Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siward, Earl of Northumbria/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 SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009.

Siward, Earl of Northumbria

 * Nominator(s): Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has received quite a lot of work, and I think it's ready for FA status. Most of the preparation was done several months ago, though then I held off nominating for a variety of reasons. I am satisfied the important points about this figure's life are now covered in reasonable depth, while the article has benefitted from the copy-editing and review talents of several other users, most notably, and. You will note that the interesting but dubious saga-material about this figure has been included but not incorporated into the article by placement in text boxes. This is a good solution to the problem this poses, while it follows a growing convention in mainstream history writing to make use of such boxes (after the manner of Norman Davies) for such purposes. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review:
 * File:Edward the Confessor 1042 1066.jpg is in the public domain one way or another, but my thought is that as a reproduction of what is effectively a two dimensional work it should be tagged differently, as User:PHGCOM may not have had any rights to it in the first place to release into the public domain.
 * Disagree with image review. The object is not two-dimensional. I had an image of a 4000 year-old shallow bas relief rejected as not PD-old because it was deemed to be 3-D and therefore the photographer's copyright, which seems bizarre, but technically the photo is the uploader's copyright to dispose of. jimfbleak (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is whether the threshold of creativity is met in photographing a work. For that purpose, I can't see how either a coin or a shallow bas relief would be considered as three dimensional.  Do you happen to have a link to the discussion where this occurred?  Anyway, it's public domain one way or another, so this isn't a huge deal, but I'd like to make sure the tagging's done right. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This sort of case was mentioned and the decision (relief of coins are considered 3D) in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kensington Runestone Kens3.gif. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, okay then. Striking this issue. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * File:EmpireNorth.JPG is derived from File:Cnut 1014 1035.jpg, which is tagged as being in the public domain in all jurisdictions in which copyright term is life of author plus seventy years, but the file has no information on the lifespan of the author (it's also unclear whether William R. Shepherd is the cartographer of that map, or the editor of the atlas, or what). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * William R. Shepherd died in 1934 and appears to have been the cartographer and author, so still scrapes in the 70 year limit jimfbleak (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The image in question isn't a big deal to the article. Just there to nice it up. I can easily replace it with another. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the concern has been stricken, the explanation that Shepherd died in 1934 and scrapes the 70 year pma is not correct. Shepherd is American and the atlas is an American publication; by US copyrights, publication date is the primary criteria.  Luckily, the map in question was published at least as early as 1911 (allowing hosting on Wikipedia).  A German company (its country of origin) holds the copyright, but they have never identified authorship, hence allowing the assertion of Anonymous-EU.  Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

*Comments (minor: expect to switch to support) Support
 * This article has developed well, since its already good standard when I reviewed it at GAN.
 * That is a fabulous "sources and background" section.
 * 1) Should "Uhtred the Bold" be wikilinked to Uhtred of Bamburgh?
 * 2)...that Siward's attack may be interpreted in the context of royal aggression". Can this be more explicit in some way - is the point that Siward's attack may have been an action undertaken on behalf of his king against a rebellious Eadulf? My point is to go beyond saying "in the context of" and explain that Siward was siding with one against the other - if I have read this correctly, of course!
 * 3)"The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that Siward had to call up reinforcements, but despite this, King Edward was successful..." The phrase "but despite this" here leads us to expect that, despite using reinforcements, Siward was unsuccessful. Better I think would be: "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that, although Siward had to call up reinforcements, the campaign against Earl Godwine was successful and led to his temporary banishment."
 * 4)"dating to 1053 x 1055". I'm not familiar with this symbol - what is being denoted here, a date range?
 * 5)"...Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, recension D:" There's that word again :-) Have you considered using the word "version", but wikilinking it to the entry on recension?
 * 6)The very last para of this section on the "Expedition against the Scots" seems out of place (the one beginning "The Annals of Lindisfarne and Durham, written in the early 12th-century..."). This seems a discussion of the event that belongs near the start of the section, rather than after the analysis that precedes it. But I may be wrong.
 * 7)"Siward died more than a decade before the death of Edward the Confessor, but despite this the Domesday Book recorded ..." I'm afraid as an ignorant person, I didn't get why this was "despite" anything. Something to do with chronology of events?
 * 8)I work on two different computer monitors. On one the text in the text boxes is small but (just) readable; on the other it is literally too tiny to form legible letters. Add to that the possibility of a vision-impaired (not blind) user, and I wonder if something can be done about the text box character size? I realise this may create a layout issue, particularly for the long passage under "Emergence and rise to power under Cnut", and it may be that that passage would be best edited in some way. It is a colourful story, but not the shortest of extracts.
 * Really enjoyable article, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Wikipedia article take their names after certain conventions. In articles of this nature and time period, these are hardly ever the best for the text of articles, thus I find it that I mostly use redirects or pipes. "Uhtred the Bold" is his nickname and probably how he is best known. Maybe that article should be renamed, maybe it shouldn't, but I just thought it made more sense to call him Uhtred the Bold in this Northumbrian context than "Uhtred of Bamburgh". Not a biggie though.
 * I musn't have made myself clear. I am happy with Uhtred the Bold, it just wasn't wikilinked at all. Don't want you to change the name in the article, piping is good. I just wanted a link. I ran a search and didn't find it earlier in the article. Did I miss one? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) reworded
 * 3) reworded. The "despite this" was used for "despite having needed to call up reinforcements, Siward's side still won"
 * 4) this "x" is used by historians to indicate that something cannot be dated to a specific year. Here "1053 x 1055" means [dates to] some point between 1053 and 1055 [inclusive].
 * Suggest change to "between 1053 and 1055". hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Recension is the standard terminology in relation to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It is less ambiguous than "version". Actually, rendering it "version" might be thought misleading. I think if someone's gonna ponder the point, rather than just skim over it, it is worth learning the meaning of the word. Learning the English language is after all a life-long experience. While I don't ever support making things unnecessarily obscure, the rough meaning of "version" will surely be picked up from the context.
 * OK, I'm pursuaded. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) I will rework this later, probably using a new source (Aird, Normans and St Cuthbert)
 * 7) The Domeday book records property owners and the values of property 1) on the day of King Edwards death and 2) in 1086. Thus, if Siward died ten years before Edward, he wasn't alive on the day of Edward's death. I added the date 1066 to make the contradiction clearer
 * 8) Adjusted. Had to merge two paragraphs, but this worked out ok.
 * Cheers for the comments. I drop a note here when I'm done with 6). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I trust you will deal with 6 and my minor other points, and have switched to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, done. I think I've addressed the remaining points. Take a look and judge for thyself. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Support - Much improved. The article currently has many problems. The largest being poor phrasing and organisation. Explanations throughout the article seem confusing and badly ordered.
 * The Lead: Is confusing, concentrates too much on naming, and doesn't mention Siwards legacy or connection with York. It also fails to emphasise Siward's power as a man who ruled much of England and was capable of defeating kings. Looking at individual sections:
 * Siward or Sigurd (Old English: Sigeweard) was an earl in 11th-century northern England. The Old Norse nickname Digri ("the Stout") and Latin translation Grossus ("the Fat") are given to him by near-contemporary texts.[1] The English name Siward or Sigeweard was cognate to the single Old Norse name written variously as Sigvarðr and Sigurðr.
 * Far too much detail on naming for the lead. The last sentence is not needed, and if Grossus is a translation of Digri, why do we need two different English translations?
 * Siward's origins and early life, covered by some saga-like tales, is obscure to historians.
 * Mixed tenses and do we need this at all? it tells us almost nothing.
 * Probably of Scandinavian origin, perhaps a member of Earl Ulf's kindred, 
 * We have no idea who Earl Ulf is, and he doesn't seem important anyway. Just confuses.
 * Siward emerged as a powerful regional strongman in England during the reign of Cnut (1016–1035). Cnut was a Scandinavian ruler who conquered England in the 1010s, and Siward was one of the many Scandinavians who came to England in the aftermath of that conquest.
 * This information is presented back to front, which again confuses the reader. FIRST say Siward came to England with Cnut, then say how he became a strongman. Also, why not say that Cnut is "King Canute"? He is still far better known by this name.
 * By 1033 Siward was in control of what is now Yorkshire, governing southern Northumbria as earl on Cnut's behalf. Siward's entrenched his position in northern England by marrying Ælfflæd, the daughter of Ealdred, Earl of Bamburgh.
 * Again, confusing. Would be better as: "..Siward was in control of southern Northumbria, that is, present-day Yorkshire, governing as earl on Cnut's behalf."
 * After killing a different Earl of Bamburgh in 1041, Siward gained control of all Northumbria. He exerted his power in support of Kings Harthacnut and Edward, assisting them with vital military support and counsel.
 * "a different Earl of Bambrugh"? That just adds to confusion. "Ealdred's successor as Earl of Bamburgh" would be better. Or "a subsequent Earl of Bambrugh". Also "support" is used twice in the last sentence. Also the sentence doesn't explain who Kings Harthacnut and Edward were - ie. successor Kings of England after Canute. they could be kings of other countries, as written.


 * Sources and background. Should be split. Sources section is too long and impenetrable, and will put people off reading the rest of the article. The background section itself needs re-organising into a more logical sequence. At the moment it is bitty, jumping from subject to subject in no chronological order, and interspersing explanations of what a thegn and ealdorman was.
 * Ancestry. Far too long and confusing. Less is more here. All it needs is the boxed text, a brief explanation and mention of the fact that some others had similar ancestral claims.
 * Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut. Starts with a long recount of a story, which is already in box text and which you admit is fanciful. This needs to be cut. The section on Eril of Lathr is very confusing and over-long. The rest of the historical account also needs a lot of work, copy-editing and making it clearer. Names are often dropped in without explanation of who they are or what their importance is. And important events are not sufficiently explained. An example is:
 * Cnut died in 1035, while his son Harthacnut remained in Scandinavia. As Harthacnut was geographically unable to take the crown for himself in good time, Harold Harefoot was able to take the kingdom for himself. Although he successfully resisted trouble from the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready — Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later known as King Edward the Confessor) — Harold died just as Harthacnut was preparing an invasion.[43] Harthacnut reigned in England only two years before he himself died and was peacefully succeeded by Edward in 1042.[44] Frank Barlow speculated on Siward's position during this period, guessing that Siward assumed "a position of benevolent or prudent neutrality".
 * This does not say how long Harefoot was in control or the date of Harthacnut's take-over. The passage could be better written something like "When Cnut died in 1035, there were a number of rival claimants for his throne. These included his son, Hathacnut, and the nobleman Harold Harefoot, as well as Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later, King Edward the Confessor), the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready. Isolated in Scandinavia, Harthacnut was unable to prevent Harold Harefoot seizing the crown for himself, however Harefoot died in ....etc.


 * Another example: The section "Expedition against the Scots" has this passage:
 * The origin of Siward's conflict with the Scots is unclear. According to the Libellus de Exordio, in 1039 or 1040—a year before Siward attacked and killed Eadulf—the Scottish king Donnchad mac Crínáin attacked northern Northumbria and besieged Durham. Within a year, Mac Bethad had deposed killed (sic) Donnchad.
 * Is Eadulf the Scottish king, or Donnchad mac Crínáin? In fact Eadulf was last mentioned two full sections above this one. Introducing him here, without his title or any context is very confusing. If there is a linkage between the killing of the Duke of Bamburgh and the Scottish invasion, it should be spelled out. Again if Mac bethad killed the person who attacked Northumbria, why is this a reason to attack him? It is unclear.


 * Why is Saint Olave's Church, York, referred to in the article, without explanation as "Galmanho"?  Xan  dar   01:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Lead: Is confusing, concentrates too much on naming, and doesn't mention Siwards legacy or connection with York. It also fails to emphasise Siward's power as a man who ruled much of England and was capable of defeating kings. Looking at individual sections:
 * This is valid I think. I've reworked it, though I don't know how you want me to fit York in. I can't think of a way. :(


 * We have no idea who Earl Ulf is, and he doesn't seem important anyway. Just confuses
 * Earl Ulf is introduced in the text. The article summary in the lead links him. And yes, he is important as his kin-group is the strongest one in Denmark after Cnut's own, and indeed his descendants (as pointed out in the text) ruled Denmark after Cnut. :)
 * Far too much detail on naming for the lead. The last sentence is not needed, and if Grossus is a translation of Digri, why do we need two different English translations
 * Hmm ... the normal translations of both words aren't identical, but I think it's fair to say that Grossus here means "stout" more than "corpulent", so I've merged the translations to avoid the possible confusion you rightly point out.


 * Mixed tenses and do we need this at all? it tells us almost nothing. 
 * Don't see that. Yes, I wouldn't have written it in if we didn't.


 * This information is presented back to front, which again confuses the reader. FIRST say Siward came to England with Cnut, then say how he became a strongman. Also, why not say that Cnut is "King Canute"? He is still far better known by this name. 
 * We don't know that Siward came to England with Cnut. His first appearance in reliable sources comes when he is already a regional strongman. Put King Canute in brackets btw.


 * "a different Earl of Bambrugh"? That just adds to confusion. "Ealdred's successor as Earl of Bamburgh" would be better. Or "a subsequent Earl of Bambrugh". Also "support" is used twice in the last sentence. Also the sentence doesn't explain who Kings Harthacnut and Edward were - ie. successor Kings of England after Canute. they could be kings of other countries, as written.
 * Yep, I agree. Fixed this.


 * Sources and background. Should be split. Sources section is too long and impenetrable, and will put people off reading the rest of the article. The background section itself needs re-organising into a more logical sequence. At the moment it is bitty, jumping from subject to subject in no chronological order, and interspersing explanations of what a thegn and ealdorman was.
 * I split this. I don't see the problem with the sources section. Could you elaborate? The explanations of earl and thegn are there because another reviewer asked me to put them there. I don't really know what to do; removing it might cause the other reviewer displeasure. I think the order in the background section is otherwise fine and logical: one para for England of the time and one specific to Northumbria. That makes sense ... no?


 * Ancestry. Far too long and confusing. Less is more here. All it needs is the boxed text, a brief explanation and mention of the fact that some others had similar ancestral claims.
 * OK. Trimmed it.


 * Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut. Starts with a long recount of a story, which is already in box text and which you admit is fanciful. This needs to be cut. The section on Eril of Lathr is very confusing and over-long.


 * I've put most of the in-article stuff here into the footnote.


 * The rest of the historical account also needs a lot of work, copy-editing and making it clearer. Names are often dropped in without explanation of who they are or what their importance is. And important events are not sufficiently explained. An example is: ... This does not say how long Harefoot was in control or the date of Harthacnut's take-over. The passage could be better written something like "When Cnut died in 1035, there were a number of rival claimants for his throne. These included his son, Hathacnut, and the nobleman Harold Harefoot, as well as Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later, King Edward the Confessor), the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready. Isolated in Scandinavia, Harthacnut was unable to prevent Harold Harefoot seizing the crown for himself, however Harefoot died in ....etc.


 * I've fixed this a little, and incorporated your suggested rephrasing. Regarding name dropping ... what names to you feel need more detail to be helpful?


 * Is Eadulf the Scottish king, or Donnchad mac Crínáin? In fact Eadulf was last mentioned two full sections above this one. Introducing him here, without his title or any context is very confusing. If there is a linkage between the killing of the Duke of Bamburgh and the Scottish invasion, it should be spelled out. Again if Mac bethad killed the person who attacked Northumbria, why is this a reason to attack him? It is unclear.


 * There is no known linkage between the two events. This suggestive [subliminal] style--common in historical writing-- is one I'm fond of, works better if you follow the story. It was quite easy to change this though, and I have done so. This should be a more explicit read now.


 * Why is Saint Olave's Church, York, referred to in the article, without explanation as "Galmanho"?
 * Usually a church has two names, one of the saint and one of the place. E.g. St Paul's Cathedral is also London Cathedral (though that's ambiguous now). Should have just written "St Olaf's at Galmanho", which is what I've done now.


 * Thanks for the comments. Anything else? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The changes you've made so far are a big improvement. Some issues remain though. I haven't time to do a thorough run through now. I will get back with more detailed responses, hopefully tomorrow.  Xan  dar   23:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are still quite a few problems with the prose. I may make a few smaller corrections myself, rather than list everything here, and you can see what you make of them. As to my read through:
 * Lead
 * It might be useful to add something like: "Several historic sites in the English city of York have connections with Siward."
 * Sources
 * "non-representative" - why not "unrepresentative"?
 * "annalistic" Confusing word. Why not "annal-style"?
 * "compilations of John of Worcester (compiled between 1124 and 1140)," Compiled used twice.
 * Background
 * "Beginning in the reign of Cnut, and lasting through Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut into the reign of Edward the Confessor, Siward's career in northern England spanned the reigns of four different monarchs." Would read better as something like: "Siward's career in northern England spanned the reigns of four different monarchs. It began during the reign of Cnut, and lasted through those of Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut into the early years of Edward the Confessor."
 * "poor hereditary links to the West Saxon royal house". "weak" links might be better.
 * "In England, it fell to a handful of newly promoted "ealdormen" or "earls".[12] An ealdorman was an Anglo-Saxon official who ruled a territory, usually a shire or group of shires, on behalf of the king. The term was, by Cnut's reign, interchangeable with the Scandinavian word earl, which supplanted the former by the end of the 11th-century." Too much digression to explain word-meaning breaks up the narrative of this passage. I would suggest:
 * "In England, it fell to a handful of newly promoted "ealdormen" or "earls ".[12] An ealdorman was an Anglo-Saxon official who ruled a territory, usually a shire or group of shires, on behalf of the king. The term was, by Cnut's reign, interchangeable with the Scandinavian word earl, which supplanted the former by the end of the 11th-century "
 * "(though there were other earls)" This bracket phrase is ugly and probably unnecessary.
 * Ancestry
 * "Historians generally claim Siward to be of Scandinavian origin, something supported by the Vita Ædwardi Regis which says Siward was "[called] Digri in the Danish tongue" (Danica lingua Digara)" Better to say "which states that" rather than "which says".
 * Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut
 * "There is little known about Siward's arrival in England," This is very vague. Why not put the more specific; "The exact date of Siward's arrival in England is unknown."
 *  Xan  dar  02:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! All good suggestions, and I have implemented them. I did add "and context" to "The exact date of Siward's arrival in England is unknown", as more than just date was meant, and the next piece about the Vita Waldevi wouldn't make sense otherwise. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. I think we've dealt with most of these points. I've also made some clean-up edits to the article - which is actually easier than listing all the points here. Whilst doing this I noticed two very vague sentences:
 * In the English affairs under Edward the Confessor section: "Besides the help of their retinues, this act was carried out on the "advise" of the three earls." I'm not sure what this means? The retinues were the armies? We already know they joined in the attack. "advise"?? Does this mean "advice". or something else? Why the quotation marks?
 * In the Death and legacy section: "This, or something else about Siward's career, made the Anglo-Saxonist Frank Stenton declare him "not a statesman, but a Danish warrior of the primitive type." Again very vague. If there is no connection its probably best not to try to force a link with the previous passage, and just use Stenton as a summing up.  Xan  dar   23:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The advice part was there because the ASC says Edward carried this action out on their advice. I suppose it isn't necessary, so I removed it. I followed your second suggestion too. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Well I think that concludes my concerns with this article. It is certainly improved enough for me to withdraw my objection and support.  Xan  dar   23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving the article! Let me know if you can think of more ways to improve the article.Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotta be honest, never previously heard of that. But I've had a go at adding alt text. Deacon&#39;s sockpuppet (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the 1st cut. Still needs work, I'm afraid. Alt text should describe only appearance, and should not say anything that's not immediately verifiable by a non-expert sighted reader who's looking only at the image. For the first image File:Death of Earl Siward (cropped).jpg for example, the current alt text says "Face of Earl Siward from Smetham's 1861 painting" (my italics), but almost none of this alt text describes the appearance of the image. Only the italicized word talks about visual appearance. This italicized word should be kept and the rest of the alt text replaced with text that talks only about visual appearance. For more, please see WP:ALT  (especially the 3rd example). Eubulides (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, had another go. Deacon&#39;s sockpuppet (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's much better, but it still needs work. File:Death of Earl Siward (cropped).jpg has alt text "A bearded man wearing a helmet", which is OK but a bit terse for the lead image. How about "Head and shoulders of bearded man in the gloom, wearing a medieval helmet"? The alt text for the 2nd image, Image:EmpireNorth.JPG focuses on unimportant visual details "red color" while omitting the most important gist of the image: namely, where were Cnut's dominions? The alt text for the 3rd image doesn't say that it's a copper coin, which is the first thing you see. The alt text for Image:Death of Earl Siward (Smetham).jpg contains details like "Smetham's 1861" which are not visually apparent, and words like "painting" which aren't needed. Could you please have another go? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How 'bout now? Deacon&#39;s sockpuppet (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, and thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the notoriously named Lincoln, Lincolnshire. Dabbed. Thanks. Deacon&#39;s sockpuppet (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments, leaning toward supporting. It's looking good on a surface reading. A couple things:
 * "The region however was more fragmented than this might indicate." Quite an ambiguous "this"; I'm not sure what you're referring to. You have a bit of a penchant for "this", but the others are mostly clear.
 * Should the long quotation in the "Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut" section begin with "[A]fter"?
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the logic of the point Bolton was making (namely, that the picture often given of two ealdorman controlling the whole region is wrong) was being followed more closely than the article text. I've adjusted here.
 * Is this something that is done? I gotta be honest, never noticed that. Good device! Yes, as you can probably guess, "a" is in lower case because I started quoting the text midway through a sentence.
 * I'll watch out for "this" in future. Writing takes longer than reading, so the writer and reader operate in a different time-zones. I thought I sorted most of such repetitions when I warped into the reader time-zone, but I didn't catch a proliferation of thises. Is this particularly noticeable? ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, it is looking good. Thanks for all your hard work! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support—'Tis good. Tony   (talk)  09:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.