Talk:Æthelstan/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is looking good at first glance. As it is quite long, it may take a little while to get through it all. Rather than list everything, I will do minor copyedits myself, but feel free to revert anything that I mess up, or that you are not happy with. Also, I assume this article is headed towards FA. I'll keep that in mind, so if I post anything which does not relate to the GA criteria which you are not happy with, please let me know. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead
 * ”was King of the Anglo-Saxons from 924 to 927 and King of the English from 927 to 939”: I wonder will the average reader appreciate the difference between the two titles, and may be further confused when the Anglo Saxon title links to a list of Kings of Wessex.
 * I have added a note clarifying.


 * ”When Edward died in 924, Æthelstan was accepted by the Mercians as king. His half-brother Ælfweard may have been accepted as king in Wessex, but he died within weeks of their father.”: Is there a way to avoid using “accepted” twice in close succession?
 * Done.


 * ”Even after this, Æthelstan encountered resistance in Wessex”: “Even after this” seems a strange phrase here as there is nothing particularly surprising here based on the previous sentence.
 * Revised.


 * ”and even Welsh princes”: A hint of POV here? Not sure we need “even”.
 * Revised to clarify that 'foreign' rulers acknowledged his overlordship by attending


 * ”Æthelstan was very religious, and had a reputation for collecting relics and founding churches”: To be fair, was this not the case for the majority of kings around this time, at least in a conventional sense?
 * Revised to make clear that he was one of the most religious kings.


 * ”and he married several sisters to continental rulers”: Sounds like he did so personally.
 * Revised.

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Initial revisions to lead. Please advise if you are not happy with any of them. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All looks good. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources
 * "Charters, law codes, and coins throw considerable light on Æthelstan's government,[11] and a scribe known as 'Æthelstan A', who was responsible for drafting all charters between 928 and 935, provides very detailed information, including signatories, dates, and locations, illuminating Æthelstan's progress around his realm.": Quite a long sentence. Could it be split?
 * Done


 * "By contrast with this rich source of information, no charters survive from 910 to 924": Rich is a bit POV. Could we just have "by contrast"?
 * I have changed rich to extensive.

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Early life:
 * There is a lot of passive voice in this section. While I'm not against passive voice as such, I think its use here is making the text needlessly ambiguous, and I'd prefer if we could say who is saying/thinking/interpreting things.


 * "Some historians believe that leading figures in Wessex were unwilling to accept Æthelstan as king in 924 partly because his mother had been Edward the Elder's concubine,[16] while others argue that allegations that Æthelstan was illegitimate were a product of the dispute over the succession, and that there is no reason to doubt that she was Edward's legitimate wife": This is quite a long sentence, and "while others" might feasibly be referring to figures in Wessex. Possibly reword a little? And there is a little too much going on so that some of the meaning is lost.
 * Revised.


 * I'm not too keen on the first paragraph of this section. We have too much "some ... while others..." Unless it is lots of people, can we name names rather than have "some historians/chroniclers"? Also, we mention what the historians think of the chroniclers views before we mention what the chroniclers said. This seems the wrong way round.
 * Revised. Is this OK now?
 * I think it would be better if I check some of the references cited by Foot before I deal with the remaining comments in this section. Hopefully, I will be able to get them from the London Library on Saturday. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Some historians have seen this as recalling Alfred's confirmation by the Pope in Rome as a young boy, and thus as an investiture of his grandson as 'throneworthy' and a potential heir.": Who sees this? The sentence is cited to Foot, so is this is view? Also, "seen this as recalling" is a little clunkily worded. Why do we have single quotation marks around throneworthy? And I wonder is an anecdote about Alfred really relevant to this article?
 * Deleted Alfred and Pope.


 * "An acrostic poem praising 'Adalstan' has been interpreted as a eulogy to Æthelstan..." Again, interpreted by who?
 * Revised.


 * "This verse has generally been dated to the late 890s and attributed to one Alfred's leading scholars...": Again, by who?
 * Revised.


 * The verse seems slightly out of place as well. I assume it is placed here to show that it may date from his early life, but the way it is presented, as something probably praising his rule, does not make this obvious, particularly as Foot argues against the idea. I wonder if this is the right place for it in the article?
 * I have tried to make clearer why this is relevant. Foot argues that it is odd for the poem to praise the wisdom of a young boy, so it probably dates to when he was king. I might reply that if he was king it would be odd to address him as prince - but that would be editorialising.

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The struggle for power:
 * "When Edward died, Æthelstan was apparently with him in Mercia, while Ælfweard was in Wessex, and Mercia elected Æthelstan as king, while Wessex may have chosen Ælfweard.": Far too much going on here. We have two whiles in a very long sentence, and a succession of clauses which make it hard to follow what is happening.
 * Revised.


 * "his coup in 918 against Ælfwynn in Mercia": We have not called it a coup before, which makes it tricky to work out which events are being referred to.
 * Revised.


 * "In early 925 Æthelstan behaved as a Mercian king, describing himself as Rex Anglorum in a charter relating to land in Derbyshire, witnessed only by Mercian bishops. He does not appear to have established his authority in Wessex until mid-925, and he was not crowned until the autumn": Was he crowned separately in Mercia and Wessex? From what follows in the article, it would appear to be one coronation, but this could be made more explicit.
 * Revised. Is this clear now?


 * "He may have had to agree to become a 'caretaker' king": Why the single quotation marks? If they are required, should they not be doubled? But I wonder if a more technical term could be used here than "caretaker". I'm also a little concerned that this claim, which strikes me as slightly contentious, is merely referenced by a TV programme. Surely some printed sources must have suggested this, or refuted it, or supported it. If it comes as an out-of-the-blue claim by a one-off TV programme, I'm not sure how much faith we should put in it. If it is supported by other sources, we should say so, but from note a, it looks like the primary biography does not support this.
 * Revised. I have luckily come across a printed source which makes the same point as Janet Nelson in the TV programme.


 * "according to its annalist, Folcuin, king (sic) Eadwine": Should this not be part of the quotation if we are using sic, and using a different spelling to the rest of the article?
 * Revised to clarify that Folcuin thought Edwin was king without using 'sic'.


 * There are a few theories in this section, where we use "may have" or "probably". I think we need to attribute the theory to the historian(s) concerned, unless it is a widely held position.
 * Are there any other places where this is a problem? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your help. I have a few things to sort out after my holiday, but I will get down to going through your comments shortly. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

King of the English
 * "According to the bland description of a southern chronicler": Bland suggests a viewpoint, which is best avoided.
 * Deleted.


 * "According to William of Malmesbury, after Eamont Æthelstan summoned the Welsh kings": I wonder if "after the events at Eamont, Athelstan..." makes this a little more precise and clear?
 * done.


 * "described by T.M. Charles-Edwards": I think we need to say who this is.
 * I have linked him. Is this sufficient?
 * It's not a problem here, but there are many FAC reviewers who like a phrase to describe the person as well as a link. (i.e. "the historian T. M. Charles-Edwards"). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * "According to William of Malmesbury, after Eamont Æthelstan": This is almost exactly the same wording used earlier. Could a little variety be added? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.

The invasion of Scotland
 * "Another possible explanation is given by the Annals of Clonmacnoise, which records the death in 934 of a ruler who may have been Ealdred of Bamburh, and this may have led to a dispute between Æthelstan and Constantine over control of his territory.": I know why this is written with such caution and uncertainty, but I think we may need a little rewrite to make it clearer to the general reader. What about "Another potential explanation, suggested in the Annals of Clonmacnoise, is the possible death in 934 of Ealdred of Bamburh, which may have led to a dispute between Æthelstan and Constantine over control of his territory." This may be too concrete or certain, but the details could be given in a note that the source is vague and that historians are reaching slightly.
 * Suggested in the Annals does not sound right to me. I have split into two sentences to make it more readable.

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The Battle of Brunanburh
 * "can hardly have expected an invasion by a grand alliance so late in the year.": Not too sure about grand here. POV?
 * Revised


 * "The allies plundered the north west": Should north west be hyphenated?
 * Done.


 * "and unlike Harold in 1066, he did not allow himself to be provoked into precipitate action.": This reads slightly like editorialising. Also, I'm not sure of how useful the comparison to 1066 is in this article.
 * I think this is an interesting point, but I should have attributed it.
 * Actually, the way it's written now, I agree. Quite a nice point. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Surprisingly, in view of the part they played in the invasion of Scotland in 934, they did not fight on either side": Surprisingly is more editorialising.
 * Deleted - reluctantly. I think it is a valid point, but difficult to make without editorialising.


 * "it was popularly remembered as 'the great battle'": I think this should be double quotation marks.
 * Done.


 * "with Bromborough on the Wirral the most favoured by historians": I think this should be "among historians"?
 * Done.


 * "his imperium appears to have receded": Not too clear of the meaning here.
 * Revised.


 * In passing (no action required), the historians seem to be a little carried away by this battle. Aren't they reaching slightly? (Although obviously we need to reflect their views here) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Some historians would agree with you as I make clear. It is one of the many questions which can be argued on both sides as we have no idea how the invaders would have followed up a victory. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Section break
Administration:
 * "with great ability from 932": Reads like POV, so I think some sort of attribution is needed in the text if we are to keep this.
 * Deleted - not worth attributing.


 * There may be a little confusion when we introduce the half-king. Not too sure how we can avoid this. Maybe introduce him as Athelstan Half-King on the first mention, and call him the "Half-King" afterwards? Not sure. But to the general reader, this may get confusing.
 * Is my revision OK?
 * I think that should be OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder should the description of "Athelstan A" be moved to the "sources" section, where the name is given without elaboration. And should we used quotation marks for his name so that no-one thinks he had the surname "A"? (Stranger things have happened!) But no problem if you prefer to leave it here.
 * I have moved the sentence about his identity to sources and put his name in single quotes - which seems to me more correct and is how Foot and Keynes refer to him.
 * This is fine with me, but it is worth pointing out that the MoS favours double quotes. But that is certainly not going to stop this passing!
 * I have changed it to double quotes. It is not worth arguing with MoS, even though it is wrong!

Sarastro1 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Law:
 * The first paragraph here seems a little out on a limb. I think it should be there, but could we integrate it a little more into the rest of the section? Even if we just make explicit that Athelstan's laws built on Alfred's.
 * I think on reflection this paragraph really belongs in the background section. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That might work quite nicely, actually. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 'The Anglo-Saxons were the first people in northern Europe to write in the vernacular.' This is not accurate. I am changing it to "one of the first peoples."


 * It is well known that Old Irish was written in the vernacular from at least the mid-400s onwards, possibly earlier. Old Irish was written first in Ogham, vernacular inscriptions on stone, in the third to fifth century, then in Roman letters after the time of Saint Patrick; Columba/Colum Cille wrote in Irish in the 500s; Dallán Forgaill has a poem written shortly after Columba's death. In contrast, the earliest known writing in Anglo-Saxon is Caedmon in the late 600s. (Enjoyed the article, by the way!) Evangeline (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping to finish by the end of the week now. Generally, this is looking good, and the Kingship section so far is excellent. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Coinage:
 * "Later Anglo-Saxon England had the most advanced currency in Europe": For the general reader, can we explain in what way it was advanced?
 * Done.


 * "similar to the crown he is wearing in the illustration provided here": It is generally frowned on, I think, at FAC to have such text in the main body. Perhaps this comparison could be moved to the caption?
 * Done.


 * "One of the king's mass-priests": I've never heard of "mass-priests" before (though the term has possibly passed me by!). Does this mean personal priest, or something similar?
 * Clarified. This is described as archaic in the nineteenth century OED!


 * " He commissioned it especially to present to Chester-le Street, and it is the only surviving manuscript he gave to a religious foundation that was wholly written in England during his reign": There is something a bit off with this sentence. Was it the only manuscript written in England that he gave, or the only surviving manuscript? A bit unclear.
 * I cannot find a way of explaining this which is not clumsy. Is my revision better?
 * Yes, that is clearer. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "This has a portrait of Æthelstan presenting the book to Cuthbert (see the illustration at the top of this article": Again, referring to an image in this way is not ideal. Not least if someone removes the image, or if someone using a mobile device has the image suppressed, or for someone using a screen reader, etc.
 * I think this is helpful to the great majority of readers, and I would prefer to keep it if its removal is not required for GA. Is this OK? PS. Nominators for Featured List status are asked to supply alt text for images so that people who cannot access them can at least see what they are about, and it seems curious that it is not usual for FA.
 * I'm not a huge fan, but its removal is certainly not required for GA. To be honest, if you like it, see if you can get away with it at FA level.
 * Deleted.

Sarastro1 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Learning:
 * "Learning and the church...": It is a little odd to open this section with this phrase, which appears to refer back to the church, the previous section. I think I know what you mean: sort-of religious learning or scholarship. Could this be rephrased?
 * Done.


 * Can we find a link for the monastic reform movement?
 * I cannot find an article on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems odd, but not much we can do here (unless you feel like writing it!)
 * I will see whether I can have a go, although I am more familiar with the early tenth century.

Sarastro1 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

British monarch:
 * "while in the view of Simon Keynes, Æthelstan A proclaimed his master king of Britain "by wishful extension".": To be consistent, Athelstan A required quotation marks throughout this section if you are using them earlier, and I'm not sure why italics are used in this sentence.
 * Revised.

European relations: Revised
 * We are using italics for the names of coins here, where we used quotation marks earlier.

Legacy:
 * "His great misfortune was not to have a biographer like Asser to keep his memory alive": Reads like POV, and should have some attribution.
 * Revised.


 * Is there anything available about how views of him changed in more recent times? For example, what did the Victorian historians make of him?
 * Added more on later views of him.

General:
 * I have access to a few of the sources used, and spot-checks revealed no problems with paraphrasing or attribution.
 * Images are fine, although a few on Commons have a template detail missing. But that does not affect us here.
 * Links and dablinks fine.
 * There are a few other instances of single quotation marks being used in the article, where the MoS recommends double quotation marks; that won't stop me passing, but may be a problem at FAC.

I'm pretty much finished now, so I'll place this article on hold for now. I don't think it needs much more, and should pass easily. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I have dealt with your queries, apart from the double/single quotes, as I am not clear about the rules. The citation method I have used causes problems when I find a source which has the same author and year as an existing one, and I wonder whether it would be better to use the author and shortened title method. Do you have any views on this? Any other problems with the article? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good enough now to me, and I'm happy to pass. I am not even remotely an expert on citation methods, but the shortened title method seems to be the best bet. I think the MoS recommends double quotes except when quoting within a quote, but I'm not going to let that hold up this article. I would suggest getting a few more eyes on this, and perhaps another copy-edit, before FAC, and A-Class seems a good way forward. But this looks like it is well on the way. Passing now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)