Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward the Elder/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) 15:04, 15 May 2018.

Edward the Elder

 * Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Edward the Elder was the son and successor of Alfred the Great. He built on his father's achievements to defeat the Vikings in southern England, and united Mercia and East Anglia with Wessex into one southern kingdom. He has been described as perhaps the most neglected of English kings. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009

A nicely researched piece. Thoughts from me:


 * "When Edward succeeded, he had to defeat a challenge from his cousin Æthelwold, who had a strong claim to the throne" - I'd have gone for "When Edward succeeded to the throne, he had to defeat a challenge from his cousin Æthelwold, who had a strong claim", as "succeeded" read oddly to me without a mention of the throne adjacent to it. May just be me though!
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "Alfred had succeeded Æthelred as king of Wessex in 871, and almost faced defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878. After the battle, the Vikings still ruled Northumbria, East Anglia and eastern Mercia, with only Wessex and western Mercia under Anglo-Saxon control. In the early 880s Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, the ruler of western Mercia, accepted Alfred's lordship and married his daughter Æthelflæd, and around 886 Alfred adopted the new title King of the Anglo-Saxons as the ruler of all Anglo-Saxons not subject to Danish rule." - this didn't quite work for me in the lead - it seemed to digress siginificantly away from Edward (who isn't even mentioned in the paragraph)
 * How about "Alfred had faced almost certain defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878. In the 890s the Vikings renewed their attacks, and Edward led the defence, together with Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, the ruler of western Mercia, who had accepted Alfred's lordship and married his daughter Æthelflæd. However, when Edward came to the throne, the Vikings still ruled Northumbria, East Anglia and eastern Mercia, with only Wessex and western Mercia under Anglo-Saxon control.
 * Works for me! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts this is not quite right as it almost certainly exaggerates Edward's role compared with the veteran Æthelred. How about "Alfred had faced almost certain defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878. In the mid-880s Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, the ruler of western Mercia, accepted Alfred's lordship and married his daughter Æthelflæd. In the 890s the Vikings renewed their attacks, and Æthelred and Edward led the successful defence. However, when Edward came to the throne, the Vikings still ruled Northumbria, East Anglia and eastern Mercia, with only Wessex and western Mercia under Anglo-Saxon control." Does this look OK to you ? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "Edward has been described as "perhaps the most neglected of English kings"" - I'd be keen for this to say who's described him as such.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "His reputation among historians rose in the late twentieth century, and he is seen as destroying the power of the Vikings in southern England" - I'm wondering if "and he is now seen" might work here; I'm assuming that the second half of the sentence applies to his improved reputation, not his former one?
 * Done. I try to avoid the word "now" as it sometimes leads to accusations of recentism, but hopefully I can get away with it here. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "Alfred the Great married Ealhswith in 868. Her father was Æthelred Mucel, Ealdorman of the Gaini, and her mother, Eadburh, was a member of the Mercian royal family. Alfred and Ealhswith had five children who survived childhood. " - would it be possible to frame this paragraph so that it began by focusing on Edward? (e.g. Edward was the son of...)
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "so Edward was probably born in the mid-870s" - could this key fact be brought closer to the beginning of the paragraph?
 * I do not think this would work as I am explaining first the reasoning behind the date. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How about "Historians estimate that Edward was probably born in the mid-870s. His eldest sister, Æthelflæd, was probably born about a year after her parents' marriage, and Edward was brought up with his younger sister, Ælfthryth; Yorke argues that he was therefore probably nearer in age to Ælfthryth than Æthelflæd. Edward led troops in battle in 893, and must have been of marriageable age in that year as his oldest son Æthelstan was born about 894." - I reckon this would give the reader the heads-up about why we're describing his sister's date of birth etc, and would also give the key fact in the first sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "More is known about Edward's childhood than about that of other Anglo-Saxon princes, providing information about the training of a prince in a period of Carolingian influence" - I'm assuming that this is the description given by Asser above?
 * Mentioned Asser. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "experience in royal business" - I wasn't sure if royal business was like royal administration (running the country), or more like actual business affairs (trade etc.).
 * Changed to administration. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "The principal currency was the silver penny, and some coins carried a stylised portrait of the king." - is this a general statement for the period, or Edward's particular reign? If the latter (as the next sentence implies), this should be "the King" as it is referring specifically to Edward.
 * It is general relating to the later Anglo-Saxon period. The source does not make that clear so I have added another which does. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

NB...


 * I've cleaned up the image of the coin a bit. Some other images that might work well (and look okay from a licensing perspective) are [:File:Early-Medieval coin, Penny of Edward the Elder (FindID 223825).jpg], [:File:Edward the Elder coin imitation silver brooch Rome Italy c 920.jpg], or [:File:Edward the Elder on the Coronation Stone.jpg]. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clean up. I have added the penny. The brooch was in the article but taken out as Nikki queried the lack of licensing details by the uploader. I was doubtful about the coronation stone as it is thought to be an eighteenth century fabrication, but in view of the shortage of suitable images, I could put it in with a sceptical caption. What do you think? See also query above. Many thanks for the review . Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
I always perk up when I see one of Dudley's Anglo-Saxon articles up for review. One is sure of an interesting and informative read. I shall be adding my support for the promotion of this excellent example, but just a handful of v. minor points first:
 * "Ceolwulf became the last King of Mercia with their support" – ambiguous: does this mean "with their support Ceolwulf became the last King of Mercia" or "Ceolwulf became the last King of Mercia who had their support"? (I assume the former, but it's as well to avoid any shadow of doubt.)
 * Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "...more information about Edward's childhood and youth than is known about other Anglo-Saxon princes, providing information..." – too much information (to coin a phrase).
 * Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "The effect of the changes were to strengthen" – singular noun with plural verb.
 * Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "a major monastery for men, possibly in accordance of his father's..." – two points here. First an idiot question, viz can you have a monastery for non-men, a.k.a. women? (Forgive a layman's ignorance.) Secondly "in accordance of" looks odd: one might expect "in accordance with".
 * OED suggests a monastery is mainly for men, but two of its quotes are for women. I have changed to "religious community" as monastery is in the following sentence. Also fixed "of". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "however" – there are nine "howevers" in the article and one does start to notice them after a while. A judicious pruning would be beneficial: most "howevers" add nothing and can be blitzed with advantage to the prose.
 * I have never understood this terrible prejudice against "however". It is a lovely word, which signals that you are qualifying the previous sentence. 2 of your nine are in quotes, but I have pandered to your views and got it down to 4. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They're fine in small doses, but when there are lots of them they do rather break flow. However, no problem on this page now.  Tim riley  talk    19:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Them's my meagre gleanings. I'll look in again anon.  Tim riley  talk    13:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your review and kind word Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Very happy to add my Support. The phrase "page-turner" seems silly when one's looking at a screen, but if this article were on paper that is what it would be. One really wants to know what happens next. Meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course.  Tim riley  talk    19:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Support by Johnbod
- excellent stuff - just some small niggles: I am reading through, and doing some edits. Anyone interested in saving "however" from a Viking-like campaign of extermination, might like to comment at Talk:Anglo-Saxon art, where another editor has asked for comments. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So far so good:
 * "and the Danes of Northumbrian York offered her their allegiance, probably for protection against Norse (Norwegian) Vikings who had invaded Northumbria from Ireland," - gets a bit compacted. Aren't all Vikings "Norse" - Norsemen? Norse activity in the British Isles covers the lot, and people are always trying to rename Vikings. I wonder if such clear distinctions can be drawn between Danes & Norwegians at this point - the leaders perhaps, but weren't the rank & file mixed Scandiwegians, with no doubt Irish etc too? It's rather like those who try to distinguish between Angles & Saxons after about 600.  Perhaps: "protection against a Norwegian-led invasion of Northumbria from Ireland".
 * The Oxford Dictionary of English defines Norse as 1. the Norwegian language, 2. "Norwegians or Scandinavians in ancient or medieval times." Historians of Anglo-Saxon England use it to mean Norwegians, and Stenton refers to the threat to Danish-ruled York from "Norse raiders from Ireland". I do not think we should change correct usage by historians because some editors object to it. As to the lack of clear distinctions between Danes and Norwegians, you are very likely right, just as there were almost certainly Vikings who had accepted English rule and fought on the English side. Oda, one of the most respected Archbishops of Canterbury, was the son of a Viking who came over with the army in 865. However, historians speak of Norse and Danes, not Norse and Dane led, and I do not think we can correct their language. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, but something needs to done about " Norse (Norwegian) Vikings " I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have changed to Norse (Norwegian) Vikings " and added the alternative name with reference to the linked page. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If it was me, I think I'd move another summary quote from "Reputation" to the lead.
 * Done. does it look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's it - various links added, all correctly I hope. I'm afraid my books are all boxed up at present so I can't check if there is more to say about art from his reign.
 * Many thanks for your edits, support and comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber
Reading through now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Mercia was the dominant kingdom in southern England in the eighth century [and maintained its position] until it suffered a decisive defeat by Wessex at the Battle of Ellandun in 825. - I suspect the bracketed bit is redundant and can be removed safely without changing the meaning
 * You are no doubt right, but as deleting would strictly imply that 825 is in the eighth century I prefer to keep it as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah my bad, you are right. I wasn't familiar with the dates....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Err...what's an  illustris femina? needs a link, footnote or explanation...
 * Added translation to "noble lady" with reference. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise ...looks on track. Reads well. I guess it is complete but am not too familiar with this stuff...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review . Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Image review - the images are obviously public domain, but there are some problems with the licences. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2013 is not the true date of this illustration. Also, its licence tags say "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."
 * Changed the date but on the other point it does say below that it has a US tag. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This coin image also needs a PD tag for the artwork itself, not just the photo.
 * I am not clear what is required. Can you advise please? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is actually sometying Nikkimaria usually asks for. Since it is not an entirely two dimensional artwork, there are two copyrights here, that of the photo, and then that of the artwork on the coin itself, similar to here: But for some reason, it doesn't seem to be used for images of old coins, now that I look. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be - coins are typically not covered by freedom of panorama, and we usually require that a tag is included even if the item is obviously ancient. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This coin image needs the date of publication, not the date it was uploaded. It appears it is a photo of a photo? In any case, that counts as a scan, and the original publication date is still all that matters. You list Grueber as the illustrator, yet you have artist unknown.
 * I have changed the date. As to the unknown artist, I discussed this with when she did the image review at A-Class, and she said it was OK as indicating artist as an unknown moneyer. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case the creator of the coin is unknown but the coin is obviously out of copyright due to age, and the illustration is old enough to also be out of copyright due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This page was hardly ever published in the US, so it needs a more general PD old tag as well.
 * Added PD-old tag. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It didn't seem to show what was intended, I've added the tag I meant. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks fine now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , did you want to add anything?
 * I think we still need a source review for reliability and formatting.

Source review: All sources listed appear to high-quality and reliable, mostly heavyweight academic textbooks as one would expect for this sort of subject matter. Just a few points on formatting:
 * You have a mix of ISN-10s and ISBN-13s (eg Blackburn, Foot ; these should be consistent.
 * Some ISBNs have dashes, some don't; again, be consistent.
 * I am not sure how to deal with this. I have done what I always do - go by the way it is shown in the book. So do I look at Worldcat, pick a random ISBN (for the book I have looked at there are two 10s and two 13s) without spaces or dashes and copy them? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to make the dashes consistent is to remove them all. As for 10s vs. 13s, try this (it was the top Google hit for "convert ISBN 10 to 13"). HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 09:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, but as almost all isbns have dashes I found it easier to add them to the few that did not. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The author link to Simon Keynes should be on his first entry in the bibliography.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Likewise Pauline Stafford (who is linked on the middle two of her four entries)
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You give two different locations for Routledge (for books published in the same year)—see for example Higham, Nick (2001b) and Coatsworth, Elizabeth (2001).
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't checked the contents of the sources, but I picked half a dozen ISBNs at random and verified that they corresponded to the authors and titles given. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 06:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . Query above. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I meant to do this earlier...got distracted by weekend chores and find it partly done, which is good as I will now go straight to spot checking....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * FN 30, cited once - material faithful to source.
 * FN 37, cited once - material faithful to source.
 * FN 59, cited twice - material faithful to source.

Ok, all good. Sources reliable too. good to be signed off. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Cas. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pericles
The article looks great, but there are some considerable and glaring problems with quotations and inline citations. The fourth paragraph of the lead section has several quotations that don't seem to be supported by any inline citations. That's problematic to say the least. I would leave those quotes for the body of the article, where they can be properly cited, and simply summarize them for the lead section (i.e. rewriting them in your own words, but conveying the same idea). William of Malmesbury's quotation "incomparably more glorious in the power of his rule" found in the body of the article also doesn't seem to have an immediate inline citation. At the very end of the paragraph you cite "Higham 2001a, pp. 2–4; Keynes 2001, pp. 40–41," but which source exactly does this quote come from, then? That needs to be specified. Pericles of Athens Talk 15:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, although the following paragraph has an inline citation for the very last sentence, you should probably stick a similar inline citation right after the direct quote from Higham, "Edward the Elder is perhaps the most neglected of English kings." I know it seems fussy, but someone at a future date could split your paragraph in half or shift material around (yes, even in an FA article), and then suddenly it is broken off from its cited source. For instance, this happened in my FA for Parthian Empire, years after its successful candidacy, necessitating a reevaluation where I had to go back and cite things properly after each sentence. I think it would be wise for you to avoid that scenario. Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, but I do not see why quotations should be treated differently from other text. The quotations in the lead are all repeated and cited in the main text, and readers who want to check sources for the lead will need to look in the main text - whether for quotes or other statements. The problems you mention of people altering an article later apply all text, not just citations, and putting a citation at the end of each sentence would be excessive without stopping later editors altering the text so as to mess up the citations. The first paragraph of 'Reputation', which you also mention as problematic, is quite short and only has two citations, both chapters in the same book, as it happens. Do other editors have views on these points? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but at the very least the first quotation, the one by William of Malmesbury, is still ambiguous as to whether it came from Higham or Keynes. Which one? Your readers should be able to discern that instead of inspecting both sources in an attempt to figure out where the quote came from. You simply cannot make a quote and then fail to attribute it to a single, specific source. See WP:QUOTE, WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:CITE. It's not much of a burden for you to properly cite this one quotation, is it? Do you still have access to either Higham or Keynes' works? Pericles of Athens  Talk 00:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I take your point. There are several quotations in the paragraph, and looking more closely, the whole paragraph is covered by Higham, so I have deleted Keynes. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although that technically works, that's hardly the best solution here. I never wanted you to remove sources. I just want to see quotes clearly attributed to the right source, instead of having ambiguous options because all the sources are tacked onto a citation at the end of the paragraph. Which parts of the paragraph does Keynes cover? Do you still have access to his work? I would prefer that you keep Keynes and simply make a note within the citation about which statements Keynes covers, if you do not want to provide a separate citation for every single sentence. Pericles of Athens  Talk 22:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll also be willing to fully support the nomination if you decide to address this issue. I know it might seem pedantic, but this is a featured article candidate, and it should be held to the highest standards, including an effort by the editor/nominator that a variety of reliable sources were consulted in order to flesh out scholarly consensus for each major issue. If there are other sources that buttress and support Higham, they should be provided, not removed, and if these sources contain contradictory information, this should most certainly be explained in a footnote. Pericles of Athens  Talk 22:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keynes says the same without the quotes. I originally included him because he puts greater emphasis on the point that there was a consensus in views among medieval chroniclers. I do not like putting comments among the citations, but I could restore the Keynes citation and add a note that all the citations are from Higham. Would that work for you? Dudley Miles (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, that sounds like an optimal solution to me. I would gladly support the article if you did that. Also, congrats on all the hard work that you've done. You clearly put a lot of love into the article. It is well-written and well-sourced, but this particular issue bugs me. Thanks for understanding. Regards, Pericles of Athens  Talk 08:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

excellent! With these changes I have decided to support the article. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens  Talk 17:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Векочел
This is a very good article. It may need some citations, but otherwise looks well-written. Векочел (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article on Edward's father, Alfred the Great, could also be nominated, but this is just a suggestion. Векочел (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Alfred the Great is a long way off FA standard and it will be a massive project to get it to that level. I own six books about him and that is a small fraction of the literature. The article is on my project list - unless someone else takes it on - but it will be a long time before I get to it. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes (2)

 * Dudley, in the lead we say that "Alfred ... almost faced defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878" -- reading Background I don't really get the sense that he "almost faced defeat" even though the Vikings controlled much of Mercia. Could we tweak either the lead or Background to align more closely?
 * Amended background. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Tks, that takes care of my concern. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * A relatively minor point but there are several duplinks that could perhaps be rationalised (let me know if you need a link to a checker script).
 * I must have forgotten to run duplink. So far as I remember it did not highlight duplicates in the lead and main text before, and I have left these in. Have the rules changed? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To confirm, do you mean is it fine to repeat a link from the lead in the main body? Yes, I understand that's still the case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I have taken out repeated links flagged by duplink apart from those which are only duplicated in the lead and the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.