rank Bishop Ælfwine of Lichfield in Mercia in a higher position than his rank warranted': can we avoid having two different uses of "rank" in one sentence? Perhaps 'The "Æthelstan A" charters consistently place Bishop Ælfwine of Lichfield in Mercia higher in the witness lists than his rank warranted'?

Done.

• 'Woodman also puts forward the alternative idea that the West Saxon Glastonbury Abbey appears to have been a centre of learning at this time, and that it certainly housed many of the texts which informed "Æthelstan A"'s idiosyncratic Latin style.' I think this needs some rephrasing. Woodman's idea isn't that the Abbey was a centre of learning.

I think that was Woodman's idea, and actually so does he! He kindly reviewed the article and was happy with the statement. He suggested qualifying it with "at this stage" which I changed to "at this time".

It's great to hear that we have someone like him looking at this article; I wish we were able to get more review by subject matter experts. If the sentence reflects his idea, then I guess I'm confused. I had a look through the paragraph again and I think the problem is that I was expecting a structure that paralleled the previous two sentences. Currently we have "Keynes thinks it more likely [he] was a king's priest from Mercia, who ... Woodman considers a Mercian origin likely ...." Both sentences have scholars suggesting origins. The next sentence starts "Woodman also puts forward the alternative idea that ..." and I read this expecting an origin suggestion, which would be an alternative to the other origins; but Glastonbury Abbey being a centre of learning isn't an alternative idea to the other two. What if this sentence were to say something to this effect: "Woodman also puts forward the alternative idea that "Æthelstan A" had a connection with Glastonbury Abbey, which appears to have been a centre of learning at this time, and which certainly housed ...." That seems more directly parallel to the other sentences, and easier to read. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes much clearer. I have added "in Wessex" to clarify that he is suggesting an alternative to an origin in Mercia. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Much better. I've supported above. Congratulations on an excellent article. Are you planning to work on other A-S articles? I used to edit them, mostly focusing on the kings up to about 850, and would be happy to collaborate with you if you're looking for help, though I have no formal training in A-S history. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A great idea. How about Æthelwulf of Wessex, following up your nomination of Egbert? I also have no formal training. I will be on holiday and off wiki from 16 to 24 October. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• "King Æthelstan thus took unprecedented control over an important part of his functions." It took me a couple of seconds to realize that this refers to Æthelstan taking control of charter production by making it the work of royal, not local, scribes. The mention of "Æthelstan A"'s retirement before this comment is what threw me off; I would suggest restructuring these sentences so it's clearer what the referent of "thus" is.

Rearranged.

• "with the longest Alfred the Great's having only 19 names": I'd mark off "Alfred the Great's" with parenthetical commas. This makes for a rather long sentence with multiple commas, but I think it's still better than leaving it as it stands. However, the end of the sentence is a bit clumsy: "a change of direction, of which what he calls the "peculiar interests" of "Æthelstan A" were just a symptom" is hard to parse, so perhaps a rephrase is in order anyway.

Revised.

• "Frankish annalists usually recorded kings' location at Easter and Christmas": should presumably be either "kings' locations" or "a king's location".

Revised.

• "He varied the language in each charter out of a delight in experimentation and to demonstrate his literary ability." This seems a very definite statement for what must surely be speculation. I haven't seen the source, but I'd think this should be qualified a bit, either with the scholar's name or by saying something like "It appears likely that".

Attributed to Woodman

• Suggest giving the dates when Israel the Grammarian was known to be in Britain.

This is not known but I have specified that it was in Æthelstan's reign.

Good enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• "galling bitternes" is presumably a typo, but since it's a quote I didn't want to fix it myself.

Corrected.

• WP:MOSQUOTE discourages but doesn't forbid linking within quotations; do you think Acherontic and Cocytus have to be linked? The quotation is quite impenetrable anyway and the reader doesn't really need these links to understand what's going on.

I think the links are helpful as some readers may be curious about the meaning of very obscure words.

OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Most of the time I comment on the word "however" in FAC reviews it's to recommend its removal, but I think it could be usefully added to the start of the paragraph giving Drögereit and Woodman's opinion of "Æthelstan A"'s style.

Added "On the other hand,"

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your very full and helpful review. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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