Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Graham Colm 07:30, 17 May 2014 [1].


Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelred was ruler of Mercia at the end of the ninth century. He was Alfred the Great's son-in-law, and important both as an ally in the war against the Vikings and because his acceptance of Alfred's lordship was a stage in the creation the English nation. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra quick comment from Singora You say twice in the lead section that he died in 911. Singora (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 26 April 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've pointed out this problem twice before, so I guess I'm not getting through. "Obama succeeded W as president" implies that both Obama and W have held the office, so the usual meaning of "Æthelflæd succeeded him as "Lady of the Mercians"," would be that both Æthelflæd and Æthelred held the office of "Lady of the Mercians". People might humorously interpret this as a snide remark about Æthelred.
Sorry about that. You changed it in the lead, but neither of us noticed - until now - that there is the same problem lower down.
You're right, sorry about that. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is sometimes called "ealdorman", but also "Lord of the Mercians", "subking" and in the Handbook of British Chronology he is given the designation": Again, I'm not getting through. "He is called A, B, C" is missing an "and" (in encyclopedic prose), and when there are a lot of words in "A, B, C", it might force the reader to backtrack before they figure out what's missing. "He is called A, B, C, and here's another fact" is even worse, because the reader will at first take that "and" to be the signal that the last item in the list is coming next, when it's really a new independent clause. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what happened here. Maybe I thought you had changed it when you had pointed out the problem for me to change it.
I will change both and please advise whether you are happy now. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial CommentsSupport

  • "part of Viking-ruled Danelaw." - shouldn't this be "part of the Viking-ruled Danelaw"? (imagine it without the "Viking-ruled" adjective)
Fixed.
  • "In 886 Alfred restored London," - I found the "restored" verb a little odd here (I'd normally imagine restoring a house, or a city centre, but it read oddly applied to a city in a single year)
Restored was Asser's word. I have changed it to "took possession of" and expanded the explanation below.
  • "West Saxons" - can this be linked to anything?
West Saxons redirects to Wessex. I have expanded above to "King Alfred the Great of the West Saxon kingdom of Wessex" for clarity.
  • " At some time in the decade after Alfred's death in 899" - I wasn't sure why the bit about Alfred's death was needed in the lead; could it just be "At some time in the 890s..."?
I have changed it to Comstambeys' wording, "At some time in the decade 899 to 909".
  • "Northumbria" - worth a link for non-British readers?
Done.
  • "an Englishman as puppet king in 867." - hard to tell from this if this was an unidentified Englishman?
I have added his name. (I have also added Stenton's description of him as obscure, but this can be deleted if it is considered POV.)
  • "king of the north Welsh territory of Gwynedd" - would the MOS have this as "King"?
I don't think so. MOS says titles should be capitalised "When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name". That is not the case here.

Hchc2009 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review so far. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Æthelred's witan (council) inherited bishops and at least two ealdormen from Ceolwulf," - "inherited" is usually a passive verb (you don't control what you inherit), and I wasn't sure if the absence of the thegns was because they refused to join or because Aethelred rejected them? Or does it mean "included bishops..."?
It is just the conclusions historians draw on comparing witness lists. They don't know the circumstances, as I have tried to make clear. (I have also added a possible family connection with Alfred's wife which I came across while checking this.)
  • "By 883, Æthelred had accepted Alfred's lordship; Charles-Edwards suggests that in 881–882 he tried to maintain his dominance in south-east Wales, but Alfred offered his protection to Glywysing and Gwent, and in 882–883 Æthelred accepted that West Saxon power made continued independence impossible." - a very long sentence; any chance of breaking it into two?
Done.
  • " showing that English Mercia " - repetition of "showing that"
Fixed.
  • "a network of fortified settlements called burhs in Wessex" - could do with a comma or two - "settlements, called burhs, in Wessex"?
Done.
  • link for Worcester?
Done.
  • "its standing Roman walls in its defences" - the town walls have their own article
Revised.
  • "Alfred recovered London by war from the Vikings" - "by force"?
Done.
  • "In 892 two Viking armies attacked eastern England, " - suggest a comma after 892
Done.
  • "Later in the year an augmented Viking force marched from Essex" - suggest a comma after year
Done.
  • "Alfred had been in the west country defending Devonshire," links for "west country" and "Devonshire"?
Done.
  • " was located a mile west " - should probably have a km equivalent under the MOS.
This does not seem to be compulsory. MOS says "Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "main" unit, in some cases followed by a conversion to other units in parentheses." It also says that in this case I would have to say "one mile (1 to 2 kilometres)", and I would prefer not to - it seems clumsy.
  • "but this was undefended" - "this" seems to refer to Londinium, until you get to the next part of the sentence
Fixed/
  • "The restoration of London was followed by the submission to Alfred of "all the English people" - how about "After the restoration of London, Alfred received the submission of "all of the English...""? Makes the verb more active.
Done.
  • "with the most likely context being the occupation of London in 886" - I wasn't 100% certain what you meant by this (i.e. if they got married in London, or it was the political context...?)
Added political context.
  • " Alfred stood as godfather " - Would "Alfred became godfather" be simpler/more natural?
Done.
  • "Later in the year, an augmented Viking force" - augmented with what...? (or could you just go for "a larger Viking force"?)
Done.
  • "Much Wenlock Abbey" - worth double-checking that there aren't articles for these; I'm pretty sure this could link to Wenlock Priory,for example.
Done. I looked for links but I missed this one. Thanks once again. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Handbook of British Chronology he is given the designation (described by Simon Keynes as "delightfully provocative")" Is it possible to clarify why this was provocative? I had to read it twice to realise it was politically provocative, as opposed to provocative among historians.
  • In terms of sources used, I'm not an Anglo-Saxon specialist, but they look very appropriate for an article on this period. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Recusing from delegate duties as I have a FAC open myself at the moment and am commenting on a few here and there... I reviewed, copyedited and supported this article at MilHist ACR and, having checked over the changes since then, I see no reason not to support here. My only minor quibble is that I find "West Saxon kingdom of Wessex" in the lead to be a bit redundant, but perhaps that's my Anglo heritage/bias talking... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. West Saxon kingdom was inserted because Hchc2009 thought West Saxon should be linked to something, but it redirects to Wessex and I could not think of any other target. On second thoughts, I think it would be better just to link West Saxon, but is there a rule against a link which redirects to a target already linked? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While duplicate links are generally to be avoided, they can be justified because of redirects or differing pipes, e.g. it's not uncommon to see in military bio leads an honour linked once as the post-nom and then again spelt out, e.g. AFC (post-nom) and Air Force Cross (mentioning when and why the subject was awarded it). Here, I'm so used to West Saxon being understood as Wessex that it seems overkill (I think the fact that West Saxon redirects to Wessex is a good indication I'm not alone!) plus you have the two "of"s in quick succession, which is a bit clunky, especially in the lead. As I say, it's just a quibble but I felt it read better the way it was at ACR time, i.e. minus the "West Saxon kingdom of". If you're going to link West Saxon per Hchc's suggestion, why not just do it when it appears in the second paragraph, and lose the "West Saxon kingdom of" (where you don't currently link it anyway!)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • FN13: which Charles-Edwards?
  • Be consistent in how you notate short cites with multiple authors/editors
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Publisher for Keynes 1998?
  • Wiley Blackwell or Wiley-Blackwell?
  • Be consistent in how editors of larger works are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Fixed apart from Wiley Blackwell or Wiley-Blackwell? They are not consistent how they show their name, and I am inclined to follow how it is shown in each case, but I can settle for one if you prefer. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I was the GA reviewer of this article (when I did some light copy-editing), and it looked very good then. It has only improved since then, and I think it comfortably meets the FA criteria. Great work. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hchc. Looking at your comment that it is unclear what is meant by the "delightfully provocative" designation King Æthelred II, I realised that the section on his status is badly arranged, so I have revised it to hopefully make it clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment: I notice mention of at least two Sawyer references, as "S221" and "S349": the usual practice is to include a space in these references, as "S 221" here and "S 349" here. Those links are to a wonderful resource, which might be included in the references by using Template:Cite web. That's just a suggestion, as I see the references are all of a type at the moment, and a web citation would throw that out; but would that be such a bad thing? I would like to see spaces in those Sawyer references, although it's a tiny detail in an otherwise great effort. Nortonius (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I have added the spaces and the citations. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of service – and my OCD is now in remission! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
S 221 would make a much better illustration than S 349, and there is a copy in Bond, E. A., and et al., Facsimiles of Ancient Charters in the British Museum, 4 vols (London, 1873–1878). I tried to copy it at the British Library. I was told I could not photograph but I could photocopy. I took it to the copy room, but I was then told that it was too large for the copier but I could get a scan for £29. At that point I gave up, but if anyone can get a copy (without paying an extortionate fee) it would be helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree – WorldCat reports copies in other UK libraries, including the National Art Library and The National Archives, née Public Record Office:[2] both are open to the public, although I'm unsure of the procedure for public access to The National Archives – I used to be able to swan in with a staff pass, many moons ago. If I were still there I'd oblige you myself; but in my time they were mostly a very friendly and obliging bunch, so who knows... HTH. Nortonius (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to visit an exhibition at the Natural History Museum, so I could call in on the National Art Library. Maybe an art library has larger photocopiers! Thank. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I only commented on a tiny aspect of the article, but I've not commented on a FAC before so I don't know the ropes – I'm quite happy from what I've seen to change my "Comment" to "Support" if otherwise promotion might be delayed...? I've seen nothing to make me disagree with the very positive comments from others. Nortonius (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

  • Background

**"Ceolwulf became king" – his first mention in the main text. Perhaps a blue link here?

I have not linked other words in the main text which were first linked in the lead, and I think it is better to be consistent.
Of course! I'm so used to putting one link in the lead and one in the text that I failed to spot that. Apols! Tim riley talk 17:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

**"but historian Ann Williams" – the omission of the definite article before "historian" (technically known as a "preposed appositive" or false title) is, as Fowler confirms, common in AmEng, but it is journalese in BrEng: style guides such as The Guardian's warn against it. Better avoided in such an English article, I'd say. Similarly later, at "and historian Maggie Bailey", "Historians Cyril Hart and "Maggie Bailey", "Historian Martin Ryan", "In historian Michael Livingston's" and "Historian Pauline Stafford". Indeed, as you successfully name other authorities, e.g. Insley, without prefixing their names with a job-title you might drop some of them here too.

Changes from 'historian' to 'the historian' done. I have also deleted some designations as historians where it it is stated that historians' views are being discussed.
  • Early rule

**Double quotes rather than single wanted in the block quote.

Done.

**"but Simon Keynes thinks that the marriage" – you've given Keynes his first name at the earlier mention; just surname would be preferable thereafter.

Done.

This is an impressive article and I look forward to adding my support for its elevation to FA. – Tim riley talk 11:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very glad to join the chorus of support for this fine and absorbing article. To my layman's eye it seems comprehensive, the prose is a pleasure to read, the balance is sound, the sourcing wide and well-cited. A first rate article. Tim riley talk 17:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2014 (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/Æthelred,_Lord_of_the_Mercians/archive1&oldid=1138476117"