Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Penda of Mercia

Penda of Mercia
How's it look? OK, no image, but the policy says that's not an absolute requirement in a difficult case. Maybe a map? Well, that's not within my means, it seems. Anyway, I'd like to be able to expand this further, but my options are kinda limited. I've pretty much exhausted all the sources available to me. Maybe I can expand it a little more with a bit more referenced historical speculation, but even there I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel. Suggestions for improvement are welcome. Everyking 23:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. it really does need a map, even just a CIA one with a blob on it showing where Mercia was.  A picture of one of the battlefields would be nice, too. Mark1 00:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows exactly where the battles were fought. Even general locations are uncertain, much less battlefields. If you can find a map I can use, be my guest. Believe me when I say it ain't easy. Everyking 00:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that the frontiers are less than certain and expecting me to draw a map like that is expecting way too much. I'm not willing to be accountable for drawing some map that gets something wrong. Therefore it would need to be something attributable to a source, so some historian can take the blame for errors. Everyking 00:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * . I don't expect you to draw a map. I don't expect the article to be featured.  But both would be good. Mark1 00:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * How do I know that wouldn't be a copyvio? You can add it if you want, but I don't want to do it myself. Everyking 01:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that you add that particular picture (although it looks old enough to be out of copyright- some sleuthing could make psure): my point is just that a map of Mercia is entirely doable. Mark1 02:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that I can do it; my point was that the frontiers are obscure to the point where any map for this particular period would be quite speculative, and while I don't object to using a map credited to a historian, I'm not willing to go out on a limb about it myself. Everyking 05:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. 1) Needs a picture. If no pictures of Penda himself are available, I'm sure there are plenty of other relevant images to be found. A map would be a good idea, too. 2) The references need to be mentioned separately from the notes (either in addition to, or drawing the full references from the notes). That would make it much clearer. 3) Add context, lots of context. Where on earth is Mercia (central England)? Why is it relevant Penda is a descendant of Woden (he is the most improtant Germanic god)? Etc. etc. etc. 4) It's great that this article is so well references and footnoted, but I feel the article is a bit too much "uncertain". Nearly every fact or so is specifically placed in the words of a certain reference, which gives me a feeling that "most of this may not be true". I know that is not the case, but that is just how the article feels to me. If parts are widely agreed upon, this shouldn't be necessary. Perhaps you can put a few more "Book X says" into the footnotes? Jeronimo 07:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's really all pretty obscure. I don't know how to make the notes separate from the references. How would that work? And this is a bio article on one ruler. I'm not sure I should give so much context. I mean, where would that lead us? I think it's better to be minimal about it. When you say you are sure there are plenty of images available, I assure you that you are wrong. Everyking 07:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Separate references and notes: simple. Make a heading "References", put all the book/article details in there. In the notes, just refer to these as "Johnson 1999" or so. Context: Yes, this needs to be there. Most of the contenxt can be given by adding one or a few words, a sentence in some cases. This makes the article much more readable. There's no use in looking up one term in an encyclopedia and then looking up several more because you have no idea what they mean. So I think you can be pretty minimal about it, just not sub-minimal. I noticed a rewrite in the lead section, simply yet effective - exactly what I meant. Jeronimo 18:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you are saying. I don't know, though. The way it is now seems to work pretty effectively. That system might just duplicate reference info for no real benefit. Everyking 19:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it, I would have to agree that separating them is good. Each cited work can go in the references section, and the notes section should list just what is normally in an endnotes section or similar: the last name and page number(s). It would make it all clearer and more standard, at no real cost. - Taxman 02:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, after I get some sleep I'll take a shot at this, presuming I don't have some mood swing in the meantime. Everyking 03:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I currently consider point 1) and 2) of my original objection resolved. My points on 3) and 4) still stand. One of the specific examples mentioned under 3) is still in the article as it was, and nothing has changed regarding 4) (nor has my opinion about it). Jeronimo 18:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I will flatly not address point 4. That would make the article potentially inaccurate and I will not do it. I care more about accuracy than addressing your objection. I don't think you understand how obscure this period is, and how very little historians are certain of about it. Everyking 20:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I still feel the article would become more readable if you would not mention a source in full text every two sentences. It seems a common practice in scientific texts to either add the cited sources in brackets (e.g. [Johnson88]) or in a footnote, as I suggested in my first objection. I feel this would improve the article's readability a lot, while it would not harm it's accuracy or verifiability. What do you think? Jeronimo 08:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I will go through the article later and see if I can find any unnecessary cites to remove. I don't know if I'll find any. Personally, I think having so much cited simply enhances the article's credibility. Anybody who reads it will know that all the information is derived either from primary sources or published, credible historians. Ask anybody and they will tell you that Wikipedia's biggest problem is the question of whether you can trust what you are reading. Thorough referencing is the way to counter this criticism. Also, keep in mind that a great majority of the article is simply speculation: for example, historians are pretty sure that Eowa died at Maserfield. But whose side was he on? What was his political position relative to Penda at the time? There is no consensus on this stuff. It's just guesswork. I'm also not quite sure what you mean when you're proposing alternative citing. How exactly does that differ from what I'm using? One time I used brackets to cite things in a FAC article before and got shot down for it, so I'm not going to do that. Everyking 08:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that Everyking has a very valid point here. The places in the article in which he is most likely to cite source documents are those places where the sources disagree.  In order to discuss the various theories and guesses of historians it is vital to know on which sources these theories depend.  When dealing with assertions made by various authors you are not dealing with facts, but assertions.  To write "King X was at such and such battle on such and such date (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, enty for year Y)", is to give the impression that we in fact know that where King X was on such and such date, when in what we actually know is that one source claims that he was.  Other sources may claim other things.  The bracketed scientific style of citation works great when citing secondary research and (in sciences) primary research that was published in the modern period. It works less well for medieval and ancient sources.  For example, the Historia Brittonum, which Everyking uses, does not have a known author, (it is traditionally ascribed to "Nennius", but that has been shown to be spurious), or a known publication date.  That leaves only the title of the work to put in the bracket, at which point you might as well get rid of the ugly brackets and write "The Historia Brittonum says...".  Dsmdgold 11:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Guys, don't get me wrong: I have nothing against citing sources. By all means, cite. But this article reads like a big "source X says Y" story, and there are several points where that is no need to do so in the text. Take for example the first section: "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives his descent as follows: (...) 3.", with the note referring to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. No competing sources are given, nothing. Why not just write: his descent was as follows (...)3? Makes it easier to read for me. BTW, objection 3) has still not been addressed either. Jeronimo 21:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain. A picture would convince me to support. And I think that for such a long article (with subarticles) lead should be longer then one paragraph. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a good article. It could sure use a picture of Penda, and perhaps more other images (more maps, perhaps some relicts or arechological digs, etc.). But the content is good enough that I support now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can live with it not having any pictures, but I would go against featuring it on the Main Page given the lack of pictures. The introduction is still very short; I think the current consensus seems to be for two paragraphs or sometimes three. JuntungWu 14:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You think? Well, I'll see if I can expand it somehow, then. But it does pretty much cover the basic facts. And it doesn't matter to me if it never goes on the main page, although if it did someone could just stick a map of Britain in there and that'd probably suffice for that purpose. Everyking 14:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally I like longer intros, because if I am looking for some quick facts on a topic I would only read the first few paragraphs. JuntungWu 14:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way do you want to take a look at this map here? I don't know if it's accurate, I am no historian. JuntungWu 14:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW it's a support vote. I didn't make that clear. JuntungWu 02:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, but yes it does need some sort of at least representative image to be picked for when it is on the main page. Some artifact representative of the times would be fine I would think. Also since there is no hard and fast consensus on how references should be formatted, I think this way is just fine, and it is very nice that specific points are backed up with sources. Great job. - Taxman 14:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would work, but I'm not aware of a photograph of one. I guess we could use the image on Sutton Hoo, which is contemporary to the period but East Anglian and not Mercian. There's also a coin that apparently says either Penda or Peada (could be either), but I haven't ever seen a picture of it. Everyking 15:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: I think this article is very comprehensive.  Some of the criticisms here are a little unfair - the lead is concise and covers all salient points - what's the point of rambling on unnecessarily? - Lack of  relevant images is a pity, I just spent an hour confidently flicking through out of copyright history books for one, but have given up.  The Penda coin would be good, but the copyright problem would still probably have to be overcome.  One can't manufacture images just to satisfy a criteria, so this page will just have to be featured without them. Giano 15:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Comprehensive and well-written. A missing image is not a good reason to not feature this interesting article. I slightly dislike the way the references are done (like Jeronimo, I prefer separating references and notes), but as Taxman points out, there is no clear consensus concerning this issue. I should add that I actually very much like the way the notes are done; I didn't know this fn/fnb template.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 00:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: What to do about the objections based on the lack of an image? I'd love to have an image, but I just don't know if it's realistic, and I don't want the nomination to fail just because of that. Everyking 02:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't object on the basis that every FAC must have an image: that isn't a FA requirement. I do object on the basis that a map would significantly improve the article and is entirely feasible. Mark1 02:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, fine then. I don't have a map to use, but hopefully someone else does. Problematically the map would probably be pretty anachronistic, Mercia in Offa's time or afterwards, anyway. Everyking 03:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Note 1:" style for the endnotes looks messy. If you get rid of the italics and the "note," then I'll support this excellent article (excellent work, EK). By the way, an image is NOT a FA requirement. Neutralitytalk 03:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't format it that way, but it does have some advantages: you can link back to the text from the notes, and it consumes less article space. Everyking 03:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The Note 1: text is automatically generated by the / templates. It is poorly documented at Footnotes where Neutrality has started a discussion about changing it on the talk page. I think that would be the proper place to discuss this "global" issue. (Note 1: I introduced the templates to this page and have no opinion about their format, although I like their functionality.) Rmhermen 15:33, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've been periodically working on reworking the references/notes system. If anyone doesn't like it so far, tell me so I don't end up putting too much time into it. Everyking 18:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think its great and should become more frequent, would not have been so good for but an excellent  idea on a site where all authors have to be taken on trust, but not so obligatory where editors could not add that little piece of gathered information absorbed by a genuine interest in a subject that comes from God know's where.Giano 19:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Object The inclusion of a map that has well defined borders forces me, sadly to, object. This is so anachronistic as to be inacurate.  Support This is a well done article and Everyking has handled some very sparse source material very well.  Some comments.  I would like to see some mention that it is a widely held theory that the penny coin is named after Penda. Many commenters have expressed a desire for an image of some sort of or a for a map.  For me, the presence of a map with clearly drawn borders would be grounds for objection.  Such a map would be anachronistic on a few grounds. First there is no way to accurately determine the "borders" for any of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The evidence just does not exist.  Second any map we found would most likely represent the "borders" of Mercia in the wrong era. However, the strongest reason is that to draw a map with borders would imply that such a thing as clearly delineated borders existed. This would be pushing a much later concept into a society that did not have it.  The best solution would be for someone to find a PD outline map of the island and insert the names of the various kingdoms at the center of power for each kingdom and leave out the borders entirely. As for finding a PD picture of an artifact from the era, if you want something from Mercia in the middle of the 7th century, you are up for a very difficult search.  There is no two dimensional art from that time and place surviving.  Any image of three dimensional art would almost certainly have copyright issues, that is assuming you could find any.  (There is a project to put images of every piece of Anglo-Saxon sculpture on the web - here - that might have something, but it would have to clear copyright). There are a few surviving Anglo-Saxon buildings from this period.  I don't know that there are any from Mercia, but St Peter-on-the-Wall, in Essex is from about the right period.  (The article has pictures released under the GFDL.) Dsmdgold 02:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Damned if I do and damned if I don't, ain't I? Everyking 23:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems that way, sorry. Dsmdgold 23:07, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * If I'm going to get an objection either way, I'll just leave it in. I see no major problem with it. I wrote in the caption that it only illustrates the general locations. Everyking 23:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The new map is much better. Dsmdgold 23:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Would a vague sort of map like this be helpful? Rmhermen 17:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just a black screen for me. Probably a browser issue or something? Everyking 20:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * SOme kind of conversion problem. [[Image:Penda foes.GIF|Here]] it is as a GIF. Rmhermen 02:00, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to be too picky, but could we replace "Northumberland" with "Northumbria"? And maybe add Deira to the south of Bernicia, and (to be especially picky) inch "Gwynedd" just a bit to the west? Everyking 02:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be especially nice if the area in question could be blown up a bit and Ireland and most of Scotland cropped out. And those modern borders on there are a bit of a nuisance. Everyking 02:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And, um, Mercia slightly to the northwest, and East Anglia slightly southeast..? Ha, sorry. Everyking 02:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded an antique map - I cand find more if needs be. --Oldak Quill 00:42, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've still got a long way to go on the reformating of the notes & references, but even now it's already gotten very long and has increased the article size past 32KB. What to do? Everyking 01:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think size matters, so long as an article is not ridiculously huge content is more important. John Vanbrugh is to be on the front page very soon and that was way past 32KB last time I looked. No idea what a navigation bar is, but everything is OK on my screen.  It's a great page - keep going. Giano 13:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a few sentences I could maybe move to the articles on the battles...maybe create a separate article for the 628 Wessex battle, even though it hasn't been given any "name" by historians? I guess we could just ignore the 32KB limit, but I hate doing that. Everyking 14:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's just a personal hate of long articles then it's up to you, but if you are just unsure have you seen this . One of the problems about long articles is that the images take a while to download, but this is hardly a problem here - is it?  Don't be too quick to hack it up Giano 15:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The navigation bar is really getting lost below the large Notes and References sections. Could it be moved ahead of them? Rmhermen 02:00, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Navigation bar...I don't know what that is.. Everyking 02:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I was referening to the box with the next king/previous king, etc. Rmhermen 13:48, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nice to have the references separated from the notes. I didn't care much about the layout of the footnotes, but I must say I agree with Neutrality that it looks better this way. Furthermore, I wouldn't worry about the length &mdash; I have the feeling that the 32kb limit is a bit out of date.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 22:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks...it is pretty long with the separate notes and references, but I'll see if I can condense it at all once I'm done changing the format. There isn't a whole lot left to say about Penda in any case&mdash;a handful of minor issues I'd eventually like to address in a paragraph or two&mdash;so maybe length won't be an issue. Everyking 23:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - the issue of the map can be sorted out later. I suggest placing it in the request for images section. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added the map kindly uploaded by User:OldakQuill. Hopefully this is adequate to satisfy the early objections that were based on the absence of an image. I would prefer a map that did not try to define the borders and that also illustrated the locations of the known minor kingdoms and peoples (some of which play a part in Penda's life story), but I believe this will suffice for now. Everyking 01:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: the conversion of the notes/references format is finally complete. The text now links to the notes, while the notes link further to the reference section. Everyking 00:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -  Banyan Tree  18:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)