Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Eadred/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Eadred edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This is the latest of my articles on Anglo-Saxon kings. I should be grateful for comments before I submit it to FAC. Pinging Mike Christie and Tim riley.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Taking a look now. I'll copyedit minor things as I go, if I see any; please revert anything you disagree with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Eadred had been very close to Edmund, and his leading advisers were mainly people he had inherited from him": perhaps "Eadred had been very close to Edmund, and inherited many of Edmund's leading advisers, such as..." to avoid "his...he...him".
  • "In the view of the historian Marios Costambeys, Wulfstan's influence in Northumbria appears to have been greater than Erik's": this is qualified twice, with "in the view of" and "appears" -- I think you could eliminate one of these. Perhaps "In the view of the historian Marios Costambeys, Wulfstan's influence in Northumbria was greater than Erik's", or something like "The historian Marios Costambey considers Wulfstan's influence in Northumbria to have been greater than Erik's".
  • I think I need to keep both. Costambeys says "appears" and it would be misleading to present him as unequivocal. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about Wulfsige the Black's land holdings is interesting but is not really tied in to that paragraph. Wulfsige is not mentioned again, so is apparently not a player in this drama, so I assume this is mentioned as an example Edmund and Eadred's policy. Does the source have anything else to say that could be added here? If not, it's fine as is.
  • The source says maybe Edmund but more likely Eadred. Other historians say definitely Edmund and I have said that in the article about him, so I have deleted the mention of Wulfsige in this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Eadred's succession to the throne, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, he immediately... Following election as king by the witan (King's Council), he was..." Are the succession and the election the same thing? Was he considered to have succeeded when Edmund died, or when the witan decided?
  • That is vague. Narrative sources such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - and modern historians - generally speak of kings succeeding and ignore election, but a few charters, including the one which describes Eadred's succession, specifically say that he was elected by the nobles. This charter is often discussed by historians, but I have not seen the election mentioned, so my comment is a bit OR, but I think it is important to spell it out. I will think how to word it and see what reviewers think. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The northerners soon reneged on their promises": given that we've just spent some time saying that "northerners" includes multiple factions, is there any way to be more specific?
  • "Eadred granted him land in Sussex which Eadric gave to Abingdon Abbey": just checking this is correct since Abingdon is quite a long way from Sussex. I assume an Abbey could have estates anywhere, but thought I should check.
  • Yes it was common for people and religious institutions to be granted land in distant places. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ælfgar, the father of Edmund's second wife Æthelflæd, was appointed ealdorman of Essex by Eadred at the beginning of his reign (or by Edmund at the end of his)." The parenthesis makes it seem that it is thought more likely that Ælfgar was appointed by Eadred than by Edmund; is that correct? If not I'd make this "Ælfgar, the father of Edmund's second wife Æthelflæd, was appointed ealdorman of Essex, either by Eadred at the beginning of his reign, or by Edmund at the end of his" to be more even-handed about it.
  • Most historians just say that he was ealdorman from 946 to 951 without specifying who appointed him so I have gone with that. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Dunstan's first biographer" is followed by a direct quote, but we don't get the source till the end of two more sentences, and then it's a bundled cite so we can't tell who the quote is from. I would break out the cite for the direct quote and put it at the end of the quote sentence.
  • Link "charters" in the lead.
  • "the golden age of Anglo-Saxon royal diplomas": suggest making it clear that a diploma is the same thing as a charter. You don't use the word "diploma" often but you need to introduce it since it's in Keyne's quote. A footnote might be enough.
  • Added a note. Sawyer in his list adopts a broad definition of charter and includes documents such as Eadred's will. Keynes somewhere adopts this broad definiton and confines diplomas to grants by the king, but in his article on charters in the Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia he treats the terms as synonymous and only applying to the narrow definition, so I have gone with that. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One common coin type in Eadred's reign is designated BC (bust crowned), with the king's head on the obverse. Many are based on an original style of Æthelstan's reign but are of crude workmanship. Some BC coins were produced by moneyers who had worked in the previous reign..." Does the second sentence refer only to BC coins? If so I'd make it "Many BC coins are based on", and then just "Some were" in the next sentence. If not it needs clarification.
  • "so it is likely that there were other moneyers whose coins have not yet been found": this seems superfluous since the next sentence mentions eighty moneyers. Or are we just talking about "new" moneyers here, per the previous sentence?
  • I am not clear about your point here. The comment is about BC coins and the next sentence which mentions 80 moneyers is about H coins. Would it be clearer if I separated the two types into different paragraphs. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to persuade him, which she did, unsuccessfully": I think you need to rephrase this: "she did" implies success. Perhaps "to persuade him, though her attempt was unsuccessful".
Done (with "but" instead of "though"). Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Eadred burnt down Ripon Minster": I had forgotten this fact mentioned earlier in the article by the time I got to the religion section. Perhaps "When Eadred burnt down Ripon Minster during the northern conflicts early in his reign", or some similar phrase to remind the reader?
  • Suggest mentioning in the caption that the ms. of his will is a fifteenth-century copy.
  • I would assume that the text of the will is Whitelock's translation, and so still copyrighted. I don't think we can quote the whole thing, if so. I had a look in my copy of EHD but I see nothing about translation, which implies to me that she is the translator and thinks it's too obvious to say so.
  • Florence Harmer's 1914 translation is also authoritative, but as she died in 1967 I am not sure whether that helps. Nikkimaria is this something you can advise on? In both cases the will is a short passage which forms a very small part of the book. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translations are potentially copyrightable - what's the publication history of the two potential versions? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nikkimaria. The version currently in the article is from the second edition of Dorothy Whitelock's English Historical Documents, published 1979, first ed 1955. It is also translated in Florence Harmer's Select English Historical Documents of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. Worldcat shows numerous reprints but I have a copy of the 1914 original. I do not think that there is any question that both books are copyright as it is less than 70 years since the translators' deaths. The issue as I see it is whether in a book of translations of many documents, does copyright apply to each document separately, or could it be argued that copying is allowable as the will is minimal as a proportion of the whole book? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • English Wikipedia goes by US law (unlike Commons which requires material to also be free in country of origin). A pre-1927 publication gives us US public domain status for Harmer without needing to fuss about fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in order to prevent Eadred's supporters from using the grave as "ideological leverage" against the new regime": does this imply any threat of conflict after his death mentioned in the sources? If so more details would be good.
  • There was serious conflict after Eadred's death, with Eadgifu dispossessed and Dunstan exiled. Eadwig is my next project, but it is a complicated subject and at present I am not familiar enough with it to be confident of providing details. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "proved to be its final throw and it was finally conquered": "final...finally".
  • "which brought about his early death, aged not much above thirty": suggest ending the quote at "death"; she says "early" and we've already been told he was a little over thirty.
  • You might add chapter page number ranges for Wood and Yorke (2021).
  • Check for p./pp. errors in [7] and [53], and for hyphens in page ranges in those two as well.
  • Corrected page range errors. I do not understand about hyphens but I have run a bot which did not find any errors. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. The article is in excellent shape and I would expect it to sail through FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Mike. All done except election of king, which I am thinking about, the will, where I have asked for further advice from Nikki, and coinage, where I am not clear what the problem is. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- I won't go through and strike, as this is PR, but let me know if you want me to check anything. Re the moneyers, I didn't read "it is likely there were other moneyers whose coins have not yet been found" as restricted to moneyers of BC coins -- I read it as a general statement about the moneyers known from his reign. I don't think a paragraph break would address that. Isn't it likely that some of the eighty plus moneyers of H types also produced BC types of which no examples have been found? How about "Some were produced by moneyers who had worked in the previous reign, but there were over thirty new moneyers, out of which nearly twenty are represented by a single coin, so it is likely that some of the moneyers of other coins of Eadred's reign also produced BC coins"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike It now reads "Many BC coins are based on an original style of Æthelstan's reign but are of crude workmanship. Some were produced by moneyers who had worked in the previous reign, but there were over thirty new moneyers, out of which nearly twenty are represented by a single coin, so it is likely that there were other moneyers whose coins have not yet been found." Would this work: "Many BC coins are based on an original style of Æthelstan's reign but are of crude workmanship. Some were produced by moneyers who had worked in the previous reign, but there were over thirty new moneyers producing BC coins, out of which nearly twenty are represented by a single coin, so it is likely that there were other moneyers producing BC coins whose coins have not yet been found."
    Yes, I think that would be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to whether moneyers were producing both types of coins, I might find that out by close study of the tables, but I do not think it is worth the effort, particularly as I would not be confident of distinguishing between these cases and others of different moneyers with the same name. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil edit

Looks v good, but am only beginning to read through.

  • File:S 535 Diploma of King Eadred for Ælfwyn AD 948, written by Edmund C.tiff will be a prob at FAC as it is so wide you'll encounter issues with text squash. Is it possible to crop it down? I wouldn't be in favour of minimising, so maybe put as a single image in a centered gallery?
  • More later over weekend, after a few cups of coffee and proper run through. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ceoil. Could you have a go as you obviously understand the problem much better than me? Dudley Miles (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a stab, but not sure its better...mulling. Another thing, can you summarise and contextualise the will rather than reproducing it verbatim. Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer to quote it as I think it gives a better picture of it to the reader. I will change to an older translation as Nikki has advised that the one I am currently using is copyright. There are some comments below the will but others are better in the section where they are relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was buried - tense - is buried?
  • I have added a note explaining that the Old Minster, where he was buried, has been replaced by Winchester Cathedral. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid 4th wall wording such as "as stated above"
  • of his poor health, due to his Ceoil (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed to "due to" but I prefer to keep "his" as to me it conveys an acknowledgment that it has been previously mentioned. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is Edmund referred to in the lead as his "elder" half-brother. Was he an old man or just older than Eadred
Many thanks Ceoil. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I misread, but I gathered that he was sickly throughout his adulthood, while the lead says it was in his late years only. Maybe say during what ages. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunstan's biographer says that he suffered ill health throughout his reign, but he says that it became much worse later and it does not seem to have hampered Eadred in the first half of his reign. He was able to go to Tanshelf and then lead an invasion of Northumbria. Historians comment on evidence that he was unable to carry out his duties in the second half of his reign, implying that he was able to earlier, but I do not think they are specific about it. I will look again at what they say. It may be difficult to be more specific without expressing a personal view. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim edit

This is going to take me two or three goes. Here's the first, down to the end of Administration.

  • Lead
  • "Eadred's older brother, Edmund" – Fowler prescribes "elder" (Thus we say I have an elder (not older) brother in the simple sense a brother older than myself; but I have an older brother is possible in the sense a brother older than the one you know of.)
  • I changed "elder" to "older" because Ceoil objected to "elder". Help! what do I do? The experts disagree. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't set myself up as an expert, which is why when in doubt I see what Fowler or Gowers has to say. In this case "elder" is what the expert specifies, and all four editions of Fowler (1926, 1965, 1996 and 2015) recognise "elder" as the form used in this context. Moreover, unless you propose to refer to our man's father as Edward the Older, there is the question of consistency. Tim riley talk 08:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to elder. I know you don't set yourself up as an expert but you are. That doesn't stop me sometimes going with what feels right to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leaving two infant sons Eadwig and Edgar, so Eadred became king" – I am old-fashioned enough to believe that "so" is not a conjunction, though I doubt if anyone under the age of fifty will concur. The same goes for at least one later "so".
  • "He suffered from ill health" – there is an editor with a preoccupation about the word "suffering" who goes around changing every "suffered from" to "had", which is sometimes sensible and sometimes silly. What you have written here seems perfectly fine to me, and is what I'd have written myself, but don't be surprised if the editor with that bee in his bonnet crops up at some point.
  • "Northumbrian Viking Kingdom of York … Northumbrian territory of Bamburgh" – lower cased territory but upper cased Kingdom?
  • Changed. It is not a title so capitalisation seems wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dunstan and Æthelwold, who he appointed Abbot of Abingdon" – two points here. "Who" should be "whom", and it might be as well to rejig the wording to make it absolutely plain that only one of them got the job: "Æthelwold, whom he appointed Abbot of Abingdon, and Dunstan", or some such.
  • Background
  • In the 910s Edward and Æthelflæd, his sister and Æthelred's widow, extended Alfred's network" – to make it completely clear that this means (if I assume correctly) two, not three people, I might experiment with using dashes, thus-ish: " Edward and Æthelflæd – his sister and Æthelred's widow – extended Alfred's network. See what you think. It may or may not be an improvement.
  • "titles such as 'king of the English', or grandiosely, 'king of the whole of Britain'" – double quotes wanted (MoS)
  • Changed. It seems odd that Wikipedia seems to be alone in prescribing double quotes. Academic books - at least when I have noticed - use single quotes. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once upon a time it was a not-too-exaggerated generalisation to say that single quotes were the British style and double quotes the American, but my copy of The Economist's style guide (1991) says "the American style is becoming more popular", and in the three decades since then I think it has made further incursions into the Queen's English. Tim riley talk 08:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family and early life
  • "full sister called Eadgifu like her mother, who married Louis, prince of Aquitaine" – the daughter, not the mother, married Louis? Not entirely clear.
  • It was the daughter. Maybe another case for dashes? "full sister - called Eadgifu like her mother - who married Louis, prince of Aquitaine".
  • Reign
  • "The situation was complicated due to the number of rival factions" – A fine one I am to talk about people with bees in their bonnet: this is one of mine. In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in the Queen's English it isn't. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer, or perhaps in this case just "by".
  • Hmm. "due to" sounds right to me but I will change it if you insist. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's your prose and I'm not insisting on anything. I merely tell you what I would write if I were writing it, which I'm not, of course. Tim riley talk 08:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administration
  • "her step-son Æthelstan" – the OED doesn't hyphenate "stepson".

More to come. I'm enjoying this. Tim riley talk 16:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim. A couple of queries and I look forward to your further comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second and final batch from TR
  • Charters
  • There are a few more words and phrases in single quotes that the MoS would have you put in double ones.
  • "However, the style almost disappears ..." – the word "however" has a way of slipping unbidden from the pen onto the page. It has its place but is best kept to a minimum lest it become too frequent and obtrusive. The one here is the third of five in the present text. I think the one in the lead is fine, and probably the one in Administration. I don't think the one here adds anything of value and I'd blitz it. The fourth looks all right to me, but I'd lose the fifth, I think. Just my personal view, natch.
  • Religion
  • "some religious noble women" – noblewomen is one word according to both the OED and Chambers.
  • Eadred's will
  • My first thought was that it seems a little odd to translate the first half of a Latin formula but not the second, and that one might expect either "Imprimis ... Item" or "In the first place ... Likewise". But then I looked at the fifteenth century copy in the illustration next to the text, couldn't read it at that resolution and went to the British Library's website and found a better scan of it there (you have to scroll to page 22), and lo, that text is substantially different from the one in our article. Then I looked at the text reproduced in the Electronic Sawyer site, and in so far (not very) as I can construe it, it seems to be pretty much what the modern English version in our article says. Two questions come to my mind from all this:
  • first, where does our modern English version come from?
  • secondly, why is the 15th century alleged "copy" so very different from either the modern one or the Electronic Sawyer version?
And I can't see an "Item" in either. Yours, Puzzled of Islington.
  • This is complicated but basically the 15C manuscript has three different versions of the will, one in Old English (apart from the first three words in Latin), one in Middle English and one in Latin. The translation is from the Old English so no wonder you are confused looking at the Latin one. I originally used Dorothy Whitelock's version published in 1979 (2nd edition), but Nikki said it is copyright and there is also a translation by Florence Harmer, a respected (and formidable) Anglo-Saxonist, in 1914, and Nikki says that is OK so I changed. There are minor differences. Whitelock does not have "Item" and she translates the Latin at the start. The only significant difference I can see is that Harmer translates the Old English ealdorman as earl, which Whitelock did not and historians would not do now as the term did not come in until the 11th century. Does that clarify the position? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does, pretty much, thank you. But see my comment below about a possible explanatory footnote. Tim riley talk 18:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illness and death
  • "At meal times ..." – one word, not two (OED and Chambers)
  • Assessment
  • "Eadwig and Edgar as cliton ("prince"), but others by Eadwig as cliton or ætheling (Old English for prince)" – if "ætheling (Old English for prince)" then for the sake of consistency perhaps "cliton (medieval Latin for prince)"? I say "medieval Latin" on the assumption that as the word is new to me and isn't in either of my classical Latin dictionaries it must be medieval Latin, but you may know more. If I'm right, then perhaps footnote b could also be expanded to include "medieval".
  • Changed to medieval Latin. The source does not say so but as the word is not recorded before the 10th century it does not seem to much of a stretch. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 12:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim. Are you happy about the will or are you still puzzled? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be an exaggeration to say that I completely understand the matter, but it's clear you know exactly what you're doing with the text of the will, so I'm happy. I wonder if a footnote (or an addition to the existing footnote h) explaining about the three extant C15th versions might be a prudent precaution lest any other inquisitive layman should ever take it into his head to compare the version in our text with that in our illustration, but I leave that thought with you. That apart, I think I've said all I can think of about the article and I look forward to seeing it at FAC in due course. Pray be sure to ping me then. − Tim riley talk 18:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am no linguist, but looking at the illustration with a magnifying glass, it looks to me like the end of a document in Latin, then half way down column 1 (at the cross in a circle), the start of the Old English version of the will atarting In nomine Domini, then in column 2 at the cross towards the bottom the start of another version, maybe the Middle English one. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed your pointer to the better copy, but looking at it my suggestion stands. It seems to be Old English on 22r, Middle English 22r to v, Latin 22v. Do you agree? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim, looking at the scan you linked to above, the Old English version appears to be from the marker half way down column one on 22r to the marker in col 2, then Middle English to the marker in column 2 on 22v, and then Latin finishing in col 2 on 23r. Do you agree? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm rather tied up today, but will make sure to look thoroughly at this tomorrow. Tim riley talk 17:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's any doubt that the Latin on 23r is the same as the Middle English on 22v, and I have no difficulty in supposing the (to me) incomprehensible text in 22r says the same in Old English but I am really not equipped to offer an opinion on that. (Full marks to the scribe of the Latin text, which is beautifully legible.) Tim riley talk 13:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Eadred/archive1&oldid=1084967057"