Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelflæd/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2017 [1].


Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Æthelflæd, daughter of Alfred the Great, Lady of the Mercians and the foremost female military leader in Anglo-Saxon England. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice work, close to a support. Some initial thoughts:

  • "By 878 most of England was under Danish Viking rule, East Anglia and Northumbria having been conquered and Mercia partitioned between the English and the Vikings, but in that year Alfred won a crucial victory at the Battle of Edington."- a long sentence; any way of breaking after "the English and the Vikings."?
  • I think it could do with more detail to clarify. How about "By 878 most of England was under Danish Viking rule: East Anglia and Northumbria had been conquered, Mercia was partitioned between the English and the Vikings, and Wessex was on the verge of defeat. However, in that year Alfred won a crucial victory at the Battle of Edington, and Wessex was never seriously threatened thereafter." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Æthelred played a major role in fighting off renewed Viking attacks in the 890s, together with Alfred's son, the future King Edward the Elder. " - is Edward therefore her brother? If so, might be simpler to describe him that way.
  • "His health probably declined early in the next decade," - I found "his" a bit awkward here, as we'd had two men mentioned in quick succession before.
  • Changed to "Æthelred's health". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • " and the Mercian rulers were buried there." - which Mercian rulers? I may have missed something here.
  • I was using a symonym for Æthelfæd and Æthelred, but it is a bit confusing as I mention Æthelred's death in the next sentence. Best delete? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd delete it - it's doesn't feel crucial here, and without a synonym it would feel a bit clunky. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Shortly afterwards the York Vikings offered her their loyalty, " - would "Vikings in York" sound more natural? not sure...
  • York Vikings is the usually term and sounds better to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Æthelflæd was succeeded by her daughter Ælfwynn but in December Edward took personal control of Mercia and carried Ælfwynn off to Wessex." - I'd have gone for a comma after AElfwynn
  • "According to Pauline Stafford, "Like a latter-day Elizabeth I..." the MOS would permit the lower case "like" which would help the flow
  • Some of the cited works give location and publisher (e.g. London, UK: Cambridge University Press) others just publisher (e.g. Oxford University Press, Yale University Press.) - the style should be consistent
  • Done. I could only find one location I missed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters needs the location as well (KCL : London, I'm presuming). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The Miller, Sean (2004). "Edward [called Edward the Elder] (870s?–924), king of the Anglo-Saxons". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. reference is wrongly cited; the version linked to is the

online edition, September 2011. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I think the ODBN still need the Oxford location in the bibliography.
  • I have never given locations for websites and they are not given for other FAs I have checked, such as William the Conqueror and Middle Ages. I doubt whether it is sensible to give a location as the server may not be located in Oxford. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The formatting of the referencing in footnote d) looks odd - it's a long in-line citation, as opposed to the short citations in the rest of the article.
  • I am not sure how to deal with this as it is a poem in a book I have not checked myself, only a copy of the poem in a book I have checked. Nikki can I ask you to kindly advise yet again? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest two citations: Szarmach directly for the "freely" comment, and then an embedded cite for the poem itself. Within that ref you're going to have "{{cite book}} quoted in {{sfn}}", with the original source in the first template and Szarmach in the second. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Nikki. I think I have tried this but I must be getting something wrong as it does not come out right. I have tried: "Henry of Huntingdon's poem was translated, "freely" according to Paul Szarmach[1] who quotes it, by Thomas Forester in The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon.[a]" It is very odd that ref 2 comes out below as "quoted in [blank]", but if I leave out {{reflist}} it comes out OK. That looks like a bug. There does not appear to be any provision in cite book to show a different publisher and location for a reprint. Can you advise further please Nikki? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, that's my mistake on the first one actually - try using {{harvnb}} instead of {{sfn}}, it should work better. On the second, the template documentation actually suggests shoving all those details into |orig-year=, which I think looks odd but is an option. Failing that, you could omit the location of the reprint and include the publisher as an edition statement, or simply hand-build rather than templating that first part of the cite. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I've just butted in with this edit, as e.g. "freely" was repeated and it looked as though formatting had gone awry somewhere. I hope it's an improvement, but revert by all means if I've got the wrong end of the stick. Nortonius (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nortonius for improvement. I have tweaked it and hope it looks OK now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree it's an improvement Dudley – I've just tinkered with the punctuation there, I hope that looks good to you too.[2] Nortonius (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Great thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Apart from that, all looks good. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from NortoniusEdit


  • Soon afterwards, Æthelred became the ruler of the English-controlled western half of Mercia as Lord of the Mercians and accepted Alfred's overlordship. I realise this needs to be brief, but I think Æthelred needs a slight introduction, e.g. by re-jigging the sentence as something like "Soon afterwards the English-controlled western half of Mercia came under the rule of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, who accepted Alfred's overlordship."
  • In 909 Edward sent a West Saxon and Mercian force to raid northern Danish territory ... I would clarify as "Edward, who by then had succeeded his father Alfred as king, ..." and "Danish-controlled territory to the north", the latter so the reader isn't tempted to think of a naval expedition to Denmark or beyond.
  • ... and the Mercian rulers were buried there: per your suggestion I would delete.
  • Changed to "Edward had succeeded as King of the Anglo-Saxons in 899, and in 909". Also "northern Danelaw", which means I can link for clarification. I have deleted "Mercian rulers were buried there". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • the York Vikings: my own preference would be for "the Vikings of York", just so you know. "York Vikings" seems a bit journalistic to me.
  • I have gone for "the Viking leaders of York". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, more accurate. Nortonius (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • completed the re-conquest of Mercia: strictly, shouldn't this be "completed the conquest"? Or something like "completed the conquest of Danish-controlled Mercia." For example Pauline Stafford, in Unification and Conquest, p. 7, touches on "the conquest of Danish England by [the] children of Alfred", which is how I would see it. Sorry, I don't mean to take us off down a rabbit hole ... Anyway I see you have "reconquest" (no hyphen) in the next paragraph.
  • the dread of his enemies, a woman of enlarged soul: " ... [and] a woman of enlarged soul"?
  • I do not think we need to insert a word in the quote. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
On second thought I do think it works as is, it's just that to me the sentence structure calls for an "and". But I'm happy to drop this. Nortonius (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Has Pauline Stafford really described Æthelflæd as "like a latter-day Elizabeth I"?! The quotation's repeated below, so I suppose she must have. But I thought Æthelflæd came first ... Is Stafford referring to some great resurgence of Æthelflæd's stock since the reign of Elizabeth I, perhaps? Otherwise surely it doesn't work.
  • I assumed that Stafford meant in the Middle Ages, but I take your point that "latter-day" is misleading. Stafford can be a bit careless, but I think the quote is worth keeping unless others disagree. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I think I was so staggered by "latter-day" that I missed the message in the rest of the quotation – I fully sympathise with the comparison as Æthelflæd clearly is a remarkable figure, but I really want to resist "latter-day". Stafford's sentiment could easily be paraphrased. But you're quite right to wait for other views, of course. Nortonius (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps "like...Elizabeth I she became a wonder to later ages."?
Yes indeed. I'm surprised Stafford's use of "latter-day" wasn't picked up by peer review or at an editorial stage. Nortonius (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. (I have stopped going to PR as it was producing minimal results, but I took the article through A-Class.) Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a strong impression that even many academic books and journals are submitted to minimal editorial review these days, whether by peers or publishers. Nortonius (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've only looked at the lead so far, I'll try to look further when I can. Nortonius (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


  • A link for Ceolwulf II of Mercia
  • His successor, Æthelflæd's husband Æthelred, is first seen in 881 ...: the next sentence feels a little repetitive having read this information already, and to me a simple fix would be to delete "His successor" (and of course the comma after "husband Æthelred").
  • I think this is needed. The lead says that Æthelred was Lord of the Mercians but it has not been stated that he was the successor to King Ceolwulf. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean by "needed", but perhaps it hinges on what we mean by "successor", i.e. Æthelred wasn't King of Mercia in succession to Ceolwulf; and in the third sentence in that paragraph he's described simply as "ruler". From a different perspective we might call Æthelred a warlord, and I don't think he's strictly a "successor". To me it seems fine simply to introduce Æthelred in the sentence under discussion, because its information suggests the emergence of an important figure in Mercia after 879, who, in the next (third) sentence, we are told became its ruler. I'd just like to avoid any sense of repetition. Nortonius (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
How about changing "His successor, Æthelflæd's husband Æthelred," to "His successor as the ruler of the English western half of Mercia, Æthelflæd's husband Æthelred," and deleting "Around this time, Æthelred became the ruler of the English western half of Mercia."? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the 890s, Æthelred and Alfred's son: this confused me for a moment! I would suggest switching information around, e.g. "Æthelred and [[Edward the Elder|Edward]], Alfred's son and future successor, ..."
  • Done. ("future successor" sounds a bit odd to me, but I see it is widely used.) Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I feel the oddness too and I'm not stuck on "future", e.g. "eventual" might do – but I think the flow of the sentence is much better now. Nortonius (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I prefer "future". "eventual" implies a long time in the future. Dudley Miles (talk)
Fine by me. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


  • "a conspiracy of silence": I think there needs to be a citation at the end of the sentence, especially if this is a quotation. Otherwise lose the quotation marks, as it's perfectly good English.
  • The first two sentences are about Wainwright's views with a cite at the end. I do not see the need to cite each sentence separately. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Ordinarily I'd agree, but I understand it to be a MOS requirement to have a citation at the end of a quotation, even when that quotation does not end a sentence – or so I was persuaded quite a long time ago. I don't remember exactly where or how that arose, but looking at WP:CITE the lead says "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." You might want to seek an opinion from someone more familiar with the MOS than I am, and if it is a quotation. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
It is a quotation. Nikki would you advise please. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I've also heard that argument, but while it certainly doesn't harm anything to have the citation, I'm not sure it is explicitly a MOS requirement that it be in that sentence and not the next - though see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
To Nikkimaria's comment, having read the page she linked to and in the interests of transparency, I would add that I've now found where this issue arose for me: it was at Talk:Reculver/GA1#Some comments about referencing. I'm not suggesting anyone should read that, but I have. With hindsight I think it gave me the wrong impression and I'm happy to drop this now, if everyone else is too. My own feeling is that, while I support the idea of a citation for every quotation, it can produce some very inelegant results. I recall that it pained me to write e.g. "In that year a "monumental showdown"[39] began", which I did in the wake of that GAN. Nortonius (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
As there is no MOS prohibition on putting the citation at the end of the next sentence I will keep it as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Fine by me, and I'm striking the similar comment below. Nortonius (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • elements were incorporated in: "incorporated into"?


  • A link for Gloucester

Æthelflæd and Æthelred

  • A link for Winchester
  • Done. (I have deleted this reference to Winchester as I have mislaid the source, but linked at first mention.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Worcester was able to preserve ...: I think either this needs to be "The church at Worcester ..." or the link for Worcester in the same paragraph needs to be moved here.
  • Moved. Blair probably did mean the church of Worcester but he did not say so. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have access to that source (it's on Google Books but the relevant pages are omitted for me), and I don't mean to confuse things, but, given the title of the book, I think it would be fair to assume here that by "Worcester" he means "the church at Worcester" – i.e. I don't think you have to read it too literally. But then you evidently do have access to the source, so I leave it entirely to you. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This was the only occasion in Alfred's life when husband and wife are known to have acted jointly: "husband and wife" here reads like it could refer to anybody, I would change it to "they". Unless you mean "anybody", in which case maybe "when any husband and wife ..." And, might "Alfred's lifetime" be better?
  • They granted the church of Worcester a half share of the rights of lordship, covering land rents and the proceeds of justice: where? A half share presumably of "their lordship", but in Worcester, in English Mercia, or ...? The next sentence mentions the city of Worcester and seems to suggest the lordship was originally "proprietorial" to the church at Worcester, so within its jurisdiction, but I think it needs clarification.
  • I do not like saying "their rights" as they were apparently granting the church half of its own property. How about changing "As the rights of lordship had previously belonged to the church" to "As the rights of lordship had previously fully belonged to the church"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
"As the rights of lordship had previously belonged fully to the church" would avoid "previously fully", but that seems good. "Where" remains implied though, to my mind. Perhaps the preceding sentence might begin "They granted the church of Worcester a half share of the rights of lordship in the city, ..." if that's the case. It would fix it for me. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
"rights of lordship over the city" sounds better to me.
Good. Nortonius (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A link for de facto? It's available and just a suggestion.
  • The Vikings then joined with the Danes ...: I think this is a long sentence, especially given the absence of any punctuation. It could easily be split as "... Æthelflæd had fortified the town. She and her husband ..."
    I do not think this works. The sentence says that the attack failed because of x and y. Hiving off y into a separate sentence would be confusing. I have added some punctuation to make it easier to follow. What do you think? I could add a second "because" as "and because she and her husband persuaded" if this would make it clearer, although another editor might object to the repetition of "because". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the new form is fine. Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Æthelflæd re-founded Chester as a burh ...: move link for "burh" from the next paragraph to here.
  • she is believed to have restored its Roman defences by running walls from the north-west and south-east corners of the fort to the River Dee: if this is what Hadley says then perhaps fair enough but the connection with the river seems a bit of a non sequitur to me, as the sentence stands. As far as I'm aware any walls running to the river would have been additions to Roman ones, and formed an enclosed extension to them.[3] I think saying Æthelflæd "restored and reinforced its Roman defences" would be better.
  • You are right she does say that they were additions. How about "she is believed to have enhanced its Roman defences by running walls"
Excellent. Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • northern Danish territory: fix as above in the lead, presumably?
  • In the late ninth century Gloucester had become a burh (fortified settlement): "late-ninth"? And unlink Gloucester and Winchester, unless you want duplicate links here to help the reader, in which case move the link for Gloucester to the end of the preceding sentence. Also "burh" hasn't been qualified explicitly as a fortified settlement in previous appearances in this article, if you want the qualification I think it needs a first appearance in the lead and then above this in the body; but I would rather drop it entirely, especially the parentheses. Note also my earlier comment about moving the link for burh up from this sentence.
  • I would say no to late-ninth. In my view there are far too many unnecessary hyphens in Wikipedia! I have unlinked Gloucester, but 'Highlight duplicate links' is not tagging Winchester. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I sympathise about hyphens. It can only be my mistake that I believed there was a duplicate link for Winchester. Looking through this again I realise that you deleted an earlier mention of Winchester – actually there have also been some odd edit conflicts here, they made no odds so I didn't mention them. Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The Mercian rulers built a new minster in Gloucester: the sentence seems a bit bald, I would change to "also built".
  • I do not see this. "also" to what? How about changing "The Mercian rulers built a new minster in Gloucester. The minster was small but embellished on a grand scale, with rich sculpture." to "The Mercian rulers built a new minster in Gloucester, and although the building was small, it was embellished on a grand scale, with rich sculpture."
I had in mind that here the focus is on Gloucester, so among other things they "also built a new minster" there – but I like your suggestion, with an extra comma in "and, although". Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I moved the comma rather than adding one. Does it look OK to you? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, excellent – I'm annoyed with myself for not thinking of that. Nortonius (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • when Oswald's remains were brought to Gloucester in 909, Æthelflæd had them translated to the new minster: as I understand "translation", and as the word is used elsewhere in this article, this translation was from Bardney to the new minster in Gloucester, rather than from arrival in Gloucester to their deposition in the new minster. I would change to "deposited in" or similar.
  • I intended translation from Bardney, but I obviously did not make it clear. I am reluctant to lose the meaning that they were formally translated, not just deposited. How about "Æthelflæd had them formally translated from Bardney to the new minster". I have linked translated in case anyone is confused. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Your suggestion is good, though I think "translated" presumes "formally" per the linked article, so I wouldn't worry about that word and would drop it. Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the same sentence, "Priory" is anachronistic here I believe, beginning with Cluny, and could be fixed by a change to e.g. "which was re-dedicated to him" or "to Oswald" and by moving the link for St Oswald's Priory to the preceding sentence, piping it as a link behind "a new minster", as it appears in the lead. "Priory" also occurs in the next sentence.
  • Yes you are right. I have gone through removing the word "priory" except where it refers to the later medieval building.
  • raiding as far as the Bridgnorth: "the" is presumably a minor slip.
  • the Danish midlands: "Midlands"?

Lady of the Mercians

  • Italics for Bremesburh, Scergeat and Weardbyrig I would expect? Someone somewhere (!) thinks Bremesburh is Bromsgrove (q.v.) – at times like this I wish I had access to the English Place-Name Society's generally marvellous volumes, although I've no idea if they would help here.
  • I have seen that unknown place names are often italicised, but I have never known whether it is a rule that they should be. I take it you think they should be?
I do. MOS:FOREIGNITALIC may be most relevant here, since we are writing in modern English. Nortonius (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I see that the Electronic Sawyer lists a source that identifies Weardbyrig as Gwespyr, or at least claims to.[4] Nortonius (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
This suggestion does not appear to have been taken up by other historians, and a location so deep in Wales seems very unlikely. David Griffiths, writing in 2001, after the Gwespyr article was published, says (p. 168) that Warburton in Cheshire has been suggested, but that a location in the West Midlands is more likely. Costambeys in 2004 describes the location as unknown. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

*Tim Clarkson, who describes Æthelflæd as "renowned as a competent war-leader", regards ...: that MOS citation issue again. But see my revised comment above, prompted by Nikkimaria's comment. I'm on the verge of striking this, I'm just waiting for a response above that will push me into doing it.

  • Norse (Norwegian): I think "Norwegian-Norse" or similar would be better, principally losing the parentheses. Looking again I see you have dealt with this differently above, e.g. by linking "Norse" to Norwegians. In light of that I would suggest just "Norse" here.
  • Historians of Anglo-Saxon England use Norse Vikings to mean Norwegian ones, but Norse can mean Scandinavians generally as in Norsemen, so to avoid misunderstanding I think it is best to spell out with the parenthesis as well as the link how the term is being used here. I have moved the parenthesis to the first mention of Norse. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is an issue that I've noticed, e.g. here, where we both commented at different points. It's really the parentheses I'm stuck on – I was taught that, if I used them, I needed to re-write so that they became redundant. Anyway, perhaps because of that, I think they should be avoided in prose where possible. On the other hand I note that MOS:BRACKET isn't terribly bothered, except where it says "[i]t is often clearer to separate the thoughts into separate sentences or clauses". Nortonius (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I think brackets are a useful tool if used sparingly, and the best solution here. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Then carry on by all means. Nortonius (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Ragnall" is presently linked to a page for a village, switch it to Ragnall ua Ímair, presumably. In the same sentence I would change "the army of Scots and Northumbrian English, which fought" to "the army of Scots and Northumbrian English that opposed": otherwise "the army" feels odd; I'm not sure why the comma is needed; and the army didn't fight only Ragnall.
  • Corrected the careless Ragnall error. Sentence now reads "According to the Three Fragments, in 918 Æthelflæd led an army of Scots and Northumbrian English against forces led by the Norse Viking leader Ragnall at the Battle of Corbridge in Northumbria." Does that look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes that looks good. Nortonius (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The Three Fragments also stated: should that be "state", or maybe "states"?
  • I am not sure about that. Any views Dan? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not a fan of the verb "state" here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It's the tense that's bothering me, not the verb, although alternative verbs are available of course. Nortonius (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • the Mercian abbot Ecgberht: strictly I think this ought to be "a Mercian abbot named Ecgberht", since there almost certainly were more than one during Mercia's existence. It seems that PASE doesn't replicate searches via a link very well, so to be clear I'm looking at their Ecgberhts 11, 20 and 22.
  • Changed to "a Mercian abbot" without naming him. As he is unknown apart from this mention, I do not think his name is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Fine by me. Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Is "specie" an uncommon term? Might "coins" be adequate?
  • I would rather keep "specie". I have already used "coin" or "coins" three times in a short paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
As you might guess I think "specie" is an uncommon term. I would suggest linking it – but I see that Specie is a disambiguation page where the relevant link offered is to Coin. I don't think I'd mind a bit if I saw the word "coins" again here, but "coinage" would be a sensible variation here, if that's what you want. "Specie" seems a bit, erm, elegant... Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not see what is wrong with "specie", but how about linking it to "coin"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
How about I just drop this and go with the idea that WP isn't a dictionary? I just think it's unnecessary to avoid using the word "coin" again, but if you want to say "specie" I won't stop you! Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Death and aftermath

  • 75 mi (121 km): I think "mi" looks odd here, I would change "|abbr=on" to "|abbr=out" in the template.
  • Changed. I very rarely put in conversions at all, so it was almost certainly added by another editor, and I trust whoever it is does not mind the amendment. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately porticus redirects to "Portico", which article doesn't cover the meaning intended here. Nor indeed do any of the dictionaries that I just had a quick look at. Someone ought to at least create a stub for the meaning intended here and at e.g. St Mary's Church, Reculver, where I worked around this problem by briefly explaining the structure at the first occurrence. I just created a stub for "porticus".
  • Many thanks. You will see that I made a copy edit to the Porticus article. BTW you have "kings of Kent", which looks wrong to me. I would prefer "Kings of Kent". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
All I did was create the stub, you must edit it as you see fit – although there I don't see "kings of Kent" as a formal title, for example the sentence could equally read "Anglo-Saxon kings, for example those of Kent, ..." and rulers like Æthelflæd and Æthelred of Mercia, according to Wm of Malmesbury. Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • William of Malmesbury wrote that the burial places ...: "their burial places", so as not to include Oswald here?
  • some historians such as Ian Walker, think: in efn b is that comma redundant?
  • in early December Edward deposed her: I'd be grateful if you were to add the year here. While I think it would in any case be helpful to specify the year in which this happened, as a reader I would be disappointed not to see it.
  • the deposition of Ælfwyn: a typo
  • What is the problem here? According to OED this is a correct use of "deposition". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer – the typo is in "Ælfwyn", vs Ælfwynn. Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
My apologies. I did not notice. Corrected now. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


  • I think a direct citation of Forester's "translation" of "Heroic Elflede! ..." might be useful. If it helps the details are Forester, Thomas (trans. & ed.), The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon Comprising the History of England, from the Invasion of Julius Cæsar to the Accession of Henry II. Also, the Acts of Stephen, King of England and Duke of Normandy, London: Bohn, 1853, p. 168. Incidentally I notice Forester has "Heroic Elflede ! great ...", i.e. with a space before the exclamation mark – I would want to add that space, but you might not be the least bit interested! Which would be fine by me.
  • I do not like using Forester's original translation as it is arguably OR. Szarmach's citation and comment that it is a free translation sets it in context. I am also dubious about adding the space - that sort of detail may well have been a typo. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's fine to present primary material without synthesising it, as I've said before, per policy. It's only a suggestion so ignore it as you please; equally regarding the spaced exclamation mark, which looks to me like the sort of dramatic device that one sometimes sees in that sort of context in books like Forester's, of his period. Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I could have picked this up earlier when we were discussing "latter-day", but I assumed what you wrote above would be adapted for article space: in like...Elizabeth I I believe the ellipsis needs a non-breaking space before and a normal space after, here and in the lead, per WP:ELLIPSIS.
  • Sorry I forgot to follow this up earlier. I do not understand why a non-breaking space is needed before the three dots but I am happy to take your word for it and I have inserted it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Only because of what it says at WP:ELLIPSIS – I've just added spaces after the ellipses, simply to spare us discussing it further.[5][6] Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In this historian's view, ...: this may be fine but to my eyes it looks like the sort of form used when an author is expressing their own view, so it looks odd here. I don't think it would hurt to repeat "Wainwright" here, or change "this" to "that".
Good. I just changed "In this Wainwright's ..." to "In Wainwright's", again simply to finalise this.[7] Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the midlands and the north ...: per MOS:PMC I would capitalise "Midlands" and "North" in this quotation from Wainwright.

I'll keep adding comments above as or if I have any I've now finished looking through the article, and await responses from Dudley. I'm going to assume that Dudley's use of sources is up to his usual impeccable standard. I won't offer any comment on images, although again I'm quite sure Dudley knows what he's doing. Nortonius (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Dudley I'm pretty sure we're done now, I only wonder if you noticed a comment I've added under "Italics for Bremesburh, Scergeat and Weardbyrig ..." above, where I merely mention something that might be of interest. That being the case I'm changing "Comments" above to "Support". Oh, I just noticed we're still hanging on "stated" vs "state" or "states", or for that matter whichever other verb you might want to use, given Dan's response to you above. But otherwise ... Very well done. Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your very helpful and detailed review and for your support Nortonius. So far as I can see I have dealt with all the issues now. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
My pleasure Dudley – I'm sure my review has been imperfect, but you've certainly dealt with all the issues I raised. Another long and complex subject dealt with admirably, I believe! Nortonius (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • One option is "In the Three Fragments, Æthelflæd also formed ...". - Dank (push to talk) 00:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Placeholder -- Recusing from coord duties, and with the caveat that I'm not an expert on this period in history, I reviewed, copyedited and supported at MilHist ACR, and the changes made since then look fine to me. I expect to support here but might wait until Hchc2009 completes his review in case there are further text changes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a couple of very minor edits from me -- article structure and level of detail look good, reads fine to someone with a fairly rudimentary knowledge of the period and personalities. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks Ian. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

NB: support from my side. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Hchc2009. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Have I missed a source review for this? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, or I'm sure one of the reviewers here could be pestered to do it quite effectively. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review. I don't do many source reviews, so I spent quite a bit of effort trying to find at least one problem so I could prove I'd actually done something, but I came up empty-handed. The sources are all reliable and consistently formatted, the external links work, everything is cited, everything in the source list is used in a citation, and every citation in the notes is in the source list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Henry of Huntingdon's poem was translated, "freely" according to Paul Szarmach[1] who quotes it, by Thomas Forester in The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon.[2]
  1. ^ a b Szarmach 1998, p. 125.
  2. ^ Henry of Huntingdon (1968) [1853]. The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon. Translated by Forester, Thomas. London, UK: H. G. Bohn. OCLC 222137748. quoted in

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.