Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edmund Ætheling/archive1

Edmund Ætheling

 * Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Very little is known about Edmund Ætheling, who is probably the only son of a king to have died in exile in Hungary. It was a GA when a Japanese editor asked for help getting it to a GA on Japanese Wikipedia. I saw that the article was mainly based on an unreliable source and I advised the Japanese editor not to proceed and got it delisted as a GA. After that I thought I ought to bring the article up to scratch and I think that it now covers everything said about Edmund in RSs. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Serial
I remember the GA delisting. Interesting times! Can you clarify the first sentence of the Background? It says that England experienced (suffered?) Viking attacks from 793 (for example), but they stopped for 25 years from 950. That's a very long stretch of time. Suggest linking calendar of saints' feast days as pretty specialist to all but practising Catholics. The good thing about using la is not so much cosmetic byt that screen readers use it to identify a foreign title, so it is in accordance with MOS:ACCESS. Interesting article, nice and tight, Dudley Miles, and thanks for it. Will you be translating it to Japanese for Yon Feller? :)   ——Serial Number 54129  16:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I am not clear about your first point. The first recorded Viking raid was in 789 but there is evidence that there were earlier unrecorded ones. I have linked calendar of saints and added the lang template. I am afraid my Japanese is non-existent so I will leave the translation to you! Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Banzai! is about all I've got  :)  happy to support this article's promotion.   ——Serial Number 54129  10:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review—pass
Never thought I'd get to review Ealdgyth's spouse !

Anyway the images are just fine :) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Actually, it is Ealdgyth's son. Does that make it even better or a disappointment? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recuse to review.


 * "(born 1016-17)" Perhaps '(born 1016 or 1017)'? As it is written I have an image of his mother going into labour late on New Year's Eve.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "briefly ruled as King of England". Lower-case k as it is being used here as a job title.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "fought the invasion of the Danish Vikings". "the invasion"?
 * This is a difficult one. "an" invasion would be wrong as it was a series of incursions over several years aiming to conquer England. "invasions" seems wrong as it was all part of one process. I think "the invasion" sounds right. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But that makes it sound like the one and only time Danish vikings invaded England. Why not give full information, as you did to me? 'Edmund Ironside fought a series of attacks [or 'incursions'] by the Danish Vikings'?
 * How about "Æthelred had spent most of his reign unsuccessfully resisting incursions by Danish vikings, and as king Edmund Ironside put up a strong fight until his death in November 1016, when the Viking leader Cnut became the undisputed king of all England." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Works for me.


 * Several page ranges use hyphens rather than en dashes.
 * I have never understood hyphens, en dashes and em-dashes, and scripts seem erratic, changing some but not others. Is there a script which deals with this reliably?
 * I have a "Fix dashes" in my side bar, although I can't remember where it came from, and it stopped working for me about a year ago.
 * I also have a script which has stopped working. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * LOL.


 * "the king of Sweden". Upper-case K, as it refers to a specific person.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "Yaroslav I, prince of Kiev". Upper-case P. :-)
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "as early sources which says that they first went to Russia." Should that be 'say'?
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "A claimant to the Hungarian throne, Andrew, fled to Russia after being expelled from his home country, and in 1046 he returned and seized the Hungarian throne." A minor point, but "... the Hungarian throne ... the Hungarian throne."
 * Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Foreign language words, other than proper nouns, should be in lang templates. Eg "Clitus is the Latin for ætheling."
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "and certainly by 1057, when Edward died a few days after his return." Why does this follow?
 * This is never spelled out by historians, but it is assumed that if he had been alive when his brother died then he would have been mentioned as a claimant to the English throne. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So there isn't a source which spells it out for you to refer to. Bleh! Most unsatisfactory, but I suppose it can't be helped.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments, and one ongoing issue, above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from 750h
The only issue I have is with a paragraph consisting of just one sentence. But I understand its why it's there, so I support this article's promotion.  750h+ &#124;  Talk  05:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino
An interesting quick read on a topic I knew nothing about. A few small comments, below:
 * "a few days before his death in 957" - is this supposed to be 1057, or am I confused?4
 * Eek.Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "He is commonly known as 'Edward the Exile'." seems unnecessary after we were already introduced to him in the lead, but I won't demand its removal.
 * The repetition is necessary because the lead should be a summary of the full details in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "A late eleventh-century entry in manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that Cnut sent Edward to Hungary 'to betray'." Do we have any context for what "to betray" would mean here?
 * The implication is that they were sent to Hungary to be murdered, but I cannot find any historian specifically discussing the wording in the Chronicle. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Is there any easy way to reword "Sweden until 1028, when they went to Kiev with King Olaf of Norway, who fled to Sweden and then Kiev"? I had to read it a few times to understand. I think "Sweden... Kiev... Sweden... Kiev" in one sentence made my head spin.
 * How about "De Vajay suggests that the brothers stayed in Sweden until 1028. In that year King Olaf of Norway fled to Sweden and then Kiev after being defeated by Cnut and losing his kingdom, and de Vajay thinks that Edmund and Edward accompanied him." Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Ajpolino (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "daughter of the king of Hungary, and Aelred is a credible" a bit of a run-on sentence. Can we split it here or rearrange a bit? Reads as if "According to Aelred... Aelred is a credible source"
 * Split into two sentences. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments . Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, with that I'm happy to support. Thanks again for the read Dudley Miles. Ajpolino (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from UC
Short but well-crafted: a few comments below.


 * Is this the same person sometimes (perhaps in older sources?) referred to as "Edmund the Ætheling"? If so, perhaps an "also known as..." or a footnote to explain the difference would help.
 * I have not come across this usage. Can you give examples? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking around, it seems to be minority, but see e.g. here (1939), here (1998) and (not such an authoritative source) here (2014). Whether it's a mistake or a variation, I think it might be worth a footnote. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * None of these examples refer to the subject of this article. The first is Edmund Ironside before he became king, the second a brother of Æthelred who died young, the third uncertain but probably also the brother who died young. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah! In that case, suggest a hatnote to disambiguate: "not to be confused with Edmund Ironside, known as "Edmund the Atheling" before he became king". Is the other Edmund the Atheling notable enough to include there as well? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is too complicated for a hatnote so I have added a footnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : we've got a curious balance here of quite a precise date (twenty-five years) with quite a vague one (mid-950s). Can we be more exact about when the last one was?
 * The exact date is not certain. Changed to "some twenty-five years". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Advise "around twenty-five years": I don't think "some" means "roughly" outside BrE, and only weakly in that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : lots of technical terms here. There's always a balance to be struck between flow and clarity: here I would at least try to explain what the Danelaw is, perhaps in a sentence before this one that could go into when and how it came about.
 * How about a footnote explaining thegn and Danelaw to avoid breaking up the flow? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : suggest clarifying whether will here means "wishes" or "testament".
 * "Wishes" is too weak. Changed to "in defiance of his father".
 * Works for me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : as written, it sounds as though this is the same Ealdgyth who had previously married Sigeferth.
 * It was the same Ealdgyth. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah! In that case, I'm a little confused. In the lead, we had, which says that we're unsure of whether it was Ealdgyth, but that we're certain it was Ironside's wife -- the only confusion is what her name was. Now we've got , where it's almost certain that it was this exact woman. The sources cited in the footnote seem to be supporting whether the wife's name was Ealdgyth, but I don't see anything written there as to whether she was actually the same woman, as opposed to someone of the same name. As you note there, it wasn't an unusual one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I have been over-cautious as most historians state without qualification that Ealdgyth was Edmund's mother, so I have removed "probably" from the lead, Does this work for you? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose my only remaining confusion is : do some historians thinks that Ironside married someone else? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Edmund Ironside's wife is almost always named by historians as Ealdgyth." It is accepted that Edmund married Sigeferth's widow and that she was the mother of his children. The possible doubt is her name. It is first recorded in the 1140s, and Williams suggests that it might be wrong, as I explain in the footnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK: I'd suggest making that absolutely explicit, then: something like "Ironside's wife, Sigeferth's widow, is almost always named...". As written, it's still not totally unambiguous that they're the same person, but it sounds as though that fact is not in dispute. UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 17:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added a footnote at the first mention of their marriage. Does this work for you? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It works, but wouldn't it be better on "who was almost certainly called Ealdgyth" slightly further up, as it explains the slightly unusual hedge? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I put it there because at first mention I have not yet said that she married Ironside, so it is not clear why her name is relevant. I am happy to go with your advice if you think this does not matter and I should move it up. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As I read the article in its current form, what the footnote is currently clarifying is that we're slightly uncertain about Ealdgyth's name, but not the rest of her identity. That would be best placed after "who was almost certainly called Ealdgyth": as the footnote is written, I think it would fit well (and perhaps even better) there with no change, but you could rejig it a little if you feel that a different set of context would be helpful there. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have moved the note as you suggest. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : I assume there's some reason for this intriguing either-or: do we know what it is?
 * Changed to "As the marriage lasted no more then fifteen months, either the boys were twins or one of them was born after his father's death." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There seems to be another obvious possibility here...? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. If one of them had been born as a result of an affair when Ealdgyth was married to another man, he would not have been regarded as an ætheling. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough: do we have a source that explicitly shuts down that possibility (e.g. by saying that there are only two possible explanations), and if so, is it already cited? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 15:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I cite a source which says that they were twins or one was posthumous. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : it sounds as though someone/some source gave them that epithet: do we know who?
 * All kings' sons were called æthelings. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine, but why then do we need the or of ? It suggests that there's some ambiguity as to which sense of it is meant here. Suggest . <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They were not just called æthelings. In Old English they were æthelings. The addition of "or prince" in the source is probably because there is some argument as to whether kings' grandsons qualified. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think getting into that particular set of linguistic weeds here is more confusing than helpful, if I'm honest. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 15:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not gone into it in the article, but I have to add "or prince" in the definition as otherwise I would misrepresent the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure: if we say that someone was made captain of a football team, we don't need to add a note that the same word can mean somebody in charge of a boat, or be a general term for someone pre-eminent in their field. Similarly, if the word aetheling here unambiguously means "king's son", I don't think we need to confuse readers by saying that it could also have a wider meaning. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 17:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ætheling unambiguously means the male descendant of a king in the male line who is eligible for the throne. In early Wessex, the designation was passed down through several generations and son rarely followed father to the throne. From the mid-ninth century, only kings' sons were æthelings and all kings were sons of kings. This system finally broke down in 1066 when for the first time in over two centuries there was no living king's son when the king died. Edward the Exile's son is described in some sources as Edgar Ætheling even though he was only the grandson of a king. Historians disagree whether this was because grandsons could be æthelings or because there was no living ætheling in the strict sense of the term. All this is too complicated to go into, so I just quoted the definition in the most authorative source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Another one, I think, where I'll agree to differ -- I would do this differently, but it's only to be expected that two editors will sometimes have different approaches to a problem, and there's no issue here for FAC. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : lose the commas, unless John of Worcester is the only chronicler who existed in the twelfth century (MOS:COMMA).
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : in no wise, surely? Similarly, : of time?
 * Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : I'd give this another look: the single verb argues is tricky here because there's no argument about John's date, so he doesn't argue that he's late, but it is very much a matter of argument whether he was also wrong.
 * Removed argument by saying "later writers such as John". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : as leges is plural, I'd use a plural verb, but this may be a matter of taste. However, I'd definitely put that Latin title into a Latin language tag.
 * As it is the title of a work, I think singular is correct. I have added the Latin tag.


 * : I'm not sure I quite understand the significance of the however here.
 * Clarified as "However, the Leges is not an early source; it dates to the 1140s, contemporary with John of Worcester's Chronicle". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : likewise, language tag here (do we have an Old French one?)
 * There does not appear to be an Old French tag so I have used the standard one. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : comma needed after concludes, and I'd suggest something like "in his words" to be absolutely crystal as to whose quote this is.
 * It seems clear to me as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : "Aelred is a credible source as he was there" is quite unsophisticated source analysis. Plenty of eyewitnesses write things that are misinformed, forgetful or outright fraudulent. Suggest simply cutting the "and", starting a new sentence, and then cutting everything between "Aelred" and "spent".
 * This is a comment by Keynes and cited to him. It is not saying that Aelred is correct, only that he is credible. I have already made it two sentences in response to a comment by another reviewer. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Credible" is a value judgement: at minimum, I'd say "Keynes judges Aelred to be credible on the grounds that...". Describing sources in a binary way as credible/non-credible is simplistic, but at the very least shouldn't be presented as a statement of fact in Wikivoice. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Keynes comments that Aelred is a credible source". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep picking this nit, but per MOS:SAID, we shouldn't use "comments that" (which should introduce a statement of objective fact) for a judgement/opinion. Advise "writes that", "judges that", "considers that" or similar. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 13:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I read MOS as saying the opposite: "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I wouldn't personally include "commented" in a list like that, but the MoS does and we should defer to that. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 15:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a difference about judgement rather than grammar. Keynes's comment seems to me a fair deduction, whereas you see it as simplistic. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not wild about calling any source "credible" in such black-and-white terms, but that may be a reflection of coming from an ancient-history background, where we take as read that all of our sources are more or less always lying to us somehow. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 17:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting. In a similar vein, perhaps, the first thing a historian learns, is how little he knows. Ignorance, they say, is bliss.   ——Serial Number 54129  18:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Maybe the difference is the significance attached to "credible". I take Keynes to mean that Aelred should be taken seriously as he was in a position to know, not that he is definitely correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps: I take "this source is credible" as "we should trust this source"; I would use something softer for "this source deserves to be taken seriously". However, another one where I think the current solution is perfectly satisfactory, even if I might have done it differently. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : I know what MS stands for, but most readers won't, so I'd introduce this as something like "the manuscript known to scholarship as..."
 * Changed to "Bodleian manuscript". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : this seems like a very long-winded way of saying "late in the eleventh-century, obits of Edmund and Edward were added to a psalter known as Bodleian MS Douce 296, giving Edmund's death as 10 January."
 * I think it is worth giving full details of such a crucial source. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I'm not totally convinced that (for instance) the fact that two unidentified people are listed alongside the two we care about is WP:DUE in a biography of Edmund (as opposed to an article on the psalter). <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed unidentified people. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We might wish to translate the whole obit (including the word obiit), though I would hope that most readers will be able to figure that bit out.
 * Clarified above with "obits (death dates)"


 * : how do we know? Incidentally, Edward's return, or Edmund's? It's clear from the article but not, grammatically, in this sentence.
 * This was raised by another reviewer. Edmund would have been a candidate for the throne if he had still been alive when Edward died, but this is not spelled out by historians so there is no source I could cite for explaining the date. It seems clear to me gramatically. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't give the full bibliography of Ronay's book in a footnote: instead, you could give the title, add it to the bibliography, and provide a SFN to direct readers there. At the moment, we break the reader's flow for information that very few will honestly care about (the ISBN, publisher and place).
 * This is difficult point. I originally gave details of Ronay's book in the bibliography and changed it as a result of an argument when reviewing another article. I suggested listing a book which was criticised but not cited, and the nominator argued that only books cited should be in the bibliography. I think he has a point, but full details should be given of any book discussed, so the best solution seemed to put them in a footnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a major problem: I'd do it differently, but I didn't write the article, and the solution here is entirely reasonable. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope these are useful. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your detailed review . Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
I'm sure it was difficult gathering the information for the present revision of the article – not even an ODNB article on the subject! – but one would not guess it from the prose, which flows splendidly. I was surprised to see a book from Boydell and Brewer in the line of fire, but no doubt those sniping at it know of what they speak. I can well believe the article is as comprehensive as we're likely to get, and knowing Dudley's previous work I take it for granted that the exiguous illustration is all that's to be had. I've corrected a couple of typos, but please check my changes are OK.

A couple of minor drafting points, which don't affect my support:
 * "...the English wanted them as rulers, so Emma urged Cnut..." – I shall maintain even in articulo mortis that "so" is not a conjunction (or not in formal English anyway) but the current edition of Fowler reckons that it is widely accepted as such these days. I must leave it to you to decide.
 * I have no strong feelings either way. What do you suggest? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I should write "and so" or even just "and", but I most certainly don't press the point, and if you want a naked "so" I shall not complain.  Tim riley  talk   13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed to "and so". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm a little uneasy about "Gaimar claims that Emma urged Cnut..." – "claims" may be thought to suggest that the assertion is questionable, and is not, I think, a neutral word, but I don't press the point. "She claimed", two sentences later, seems to me a more appropriate use of the verb.
 * I think "claims" is the right word as it is made clear below that Gaimar is not regarded as a reliable source. It is because a biography relying on Gaimar was published by B&B that historians criticise it. If it had come from a less prestigious publisher they would not have bothered, Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's most interesting, thank you, Dudley.  Tim riley  talk   13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support promotion to FA.  Tim riley  talk   11:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . One query above. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Source review
The article relies on 20 sources, nearly all by prominent historians with relevant expertise, and published by reputable organizations. Ronay appears to be a "freelance historian", but since his work is used only in a footnote to interpret Gardimbre I didn't bother digging into this. Reference formatting looks consistent. A quick search for overlooked sources reveals the somewhat-obvious: that this is a poorly covered topic, and Dudley Miles has done a top notch job putting together an interesting and informative article from sparse material. Bravo, and source review pass. Ajpolino (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC) FrB.TG (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)