Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward the Martyr/archive1

Edward the Martyr

 * Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the latest of my nominations of Anglo-Saxon kings. Edward was regarded as a saint in his own time because the murder of a king was considered an unforgivable crime, and his feast day is still listed today by the Church of England, but he could not be more unworthy of the designation. Historians regard him as "an obnoxious teenager who showed no evidence of sanctity or kingly attributes". Comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Tim O'Doherty
Just a quick note for now, but for the "obnoxious teenager" quote at the end of the lead, MOS:LEADCITE would want a ref for this. Easily fixed: just copy-paste at the end of it. Will do a full review later on; from a quick glance, the article looks excellent. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Some quickfire comments from a quick buzz through the first third:
 * - maybe ?
 * It reads better to me without the comma. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * - is "really" needed here?
 * Deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * - "very" doesn't feel quite right. "Deeply" or just plain "undeserved"?
 * Changed to "thoroughly" - OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's perfect. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * - who says it's "magisterial and massively authoritative"?
 * I said who in the citation as it seemed break up the flow in the text, but I will add it inline if you think it is necessary. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think it's such a big deal, but WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would advise putting it there. It's not a deal-breaker for me in any case. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * - you've only linked "Conquest" in the lead, link it in the body too. (I see you've linked it in the second sentence of Family: link it at first mention?)
 * Changed.


 * - per MOS:JOBTITLES, "the King".
 * Changed where it refers to a specific person. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I see in Edgar, King of England the Sources section is at the top, in front of Background; here it's the other way around. Why is that?
 * I put the sources section second with a vague idea that the background provided context to the "vague impression of disorder" comment, but on reflection I think it should come first so I have changed the order. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I've now read the article fully, and don't really have any reason not to support. Really well researched and very readable. Reminds me of something you'd find in old Britannicas, and something which deserves the title of "Wikipedia's finest work". Just one thing to prove I've read it: I'm told that "due to" isn't proper British English and we prefer "owing to", or better yet "because of". Consider either of those (the bits I'm referring to are in Coinage, last sentence; and Death, last sentence before the blockquote). Happy (belated) new year too, Dudley. Cheers Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . I see that my somewhat out of date copy of Fowler has a rant against "due to", but admits it is a losing battle. The Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus says that it is now so common in all types of literature that it must be regarded as standard English. I think that "due to" works better than "owing to" or "because of" in both cases where I have used it. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Serial
Pending, but in passing: just Æthelred, rather than his moniker, which didn't apply during his reign, let alone his youth.
 * I refer to him initially as "the future King Æthelred the Unready" and thereafter Æthelred so that readers know who is referred to. Do you think there is a better way of expressing it? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, re. the lead quote, LQ presumably applies?
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "The disputes". ——Serial  18:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of your point here. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Back tomorrow UTC!  ——Serial  21:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But you may be some time. Anything you want to add?

Image review


 * File:Edward_the_Martyr_-_MS_Royal_14_B_VI.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:EdwardMartyr.gif. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Unlimitedlead
Coming out of semi-retirement to help my good friend Dudley out. Comments to follow soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal, but a circa template could be used in the first sentence.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Adding reign dates for monarchs mentioned (especially Edgar) in the article's body could be useful.
 * Done in lead and in the main text where the dates are not already given. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Is the "(non-monastic)" really necessary in the introduction?
 * Replaced with link. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The citation is not necessary in the introduction; that same quote is repeated and cited later on in the body. Also, is it necessary to have a specific quote in the introduction as opposed to a more general statement?
 * I think a quote works better. It spells out Edward's character in a way that I could not do in a comment of my own without getting into POV. Dudley Miles (talk)

Let me know when you have addressed these; there will be more to follow. Thanks. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Good to hear from you. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * . Sorry I have realised that I did not make clear in my last post that I have addressed your comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Unlimitedlead, anything further to come from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the inactivity. I have been busy with my studies recently. I have perused the article, and considering its current state and the comments made by others, I am comfortable supporting this nomination. Yet again, wonderful work, Dudley. I hope to see you all soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild
Recusing to review. And unrecused considering that in the event I only made a couple of trivial observations. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Captions: "The post-Conquest Corfe Castle". It would be helpful for many readers if "post-Conquest" were linked; "Church of St Edward King and Martyr, Goathurst, Somerset", consider linking; "Church of St Edward King and Martyr, Cambridge", likewise; "Genealogical Roll of the Kings of England", is there any link for at least part of this?.
 * Done. I did not realise that I could link captions without duplicate linking. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "also protected estates claimed by their rivals." What does "protected" mean here. (A genuine rather than rhetorical question.)
 * I am not sure what it means or how it got in there. Deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you ping me once ULL is happy - they will probably do most of my work. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging . Dudley Miles (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dudley. But I think I am going to step back. The nomination has had a good going over from better reviewers than me and once Jo-Jo has finished with the sources I may be able to don my coordinator's hat and have a look through with a view to closing rather than reviewing. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

nf utvol

 * The Watson quote in the lead is repeated verbatim further down the article. I'd consider removing the quote from the lead.
 * Removed from main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The phrase "sin of the first order" in the lead is a quote and probably should have quotation marks and attribution if retained. Otherwise, consider rewording it.
 * Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The term pre-Conquest and post-Conquest is used as a time marker throughout the article. I know that this is referencing the events of 1066, but the lay reader, especially the one unfamiliar with English history, would not know this. The first reference is linked, but avoiding using the term or very briefly defining it on the first use will prevent people from clicking away.
 * Added explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The acronym ASC is used throughout the article. Though it is properly defined at its first use as Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the later uses append additional letters to the end. It is unclear what these letters are or what they signify to the lay reader, or even a reader familiar with the subject but unfamiliar with the terminology surrounding the Chronicles and their versions. Recommend not using them at all, just saying in prose, "A later edition of the ASC written in the 1040s..." instead of "ASC C, written in the 1040s..."
 * The addtional letters are explained in note i. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Consider thinning the Background section. It goes into, I believe, unnecessary detail on 9th and 10th century English history. Compressing it to provide a basic 'scene setter' for the article, linking off to other pages that get into the weeds would help the article flow. Much of the history of Edgar, Eadwig, Eadred, et al, is (or should be) covered already in their own articles, with the focus of this article remaining on Edward.
 * I have wondered about this. I think it provides useful background, but I would like to see what other reviewers say. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Under family, there's a red link for Nicholas of Worcester. Recommend removing the link or finding another article that could be a suitable redirect (or creating a new one for Nicholas if he is sufficiently notable).
 * I am working on an article on Nicholas. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Also under family, the article goes into what I think is unnecessary detail on Edgar's family in the second paragraph that would be better left in the article on Edgar. Maybe a discussion of Aethelwold's influence in Edward's reign, but almost everything else should be trimmed.
 * This paragraph explains people who are discussed below.

All I have for now, I'll continue later. Very informative article, I've learned a lot so far! nf utvol (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments . Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

From Tim riley
Booking my place. Shall revisit after those ahead of me in the queue have had their say.  Tim riley  talk   18:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Meets all the FA criteria in my view: a splendid read, as we expect from Dudley, evidently well and widely sourced, seemingly balanced, and beautifully illustrated. I abominate the spelling "biassed" though both Chambers and the OED admit it as a variant of the normal "biased"; both dictionaries hyphenate "single-mindedly". No other quibbles and I'm very happy to sign up in support of this top-notch article.  Tim riley  talk   18:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have never thought about any issue with biassed or singlemindedly and I have amended as you suggest. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

SC

 * Putting down a marker for now. Will probably review before the new year. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "Edward was the eldest son of": "He was..."?
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sources
 * "Other pre-Conquest (before the Norman Conquest) sources": wouldn't "Other pre-Norman Conquest sources" be tidier?
 * The term "pre-Conquest" is used several times and I think it is better to specifically define it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That's fine then. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Disputed succession
 * "According to the best-informed account": this is a hefty 86-word quote. Is there a reason why it is in line in the paragraph while the "Now certain of the magnates of this realm" quote above (at 77 words) is set as a block quote?As some of the Stenton quote includes information outlined elsewhere ("the eldest son and the natural heir" is one example), ellipses could be used to reduce this down to a more efficient wording. This would also ensure the opening part of this section doesn’t feel quite do quote heavy, with three meaty extracts there.
 * Cut down the quote. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Done to the start of "anti-monastic reaction" section. More to come. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

A couple more, taking us down to his death:
 * The "anti-monastic reaction"
 * If " first'...Monks" is an ellipses, it should follow WP:ELLIPSES and have a nbsp before and a space afterwards.
 * Death
 * " an equal insanity...The soldiers laid" – ditto
 * Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(At the moment I'm heavily leaning toward support: it's well written, clear and meets the FA criteria). - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Burial and translation
 * "arranging the translation of Edward's body": Piped link for "translation" to Translation (relic)? There will be some who only think of the word in terms of languages, I'm sure. (You have it linked lowed with "the relics to be again translated", but the first use would be better, I think
 * Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Early cult
 * "Edward's was recognised as a saint": Edward's what was recognised?
 * Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Piped link to Cult (religious practice) to hint to readers we're not talking about the modern type of cult?
 * That is mainly about pagan cults. Linked to veneration. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "lifetime...Much": see above on ellipses
 * Dispute
 * "according to the archaeologist Richard Gem they were "understood in the academic community".': I'm not sure I understand this bit – what was understood by the academic community and did/do they agree or disagree about the bones?
 * The full sentence is "Some historians qualify the comment because the results of Brothwell's examination were never published; according to the archaeologist Richard Gem they were "understood in the academic community"." I am not sure how to deal with this. "they" refers to "the results of Brothwell's examination". It is believed on the basis of rumour that Brothwell conducted an examination which concluded that the body was not Edward's. Clarifying would seem to verge on synth. Any suggestions? (I wonder whetehr he did not publish because there was something about his examination he was not happy about, but that is POV.) Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I think it could be clarified slightly as '... Gem the results were "understood...' (which would deal with my initial confusion over whether "they" referred to the results or the historians). I don't have the source, so I'll leave you to think if there is a clearer way to phrase that, as "understood" is, I think the problem. It could mean that they (literally) understood what he was saying, or (probably more likely) they understood and accepted what he was saying. I'll leave it to your judgement though.
 * Hi . How about deleting the quote from Gem and just having: "Historians' accounts of Stowell's findings usually mention that they were contradicted by the British Museum osteoarchaeologist Don Brothwell, who is believed to have examined the bones and concluded that they were of an older man and that the damage was probably post-mortem, although no report of his examination was ever published." Is that clear? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be excellent - no ambiguity in that and no confusion for me! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks again . Answers above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Airship
I asked a friend with knowledge of the period to comment; paraphrased, he said:
 * No need for the lengthy quotes from Stenton; he has been superseded by more recent historians, who should be preferred for quoting.
 * Stenton is dated, but I do not agree that he is superseded. He is still quoted and discussed, for example in Roach's Æthelred the Unready. Higham and Ryan summed up Stenton's standing in their 2013 The Anglo-Saxon World, p. 443: "this classic account shows its age but is still a rewarding read". Rory Naismith's 2021 Early Medieval Britain liats both Stenton and Higham and Ryan in the bibliography under 'Classic Studies and Textbooks'. Out of the three quotes from Stenton, I have replaced the first, the second is a good summary of a view still generally accepted, the third is an example of a view which is now disputed. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The following could use some more in-depth discussion/greater detail to achieve full "comprehensiveness":
 * Ælfthryth's role in the disputed succession
 * As I comment below, it would be helpful to know what your friend thinks is missing. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The charters
 * I will look at this. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now added a section on the charters. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The coverage of the reasons for Æthelred promoting Edward's cult, especially in relation to the specific contexts of Aethelred's reign when it occured.
 * This is extensively discussed, but I will look think what further might be said. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * They also think that Edgar is portrayed unduly negatively, but since they are personally biased towards him, they're classifying that as a "difference of opinion". In general, they felt the article is of a high standard.
 * There were major achievements in Edgar's reign, which are discussed in his article which I previously took through FAC, but modern historians see his legacy to Edward as very negative, and this is the aspect which is relevant to Edward's article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll hear what you think of those comments, and then perhaps perform a prose review. If you want clarification, I can act as the messenger. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. it is very helpful to have feedback from an expert. I am away for Christmas and will give a more detailed reply when I have access to my books later in the week. On Ælfthryth, I would be interested to know what more your friend thinks can be said. No contemporary source says anything about her role in the succession dispute, and post-Conquest writers are prejudiced and unreliable on her. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again . Please see comments above. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now finished looking through the points raised by your friend. I cannot see anything significant I have missed on Ælfthryth's role or Æthelred promoting Edward's cult, so can you please advise what your friend thinks is missing. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for checking. On Ælfthryth, they mention a recent biography by Elizabeth Norton which they recall provides more details on her role in the succession (they don't currently have it with them); on the promotion of the cult, they don't understand why the early promotion in the 990s is placed after later events, and is oddly disconnected from the "penance" trope you address earlier, which Keynes explicitly connects it to:
 * So they would move the corresponding sentence, currently in the last paragraph of the section, to just after the sentence on Viking raids, and change it a little to explicitly link it to the "penance" purpose. I hope that's understandable. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Norton's 2013 biography, judging by the summary on Amazon, is based on the lurid stories about Ælfthryth by post-Conquest writers. It is not cited by academic historians. I agree that the Cholsey comment is misplaced and have moved it as part of larger rearrangement to make the start of the cult section clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to your knowledge on that. On a prose level, I note we now have several top-level sections in the latter half of the article. Personally, I would put everything from "Burial and translation" to "Churches dedicated..." as subsections to a "Posthumous events" (or something) level-two section. Do you think that would work? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How about 'Legacy'? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I haven't done enough of a review that I feel I should support, but all my issues have been resolved satisfactorily. Nice article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review
Spot-check upon request. Source formatting seems mostly consistent. "Does The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters." not have an author? The church websites are probably reliable enough for the dedication of the church in question. I dunno, is "Liber Eliensis: A History of the Isle of Ely from the Seventh Century to the Twelfth" a publication by a historian or an expert? Who is Gem, Richard? Otherwise, it seems like we are mostly relying on books and academic papers by historians. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review .The Electronic Sawyer is the online version of a paper catalogue by Peter Sawyer. It has been revised and updated by many historians and is not usually cited to him. Richard Gem is a former president of the British Archaeological Association. Liber Eliensis is translated by Janet Fairweather, who is an independent translator and Latinist. She acknowledges the help of experts on Anglo-Saxon history, including Simon Keynes, who read and commented on a draft. The book is published by a leading academic publisher. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, but remember that I neither spot-checked nor are deeply familiar with these sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)