Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edmund I/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) 26 September 2021 [1].

Edmund I edit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest of my FAC submissions about later Anglo-Saxon kings. Edmund I (939 to 946) was the first king to inherit the throne of all England, but he had to fight hard to keep his inheritance against Viking kings from Dublin who crossed the Irish Sea to become kings of York. He was successful in recovering northern England, but he died young trying to rescue a servant from an attack by a violent thief. Pinging Mike Christie and Tim riley Dudley Miles (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

I was able to find a few minor issues to comment on at the peer review, and Dudley has addressed those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

Like Mike, I peer reviewed the article and my (very minor) quibbles were completely dealt with then. I am inexpert in Anglo-Saxon history, but to my layman's eye the article is convincingly comprehensive, balanced and well and widely sourced. It is beautifully written and splendidly illustrated. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. I'm happy to do a source review if no more expert volunteer comes forward. Tim riley talk 20:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass edit

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Don't repeat captions in alt text
  • File:Edmund_I_-_MS_Royal_14_B_V.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Anlaf_(British_Library_Cotton_MS_Tiberius_B_I,_folio_141v).jpg, File:MS._Hatton_30_Expositio_Augustini_in_Apocalypsin_73v.jpg
  • File:Silver_penny_of_Edmund_I_(YORYM_2000_1493)_obverse.jpg needs a US tag for the coin, and what's the copyright on the photograph? Coins are not 2D. Conversely, File:Silver_penny_of_Edmund_I_(YORYM_2000_1493)_reverse.jpg has a tag for the photo and not the coin (and seems to have a broken template). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Edmund_I_-_MS_Royal_14_B_V.jpg: tag indicates that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". Same message on File:MS._Hatton_30_Expositio_Augustini_in_Apocalypsin_73v.jpg and on File:Anlaf_(British_Library_Cotton_MS_Tiberius_B_I,_folio_141v).jpg, which doesn't seem to have been edited? And then same message on both coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they are fixed now as all files show a US public domain tag. Thanks Nikki. It is so long since I nominated an FAC that I have forgotten how to deal with images, but hopefully I now know. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass edit

All the sources are top-quality, and I see no formatting issues with any of them (I did fix one minor CS1 error and changed a hyphen to an en dash). Some comments and suggestions:

  • You might add an orig-date for EHD, and anything else for which you're citing a later edition (I didn't spot anything).
    Just spotted one: Robertson (1925) has an ISBN so that must be a reprint too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put in orig-date and took it out again. Most readers do not understand wiki templates and may be misled into thinking that (2009) [1925] is a publication revised in 2009, not just that it happens to be the date of a photographic reprint. I have now changed it to (1925) [2009 photographic reprint]. I think this is clear to readers but breaks the rules. Another alternative is to just show 1925 with the issn instead of the isbn of the reprint, but I will show it according to wiki rules if required. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I think what you've done is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No location given for Molyneaux 2015, Stenton 1971, Dunbabin 1999, Keynes 1999
  • You give a publisher for three of the journal cites (Hart 1973, Halloran 2013, and Trousdale 2007) but not the others; any reason for the inconsistency?
    • The reason is that I showed the publisher when it was given on copy of the article. I have now deleted all journal publishers but can track them down if the information is required. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fine; I don't think locations are worth it for journals. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you give "London, UK" rather than just "London" as a location; no need to change this if you prefer the consistency of your current format but I think there's a list somewhere of locations that need no disambiguation -- cities like Chicago, New York, London, Paris. Up to you.
    • I have not been able to find the list of locations. On a previous FAC I was advised that all UK locations should be shown as UK including London and all US ones with the state. Checking Template:cite book I see that this is wrong as they show UK locations with the county. I am now inclined to change them all to comply with this, but with no county needed for London, Oxford and Cambridge. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd leave them as they are -- I think the requirement is only that the location be clear, and what you've done is clear. Change it to counties if you prefer, but it's not wrong as you have it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find to nitpick. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now (in the mood as I just watched Beowulf the other day...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd not who/what Frank Stenton is as a descriptor at first mention. Also Barbara Yorke, Ryan Lavelle and Alaric Trousdale
  • By 945 both Scotland and Strathclyde had kings who had succeeded since Brunanburh - err, presume you mean succeed someone rather than do well. Looks weird here I'd see this meaning as exclusively transitive, so maybe "taken power" or "become rulers/assumed their thrones" or somesuch.
  • Hmm. I cannot think of a good way of putting this but went for "assumed the throne". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only coin in common use in the tenth century was the penny. - I'd link "penny" here to something appropriate
  • Should the law codes be italicised?
  • The relationship between Anglo-Saxon kings and their leading men was personal: - the colon should be a semicolon....?

Minor quibbles only - looks okay on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review. A general comment: many of my concerns with the article are about experts whose opinions are given, but their credentials are not explained in the article. Although wikilinks are given for most of the people highlighted below, it is my understanding from previous FACs that a reader should be able to understand the meaning of wikilinked word without clicking on the wikilink. In this case, the "meaning of the wikilink word" is the credentials of the person being quoted, without needing to click into that person's article to understand that person's credentials. In most cases, an addition to the text (for example, changing "In the view of Dorothy Whitelock" to "In the view of historian Dorothy Whitelock") will alleviate my concerns, so that the reader knows why the person whose opinion is reading about is important. Other thoughts are also below:

  • "of Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria and East Anglia, came under" Remove comma after East Anglia?
  • There's a lot of information about Edward's previous marriages. While I acknowledge that articles sometimes need to give family history, I feel like this is a lot of information that does not directly pertain to Edmund, and perhaps can be summarized more effectively.
  • This looks a lot better. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Æthelstan, the son of Edward's first wife, Ecgwynn, was born around 894, but Ecgwynn probably died around the time of Alfred's death, as by 901 Edward was married to Ælfflæd." There's multiple thoughts in this sentence: Edward's son, Ecgwynn and her death, and the second wife. I suggest splitting this up, perhaps, "Edward's first wife was Ecgwynn, and the two had a son named Æthelstan, born around 894. Ecgwynn probably died around the time of Alfred's death, as by 901 Edward was married to Ælfflæd."
  • "Edward married Eadgifu, the daughter of Sigehelm, ealdorman of Kent, who had died in 902 at the Battle of the Holme." Why is it important in Edmund I's biography to know that Sigehelm died in 902 at the Battle of the Holme? If it's not important for this article, delete it.
  • I think it is worth keeping. Going into details would be excessive, but some historians think it is important that Eadgifu was the daughter of a war hero. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The twelfth-century historian William of Malmesbury gives Edmund a second full sister called Eadgifu like her mother," -> I had to read this a couple times to understand what this was saying. Maybe, "The twelfth-century historian William of Malmesbury describes a second full sister named Eadgifu, who had the same name as her mother,"
  • I have tried to make it clearer. What do you think?
  • "William's account is accepted by Ann Williams and Sean Miller, but Sarah Foot argues that she did not exist," Who are these people and why should the reader care about their opinion? Briefly give their credentials in the article.
  • Done. NB. I have added "the historian", which is BrEng, not "historian", which is AmerEng. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have learned something new today. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that Simon Walker has suggested that the poem was written during Edmund's reign." Who is Simon Walker?
  • "although Simon Keynes", Thomas Charles-Edwards" Some more people whose credentials should be explained in the article.
  • "According to the hagiography of a Gaelic monk called Cathróe he travelled through England on his journey from Scotland to the Continent; Edmund summoned him to court and Oda, Archbishop of Canterbury, then ceremonially conducted him to his ship at Lympne. Cathróe is unlikely to have been the only Celtic cleric at Edmund's court." I'm not sure why this is in the article or why this is important. I feel like a lot of context is missing here: Why is it important for the reader to know that there were Celtic clerics in Edmund's court?
  • "but it is known that Otto sent delegations to Edmund's court." How do we know this? Was it recorded somewhere? I think this should be more specific.
  • This occurred to me when I wrote it. Unfortunately, the sources just cite nineteenth century editions of works in Latin, and my Latin is not up to checking them. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Latin is non-existent, so we'll leave it. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Cyril Hart compares the brothers' power" -> "Historian Cyril Hart"
  • "In the view of Dorothy Whitelock" -> In the view of historian Dorothy Whitelock...
  • "However, in contrast to Edmund's concern about the level of violence," Delete however, as "in contrast" shows that this is different from the previous statement and is redundant.
  • "Richard Abels" Another expert that needs credentials.
  • "described by Patrick Wormald" -> "described by historian Patrick Wormald"
  • The image "File:MS. Hatton 30 Expositio Augustini in Apocalypsin 73v.jpg" is at the end of the legislation section, causing the image to be displayed mostly in the religion section. If it is supposed to be part of Legislation, it should be moved higher in the section. If it's for religion, it should be at the top of the religion section.
  • "have a change of heart" Feels like an MOS:IDIOM and might need to be changed. Perhaps "change his opinion"
  • It is a bit colloquial, but it seems right in the context and "change his opinion" does not. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Æthelstan had granted two estates to religious women, Edmund made seven such grants and Eadred four." Change the comma to a semi-colon?
  • "charter's authenticity is disputed." Disputed by whom?
  • "Her will survives, as do those of her father and of her sister Ælfflæd, wife of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, the hero of the Battle of Maldon in 991." Why is this information important in Edmund I's article? If it is not, delete it.
  • Hmm. An interesting point. ODNB on Edmund has the wills, perhaps because historians attach great importance to wills as sources, but I agree and have cut down the details. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clare Downham and Kevin Halloran" Who are these people? Especially important because they are not wikilinked.
  • Not sure about this as their views are contrasted with "other historians", but added anyway. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many sentences in the second paragraph of Assessment start with "Trousdale". Suggest varying the start of sentences.
  • I agree but could not see how to change without reducing clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some suggestions: "Trousdale also sees Edmund as moving..." -> "He also sees Edmund as moving..." "Trousdale's picture contrasts with that of other historians such as Sarah Foot, who emphasises the achievements of Æthelstan," -> "Other historians contrast with Trousdale's picture: Sarah Foot emphasises the achievements of Æthelstan,"
  • Changed the first one. I do not think I can say that historians contrast with a picture and it is not so bad now that the previous Trousdale has been deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "period a poound was a unit of account of 240 pence." Should this be pound?
  • Suggest putting the Sources section into columns by adding "|28em" After refbegin, to reduce white space and make it easier to read. This is not required for my support though.
  • I much prefer a straight list for sources and find it much easier to read. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when you respond. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your every thorough review Z1720. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concens have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2021 (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/Edmund_I/archive1&oldid=1046690201"