Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelstan/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 User:Ian Rose 10:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

Æthelstan

 * Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Æthelstan, the first King of England. He was king from 924 to 939, and was one of the most important Anglo-Saxon monarchs. It has passed GA and A-Class, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from John
What version of English are we in here? I presume British English, but I see Americanisms. Even just on the lead, I can see non-trivial problems with the prose. Fuller review to follow. --John (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:British_Isles_10th_century.svg: what source(s) was used for the location names?
 * The source was Sarah Foot's Æthelstan, except the Welsh kingdom of Deheubarth, which is from Charles-Edwards' Wales and the Britons.
 * File:Painting,_Beverley_Minster_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1317269.jpg: as this is a photo of a 2D work, we need the licensing for the original work rather than the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you advise how to do this. I am not familiar with the rules regarding images.
 * Done. Is this OK now?
 * Thanks for the input. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added a new image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gospel_Dice.jpg. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber
Will jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * They show his concern about widespread robberies, and the threat they posed to social order.  - I think some sort of collective noun would sound better than "robberies" but none come to mind - "theft" sounds wrong.....
 * I cannot think of a better word. "widespread felonies, especially robberies" would be more accurate, but even more clumsy.
 * Agreed - this is not a deal-breaker as no obvious course for improvement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Æthelstan was one of the most religious West Saxon kings - devout? observant? pious? - all I think encapsulate it a little better
 * I am not sure religious is the best word, but I cannot think of a better one to describe his obsession with relics and reputation for founding churches. I do not think the alternatives sound right. Devout and pious have a flavour of unworldliness to me which does not describe Æthelstan, and observant could mean good at observing.
 * Agreed - this is not a deal-breaker as no obvious course for improvement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On reflection I have changed it to "pious". It seems better and Higham and Ryan in Anglo-Saxon World say he was particularly noted for his piety. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 *  No other West Saxon king played as important a role in European politics as Æthelstan, and he arranged the marriages of several sisters to continental rulers - I'd add "of his" before "sisters" ..otherwise it looks for a moment like nuns....
 * Done.
 * Agreed - this is not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 *  By 878 the Vikings had destroyed East Anglia, Northumbria, and Mercia - "destroyed"? would not "laid waste to", "overran" or somesuch be better verb?
 * Changed to had overrun.


 *  Æthelstan was thirty years old when he acceded to the throne in 924 - why not just "came to the throne"?
 * Done.


 * I'd link pyrrhic victory
 * Done.


 *  by Oxford University historian Sarah Foot - I'd introduce Foot's descriptors ("Oxford University historian" ) at first mention of her name and also give the other authorities some indication of who/where/what they are at first mention.
 * Done.


 *  The reign of Æthelstan has been overlooked and overshadowed by the achievements of his grandfather - sounds laboured - don't need both "over-" verbs....
 * Deleted overlooked

Overall, a nice read - it comes across as nicely balanced between the historians and openminded and methodical (a good thing) and winds up nicely with a nice legacy section. Within striking distance of FA-ness methinks.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Am cautiously giving support on comprehensiveness and prose, though I suspect other reviewers will find quibbles here and there...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009
Close to a support, although the text doesn't always read easily - this may be a result of the original sources. Some comments on detail:
 * In the "Church" section, the images are placed on the left hand side at the start of the section, against the MOS guidance; the combination of the two images also creates a left-hand pillar of text on my screen, pushing down well into the next section. Right-justifying would solve the MOS problem, and trimming back (or placing elsewhere in the article) one of the two images the other.
 * I have moved the images as suggested.


 * "In Sarah Foot's view, "Any man whose parents managed to provide him with eight or even nine sisters deserves our sympathy." - while a droll quote, I'm not convinced it fits well in an encyclopedic article.
 * Quote deleted.


 * In the bibliography:
 * "Æthelstan: the first king of England" - the MOS would have this capitalised as "Æthelstan: The First King of England"
 * Done.


 * "Nelson, Janet (1999). Rulers and Ruling Families in Early Medieval Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate. ISBN 0-86078-802-4." includes the location, unlike the rest of the biliography
 * Location deleted.


 * There a couple of works with strange italics appearing - "Keynes, Simon (2008). "Edgar rex admirabilis''" is an example (I think there are some missing single speechmarks which are throwing out the template)
 * There are italics in two chapter titles, and both are in the source. Keynes italicised rex admirabilis, and Zacher Battle of Brunanburh because she was referring to the poem about the battle. I saw that double quotes appeared twice at the end of the chapter titles with italics. Putting italics quotes only at the beginning and omitting them at the end removed this problem.

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * NB: Meant to say, the sourcing all looks high quality and appropriate for a Featured Article on this topic. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN10, Davies title, Maclean title, Nelson 1999 title: should be endash not hyphen
 * Done.


 * Be consistent in how book subtitles are capitalized
 * Checked through and found one error where C. should have been c.


 * FN33: missing italics
 * FN33 is chapter title so not italicised.
 * Ordo is italicized in full ref, but not in short cite - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated - compare for example "pp. 254–55" and "pp. 257–258"
 * Done.


 * FN42, 132: page formatting
 * Done (but could not see anything wrong with 132)
 * endash vs hyphen, as with first point. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Zacher, Keynes 2008: italics.
 * This was raised before. In both cases italics are in the source. Keynes italicised rex admirabilis, and Zacher Battle of Brunanburh because she was referring to the poem about the battle.
 * In both cases that's not the problem - the issue is that the editor and publisher are italicized but the title of the full work is not; that's the reverse of what it should be. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected. (Not sure what is going on there. When I looked at it before it went wrong if I put end italics quotes in - now it goes wrong if I leave them out.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I think I have dealt with all your points now. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 Cautious support: I reviewed this article for GA when it was very good, but quite rough and ready in places. It is greatly improved now, and I think the structure is better than it was. I have no real quibbles (except I wonder if we really need to list the institutions at which the various historians work. But that is not a huge issue for me, it just feels unnecessary), and I think this meets the criteria. It is certainly comprehensive and the sourcing and content are impeccable. My only reservation (and hence the "cautious") is with the prose. To be honest, I can't see any problems as such and I think it meets the usual high level of history FAs, but I notice a couple of people have raised queries about it. I have a bit of a blind spot with history articles, as I'm fairly familiar with the style used in history works, so I may have missed something. Others may have concerns where I wouldn't. With that in mind, I'd be happier if someone took another look purely from a prose perspective. After all that rambling, well done for a really top-notch article on an important (and neglected) figure. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. The mention of the institutions of historians is at the suggestion of Cas Liber above. Editors seem to have different opinions on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes -- we seem to be at the tail-end of this review, so with that in mind:
 * Hchc2009, did you have anything to add to your review?
 * No, happy from my side. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Taking a cure from Sarastro1, I scanned some prose and nothing leapt out, except I tend to agree that "historian" or "Professor" is probably enough to establish the credentials of the named sources, minus the relevant institutions.
 * Given the extra eyes, I struck the "cautious". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe this is Dudley's first FAC (correct me if I'm wrong) so I'd want to know there's been a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- Sarastro, I notice you spotchecked at GAN, are you confident that was also satisfactory for an article at FAC?
 * Yes, the spot-check would be in-depth enough for FAC, and there were no problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the institutions of historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, tks all. Just one last thing, Dudley, per other royalty articles I've promoted at FAC, I'd usually expect to see the ancestor table cited, unless everyone's relationship to the subject is mentioned/cited in the prose, and I'm not sure that's the case here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Citation added. I have also moved the table to the end and changed the default to collapsed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks, looks good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.