Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eadwig/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 August 2022 [1].

Eadwig edit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest of my articles about Anglo-Saxon kings. It has been improved by helpful comments at peer review by Mike Christie. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Support. This is up to Dudley's usual standard; I commented at the peer review and have nothing to add here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Pass. I made one formatting tweak. Sources are all reliable and consistently formatted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Silver_penny_of_King_Eadwig_(YORYM_2013.1351.4)_obverse.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Silver_penny_of_King_Eadwig_(YORYM_2013.1351.4)_reverse.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet - the typo wasn't the issue here. Both images have a tag representing the copyright status of the photograph. However, they also need a tag representing the copyright status of the coin itself (which will almost certainly be a copyright-expired tag of some flavour). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, although I'd suggest labelling the tags to make clear what applies to what. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "The following year, Oda, Archbishop of Canterbury, separated Eadwig from his wife Ælfgifu on the ground" - I would say that that last word ought to be grounds (plural)
  • OED has ground singular if there is only one ground. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while others see his character and the events of this reign" - his reign?
  • "By 878, it had overrun" - for total clarity, I would say "the army had overrun"
  • "he does not name the daughter in his account. [17]" - random gap before the ref
  • That's what I got as far as 955, I will endeavour to look at the rest tonight -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ælfsige, who he appointed" => "Ælfsige, whom he appointed"
  • "allowing landholders to convert folkland" - wikilink folkland?
  • I wondered about this, but the wikilink goes to bookland, so it would read "allowing landholders to convert [[Bookland (law)|folkland]], which they already owned as hereditary family estates which owed food rent and services to the crown, into [[Bookland (law)|bookland]]". What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would work nicely (although you need a comma between food and rent :-) ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the kingdom was divided even though had been appointed by Eadwig" - think there's a word missing in there

Comments from Z1720 edit

I write historical biographies, but not in this time frame, so my expertise is limited. I started the comments a couple hours ago, and did not realise that another editor would also comment, so I'm sorry if these comments overlap and will not be offended if you resolve Chris's comments first.

  • "In the ninth century Anglo-Saxon England" suggest putting a comma after century
  • "By 878, it had overrun", " By 883 Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians," The use of commas after years should be consistent. I recommend using the comma, but that's personal taste.
  • Added comma. I have no strong views either way, but I see that I have mostly use the comma. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He almost immediately lost control", "He almost immediately invaded" The duplicate sentence starters is jarring. I also don't understand how someone "almost immediately invaded". Did he invade the kingdom or not? Or is this referring to how it was invaded very quickly after this time?
  • "According to Dunstan's earliest hagiographer," Suggest wikilinking to hagiography, as this is a specialised word.
  • "Rory Naismith sees the story of Dunstan's intervention" Who is Rory Naismith and why should the reader care about their opinion? Since they do not have a wikilink, a job title might be appropriate to add here. Some editors would also suggest adding job titles or credentials for wikilinked experts, but I'm of the opinion that it isn't necessary.
  • "and it may have been seen as a threat by the circle around Edgar as it threatened to cut him out from the prospect of inheriting the crown." Two threats in quick succession. Maybe, "and it may have been seen as a threat by the circle around Edgar as it could have cut him out from the prospect of inheriting the crown." or something similar
  • "but Keynes thinks that different stories about Eadwig and his women may" Should it be "Eadwid and this woman"? If not, I don't think its appropriate to have women be phrased as a possession of Eadwig. Perhaps, "but Keynes thinks that different stories about Eadwig's romantic relationships may" or something similar.
  • I don't think it is a problem. "romantic relationship" sounds coy to me and I think you can refer to a woman and her men and a man and his women. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Eadwig was not even mentioned." I don't think even is necessary here and can be removed.
  • "was appointed an ealdorman in Mercia in 956." Suggest wikilinking ealdorman
  • "According to Dunstan's biographer B," B has already been extensively talked about previously, so I don't think this author needs to eb reintroduced here.
  • Done. I have kept it below in "such as Dunstan's biographer B and Byrhtferth" as "such as B and Byrhtferth" sounds odd to me but I am open to suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this is a difficult case because the name is just a letter. I think the current text is fine. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Frederick Biggs comments that if Edgar" Who is this person and what are their credentials?
  • "amounting in the view of Shashi Jayakumar to" Who is this person and what are their credentials?
  • "was abandoned by the Mercians and the Northumbrians with contempt"," Is that comma supposed to be a period?
  • "William Hamilton (see right)," I don't think "(see right)" should be included here. Mobile versions won't put the image to the right (it is placed on top or below the text) so this will be confusing to many readers. I think the caption under the image is enough and "(see right)" it is unnecessary here.
  • I think it is helpful to the reader to point to the picture so I have changed it to "see image". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not necessary for my support, but I suggest putting the "Sources" section into two columns to make the list shorter to scroll.
  • I never use columns for sources as I find that it is quicker to find a source in a list without columns. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

I turned up too late for the peer review, but it looks as though I wouldn't have had much to contribute in any case. I have only four minor quibbles on the present text:

  • Background
  • "…thus became the first king of all England. He died in October 939 and was succeeded by his half-brother and Eadwig's father Edmund, who was the first king to succeed to the throne of all England…" – aren't you telling us the same thing twice? If Edward was the first king of all England and Edmund succeeded him, the latter must ipso facto have been the first king to succeed to the throne of all England. (As Eadwig had only one father I'd put a comma before "Edmund" if I were writing the sentence, but we won't fall out over the point.)
  • Historians distinguish between the two cases. Æthelstan succeeded as king of the Anglo-Saxons and only became king of England when he conquered Northumbria. Edmund was the first to succeed as king of England. I am open to suggestions of how to express this more clearly. Added the comma before Edmund.
  • Reign
  • There are a lot of "Eadwig"s in the opening para of the section: perhaps a pronoun or two would make things smoother?
  • Early reign 955–957
  • His sixty odd gifts of land – you really need a hyphen here; otherwise, it's sixty strange gifts, rather than sixty-something unstrange ones.
  • Done. This seems to me one of the few cases where adding in a hyphen helps the sense. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • around 5% – I believe the MoS favours "per cent" rather than % in the text (not in tables etc), and I'd also go for "five" rather than "5". (Not quite so sure about the percentages in the coinage section, though: I think they look all right as drawn, MoS notwithstanding.)
  • Changed. I prefer 5%, but life is too short to argue with MoS. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Nothing of enough importance to prevent my adding my support. – Tim riley talk 11:38, 13 August 2022 (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/Eadwig/archive1&oldid=1106043165"