Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brochfael ap Meurig/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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2024 [1].

Brochfael ap Meurig

edit
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brochfael was king of Gwent in south-east Wales in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. He is chiefly known for having been one of the Welsh kings who submitted to the lordship of Alfred the Great in order to get protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians. Brochfael was involved in a number of disputes with Bishop Cyfeilliog, who is an FAC below, and was once threatened with excommunication for insulting the bishop. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Is there no image of the subject that could be included?
  • Suggest expanding the alt text

source review from sawyer777

edit

yay, a medieval Wales FAC!! one of my favorite topics. i'll get to this in the next few days. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sawyer777. There is another one below at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyfeilliog/archive1! Dudley Miles (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
aye, i'll give it a review if i've got the time and/or it stalls out & needs more feedback. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright, let's get to it.

  • in the publishing location, the cities don't need ", UK" (or NY, for Ithaca) after them - there's no ambiguity about which London or Cardiff is being referred to. also, for Oxford University Press, having the location is a bit redundant as it's right in the name. not really a big deal though. overall, citation formatting & consistency is great.
  • no concerns about reliability; Iolo is nowhere to be found, and all of the sources are from solid academic publishers and authors. i see only three old sources, Haddan & Stubbs 1869, Evans & Rhys 1893, and Lloyd 1911, which are used perfectly reasonably.

small spot-check (ref numbers as of this revision):

  • ref 8 (a & b): good
  • ref 10: good
  • ref 15: good
  • ref 18: checked Charles-Edwards and Davies, both check out
  • ref 25: good

no significant issues i could find. support on sourcing. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • Could "charter" be linked?
  • "in order to get protection". 'in order to gain protection' sounds a little more encyclopediac to my ear.
  • "Brochfael's acceded to the throne" ?
  • "and submitted to the West Saxon king." And who might this be? They don't seem to have been previously mentioned.
  • "and thus in an important step towards the unity of England." What unity of England? I think this needs unpacking a little further.

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

You wait years for an early medieval Wales FAC, and then...

  • Mercia claimed dominion over Wales: in the body, we've only said most of. How much are we talking here?
  • in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians: is oppression the right NPOV word here, or are we unwittingly parroting their/Alfred's spin on the situation? From what comes later, it sounds like the Ur-source here is Asser, who isn't exactly a neutral.
  • That is true, although as a monk of St David's Asser was more concerned with its oppression by the king of Dyfed. However, Asser's description is accepted by historians, and it is hard to see why the kings should have voluntarily submitted to Alfred if Æthelred was not oppressive. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there's the usual reasons that any ruler submits to another -- most obviously, feeling a choice between voluntarily submitting (hopefully with benefits or at least gentle treatment) and involuntarily submitting? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the chronological discussions about Gwent vs Glywysing in the body, I'd suggest putting a more concrete date on the map than just "early medieval".
Right, but we have In the seventh century, south-east Wales was one kingdom called Gwent, but by the ninth century it was divided between Glywysing (later Morgannwg and Glamorgan) in the west and Gwent in the east. If we stand by the text of our article, we can therefore say that the map (with Gwent and Glwysing undivided) shows the borders of those kingdoms as they were before the ninth century, at the very least. However, on closer inspection, I have some bigger worries about the map. It has White Castle, which was built after the Norman Conquest, and Grace Dieu Abbey, which wasn't founded until 1226. How certain can we be that the other toponyms and, in particular, the borders are accurate for the time we're discussing? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the label from Early medieval Wales to Medieval Wales in the light of your comments (also in the Cyfeilliog article). The map shows the area of the kingdoms. There is no better map which we can use which I am aware of, and I think it is much better than having no map. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but we do need to caption it appropriately. If the borders of Gwent on the map are not the borders of the kingdom of Gwent that we describe, we should say so; if it's a map of 13th-century Wales but happens to have a lot of the right places labelled, we should say that too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I missed this. The full map in the book is labelled 'Medieval Wales'. If it is of any date it seems to be 11th century as it has Gwent, which was conquered by the Normans soon after the Conquest, and Morgannwg, a name for Glywysing which came in at the end of the tenth century. (The legend says that "9" means Morgannwg and I wrote that it means Glywysing.) I do not have any source for specifying a date, and the map may include some earlier names, but I could change the caption to "Medieval south-east Wales. The number "9" means Morgannwg, a name for Glwywsing which came in by the year 1000." The borders are not exactly known and changed with the conquests and defeats in each generation. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • defeated the Vikings: "the Vikings" weren't (and aren't seen in scholarship) as a single group of people under that name -- we do, however, have the term "Great Heathen Army" for the force that Alfred defeated. Better to use that with some explanation?
I think we could do better, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that the current approach is wrong. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was doubtful about putting in the battle at all as it is only peripherally relevant. I do not think we need to worry about using a term which is widely used by reliable sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceolwulf's successor as ruler of Mercia, Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians at the Battle of the Conwy: needs a comma after Mercians, but consider reworking to streamline the syntax a bit.
Comma corrected, syntax much the same, but perfectly grammatical and readable. I suppose you could argue that the "Lord of the Mercians" epithet is superfluous in a sentence that says he was, well, lord of the Mercians, and just give his name as Æthelred. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we give any indication of the reasoning and the whys behind the different dates for Brochfael's accession?
  • I do not think that I can find citations for a more detailed explanation. As so often, historians assume knowledge of basic points. There is only one fixed point for Brochfael's dates, Asser's mention of him in the late 880s. Apart from that, it is a matter of historians' judgements on the dates of charters which mention him, and maybe in some cases who is being referred to. Bartrum dates him 830, which is obviously wrong as he is recorded into the tenth century. Davies dates him c.872-910. Sims-Wiliams does not give an accession date (so far as I know) and says that Owain probably became king of both territitories by 893. As this looks too early and it is ambiguous whether it means he replaced Brochfael or his father as over-king I have left it out. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Owain probably became king of both territories by 893. As this looks too early and it is ambiguous whether it means he replaced Brochfael or his father as over-king I have left it out. : I'm a bit uncomfortable here -- taking no position on your judgement here, I think it's OR to say "this looks too early" purely on our own initiative. At the moment, it sounds as though we have Davies saying 910, Sims-Williams saying 893, and Charles-Edwards saying before 918 (which is compatible with either). Has anyone actually put it in print that 893 is impossible? If not, I think WP:DUEWEIGHT means we need to include it, even if we weight it as a minority view. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree. Sims-Williams gives as a reason for the 893 date that Owain was recorded as king in 927, and cites pages in Charles-Edwards which do not support 893. Davies dates two charters of Brochfael to 905 and 910, and Sims-Williams has not questioned this dating so far as I know, or provided any reason for his 893 date. I think mentioning the date would be misleading without unreferenced qualifications. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found out the sources, and I agree that Sims-Williams is light on justification, but he does unambiguously give the terminus post quem for Owain's rule as c. 893, not 927. Rebecca Thomas, here (search "893") also gives 893 as the terminus post quem for Owain gaining control of Glywysing and Gwent. I'm not sure it needs to contradict what's in the article already, but I do think we need at least a footnote to the effect that both Sims-Williams and Davies say that Owain's rule over the two kingdoms began at some point after c. 893. We've given a terminus ante quem, so the other side of the date range is manifestly relevant, and we need to observe both WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:OR here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give a brief introduction, at least by approximate date, to the Book of Llandaff and the Life of King Alfred.
  • Ffernfael may have been subordinate to Brochfael: may therefore? I think we need something to tie the logic of this sentence into the previous one.
Does the source not connect those two dots at all? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brochfael's father Meurig gave grants in both territories, and Charles-Edwards and Davies think that he ruled them both as king of Glywysing: we've demoted the dissenting view into a footnote. I know it's two against one, but WP:DUEWEIGHT is not a vote -- do we have a separate good reason to think Sims-Williams is wrong? If not, I think we need to give the two sides equal billing.
  • Æthelred's defeat at the Conwy: suggest reminding us of the date, particularly for readers who won't go through the article top-to-bottom.
  • Brochfael and Ffernfael were joint kings of Gwent, and their cousin Hywel ap Rhys was King of Glywysing: this isn't wrong, per the MoS, but the capital on the second king reads oddly, and is inconsistent with how we've approached the same problem in the first sentence (Brochfael ap Meurig was king of Gwent in south-east Wales.. Would suggest decapitalising.
  • three modii (about 120 acres (50 hectares)) of land: you can avoid the awkward double brackets by replacing the outer set with dashes. This comes up twice.
De gustibus -- not a problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latin text should be in lang templates, which will do the italics for you.
  • Quotations that are put into italics for language reasons don't then have quotation marks around them (MOS:"?)
  • Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle : this sounds as if we expect readers to know it already. Suggest "One [date?] manuscript of the ASC, known as Manuscript D, states..." Do the others omit this bit, though? That might be cause for concern?
  • I think Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is self-explanatory, and there is a link for readers who want more information. D is thought to be a northern version dating to the mid-eleventh century, and there is probably a good deal to say on this, but I do not have a source. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a style point rather than a clarity one. I think it's certainly relevant that the source is perhaps over a century later than the events it describes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She died in around 910: just around 910 is more concise and, I think, more natural English.
  • King of the people of Gwent: definitely needs a decap of king per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
  • he may have been the father of Gwriad ap Brochfael: and who was he?
  • This is a difficult one. It is based on Bartrum, whose dictionary covers a vast number of Welsh people in fact and legend up to 1000. It is published by the National Library of Wales and cited by historians, but there are signs of carelessness in some entries. I have changed the comment to a footnote covering Bartrum's speculations. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davies seems to argue with herself, and give two different dates (and levels of confidence) on Meurig's reign. Why have we given one of those in the body text (implicitly endorsing it) and the other as a footnote?
Personally, I'm not sure we can really do that, unless it's clear from context that one is definitely not the author's intent. I don't think we can definitely say that authors or editors stand more strongly by data presented in prose than data presented in tables. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with the last one, I enjoyed reading this -- a great job of reconstructing a life where the sources clearly make it difficult to know much for certain. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your very detailed and helpful review UndercoverClassicist. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles and UndercoverClassicist, how's this review coming along? FrB.TG (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my points on submission, captioning and dating are still live. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

Only two quibbles from me:

  • In the second sentence of the lead I'd lose "while" if I were you, as although the context makes it clear that it just means "and", I feel it safer as a general rule not to use "while" unless you mean it in the temporal sense. There's no real danger here of "the Bishop preached the sermon while the Dean read the lesson" but you might like to consider an "and" or a semicolon instead of the "while".
  • In the Kingship section "Æthelred's defeat at the Conwy in 881" reads a little strangely to my eye. Somehow without the "Battle of…" before it – as at earlier mention – it looks odd, like saying "the Allies' victory at the River Plate" or "Nelson's victory at the Nile" or "the Allies and Axis forces at the Atlantic". Not wrong, but strikes an odd note, though I most definitely do not press the point, or indeed the one above it.
Well illustrated (a pity about the lack of a mug shot, but I see from the above that one is not to be had) and a good range of mostly modern sources. Meets all the FA criteria in my view and I'm glad to support. I always enjoy reviewing Dudley's articles, but this time I had an uncovenanted bonus when my spell-checker announced that Brochfael should be either Rochdale or Bronchial. –Tim riley talk 11:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

edit

I'll have a look at this too. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. Steelkamp (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is "Brlochfael"? Is that a typo of Brochfael?
  • "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales, and in the late 880s Brochfael, Ffernfael and Hywel submitted voluntarily to Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians." Suggest changing to "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales, but in the late 880s Brochfael, Ffernfael and Hywel submitted voluntarily to Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians."
  • "The historian of Wales Thomas Charles-Edwards thinks that he may be the Meurig..." It's not clear that this is referring to the father, and not Brochfael ap Meurig.
  • Is there anywhere that "grants" can link to?
  • "In the previous generation, ..." Is this part of the sentence strictly necessary given that the latter part of that sentence establishes that it is talking about the father?
  • I would change "(about 120 acres (50 hectares))" to "(about 120 acres or 50 hectares)" using disp=or in the convert template. This solution avoids using double brackets. Same with "(about 240 acres (100 hectares))" to "(about 240 acres or 100 hectares)".
  • "...which Brochfael gave to his daughter, ..." Is this Brochfael's daughter or Cyfeilliog's daugher?
  • "Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that in 927 Owain, king of the people of Gwent..." Suggest adding a comma after 927 and before Owain.

That's all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

edit

Have read through (with trivial edits) a few times and have been following the reviews above. Really like these Anglo-Saxon Kingship articles, and this one is very clearly written and precise with no unnecessary padding. Sourcing is excellent, and I gather that info is so scant that it easily passes comprehensiveness. Ceoil (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ceoil. I have removed the word "believes" in your edits. Some historians strongly object to it as they think it implies an opinion not supported by reasoning, as with religious belief. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah was thinking you might :) Was trying to avoid "thinks" x 2, and there was the hedge "may be" just afterwards. It's something I struggle a bit when writing about the dating of Iron-age artifacts. So no worries. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

edit
  • Although the caption says that Glywysing is the 9, the map seems to suggest that that is Gwynllyg. Am I misreading it?!
  • The lead doesn't actually say much about Brochfael the king himself, more the regional politics.
  • "having a higher status" > the higher status.
  • Anothr map, showing the broader geography—where Mercia, Wessex etc were positioned in relation to Glywysing would be useful for the background. (Maybe a crop of this?)
  • I agree that a broader map would be helpful, but the one you link to is of Britain in 600, 300 years too early. There is a better map at [2], but it is of the mid 10th century and shows Gwent as one large territory, so it might confuse people. What do you think. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • re. Ffernfael's subordinacy, probably worth adding "Charles-Edwards has speculated", since no-one else has; indeed, it's odd that he doesn't mention the dangers of relying too heavily on charters when it is known that only a (random) percentage have survived.
  • I think "may have been subordinate" is sufficient qualification. Other historians have not made the point because Ffernfael is such a minor figure that he is rarely mentioned. He is only recorded twice, by Asser and as a witness to one charter of his father, and I think he probably died soon after Asser mentioned him, but of course I cannot says so. I take your point about charters and have qualified by saying "Ffernfael does not have any surviving charters of his own". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All from me. Nice one Dudley Miles, compact but comprehensive. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 13:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Unlimitedlead

edit
  • "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales..." Suggest changing to "The Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales..." for clarity.
  • "The historian of Wales..." This sounds like an official title. Suggest revising to: "Thomas Charles-Edwards, a historian specializing in Welsh history, thinks that Meurig...", or something of that vein in order for improved sentence flow.
  • Introduce Wendy Davies; we do not know who she is.
  • Why does Davies postulate a different date?
  • Can more be said about Brochfael's own family? The fact that he had a daughter is suddenly thrust open the reader in the last few sentences.

Please notify me when you have had the chance to reply to my concerns. Great work; it's always nice to see more history articles here at FA :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Another very readable article. The only minor point I would raise is the caption on the map, which refers to "Medieval south-east Wales"; as that covers about a millennia, and as the boundaries shifted (or at least territories merged and separated), can we be more precise on the date? Fair enough if the sources don't clarify tyhe point, but worth checking. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks SchroCat. On the map caption, see the discussion with UndercoverClassicist above. Any suggestions how to deal with this welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your suggestion further up of captioning Medieval south-east Wales. The number "9" means Morgannwg, a name for Glwywsing which came in by the year 1000, but would like to be even more explicit in the first part: something like Map of south-east Wales, showing sites from throughout the medieval period (c. 600 – c. 1300) (or whatever date range the book uses for "medieval"). It's not ideal that the map doesn't really match our time period, but it's a necessary evil -- however, I think we have to be really clear with readers so that they know what they are and are not getting. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that too. - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I forgot to mention in the blurb a curious point, which is that when I created this article, there were already articles about Brochfael in the French and Russian Wikipedias, but not in Welsh. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (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/Brochfael_ap_Meurig/archive1&oldid=1244416083"