Talk:Siward, Earl of Northumbria/GA1

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

Initial review points
This piece is well written, with a strong emphasis on scholarship. The article in close to its current form was introduced on 13 March 2009. As a non-specialist in this field, I am taking it in good faith that this is not a copyvio of another author's material. The fact that several reputable editors have visited the page &mdash; User:Michael Devore, User:Ealdgyth, and User:Malleus Fatuorum &mdash; not to mention the good record of the creator and nominator, all suggest this is likely to be fine. The article is stable, neutral and in excellent shape regarding references. Image licencing appears on the face of it to be OK. Specific remarks: I'll keep popping in to see how things are going. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is an "ealdorman"? Given the unfamiliarity of the term, and that in the previous para there is reference to power being in the hands of "strongmen" and "earls", the picture of the power structure into which Siward fits becomes a little confused, particularly to a lay reader.
 * I had to read paras 2 and 3 of the "Ancestry" section a couple of times to make sense of them, and i accept that what is being discussed is in itself a confusing topic. The phrase "Olrik suggested that the Sprakling story and genealogy was borrowed from Siward's at a later date," is difficult. A compromise might be: "Olrik suggested that Saxo may have borrowed from Siward's story and genealogy when he wrote his account of Sprakling,..." However I favour a more direct approach, dropping the explicit references to the two historians within the sentence, making the structure simpler for the reader: "Saxo may have borrowed from Siward's story and genealogy when he wrote his account of Sprakling;(footnote Orlink) alternatively, the earlier Worcester Chronicle may have been the source for both."(footnote Christiansen) I think this solution is much to be preferred in an enclopedia for lay people, rather than a historiographic reference work for those in the field.
 * "The account goes on..." We are sufficiently far removed from which account we are talking about (Vita et passio Waldevi comitis? Olrik? Christiansen? Worcester Chronicles?), That it should be re-stated immediately, not later in the para: "The Vita et passio Waldevi comitis goes on to relate..." Then "It states that Siward killed a dragon..."
 * The next section begins with the words "This material is largely ignored by more recent historians..." A new section or para should not begin with "This", but state explicitly the subject.
 * Later in the section: "tradition firmly believed" - a tradition cannot believe.
 * Next section: "...he "conveniently" died just as Harthacnut was preparing an invasion." I didn't get this, I'm afraid. What is being implied? And have any of the secondary sources made this implication? Sorry to be obtuse...
 * There are inconsistent treatments of tense when referring to the analyses of historians. In the previous section "Richard Fletcher remained agnostic" in 2003, while later, "Frank Barlow speculates" in 1970. Can an editor go through and standardise this? I probably prefer the idea that the present tense be used for contemporary historical analysis, while the past tense be confined to primary source accounts. However I recognise, as editors such as Awadewit and YellowMoney will know, this is going to invite debate as to where exactly that line gets drawn. Is a nineteenth century work that is still considered sound therefore to be treated as contemporary? Are Anglo-Saxon chroniclers in some cases to be treated as secondary sources, where they were historians recording what were already historical events rather than creating contemporaneous records? And so on and so on. Anyway - some consistency would be good :-)
 * "There may be a connection between these events and those further south. For the same year..." I think better would be "There may be a connection between Siward's marriage and attack on Eadulf and events in Worcester to the south. In [year], the same year as [which event], the Worcester chronicle..."
 * have to go. more later. Excellent scholarship! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "The battle's earliest contemporary notice is from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, recension D:" As a layperson I have no idea what a recension is. Is it the same thing as "version" D, as discussed in the Wikipedia article Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? If so, use "version", not "recension". And also, if it is version D, why is it previously referred to in this article as the Worcester Chronicle (which appears to be another synonym)? I think this would benefit from appropriate standardisation. Incidentally, the phrase "contemporary notice" does not seem right - wouldn't "contemporary account" be more natural?
 * The references to John of Worcester, Annals of Tigernach the Annals of Ulster would all benefit from some approimate dates - in what century at least were they created?
 * I think in this context the phrase "...thought here to be using the now lost "northern" recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,..." is distracting to the reader and may be omitted.
 * To assist the reader in focussing on what is important about the remaining scholarly discussion in this para, the following sentence should be the first of a para, and possibly even (in some form) a sub-heading: "The identity of Máel Coluim and the reasons for Siward's help are controversial." It was only gradually that I understood that the primary purpose of the section appeared to be to address the questions: why did Siward fight this battle and what were the consequences? Being clear that this is the main discussion would help the reader follow the material.
 * There is a long para that begins "This interpretation derives from the Chronicle..." The reader gets lost here as to what all this has to do with the article's subject. This needs somehow to be simplified (not the same thing necessarily as shortened!), and occasionally tied back to the article's subject. Also, once again a para should not begin "This..."
 * "attributed to John of Fordun" is too cryptic for a lay person. Something like "attributed to the fourteenth century chronicler of Scotland, John of Fordun,..." is more appropriate. It then contains important cues about the date of the record, the fact that it is a secondary source, etc.
 * Next para: choose what you are going to call the battle in the article, and then change "Duncan believed that the battle..." to "Duncan believed that the Battle of the Seven Sleepers..." or whichever you prefer.
 * "Henry of Huntingdon, in his Historia Anglorum..." Again, could I have a century here?
 * "a claim confirmed by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Worcester Chronicle,..." Now I really am confused. Is not the WC a version of the ASC (See WP article of Feature Article status)?
 * "an account of Waltheof's agnatic origin..." His what? Even one of our many dictionaries (of over 1000 pages) didn't have this one. Still, I could always count on the Shorter Oxford :-)
 * Stenton's book appears missing from the ref list?
 * The para about the value of Siward's estate I think is trying to say "even though his estate doesn't look that valuable, you have to take account of the fact that a bunch of aras where he owned stuff got left out of hte accounting." If that is the point, then it should in fact be explicitly stated in a concluding sentence to the para. Something like "Thus, it is feasible that Siward's estate was substantial, and comparable to those of..."
 * This sentence needs a citation: "One son is known to have survived Siward, Waltheof, by Ælfflæd, later an earl in the East Midlands before becoming Earl of Northumbria."

Hey, thorough review (and these are only the "initial points"?). I've tried to address as many points as I could by editing the article. Tell me what you think. I'll address a few others:

Regarding tense. Well, ironically, I prefer past tense for modern historians and present for historical sources. This is partly because modern historians change their minds, while pieces of medieval text don't change, but it's mainly because previous reviewers in the past have complained about present tense for past academic perceptions. I try to keep it consistent, but you know, different parts are written and different times, and you forget. :) I don't really care too much, so reviewers can change the tenses to anything they like.

contemporary notice this phrase is frequently used in modern historiography. :)

The references to John of Worcester, Annals of Tigernach the Annals of Ulster would all benefit from some approimate dates - in what century at least were they created?
 * This is discussed in the introduction. The Irish annals are usually thought to be contemporary with events.

thought here to be using the now lost "northern" recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
 * Changed this to merely "earlier source"

Re "Worcester Chronicle". The term is also used to the Chronicle previously attributed to Florence of Worcester, now attributed to John of Worcester. Confusing, I know. I've changed all references to John of Worcester.

Thanks for your patience. Let me know of anything else. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fabulous revisions; all good. As you probably surmised, those "initial points" ended up being all the points. I'm ticking this off now. I will probably have a skulk around the history GA candidates in coming days, in which case we may meet again... hamiltonstone (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks. Strong review btw ... good job! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)