Wikipedia:Peer review/Æthelstan/archive1

Æthelstan
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because Æthelstan was the first king of England, and I think the article on him should be FA. As a first step, I am asking for comments on improving it before nominating for GA. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dank
Just some copyediting comments: - Dank (push to talk) Thanks for your help. Any further comments welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks again. I assume that as A-Class is close to FAC it will be better to go for GAC first. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "confirming his prestige": I don't know what this means.
 * Amended. OK?
 * This isn't important to me, but FAC usually requires consistency on for instance "tenth century" or "10th century".
 * This because I prefer tenth, but another editor prefers 10th and changes my wording. Is there any preference which is best?
 * If anyone objects or reverts, and I think you're saying that they are, then you're stuck with whatever style on this was already present in the article (unless it wasn't consistent, in which case current editors can choose, and you should initiate a discussion if other editors disagree with your choice). I'm not entirely on board with the approach or the content of WP:MOSNUM, but as part of our MOS, it's more or less "the law" at FAC; see WP:CENTURY. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "with social order, especially theft": with social order, especially the prosecution of theft (or curtailing of theft, or whatever his concern was).
 * Amended. OK?
 * "His legal reforms bear comparison with those of his grandfather, Alfred.": What's the comparison?
 * Amended. OK?
 * "the invasion by the Great Heathen Army": "an invasion ..."
 * I do not like "an invasion" as the Great Heathern Army is the name given to the army which invaded in 865, so I have deleted "the".
 * "Alfred died in 899 and was succeeded by Edward. His ...": More often than not, "His" beginning one sentence will refer to the subject of the previous sentence (when there's a choice). "His" isn't wrong here because Alfred died, so most readers will assume you're not still talking about him, but the better choice here would be something like "Edward took the throne when Alfred died in 899. His ..."
 * Amended. OK?
 * "Æthelred died in 911 and was succeeded by Æthelflæd as Lady of the Mercians.": I don't have a suggested fix here, but "as" humorously implies that Æthelred was the previous Lady of the Mercians. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Amended. OK?
 * You made some very good choices, and I've made a few tweaks. Feel free to revert if I didn't get your sense or if you prefer something else. I'll have more comments at A-class, if you want to go that way. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, GAN is good. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by PocklingtonDan
I am going to give the article a read through now and post any comments here. I do not intend to make any direct edits to the article myself. My comments will all be very minor, and feel free to take any/all of them with a pinch of salt or ignore them completely. They are a second pair of eyes, the observations are not necessarily valid:
 * Image caption "Penny of Æthelstan" - I think it is worh expanding this slightly to make it clearer, such as "Penny coin minted under and depticting Æthelstan"
 * I need to look into this further. There was a much better coin illustrated, but an editor insisted on replacing it with one from his own collection, and I did not want to get into an edit war about it. It is not entirely clear which Æthelstan the better coin relates to, but it was photographed at the British Museum, and as it happens I am going there tomorrow, so I will see whether I can check it out.


 * "Successor	Himself" in the infobox.This is slightly confusing and I don't know if "none" or similar might be more appropriate?
 * I think 'None' would be even more confusing. I have deleted the 'next line' before 'as king of the Anglo-Saxons' so that it follows straight on. Does that make it clearer.


 * "His half-brother Ælfweard may have become king of Wessex, but died within weeks of their father". I think the wording here is slightly ambigous and open to multiple readings, eg "you may be bigger than me, but I can still knock you out" versus "you may be bigger than me, but I'm not certain".
 * The situation is confusing, as explained further down. Ælfweard may have been chosen as king in Wessex, and it may have been as king of the Anglo-Saxons or only of Wessex. Is my amended wording clearer?


 * "There is very little information about Æthelstan's mother, Ecgwynn, and she is not even named in any pre-Conquest source" It is not clear what conquest this refers to, since this is the first mention of it in the article.
 * I have linked conquest to the Norman Conquest.


 * "while others argue that allegations that Æthelstan was illegitimate were a product of the dispute over the succession, and that there is no reason to doubt that she was Edward's legitimate wife" This appears to be uncited.
 * Done.


 * "organised a new ordo (order of service) " As someone unfamiliar with the context or period, I'm not sure what an order of service is, can this be clarified a little?
 * I have clarified by changing to 'religious order of service' Is this clear now?


 * "a certain Alfred plotted to blind Æthelstan" This is very confused and unclear. What does "a certain" refer to in this context? Can you be clearer and state "a jarl called Alfred" or "a bishop called Alfred" or similar? Also, to blind him? This seems very odd, do you mean this literally? If you mean to actually blind him, what's the story here? Is it not far more normal to plot to kill someone? Was this a common Saxon tradition? It feels unclear
 * Done. It is not known who Alfred was, and I have added that he was an unknown nobleman. Blinding was a way of making someone disabled and therefore ineligible for kingship without committing murder, as explained in the source. Edward the Confessor's brother Alfred was blinded, presumably for the same reason, and it was common in the Byzantine empire. The Empress Irene even had her own son blinded when he threatened her power.


 * "Æthelstan can hardly have expected an invasion by a grand alliance so late in the year" I think this needs clarifying to the average reader, stating that campaigning season in medieval period was generally in fair weather seasons only for reasons X and Y and so this was atypical
 * Done

Many thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I will do further reading and comments later this weekend PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dudley. I'm happy with the all the tweaks/explanations above. I will continue working my way through this article over the course of the next day or two. Nice work by the way! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Further Comments by PocklingtonDan

 * I think that "he made generous gifts to the tomb of St Cuthbert, including a stole and manciple" the words stole and manciple need explaining or wikilinking, especially since they are not terms in general modern usage and the latter term is defined on wikipedia as "a person in charge of the purchase and storage of food at an institution", which is surely not correct in this instance!
 * I have clarified. Manciple was a typo for maniple.


 * "The invasion was conducted by a combined land and naval force" I think this needs clarifying. A naval force is one that makes battle at sea, an amphibious force is a predominantly land army landed by sea. Was there any naval battles, or expected naval battles? If not, "amphibious" or just a description that some of the army was moved by sea might be more appropriate.
 * I have changed to by land and sea. There is no evidence of naval battles.


 * "system of tithing, sworn groups of ten or more men" do you have a quote for this? Both tithing and frankpledge seem to refer to number of households, not number of men
 * This is correct. The article on tithing states that the original tenth century meaning referred to men, not households.


 * "The later codes show his concern with threats to social order, especially theft" It would be nice if it was possible to determine from the sources exactly what was meant by theft here, since obviously this covers everything from pick-pocketing to failure to pay for goods, and even presumably cattle-rustling, brigandry and smallscale raiding. I'm left wondering why theft was felt to be such a problem and exactly what sort of thefts the legislation was meant to prevent.
 * I have clarified that he was concerned with robberies, but I am not sure how else to deal with this. I think theft is thought to be a major problem in almost all societies.


 * "Æthelstan died at Gloucester on 27 October 939" Is there any more information on this? Unless I missed it, there is no preamble int he article about his advanced age or ill health etc?
 * I think his death was probably unexpected, but there is no source for any comment on this point.

I think those are the only points I can pick up on a general readthrough that need clarifying still. I'm afraid I don't have time currently to perform other work here such as checking sources etc. Hope this was of some small help in improving the article for general readers. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found a better image for the coin and added fuller information about it.
 * Thanks very much again. Are you happy with my amendments? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dudley, all looking good to me - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dudley, all looking good to me - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)