Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Æthelwulf/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Æthelwulf edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a lot of work on this important Anglo-Saxon king and I would like feedback on improvements needed to get it to FA quality.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim riley edit

Most of this article is an excellent read (the usual royal game of Happy Families, complete with recyclable mothers-in-law, if you please!) and if the layman glazes over a bit during the Decimation section, I really think that's something up with which we have to put. The detail and discussion are plainly needed and the topic just doesn't lend itself to jazzing up. If I were you I shouldn't worry about this in the slightest. A few other minor comments:

  • Is there a relevant map of the various kingdoms we could have in the Background section? It would break the text up and would be a useful aide-memoire when absorbing the to-ing and fro-ing between Mercia and Wessex.
  • I should have thought of this and will look into it.
  • I think I understand your policy on when to capitalise "King" and when not, but I think you might want to look again at "been appointed King of Kent" in "Family" alongside "issued a charter as king of Kent" in the first para of "Early life".
  • Done.
  • Possessives of people whose names end in s: we have Charles's but Abels'. I'm an ess-apostrophe-ess man, myself, but either way it would be as well to be consistent.
  • I am a whatever sounds right to me man and Charles's and Abels' sound right to me, but I take your point that it is better to be consistent and I have gone for Abels's.
  • Early life
    • only for King Wiglaf to recover his kingdom – I might drop the "King" before Wiglaf here.
    Done.
    • Ceolnoth thus surrendered effective controls over his ministers – ministers as in priests or as in administrative functionaries? I wasn't sure of the import of this bit.
    Ah. I think it is ministers as in minister churches. Maybe I could change it to monasteries. Nortonius, can you advise?
Hello! I think both instances in that sentence (I haven't looked elsewhere in the article) should be "monasteries" for consistency, but you might want to pillage St Mary's Church, Reculver, for the quotation from Brooks (1984) on the subject, and add it to a footnote? Also I think it should be made clear that "Ceolnoth thus surrendered effective controls over his Kentish monasteries to Æthelwulf", although that does mean you'd have "Kentish" three times in the same sentence – I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Nortonius (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nortonius. Changed as suggested. However I cannot see what quote from Brooks you are referring to. BTW you say in the St Mary's article "a compromise was reached between Archbishop Ceolnoth and King Egbert in 838, confirmed by his son Æthelwulf in 839, recognising Egbert and Æthelwulf as lay lords and protectors of monasteries and reserving spiritual lordship, particularly over election of abbots and abbesses, to bishops.". I don't think this is quite right. I took it to mean by the monasteries themselves rather than the bishops, and as Brooks pointed out, this was only to be after Æthelwulf's lifetime, which seems a dubious concession as one historian points out (I do not remember where) that he could not bind his successors. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the block quotation here, beginning "[w]e do not know whether the Kentish monasteries had been founded as communities of monks and nuns ..." About liberty of abbatial elections, thanks for pointing that out, I do seem to have missed something. I think the idea is that it's up to bishops to protect the liberty of these elections; but I think I might have had something I read elsewhere (but probably in Brooks) in mind too, about bishops supposedly being required to ensure that the elected were suitable for office, and forgot to mention and ref it. I'll have to think on that, although I do think it needs clarifying. The provision might seem wishful, and Brooks points out in effect that his translation is his best effort to make sense of a difficult passage, but it's in a record that could be waved at would-be violators, and appealed or defended to the king. The endorsement described by Brooks (p. 199) spells that out. Which reminds me – a bit about episcopal oversight of suitable abbatial elections was, according to Brooks, most probably added to King Wihtred of Kent's privilege of 699, in a forgery by or for Abp Wulfred (Brooks (1984), pp. 194–7). So it seems he certainly intended to make use of it in that way. Nortonius (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
699? Going back that early is way out of my comfort zone but I will take a look. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean about comfort zones – but, while I believe Wihtred's privilege of 699 is held to be authentic, it's Wulfred that Brooks is interested in, in that connection, so maybe not too uncomfortable! Nortonius (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • King of Wessex
    • You give St. Bertin a full stop, but Saints Peter, Paul and Neot are unstopped.
    Deleted full stop.
  • Viking threat
    • I had to check back to remind myself who Æthelstan was. Could you find it in your heart to reintroduce him briefly, perhaps as sub-King Æthelstan, for the benefit of those of us of woolly mind?
    Done.
  • Decimation charters
    • "Few thing in our early history have led…" looks like a typo to me, but I didn't like to presume.
    Corrected.
    • "All land could be regarded as the king's land…" it still is, which is why you own your property in fee simple, not absolutely.
    Well yes but I do not think that the power of an Anglo-Saxon king can be equated with the technical difference between fee simple and allodial ownership in the 21st century.
    • Kelly's four groups could do with a citation.
    Done.
    • "He set out three alternatives" – there are some deluded souls who insist that you can have only two alternatives. If any of them pop up at FAC, you can tell them that Fowler dismisses this daft notion as "a fetish".
  • Pilgrimage to Rome and later life
    • "a gold crown weighing 4 pounds, two gold goblets…" slightly strange mix of digits and words for the numbers in this sentence.
    Changed.
  • Historiography
    • "she was only allowed 2,500 words for him in the ODNB" – most interesting. I have often wondered why some articles seem very short and others very long, and now I know. Your 6,000+ here seems much more the mark.

That's all I can find to quibble about. Onwards to FAC! Tim riley talk 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Just a few comments. Really outstanding writing, as always.
  • "twelve or thirteen year old daughter": I'm fine with that, but there are a lot of hyphen enthusiasts around who will prefer "twelve- or thirteen-year-old daughter". (I'm fine with that because hyphen and comma usage is highly variable in copyedited prose these days.)
  • "786-802": dash (throughout)
  • I do not understand the rules on dashes and I have always found a kind expert comes along and corrects my errors, but I will try to do it myself if you think I am being lazy or improper.
    • Copyediting is a trade, like plumbing. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to say, or even think, that you're being lazy or improper, just as a person with a broken pipe who calls for help isn't being lazy or improper. It may well be that someone is catching these things in an automated or semi-automated fashion ... might as well wait and see. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drove Æthelwulf's father Egbert into exile, where he spent several years at the court": exile isn't really a place, so: "drove Æthelwulf's father Egbert into exile for several years at the court".
  • Changed to "and he spent several years at the court" (Egbert did not have to Charlemagne's court).
  • "had been briefly King": "had briefly been King" is a little better.
    Done.
  • "when he died in 802 Egbert, perhaps with the support of Charlemagne, became king": "when he died in 802 Egbert became king, perhaps with the support of Charlemagne" scores slightly higher on readability.
  • Done.

Comments from Nortonius edit

 
This map might be useful, illustrating the situation in Egbert's time, and based on a good source, though I haven't checked its accuracy. It marks Carhampton, Hingston Down and Bensington...

I'm a bit distracted at the moment, but I'll try to keep looking. Some things I noticed are touched on already by Tim Riley and Dank, making my list is even shorter than it was! Anyway...

Mostly in the Lead:

  • Would "Beornwulf of Mercia" be better linked as "[[Beornwulf of Mercia|Beornwulf]] of [[Mercia]]", so there are separate links to the king and to the kingdom? I picked up the idea from someone long ago that it's best to format such links that way, and subsequently as e.g. "King [[Beornwulf of Mercia|Beornwulf]] of Mercia".
  • Done.
  • About "the long Mercian dominance": should this "the" be "a", since the reader might not have heard of it yet? And might "England" be better as "[[Anglo-Saxon England]]", as the latter hadn't yet coalesced into the former? If so you might want to say something like "a long period of [[Mercian Supremacy|Mercian domination]] over [[Anglo-Saxon England]] south of the [[Humber]]."
  • Done.
  • For "Channel", I think you need to say "English Channel", with a link, for a broader audience; and once again in the body of the article.
  • Done.
  • At the beginning of the ninth century England was almost completely under the control of the Anglo-Saxons. "England" again, perhaps the best solution (if you think it needs one!), especially with a map as I see Tim Riley suggested above, would be to run this and the following sentence together, something like "At the beginning of the ninth century Mercia and Wessex were the most important kingdoms of central and southern Anglo-Saxon England."
  • I am not convinced of this. I think the change you suggest would be losing an important point, and I do not think anyone is going to be misled. Thanks for the suggested map. I will think further about this.
Fine, up to you of course. Is the important point that you feel would be lost the fact that not all of England was yet under Anglo-Saxon control? My only worry here is using "England" anachronistically. I would just like a form of words that avoids that, while not being too complex. HTH Nortonius (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point I have in mind is the opposite, that nearly all of England had been conquered by the Anglo-Saxons by then. It is true that referring to England is anachronistic in that the concept of England rather than just the English people did not emerge until the eleventh century. But I do not think you can forbid using concepts which only emerged later. Historians frequently refer to England when writing about the period, including the title of Stenton's book. I do not see why Anglo-Saxon England should be acceptable and not England. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we're both circling around the same idea, with the internet in the way(!), apart from the idea of anachronism, on which you make a good case – I'm only thinking of how fluid "England" was at the time, which might not be obvious. Looking at it again with a cooler head (literally, not figuratively!), in fact I think simply running the two sentences together with ", and" might be an improvement for readability – but I'm not forbidding or insisting on anything! :o) Nortonius (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice you have "| location =" in the bibliography section, I once saw this being dismissed by Mr Corbett (when still Malleus F) as unnecessary (even for FA), adding nothing useful and inviting trouble – I certainly think it's a pain in the neck that one could do without – when editing, that is! Obviously YMMV.
  • Well it is not much trouble and it stops anyone complaining that you are not supplying full bibliog details - I only started adding location when someone complained that they were missing. I also think there is an argument that they should be supplied as some printed books only supply location not publisher in the bibliography.
Interesting! Consistency is the thing, so if you have one location you have to have them all, and (I've found anyway) that they can be tricky. Personally I wouldn't be moved by someone demanding locations. Publishers, on the other hand, are required I think? What sort of printed books do you have in mind that don't supply a publisher? Any examples? I'm curious is all. I'm aware of (very) old books that don't have an identified publisher, but in the 17th and 18th centuries I see the printer (who is usually named) as performing that function. Nortonius (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to listing of books in bibliographies. An example is the first volume of the Oxford History of Wales, Charles-Edwards's Wales and the Britons. This lists sources with location, not publisher. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's weird – I've never seen a bibliography like that, I wonder how it got past the house editors! There are entries with no location, publisher or date, e.g Vita S. Cuthberti Auctore Anonymo, which is followed by Vita S. Kentegerni, with location and date! Yes, that would throw anyone... But my response when faced with that would be to research the works at e.g. WorldCat.org and supply the publisher. Nortonius (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might be shocked if you did a survey of your books. Cunliffe's Britain Begins and Halsall's Worlds of Arthur, both OUP, show location only, so it may be a house style. Also Ice Age Art published by the BM and The New Cambridge Medieval History III. Out of a very small and unrepresentative sample, half were location only (for sources or further reading), and half publisher and location, none publisher only. I show both - no problem. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll gladly take your word for that! Yes indeed, no problem. Nortonius (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now, I hope you find it useful. I should be able to have a better look when things have cooled down a bit! Nortonius (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for the helpful comments and sorting out the dashes. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, so long as the comments are useful! Speaking of which:
  • "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" is mostly italicised here, but there are two instances that aren't. In my postgraduate student days I wouldn't italicise it, as it's a collective label for a number of manuscript sources rather than a published book; but I know it's frequently italicised – I've seen that done in drive-by edits on WP, but cba to get hung up about it – I just mention it so you know.
  • "Horton in Kent": there are several Hortons in Kent, but the charter is S 319, which locates it north of Chartham, near Canterbury. I haven't found any modern trace of this Horton, or I'd recommend a direct wikilink or some such This Horton turns out, via Domesday Book and Hasted, to be preserved in a manor of Chartham parish,[1] so I think it's worth saying "Horton, near [[Chartham]], in Kent". (later: oh yeah, you found it on that internet encyclopedia thingy!)
  • About the decimation charters, you have Asser's apparently different version: is "apparently different" not redundant?
  • ... and it would be nice to have a list of those charters in a footnote, as I find the identification of only one, S 315, very tantalising! If so, and following the pattern of the preceding three points, "S 315 from Kent dated 855 ..." might be better as "One from Kent dated 855 ...": in the first sentence of the following paragraph, I would then change mention of this charter to "apart from the charter of 855".
  • I will have a go but Kelly is unclear on the Winchester fakes. She starts by saying there are a total of 14 texts, but she then gives totals of 2+6+6+1=15. She says that the 6 Winchester fakes are S 309-13, which is only 5. (I have checked that there are no additional charters in this run as e.g. 309a for example.) Keynes also lists these 5, and associated fakes as S 325 and 317, but they are not labelled in Sawyer as second decimation fakes. Keynes also says that S 306 is a possible Malmesbury second decimation fake. I think I will have to set this out in a note. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry to lumber you – I'd try to help but as you know my resources are limited. Nortonius (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed Susan Kelly. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid! Nortonius (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No reply from Kelly so I have gone ahead and added notes on the Sawyer numbers. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's a pity. Perhaps she's crazy busy with pesky students at the moment. Great to see the footnotes anyway, thanks and well done. Do you want to keep "S 315" in the main text, now that it's in a footnote? I suggested a change there earlier, with consistency in mind, but up to you. By the way, might it be a good idea to say what's on the coin, i.e. "EĐELVVLF REX" and "MANNA MONETA", in the caption? There was a moneyer named "Manna" in Canterbury in Æthewulf's reign – search under "Wessex: Æthelwulf (839-858)" here. Nortonius (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did delete S 315 but I did not notice that it was mentioned again in the next paragraph - now deleted. As to the coin, this is going beyond my knowledge, but the text of the second part is shown slightly differently at [2] page 17 number 59. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 1893 book faithfully reproduces what's on the coin, whereas the Fitwilliam Museum's list shows what it says – although for our purposes I wouldn't hesitate to stick with "MANNA" vs the list's "Man", since apart from anything else the PASE doesn't list a "Man".[3] I can't think where they got that from. The odd construction of the lettering is quite common on coins. The apparent "H" in "MANNA" is just a malformed "N", just as the apparent "Π" in both "MANNA" and "MONETA" is just a malformed "M". HTH. Nortonius (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added note - please amend anything which could be improved. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 
Slightly cleaner version
Great – I just added a colon to the caption. I've also taken the liberty of uploading a cleaner version of the image, cropped for relevance but edited mainly to lose the "4", which I think is astray here, although I understand its origin. I created a new file for it rather than overwrite yours, in case you weren't interested. Nortonius (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again. I have replaced the old version. 15:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Under "Pilgrimage to Rome ..." you have the south-east of Æthelberht: I think you need to repeat "under the care of" here, so we don't think the south-eastern part of Æthelberht was also responsible for the care of Wessex(!), but can you be more explicit about what is the "south-east"? I suppose you've already defined it much earlier in the article as Surrey, Sussex, Essex and Kent, but, since you mention "two kingdoms" in this connection, is it just Kent? (later:) Reading on, I see the formulation "Kent and the south-east": perhaps use that here too, but I can't help wondering if the grouping of Surrey, Sussex, Essex and Kent is always correct as "the south-east".
  • I have changed it to "the sub-kingdom of Kent[h] to the rule of Æthelberht". Note [h] cites ODNB that the sub-kingdom included Essex, Surrey and Sussex. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Saxon quarter", it would probably be a good idea to link that to Schola Saxonum, which presently is a redirect but ought one day to be an article.
  • Æthelbald then wedded his mother-in-law: ... Judith? Shouldn't that be step-mother? Probably need to name Judith here.
  • You're happy to use the title "Deor" in lieu of an author's name, or instead of "Anon."? I'm curious about this ref: {{sfn|Deor|1996|pp=35–36}}, which doesn't seem to fit any particular pattern.
  • "Anon" does not sound right for a comment in a modern journal, and I am not sure how else I could show it. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok – looking at that source again, that section is signed "K.O'B.O'K." on p. 37, which fits with the name "Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe" in the list of contributors on p. 3. HTH. Nortonius (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few instances where one might quibble about commas, e.g. are there any missing in described by Asser, biographer of their son Alfred the Great as "King Æthelwulf's famous butler" and Christ Church, Canterbury kept lists of patrons? I think so, but others might not.
  • "butler" – might it be worth adding a word or two here, or a footnote, to clarify that this Oslac would have been a member of the royal court, rather than just a domestic servant? To modern eyes it might otherwise suggest a surprising bit of Downton Abbey-style hanky panky. This might be a good place to start, if you need one.

I'll add anything else I think worth mentioning above here. Nortonius (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I cannot see what change you made labelled "typo?". Can you advise? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are three or four such edits, I wonder if you mean in the section "Decimation charters", where I changed a comma to a full stop with a query in the edit summary,[4] or perhaps in the section "Viking threat", where I changed a second "853" to "855".[5] I made the latter change after referring to the cited source, but maybe I missed something. HTH Nortonius (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found it now. Thanks very much for that and your other corrections. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good, no problem. Nortonius (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the whole article now, no doubt imperfectly, and don't have anything further to add for the moment – except that I think it's a very sharp, even snappy treatment of an impressively complex subject, very well done indeed! Nortonius (talk)

Thanks again. I will work away on your points over the next few days - and maybe ask an expert to construct a map which mentions important places mentioned in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have asked the graphics lab for a map and will see whether I get a reply from them and Susan Kelly. I must also see whether I can photo coins of Anglo-Saxon kings at the National Art Library from books which are old enough to be definitely out of copyright. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All looking good – I'm still a bit preoccupied IRL, but do nudge me if you think I can help further in any way. Fingers crossed re the map and Kelly. Nortonius (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help Nortonius. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation: "The office of butler (pincerna) was a distinguished one, and its holders were likely to have been important figures in the royal court and household". I had the full stop before the quotation mark and you changed this as incorrect. I have always understood the rule as quotes go before the punctuation if the quotation is part of a sentence, but the full stop goes first if it is a full sentence. What does Tim riley say? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with your understanding of the rule – the full sentence in the source reads: "The office of butler (pincerna) was a distinguished one, and its holders were likely to have been important figures in the royal court and household: for occurrences of the term in Anglo-Saxon charters and glossaries, see Keynes, Diplomas of King Æthelred, pp. 158–61 and p. 150 note 234." So I moved the full stop outside the quotation mark. HTH. Although I am very tired and might have missed something, e.g. am I looking at the same source, per my suggested link above? It looks the same, but...? Nortonius (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now why did I not think to check? Ah well. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry, I'm always a bit surprised to find a day has gone by when I haven't been tripped up by something I've misunderstood or misremembered! :o) Nortonius (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'll add notes here as I go through the article.

  • "The Vikings became an increasing threat on both sides of the English Channel in the 840s, and in 843 Æthelwulf was defeated in a battle at Carhampton in Somerset, but he achieved a major victory at the Battle of Aclea in 851, and the Vikings did not pose a major threat during his reign." A bit long for a single sentence; three consecutive conjunctions.
  • I have made the last comment a separate sentence.
  • "Egbert thus bought support for Æthelwulf": I think this is a little too close to Wormald's phrasing in the source: "he was buying support for his son". Also, Wormald mentions the same language in a Winchester charter, which I think should be mentioned since that indicates this was not solely a concern in Kent.
  • The quote from Keynes about Egbert possibly relinquishing Mercia of his own volition was interesting; I hadn't seen that argument made. I know this is just background material, but I'm concerned that the (relatively) long quote from Keynes gives too much weight to what, as far as I know, is not the consensus view -- it's counterbalanced by the mentions of Kirby and Edwards, but only briefly. Does current scholarship support Keynes? I know Stenton's ASE is now over forty years old, but he specifically argues against Keynes' suggestion (p. 233).
  • I do not see this as a problem. Most of the quote reflects current opinion. The one controversial comment is qualified as "quite possible", which contrasts with the Kirby's "dramatic reversal" and Edwards's "immense conquest could not be maintained". I have deleted Kent never separated after 825 as this is dubious for the late 850s.
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Malmesbury Abbey regarded him as an important benefactor, who is said to have been the donor of": that use of "who" doesn't seem quite right to me. I don't have the source so I can't be sure what will work, but how about just cutting "who is"?
  • I am not sure what the problem is here. It sounds better to me as it is.
    OK -- probably just personal preference on my part, so struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a suitable link target for "bookland"?
  • Done.
  • "The couple returned to Wessex to face a revolt by Æthelbald, who attempted to prevent his father from recovering his throne": this sentence seems out of place. You reference Æthelbald's rebellion in the discussion of the reasons of the marriage, but I think it would be better to introduce the rebellion at that point in the paragraph, or else move the sentence to the start of the next paragraph and extend it slightly to make it clear that the paragraph discusses the relationship between the rebellion and the marriage.
  • Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I fiddled with this some more; see what you think. I think it's better to have the introductory sentences make it clear that we're about to discuss both the marriage and the rebellion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Joanna Story thinks" to the end of the paragraph you have the discussion structured by historian, which leads to some duplication -- e.g. "the marriage was a reaction to Æthelbald's rebellion" followed by "needed her father's money and support to overcome his son's rebellion". I think this would work better if you gave the possible explanations once each, and cited the relevant historians who support or oppose each possibility as needed. I think that here and elsewhere you could relegate some of the mentions of historians to the notes, to be honest; so long as the reader is clear that there are varying opinions, we don't have to mention five different historians and the positions they take. The notes can provide the additional background where it's useful to do so.
  • I am not sure there is any satisfactory way of dealing with this. I have deleted Story as it cuts the duplication and she does not express a definite opinion. I am reluctant to remove historians' names as I find discussion of different views without mentioning who holds them - even if given in the notes - unsatisfactory. Does it look any better now? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine. I think mentioning the experts who hold certain views is OK; it's more about how to present the material to the reader -- I think a style in which (most) mention of the experts themselves is relegated to the notes comes across as more confident to the reader; too much listing of experts and their views in the text can sound a little diffident, as if the article author is unsure. However, I think this is a matter of personal preference, so I don't think you need to change it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. The article is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Mike. I will look at your last two comments tomorrow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your help Mike. I will now wait to see whether anyone at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop takes up my request for a map. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you get no response, I can make the changes if you only want text modifications. It's an svg file so text changes are straightforward -- there are free tools like Inkscape to edit them; I'm no expert so please treat me as a last resort. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philg88 has very kindly produced an excellent map, so I will not need your help on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Æthelwulf/archive1&oldid=1138566828"