Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edgar, King of England/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 March 2023 [1].

Edgar, King of England edit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my articles about Anglo-Saxon kings. Edgar was an important and fascinating figure, but not an attractive one. The article has received a helpful peer review from Unlimitedlead. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead edit

It's about time! Review to follow over the next week or so. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May the gods have mercy on whoever is performing the source review... Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "succeeded by his younger brother Eadred, who died in 955. Edgar's older brother, Eadwig then became king and in 957" This narrative of events does not flow smoothly.
  • I do not see how to improve this. Do you have a suggestion? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try: "succeeded by his younger brother Eadred, who ruled until his own death in 955. Edgar's older brother, Eadwig then became king; in 957..." Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the first part to "who ruled until his death in 955". Does that work? I do not like the semicolon in the next sentence. It is easy to miss it and read "Eadwig then became king in 957". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is okay. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edgar mainly followed the political policies of his predecessors, whereas there were major changes in the religious sphere and the English Benedictine Reform, which he strongly supported, became a dominant religious and social force" The grammar in this sentence is messy; I suggest splitting it to say: Edgar mainly followed the political policies of his predecessors, but there were major changes in the religious sphere. The English Benedictine Reform, which he strongly supported, became a dominant religious and social force.
  • "Some give him high praise" is not necessary in my mind because the previous sentence already discussed the reasons why modern historians praise him. The last sentence of the lede could probably be combined with the penultimate one somehow.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edgar is described by the historian Ann Williams as "an enigmatic figure" due to the very limited information available on him,[2] while Barbara Yorke describes his personality as "elusive": "While" suggests differing opinions, but Williams and Yorke seem to be saying similar things.
  • "By 883, Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, had accepted Alfred's overlordship..." Why is there a comma after "Mercians"?
  • It seems to me correct. It could be "Æthelred had accepted Alfred's overlordship" and there should be a comma at the beginning and end of an inserted descriptive phrase. What does master grammarian Tim riley think?
  • I concur with Dudley. This is what is technically known as a non-restrictive (i.e. a describing) phrase, as opposed to a restrictive (defining one). The former need to be hedged in by commas so that an accurate restrictive phrase or clause does not become a gratuitously insulting non-restrictive one. The classic illustration is "Pilots who are reckless may not live long" as opposed to "Pilots, who are reckless, may not live long". Tim riley talk 12:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I interpreted the entire name and title as a singular proper noun. Apologies. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first take was thoroughly reasonable, and indeed I'm not at all sure whether I would put a second comma after a mention of, say, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, but though, as Dudley says, you could call Æthelred just Æthelred, you couldn't call the poet just Alfred, so I'm sure Dudley's punctuation is right. Tim riley talk 16:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the rest of England was under Viking rule." Would "remained" be an appropriate word to substitute "was"?
  • "and Æthelstan, ealdorman[a] of East Anglia; who was known as the Half-King..." This semicolon could be a comma.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Edgar gave her a ten-hide estate at Old Weston in Huntingdonshire as thanks": "in gratitude" could work here.
  • "too little is known about the background to be sure": change "sure" to "certain"? Sounds more professional to me.
  • she later alleged that she had been "despoiled of all her property" during his reign: Is this quote a statement from Eadgifu herself, or is it from a source describing the situation? If it was not Eadgifu who said this, then I believe some quote attribution is in order.
  • Yes is was by her in a statement explaining the background of an estate she was granting to Canterbury. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 957 the kingdom was divided" Which kingdom? It does not hurt to specify here.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a decision to divide the kingdom between the brothers" A decision made by whom? Leading government officials, powerfuk nobles, or the brothers themselves?
  • "Edgar's third marriage may have had political repercussions" What kind of repercussions? Negative ones? And repercussions on what/whom?
  • Yes negative but the context makes that clear and I am not sure it is necessary to spell it out. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edgar was able to keep them under control, but this collapsed into open hostilities after his death": "this" is a little vague; perhaps "the conflict" or some other direct reference would be better.
  • It is vague because I could not think of the right word. "conflict" is too strong and "rivalries" would be repetitious. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Serial Number 54129. Also "collapsed into" does not seem right in "these tensions collapsed into open hostilities after his death". How about "led to"? Any better ideas? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find that meaning for devolved in dictionaries. I thought of "evolved" but that implies a gradual process. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although if you're looking for a similar word that does not have an implication of graudality, maybe degenerate would work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but I think both are too strong for what I am trying to say. (There is no evidence of actual fighting.) I prefer "led to". Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Ealdormen for areas south of the Thames do not attest after 970" Would it make sense to replace "for" with "in"?
  • I think "for" is better. We would not say MP in Winchester. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He ceased in 963" A little odd: sounds like he died. Can we try rewording this?
  • Who is who in File:Edgar in Regularis Concordia.jpg? The caption leaves this vague.
  • I am not clear what is wrong here. The caption says that he was flanked by Æthelwold and Dunstan. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. I was wondering if we knew who was Æthelwold and who was Dunstan. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source does not say, but it does say "usually identified as", so I have added "probably". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. An amazing effort, Dudley. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129 edit

Not sure I can match Unlimitedlead's enthusiasm  ;) but count me in for a front-row seat! Cheers, SN54129 19:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • !possible to write a chronological account " - perhaps "reconstruct chronologically", but up to ye.
  • That is similar to what the source says, but not quite the same. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A map showing the political constituencies of ASE on the eve of Edgar's accession. We have plenty, and I could tweak any for precision if you think it's needed. It would fit the background section nicely.
  • I will look for a suitable map. I went off maps after I asked for help at the map request page and got not response, but if you can help that would be great. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you say that Edgar died in 955, it seems superfluous to point out that 980 is "after Edgar's death".
  • Repetition of 944, also unnecessary to emphasise his infancy. How about, "and he was born in 943 or 944, the year his mother died".
  • Styenes' quote needs an inline citation rather than just a footnote; useful though that is.
  • That is discussed above. A cite next to the quote would wrongly appear to cover the first part of the sentence, and if I added to the cites at the end of the sentence it would not be clear which one applied to the quote. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that we should be attesting to the "correct"ness of the charters' dating in Wikivoice. You explain that there's a difference in dates, but not why the preference?
  • I am not clear what you are referring to here. Neither of the two use of the word "correct" are about charters. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but some question whether he married the first one and others the second" - shorten/tighten to "some question the others' legitimacy"?
  • I prefer to keep the wording. It is his marriages which are discussed. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malmsebury quote needs referencing; in fact, at 39 words, it should probably be blockquoted per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.
  • BLOCKQUOTE says over 40 words and it is well under one line. I have added a separate cite for William's comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto citing the "priapic" quote, and clarify who it is you are quoting: Yorke or the Concordia itself (I assume the former?).
  • The whole sentence is on Yorke's comments and I have given a citation at the end. Changed to "Yorke sees a provision in the Regularis Concordia[e] that monasteries were under the protection of the king and nunneries of the queen in order to avoid scandal as "a pointed reference to Edgar's priapic interest in nuns" Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "competent but formulaic and derivative Latin" - absolutely, so sure you can link to Carolingian minuscule among the other detail...
  • This is about the style not the script, which is mentioned in Edmund I#Learning. I do not know of any discussion of the script in Edgar's reign. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly wouldn't oppose over it, but the charters section does seem to drift away from Edgar occasionally.
  • "but if we are disposed" - Wikivoice! Or is this all part of the same Keynes quote?
  • I have added a second "that" to make clear that it is a summary of Keynes's view. "Keynes observes that it is no wonder that Edgar was hailed as "the strongest of all kings", but that if we are disposed to admire the peace he brought then we should bear in mind the measures he took to enforce it." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency between e.g. bishop/Bishop required) I think the MOS instructs recommends the latter.
  • I have altered in one case where lower case is use for an individual. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, I think the reference should go at the introductory sentence rather than the quote itself.
  • In my opinion, MOS:BLOCKQUOTE is wrong. The citation should always go at the end. I have always done it that way and no one has ever objected. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, consistency as to whether you capitalise the initial of the quote itself?
  • I follow the source on this. If the quote starts in the middle of a sentence then I do not capitalize the first word, but I may be wrong. Tim riley? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would follow the source, as you have done. Accuracy trumps consistency every time in my book. Tim riley talk 08:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilson, immediate cite.
  • "Peter Rex observes in his biography of Edgar that his reign" - suggest "the reign" due to repetition of "his".
  • Cite "ill-deed" quote.
  • "several battles fought by ealdormen and neighbouring kings" does intimate some external opposition, surely, since the earldormen were in locum for the King?
  • These were local battles, mostly fought outside England. None of them threatened his rule. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although [was] presumably weakened by" - the tense is asking for a tweak, I think?
  • In the interest of a gorefest, how was Edward murdered?
  • He was stabbed when visiting his half-brother. Some blame his step-mother, others persons unknown. Personally I think that historians have got it wrong and he was killed with general approval because he was a dangerous lunatic, but of course I cannot say so. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "view of Martin Ryan: "By the end of..."" or "Edgar was personally responsible: "this period, far more""? Think there are a few others earlier on too.
  • Ref ""singularly devoid of recorded incident"".
  • I think it is clear that the citation Stenton p. 368 applies to the quote and its continuation below. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ben Snook can lose the Ben second time around
That's me DM. Nice article, casting further light on the 'dark ages'  :) Thanks! SN54129 17:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian, for the future, pings only work to user pages—not talk pages—so I didn't get this one. But the bulk of what I've suggested to DM has been actioned, and what remains is pretty insubstantial. I'm still working on a map, but it'll be derivative of all the others on commons, so nothing to keep Buidhe awake at night. In any case, I'll ping an image reviewer out of courtesy, but in the meantime, it shouldn't hold up this otherwise fine piece of work, and we can continue discussing the map(s) on the talk page. As such, I support this article's promotion to featured article status. SN54129 12:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, this is what we get for having a big name and a little name, I wanted to copy the big one for the link and then pipe to the abbreviated one but of course I copied the talk long name not the user long name by accident... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges edit

  • Claiming a spot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historians disagree whether this was the result of a revolt by Edgar's supporters against Eadwig's incompetent rule or a previously agreed division. suggest Historians disagree whether this division was the result of a revolt by Edgar's supporters against Eadwig's incompetent rule or was previously agreed upon.
  • and as his sons Eadwig and Edgar were young children the phrase young children actually seems less specific than the lede's infants? Suggest changing the body to infants.
  • Like Edmund, Eadred inherited the kingship of the whole of England and soon lost it when York (southern Northumbria) accepted a Viking king, but he recovered it when the York magnates expelled Erik Bloodaxe in 954 assuming Erik Bloodaxe was the aforementioned Viking king, as he seems to be suggest Like Edmund, Eadred inherited the kingship of the whole of England and soon lost it when York (southern Northumbria) accepted a Viking king, Erik Bloodaxe, but he recovered it when the York magnates expelled them in 954
  • This is very complicated and historians do not agree on the sequence of events, but it is generally thought that Erik was not the first king, and that he took power later. I do not think it is relevant enough to go into detail. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was known as the Half-King because it was believed that kings depended on his advice. should the Half-King be in quotes as "the Half-King"
  • Sources do not usually put Half-King in quotes. It is a nick-name like the Black Prince. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ten-hide estate at Old Weston in Huntingdonshire in gratitude suggest a short gloss for ten-hide

Image review edit

Licensing fixed on one of the images. Please ensure that you don't accidentally pick a different license for works that you didn't create. Otherwise, the licensing looks ok. (t · c) buidhe 06:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Joining the queue to review, but will wait my turn till the two ahead of me have had their say. I'm looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 14:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an excellent idea to join in after everyone else has done all the hard work. These are my meagre gleanings, and are far too inconsequential to affect my support in the least:

  • Sources
  • "Edgar is described by the historian Ann Williams as 'an enigmatic figure' due to the very limited …" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally accepted. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer. There's another "due to" at the start of the Charter section that could do with a tweak (plus two other "due to"s elsewhere that are perfectly all right).
  • Early life
  • "of the reform circle, in particular with St Dunstan" – the two prepositions "of" and "with" seem to clash with each other a bit.
  • It looks OK to me. Intimate "of a circle" and "with a person" sounds right. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd just write "of the reform circle and St Dunstan in particular", but I don't press the point. Tim riley talk 15:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edgar in Eadwig's early reign, 955 to 957
  • "Frank Stenton, in his 'magisterial and massively authoritative' volume" – I think you might say inline who gave it that seal of approval.
  1. ^ The description of Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England is by the historian Simon Keynes.[1]
  1. ^ a b Keynes 2003a, p. xxi.
  • King of Mercia, 957 to 959
  • "Oda forced Eadwig to divorce his wife Ælfgifu" – we last met Oda 1,100 words and three sections ago, and I had to scroll back to remind myself who he was. You might perhaps call him Archbishop Oda here, or in some other way give the reader a memory jogger.
  • Consorts and children
  • "this was forbidden so long as the spouse lived, so Edgar's third marriage may have had political repercussions" – repetition of "so" (and there are old codgers like me who have yet to accept "so" as a conjunction in formal prose). I suggest replacing the second "so" with "and".
  • If I understand you correctly, there are even older codgers who would agree with you, but in this case I use "so" to mean "as a result of which" rather than "and". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let us have no septuagenarian jostling for senior codger status! Point taken about causality, and as you wish to stress it I'd write "and so..." Tim riley talk 15:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first West Saxon queen to do so on a regular basis" – two things here: first, I'm not sure what "on a regular basis" has got that "regularly" hasn't, and secondly was it really regular – at short uniform intervals – or merely frequent?
  • Frequently would be more accurate then on a regular basis, but it is not what the source says. She attested around a quarter of surviving charters and was the first West Saxon queen to do so more than once (excluding attestations as queen mother) since Judith of Flanders in the 850s. I am inclined to keep the wording on the ground that correcting it is a bit OR. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're happy with "regular" I shall not carp any further. Tim riley talk 15:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Religion
  • "Ælfsige, froze to death in the Alps on the way to get his pallium" – for those unfamiliar with the conferment of palliums (pallia?) on archbishops it might make this sentence more readily understandable if you expanded it on the lines of "froze to death in the Alps on the way to Rome to receive his pallium from the Pope".
  • Changed to "get his pallium from the Pope". "receive" sounds to me too passive as he was presumably going to request it. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along Continental lines" – score Dudley 1, Tim 0 here. I thought Continental and the Continent were uncapitalised, but the OED and Chambers are squarely behind you. I must keep this in mind for future reference.
  • "In 970 Æthelwold re-founded the community" but later in the para "founded or refounded in 967" – the OED does not hyphenate the word.
  • Learning and art
  • Lapidge comments that his reign "marks a decisive turning-point in English literary history." But elsewhere you generally put the full stop after the closing quotation mark: However, Simon Keynes comments: "whether Eadwig and Edgar were able to assert their own independence of action, or remained at the mercy of established interests at court, is unclear". The second is, if I understand it correctly, the preferred form according to the MoS, and in your text it outnumbers the first by over 100 to 16.
  • Corrected. The rule as I understand it is that you put the full stop before the quotation mark if the quote is a full sentence, but in this case it is not. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. The article is thorough without being verbose, evidently balanced, well and widely sourced, nicely illustrated and a good read. It meets all the FA criteria in my view. Happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 11:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka edit

  • ..., who may have been king only of Mercia at first, but ruled the whole of his father's realm by the next year" Is this relevant in the article's context?
  • It is relevant to the argument put forward by some historians that the unity of England was so new that the division between Eadwig ruling Wessex and Edgar ruling Mercia would not have been seen by contemporaries as shocking, and may have been agreed rather than a result of a rebellion againt Eadwig. Dudley Miles (talk)
  • ...the ætheling (prince eligible for the throne) was profoundly influenced by his upbringing I am not sure that it is clear for everybody that Edgar is the ætheling.
  • ...secular minster... I would delete "secular" and link "minster". Alternatively, I would say "the minster controlled by secular clergy".
  • Neither suggestion quite works. Deleting secular loses the point that royal patronage was not exclusively to monks, and "controlled by" might wrongly imply that there were also less powerful monks there. I have changed to "[[Secular clergy|secular]] (non-monastic) [[Minster (church)|minster]]. Does that work? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another influence on Edgar was his grandmother, Eadgifu. Quite uninformative and possibly misleading: there must have been dozens of people who had influence on Edgar.
  • This is an awkward one. Looking again, the source says in his childhood. I do not think there is any evidence for it, but as historians emphasise Eadgifu's influence, I thought I should put it in. I have now deleted it. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eadwig and Edgar are not recorded in contemporary sources until 955, when they first attested charters, suggesting that they did not regularly attend court when they were young.[20] King Eadred never married, and his attitude towards the claims of his nephews is uncertain. Eadwig attested Eadred's charters as ætheling or cliton (Latin for prince), and while some give Edgar the same title, others show him as Eadwig's brother, which may imply a lower status. 1. I think some restructuring is needed: in the previous paragraph Eadwig is mentioned as a king. 2. In the section's first paragraph Edgar is referred to as ætheling while this paragraph implies that he did not bear this title.
  • This is another awkward one. The comment about Eadred's attitude does seem valid, but it is not quite what the source says, so I have deleted it. This leaves the comment about the princes not being mentioned in contemporary sources awkwardly at the end of the previous paragraph, but I do not see where else to put it. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the sentence could be the first sentence of the paragraph.
  • Oda forced Eadwig to divorce his wife Ælfgifu on the ground that they were too closely related, but Edgar was on good terms with her when he became king. Is this relevant in the article's context?
  • It is marginal, but I would rather keep it in as an indication that the division between Eadwig and Edgar may have been exaggerated. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "b" a note, instead of a direct reference to Keynes' work?
  • A direct reference would appear also to cover the first part of the sentence which it is not relevant to. If I added it to the list of references at the end of the sentence, it would not be clear which was the source for the quote. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...against the opposition of the church Why not Church?
  • She had two sons... Why not "They had two sons..."?
  • ...but it is uncertain whether this was on the king's instruction, which would indicate that he wished to cut Edward out of the succession, or was ordered by Bishop Æthelwold, who was a friend and ally of Ælfthryth Is this necessary? For me, it looks like a not too relevant PoV.
  • It is a sourced comment by a historian, which seems to me valid and relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, you are right, it is highly relevant. I misunderstood the context. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • After Edgar became king of the whole of England when Eadwig died on 1 October 959, his former tutor Æthelwold became one of the most powerful figures at court. Could you rephrase it, perhaps by splitting the sentence into two? It contains too many information.
  • ...following the expulsion of the Viking king of York, Erik Bloodaxe The information about the expulsion of Erik comes out of the blue. Some context could be added?
  • The context is in the background section. "Like Edmund, Eadred inherited the kingship of the whole of England and soon lost it when York (southern Northumbria) accepted a Viking king, but he had recovered it by the end of his reign."
  • I would repeat that Erik was expelled by Eadred.
  • Changed to " Like Edmund, Eadred inherited the kingship of the whole of England and soon lost it when York (southern Northumbria) accepted a Viking king, but he recovered it when the York magnates expelled Erik Bloodaxe in 954." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Osulf did not owe his power to southern English suppport... I would prefer a positive statement: "Osulf owed his power to ... and his power did not depend on southern English support."
  • That would be too specific. Little or nothing is known about the basis of Osulf's support. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..., and when he died in the 960s... I would begin a new sentence.
  • Edgar tried to keep them under control... I understand he kept them under control.
  • Changed to "Edgar was able to keep them under control, but this collapsed into open hostilities after his death." Still a bit awkward. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..., but this collapsed into open hostilities after his death I would mention this info in section "Death and aftermath".
  • I think it is easier for readers to understand the aftermath in each area when it is in the relevant section, and I have confined the aftermath to the immediate events. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... this may be because Edgar chose to govern these areas through royal officials of lower status. Reeves may have been entrusted with duties which were previously carried out by ealdormen. I would shorten the text: "this may be because Edgar chose to govern these areas through royal officials of lower status such as reeves."
  • That would conflate two points, governing through lower officials, and the posssible higher status of reeves. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gap was filled after his death by the appointment of three new southern ealdormen. I would mention this info in section "Death and aftermath".
  • Kingship was peripatetic. Was kingship peripatetic or the royal court itinerant? I would delete the sentence.
  • Both were peripatetic. I mention it as there is a widespread myth that Winchester was then the capital. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...standard grants to religious houses or individuals, with a few unusual ones... What is the difference between a standard and an unusual grant? Perhaps grants of property could be described as standard grants?
  • Changed to "They are mainly standard grants of land to religious houses or individuals, with a few more complex ones such as the one granting privileges to the New Minster" Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edgar used the titles king of the English and king of Britain in his charters... Did he always use both titles?
  • He never used both. Changed to "Edgar used the title king of the English in some charters and king of Britain in other ones," Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have changed "and" to "or".
  • I considered that but some people are confused whether "or" includes "and", so I think my version is less open to misunderstanding. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delink and italicize "Hundred Ordinance", italicize "I Edgar", "II and III Edgar", "Andover Code", "IV Edgar".
  • Sources differ on italicization, but the most authoritative, Wormald italicizes Hundred Ordinance but not II Edgar etc, so I have gone with that. I think it is best to link the first usage of hundred. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Andover code" or "Andover Code"?
  • Link "hundreds".
  • Introduce Lantfred of Winchester.
  • A code of Cnut specifies similar punishments, and its author, Archbishop Wulfstan of York, stated that Cnut's legislation was based on the laws of Edgar. Wormald describes the punishments as "ghastly", and Keynes observes that it is no wonder that Edgar was hailed as "the strongest of all kings", but if we are disposed to admire the peace he brought then we should bear in mind the measures he took to enforce it. Cnut held up Edgar's legislation as the precedent to be followed, and declared in a proclamation of 1020 that everyone should "steadfastly observe the law of Edgar." ASC D states that in 1018 the Danes and the English reached an agreement "according to Edgar's law". In a letter from Cnut to his subjects in 1019/20 he referred to a law code agreed at Oxford, which he described as Edgar's law, and urged people to keep to it. In Wormald's view, Cnut considered that his regime was based on the Oxford agreement to keep to Edgar's law. However, the code bears little resemblance to Edgar's legislation, and the reference to him was probably symbolic as a revered lawmaker, rather than practical as a source. Edgar's legislation continued to be held in high regard after the Norman Conquest, and the twelfth-century historian Eadmer referred to the "holy laws" of "the most glorious king Edgar", although there is no evidence that he knew the codes. I think these sentences fit nicely to section "Death and aftermath".
  • ...nine are known for Edgar... Is this grammatical?
  • A penny was worth around half of what it had been a hundred years earlier. Is this necessary? If yes, some explanation is needed. Perhaps this info could be mentioned after the reference to the "gradual decline in the standard of coinage" in the same section.
  • Hmm. It seems interesting but not specifically relevant. Deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... it caused momentous changes in the church Why not "Church"?
  • He was a strong critic of secular clergy (canons)... Secular clergy in general or specifically canons? If the latter, link canons.
  • Putting canons in brackets is intended to convey that canon was the contemporary word for clerics who were not monks. Can you suggest a better way of conveying this? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is new for me. Canons were the clergy of the cathedral churches, according to my studies. Borsoka (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Æthelwold is clearly using "canons" in a broader sense in the quotation below. How about "secular clergy (sometimes called canons)"? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...secular clergy had their place in the church Why not Church?
  • Italicize "King Edgar's Establishment of Monasteries" and delete the quotation marks.
  • This is an editor's description of an untitled document. Sources vary on the exact title and whether to italicize it, and I think it is probably better not to. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...unlike in England this was not a matter of political principle Are we sure? For me, the article does not suggest that the introduction of the Rule of St Benedict was a political principle in England. On the other hand, The introduction of the the Rule of St Benedict was ordered at a legislative assembly in the Carolingian Empire.
  • I think that political principle in England is supported, particularly in the fourth paragraph of the section. The comment is based on Patrick Wormald, who argues that the motive was religious on the Continent. That is beyond my knowlege, but the fact that the rule was ordered by a Carolingian legislative assembly does not mean that the motive was not religious. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but for me nothing suggests that the introduction of the Rule of St Benedict was a political principle in England.
  • Looking again, my wording is not quite right. Wormald says that it was the uniformity of practice rather than the Rule itself which was politically motivated. It may be better to make the comment a quote. "The reform was the English branch of a European movement,[169] with monasteries which universally followed the Regula S. Benedicti, but Wormald comments that "England was the only place in post-Carolingian Europe where monastic uniformity was a matter of political principle". What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is listed as a saint in some modern Catholic sources with a feast day of 8 July. Is catholicsaints.info a reliable source. If yes, also mention that he is venerated as Saint Edgar the Peaceful.
  • I think it is an RS for "some modern Catholic sources". Changed to "He is listed as Saint Edgar the Peaceful in some modern Catholic sources". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for this well-written, thoroughly researched and interesting article. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN122 is incomplete
  • I have added British Museum as the publisher. Is there anything else I can add? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your other web references are templated - why not this one? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes catholicsaints.info a high-quality reliable source?
  • It is an RS for the statements it is cited for, that Edgar is listed as a saint in some modern Catholic sources, and that he is shown as "the Peaceful" in some popular sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a modern Catholic source and it is a popular source. I could replace it, but any other source for these particular statements would be open to the same objection. I could delete the statements, but both are ones that should be included in a comprehensive article. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why any other source would have the same issue? Is this claim unusual, or are there a paucity of reliable sources on the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as I can discover, there is no official list of Catholic saints. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not list Edgar, and I do not think that it is an RS anyway. He is listed in several unofficial Catholic lists of saints, and I think this is worth mentioning.
  • On the second issue, he is not listed as "the Peaceful" in the index of any of the books I have used as sources, and it is not considered an accurate epithet by modern historians. He just happens to have reigned in a lull between Viking invasions. It is a common epithet in popular books and websites.
  • My basic point is that these are both statements about popular usage, and popular sources are the best ones (and usually the only ones) on that subject, even though they are not reliable on other subjects. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how publication locations are formatted - sometimes you have "Oxford, UK" and other times just "Oxford", sometimes "Toronto, Canada" and other times "Toronto", etc.
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/Edgar,_King_of_England/archive1&oldid=1146292572"