Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians edit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Æthelred was important as the ruler of Mercia and an ally of Alfred the Great in the war against the Vikings at the end of the ninth century. His acceptance of Aflred's lordship was a stage in the unification of England into a single kingdom. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

"Æthelred died in 911 and Æthelflæd succeeded him as "Lady of the Mercians",": I pointed out the problem here in your previous article, I think. "succeeded as" can have two meanings; one will make some readers giggle, and not in a good way.
"He is sometimes called "ealdorman", but also "Lord of the Mercians", "subking" and in the Handbook of British Chronology he is given the designation": Please see WP:Checklist#series, and watch for nonparallelism. This expands to: "... he is sometimes called "Lord of the Mercians", he is sometimes called "Lord of the Mercians", and he is sometimes called in the Handbook of British Chronology he is given the designation ...". Often, the fix is to fill in the missing "and". Put an "and" before "subking" here, and a comma after.
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - just a couple of minor points:

Check your links - a number of terms are linked on later instances (for example, thegn and Edward the Elder) and mancus is linked twice
Both images are suitable licensed. Would it be worth adding File:Æthelflæd as depicted in the cartulary of Abingdon Abbey.png to the article?

Good work on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the links and added the image. Thanks for your support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ Support -- Copyedited so pls let me know if I misunderstood anything; assuming not, happy with prose and readability for the non-expert such as myself, likewise structure and referencing, so the only reason support is 'provisional' is that I'd prefer someone more familiar with medieval history such as Hchc2009 or Ealdgyth to review for comprehensiveness before I sign off on it unequivocally. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your copy edits look fine. Thanks very much for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little earlier than my usual period, but I'll take a quick look. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I'm no an expert in this period, I think the referencing looks good. The current generation of Anglo-Saxon specialists are represented, and there's enough of the recent discussions of "kingship, power and culture" cited to make me feel reasonably good about it. A minor nit pick would be the Stenton 1971 volume is a reprint of the 1948 (?) original, and so a bit more dated than the 1971 date would imply - it might be worth adding the original date into the template as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stenton 1971 is the 3rd edition, and I have added that into the template. That is how it is usually cited. Some bibliographies add '1st ed 1943', and I can add this also if you think it would be advisable. Thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian: are you happy with that? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that'll do me -- tks HJ (and Hc!). Nice work Dudley, great to see early Middle Ages getting attention, to augment the later periods already covered in some depth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.