Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Æthelflæd


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Æthelflæd

 * Nominator(s): 

It is ages since I nominated for MilHist as none of the article I was working on were eligible. However, Æthelflæd was the daughter of Alfred the Great and the chief - perhaps only - female military leader in Anglo-Saxon England, so she is eminently eligible. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Support: G'day, overall this looks quite good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks, and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "In Keynes's view, "The..." (you probably could silently decaps "The" here...);
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "...as well as reverence for their great Northumbrian royal saint at Gloucester," for stem sentences like this, I'd suggest probably a colon, rather than a comma;
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "p. 93–94" --> "pp. 93–94"
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * in the References, " The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters" probably should be in italics for consistency;
 * I am not sure how to deal with this. I put the charter as the title and The Electronic Sawyer as the publisher, which is probably wrong. The Electronic Sawyer is mounted on a server at King's College, London, which is described as an integral part of the Kemble website, mounted on a server at Cambridge University. So maybe I should show King's College as the publisher, The Electronic Sawyer as the title and the charter as the chapter? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I just went with The Electronic Sawyer as the work, and King's College as the publisher. I think that works, but please feel free to adjust if you disagree. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * are there page numbers for the two Heighway (1984 & 1999) chapters in the References?
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * same as above for Ryan?
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * be careful of overlink. I removed one for you, but I think Alex Woolf and Mancus are also overlinked;
 * Done. (Personally, I do not see why overlinking is wrong, but it is not worth arguing about.) Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support -- with the caveat that although medieval times of course interest me I know little more about them than the next guy... Nice work bringing this unique woman to the fore on WP. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pls let me know any concerns with my copyedit (a fair bit was fixing apparent typos and inserting punctuation where I felt it helped); I think there was only outstanding point for me:
 * In the lead: "In 909 Edward sent a West Saxon and Mercian force to raid northern Danish territory" -- I don't think you've introduced Edward at this point. The Elder I presume? I debated just putting that in and linking but you may want to mention him earlier, will leave to you.
 * No issues with structure or level of detail AFAIC.
 * I might leave image and source reviews to others...
 * Thanks for the review and copy edits. I have mentioned Edward earlier as you suggested. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments
 * Hi Dudley, is this one headed to FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Dan. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Support
 * Great work! Really minor comments below.
 * "to rule all English not living in areas" - felt odd to me. "English people" or "all the English"?
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ""Æthelflæd (from The Cartulary and Customs of Abingdon Abbey, ca 1220" - elsewhere in the infobox and captions, you're using "c."
 * Done. (This was added before I started working on the article.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "The most important source for history in this period is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle but Æthelflæd is almost ignored in the standard West Saxon version in what F. T. Wainwright calls "a conspiracy of silence". - might have added a comma after "version", breaking a fairly long sentence
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "although it is lost," - "although it is now lost"? Obvious, but would smooth the sentence flow
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * " semi-legendary Irish chronicle" - I wasn't sure what "semi-legendary" meant in this context.
 * This is how it is described by historians. I take it to mean a chronicle which has both stories of miracles and descriptions of events which can be verified from other sources. Do you have any suggestion for a better wording? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... could you put a footnote in saying that? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * After saying that this is how it is described I cannot find where. How about "in the Irish chronicle known as the Three Fragments, described by Wainwright as a source which "contains much that is legendary rather than historical"? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hchc2009 I have given a more extended quote to explain why the chronicle is relevant. "According to Wainwright, it "contains much that is legendary rather than historical. But it also contains, especially for our period, much genuine historical information which seems to have its roots in a contemporary narrative."" Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "In the twelfth century, Henry of Huntingdon paid her his own tribute: Heroic Elflede! great in martial fame..." - personally, I found the whole quote a bit much, but that might just be me! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me mildly funny (although of course not intended to be) and throwing light on how she was viewed in the post-Conquest period, but maybe it is not suitable for the article. Any other views on this Dan, Ian, Rupert? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've no strong preferences on this either way, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review and support hchc. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Support with minor comments
 * You switch from Three Fragments to Fragmentary Annals.
 * Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "The land was valuable" land can't show anything.
 * Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "In the view of Maggie Bailey" Why is Bailey's view privileged over Walker's? Does the former reflect academic consensus?
 * Expanded comment to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "especially for our period" should it be "especially for [that] period"?
 * I think it is better to keep to the wording of the quote. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Æthelflæd inherited..." Maybe "Æthelflæd benefited from a Mercian tradition that acknowledged the importance of queens" or similar? Both "inherited" and "acceptance" seem mildly problematic to me, for different reasons. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Æthelflæd benefited from a Mercian tradition of queenly importance," Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your review and support. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Offa_king_of_Mercia_757_796.jpg should have a licensing tag for the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikki. I have added and trust that is OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.