Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelberht, King of Wessex/archive1


 * 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2019.

Æthelberht, King of Wessex

 * Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Four brothers were successively king of Wessex in the ninth century, the youngest and last of whom was Alfred the Great. I have taken the oldest, Æthelbald, through FAC and I now nominate the second one, Æthelberht. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber
Taking a look now...


 * The lead looks odd having a one-sentence second para....so I moved the split between the paras to here - so a pre and post coronation para I guess. revert if you don't like...
 * Fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 *  In 825 Ecgberht decisively defeated the Mercians at the Battle of Ellendun, ending Mercian supremacy.  - if you could get away with only one "Mercian(s)" that'd be good...
 * Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * can we link "attested"?
 * I cannot find a suitable article but I have added "(witnessed)" after the first mention. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there absolutely no speculation or discussion of what he might have died of anywhere? Even just something saying it is unknown...?
 * Added unknown causes.

Otherwise, reads well and on track for FA-hood....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review . Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ok support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Source review
Support on sources. Catrìona (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources: All sources appear reliable. Most are authored by notable historians and/or published by university presses.
 * No additional sources found by searching Google Books or Google Scholar
 * No source checks performed because nominator has made previous successful FAC submissions.

Support Comments by Usernameunique
Background
 * but he was believed to be a paternal descendant of Cerdic — Who believed him to be so? In the article on Cerdic, it states—probably more realistically—that "Descent from Cerdic became a necessary criterion for later kings of Wessex, and Egbert of Wessex, progenitor of the English royal house and subsequent rulers of England and Britain, claimed him as an ancestor."
 * I think it is clear that it is by his contemporaries but I can specify if you think this is necessary. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What about "but he claimed paternal descent from Cerdic"?
 * I think this would be misleading. Most historians think that he was of West Saxon royal stock and it was a general belief in the period that the West Saxon royal family were descended from Cerdic. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * sub-king of Kent — Different than sub-king of the south-east?
 * No it is the same. I have changed the sentence to "In the same year Ecgberht sent his son Æthelwulf to conquer the Mercian sub-kingdom of Kent (the area of the modern county plus Essex, Surrey and Sussex) and appointed him sub-king." Dudley Miles (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Early life
 * Æthelwulf returned to England with a new wife, Judith — Any word on what happened to Osburh?
 * I have added her death in the family section.


 * Æthelbald, with the support of Eahlstan, Bishop of Sherborne, and Eanwulf, Ealdorman of Somerset, refused to give up his kingship of Wessex — So the son turned on the father? Any word on why?
 * This is complicated. Asser attributes it to Æthelbald's greed. Most historians think that he was afraid of being displaced by a son of Judith, but there is no evidence for this and I do not think it is sufficiently relevant to Æthelberht to go into details. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Æthelwulf compromised to avoid a civil war, but historians disagree how the kingdom was divided — What does the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (or other sources) say?
 * Clarified it was Asser. The Chronicle does not mention the dispute or the division of the kingdom. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Any reason charter S 331 isn't mentioned in the text, despite appearing as an image?
 * There is a good image of the charter available but it is not a source for any of the points in this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Reign
 * These attacks were minor, however, compared with events after Æthelberht's death. — This leaves the reader hanging. What happened afterwards?
 * Added Vikings nearly conquered England. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Coinage
 * Coins were minted in one unidentified town in Wessex itself — How is it known that they were minted in one town?
 * This is an assumption of numismatists, but I have changed it to "an unidentified town". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * no coins of Æthelberht are known. Kent had mints at Canterbury and Rochester and they produced coins in the name of Æthelwulf until 858 and Æthelberht thereafter. — Does this mean that no Wessex coins of Æthelberht are known, but that Canterbury and Rochester coins of him are? If instead it means that no coins of Æthelberht are known at all, how does this explain the fact that it is known that Canterbury and Rochester coins of him are known to have been made?
 * Changed to "no Wessex coins of Æthelberht are known". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Any relevant photographs?
 * Photographs of coins are difficult due to Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright. You can copy a photo of a medieval document or illustration but not one of a coin. As coins are three-dimensional, it is held that they require skill to photograph and so copyright resides with the photographer. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wondering if there are any that are appropriately licensed. A quick search found this one, and other museums might have more.
 * can you advise on this please. The museum states that the image can be reused without permission. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the licence given is compatible with Commons. But also remember to add a PD tag for the artwork itself. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now uploaded the photo and added it to the article. My thanks to and . Dudley Miles (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. How about compiling both sides of the coin into one image? FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I do not know how to merge images. Is there a tool you can recommend? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good, . There's another coin (but in worse shape) here, and also the one that you uploaded to Commons in 2015. You might consider adding all to the Commons category Æthelberht of Wessex, and linking to it from the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . The other coin is of his father Æthelwulf. It is one of several Museums Victoria coin images which are worth downloading and I will try to get round to it. The one I uploaded in 2015 is already in Commons:Category:Æthelberht of Wessex and linked from the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted -- looks like something we can safely leave to post-promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Death and reputation
 * Æthelberht ... was buried at Sherborne Abbey in Dorset beside his brother Æthelbald — Were they moved? The memorial says "near this spot were interred..."
 * I have cited a source that the tombs had disappeared by the sixteenth century, although whether in the Reformation or an earlier fire I am not sure. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not known who his father was and it could have been Æthelberht — Why?
 * I have added a translation of filius regis as king's son. It is not known which king.


 * in peace, love and honour — Is Asser quoting the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle?
 * Asser's account is based on the Chronicle, which I have quoted above. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is attributed as "Asser's view", however. If his view was itself heavily shaped on the Chronicle, it might be worth mentioning here because this section offers a chronology of historians' takes on Æthelberht.
 * This is complicated. So far as I know no historian states that Asser was following the Chronicle in his comments on Æthelberht, but they do state generally that he mainly follows a version of the Chronicle. In my opinion, he copies the Chronicle on Æthelberht, whereas he does not on Æthelbald, but saying so would be POV. I have added "who based his account of events before 887 mainly on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle". 13:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Overall
 * It seems as if there are very few sources on Æthelberht—unsurprisingly—but the article is opaque on where the information about him comes from. Asser, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and some deductions made from charters? Rather than waiting until the penultimate sentence to note that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ... only recorded two events in Æthelberht's reign, I would mention early on what the sources for Æthelberht's life are, and how much they say.
 * I have added a very short section on sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good overall, comments are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your thorough review. . Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , added two discretionary comments for above, as well as my support. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from JM
Looks very good to me. I've nothing to add to the comments above, though do ask that my edits are double-checked! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
I can't think how I've not clocked this FAC before. A few very minor points, which don't affect my support.
 * Background
 * "it would have seemed very unlikely that he would establish" – a bit of a jingle: perhaps something like "he would have seemed unlikely to establish…"?
 * I don't think this means quite the same thing. How about "it must have appeared very unlikely that he would establish"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That will do v. nicely, I think.  Tim riley  talk   18:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "and sub-kings were not allowed to issue their own coinage" – was this a general rule or just the arrangement imposed in this instance? If the latter, perhaps a definite article before "sub-kings" would make it clear.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Early life
 * I'd lose the blue-link to "Rome", which I think is WP:OVERLINKing.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Reign
 * "the preference was" – sheer cheek of me to venture this, and of course dismiss ad lib – but the context struck me as calling for "the presumption was".
 * I think historians regard it as an active preference rather than just a presumption. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "the abbot's continuing loyalty to himself" – I think the reflexive here is momentarily misleading, the "himself" appearing to relate to the abbot rather than the king. I'd make it a plain "him", I think.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "historians disagree concerning" – perhaps just a plain "about"? (Though I admit I didn't find the support I expected in Fowler on this point.)
 * Both "historians disagree concerning whether" and "historians disagree about whether" seem a bit clumsy to me on reflection. How about just "historians disagree whether"?
 * Excellent!  Tim riley  talk   18:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency there, and I am v. happy to add my support. The article appears comprehensive, and is admirably balanced and a good read. It meets all the FA criteria in my view. –  Tim riley  talk   19:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All splendid. I look forward to seeing the article on the front page.  Tim riley  talk   18:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Image review - mostly looks fine, but it would appear the two first images need a US PD tag too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added PD-1923 tags to both but only the first shows as OK for US. Can you advise why? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed it with this edit. Rest looks ok to me. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Do we know when that memorial plaque was made? Shouldn't be a problem since there is freedom of panorama in the UK, but could be good to note on Commons.
 * I cannot find any information on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review . Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Coord note -- A relatively minor point, Dudley, but do the sources allow an alternative to "autumn of 865", to comply with WP:SEASON? I realise there mustn't be a precise date around but if we could consider say "late 865" or even "latter half of 865" it makes it simpler for readers in the southern hemisphere... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The source just says autumn. I do not like the alternatives as less precise and not in the source. How about a note saying that autumn in England is September to November citing ? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh, footnote may be overdoing it -- I think we've traditionally allowed some leeway re. seasonal references in ancient and medieval subjects so if all we have is "autumn" then we may be cutting off our nose to say otherwise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.