Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Æthelwulf

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Æthelwulf, King of Wessex)
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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Æthelwulf edit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)

Æthelwulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have done a lot of work on it and I hope to get it to FA. Mike Christie contributed, especially on coinage, and also reviewed. Dank, Nortonius and Tim Riley also gave very helpful comments at PR, and it has also been reviewed by a historian, Barbara Yorke. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley edit

I'll gladly review, but, as I've never taken part in an A class review before, I shall need to go and do some homework first. More soonest. Tim riley talk 18:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Later: My credentials as a reviewer of Military History article can be gauged by my having received the Queen's Award for Cowardice (available for inspection in the trophy cabinet of my user page). Be that as it may, having checked the criteria I think the article meets them all. Happy to support, and I look forward to meeting Æthelwulf again at FAC. Tim riley talk 16:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

G'day, I can't really comment on content, so have focused primarily on prose. I have the following suggestions:

  • in the lead, this sentence seems a bit out of place: "The Vikings did not pose a major threat during his reign." I'd suggest moving this to earlier in the paragraph;
  • Done.
  • I think this could be misleading. The Royal Charter article only discusses them in later periods, when they do not seem to have quite the same meaning.
  • Fair enough, but my concern is that the reader won't really know what is meant here. To be honest, I had trouble understanding what a charter was while reading this article. A link would certainly have helped, but if it isn't appropriate then I understand if you don't want to include it. Nevertheless, I think something needs to be included to aid the reader to understand. So I guess there are a couple of options, either a short footnote could be included in this article at the first mention of the term, or maybe you could add a couple of sentences to the Royal charter article discussing its historical meaning? I won't oppose over it as I think it is a minor point ultimately, but I think it is something to consider, particularly if you are taking this towards FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed this point Rupert. I have now added note d explaining charter when it is first mentioned. Is this clear? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...although Æthelstan attests his father's charters as king, he does not appear..." --> "although Æthelstan attested his father's charters as king, he does not appear..."?
  • Done.
  • "The Chronicle frequently reports victories won..." --> "The Chronicle frequently reported victories won..."? (also, should there be a date of some such here? e.g. "Around this time, the Chronicle...")
  • Amended
  • "Æthelwulf's coinage comes from..." --> "Æthelwulf's coinage came from..."
  • Done.
  • "and the dates of the transitions between each phase are by no means certain..." --> "and it is uncertain when the phases transitioned"?
  • Amended.
  • Done.
  • "in 1994 Keynes described it as "one of the most perplexing problems in ninth-century diplomatic". --> Is this missing a word after "diplomatic"?
  • No this is his wording.
    • I don't know what Keynes meant, but the word "diplomatic" already means something else in English. A bracketed term should be added to clarify what he meant. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • OED at [1] has for meaning 3 of noun: "‘The science of diplomas, or of ancient writings, literary and public documents, letters, decrees, charters, codicils, etc., which has for its object to decipher old writings, to ascertain their authenticity, their date, signatures, etc.’ (Webster, 1828). Also in pl." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would putting "politics" in brackets next to "diplomatic" work, or is that too narrow an interpretation? The issue here, I think, is that a modern reader won't understand what is being meant. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there a link that could be provided to assist the reader to understand the concept of "decimation"?
  • I cannot find one.
  • "and the earl's son donated..." --> "and the earl's son, William, donated..."
  • Done.
  • in the Sources section, for the works that are chapters of larger works, you might consider adding the page numbers of the chapters/sections. E.g. Booth in Blackburn
  • I do not have access to all the sources now but I will amend when I do.
  • in the Sources section, for the publisher locations of works (particularly those published in the US), I think it would be better to provide the states instead of the country. e.g. "Lincoln, US" --> "Lincoln, Nebraska"?
  • I am doubtful. I think it is better to stick to the usual Wikipedia format and I think this is giving town and country. Nikkimaria can you advise?
    • There might be 25 Lincolns in the US, so "Lincoln US" wouldn't be very helpful. Besides, city names are always followed by states. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, Dan has explained my point better than I did. The issue is clarity. In regards to consistency, I believe that the use of state locators instead of country for US locations is standard at FAC (same same in fact for Australian places...we say "St Leonards, New South Wales", not "St Leonards, Australia", but would say "Wellington, New Zealand" for instance). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done for the four books published in the US. OK Now? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that looks fine to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Late to the party (pings don't work unless you sign!), but I agree: I usually advise against "City, US" for US locations at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, that's it from me. Thanks for your efforts with this article and good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, I'm happy to support for promotion to A-class. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick image review: G'day, I don't think that this has had an image licensing review yet, so I took a quick look: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "File:Æthelwulf - MS Royal 14 B VI.jpg": I'm not sure about the dates and licence on this one. It provides a date of 30 August 2013, but I think you need to try to provide some sort of indicative date for when the actual object was created, rather than when the photo of the object was taken;
  • same with "File:Æthelwulf - MS Royal 14 B V.jpg": in addition, I think the PD-Art template needs some sort of clarification (there is a big red warning on the description page)
  • I have changed both to PD-Art|PD-old-100 and added the date of the manuscript - also a description in English as the only one was in French. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Æthelwulf penny.jpg": can the uploader be the copyright holder? Not sure about this one. @Nikkimaria: Nikki, what are your thoughts on this one?
  • I don't understand on what basis the claim is being made, unless it's the restoration? Image description definitely needs clarification. This is an old coin that was photographed and the photo published in an old book - the coin and the photo are both PD-1923-abroad. File:Coin_of_King_Æthelwulf_of_Wessex.JPG (the source image) combines PD-Art (which is correct for the photo but not the coin) and life+100 (which is correct for the coin but may or may not be correct for the photo, depending on the photographer and his date of death). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have corrected to show the original source. I tried putting in {{PD-1923-abroad}} but the template was not recognised. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that's interesting. Nevertheless, UK uses life+70 for copyright expiration, so assuming no photographer other than the authors is credited, it's PD-old-100 for the coin and PD-1923+PD-old for the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Ethelwulf's Ring - Illustration from Cassell's History of England - Century Edition - published circa 1902.jpg" relies on an "author's life plus 70 years or less", but the image description page doesn't stipulate the author, or when they died
  • Worldcat shows no author info for this book. I understand that I can use any illustration published before 1923 but maybe I am using the wrong copyright template? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm...I think {{PD-Art|PD-US-1923-abroad}} would be the way to go, but it seems that Wikicommons doesn't like this tag anymore...??? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can use any illustration published before 1923 on Wikipedia, as all such illustrations are now PD in the US. But Commons requires that you account for the copyright in the country of origin as well. In the UK this usually means life+70, but here we have no identified author. I'd recommend using {{PD-UK-unknown}} (the use of which requires you to describe the research you have undertaken to identify the author). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Alfred the Great's will.jpg": same as above.
  • Changed to show it is photo of ms of c. 890.
  • Thanks very much your help Rupert and Nikki. I am not sure I am using the right copyright templates - and when I checked similar images used in FA articles they each seemed to use a different template and some did not look right. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nortonius edit

Apologies, I've barely even been watching this one because of real-life distractions, and I've no idea of any specifics for this type of review. But, looking through this page, it occurred to me to point out that the "concept of decimation" is a tithe, though I'm not sure that article is very helpful for this context. Maybe, maybe not. And maybe I'm merely stating the obvious! Anyway, with the preceding proviso, I'd happily support this article having participated in the peer review, and would certainly try to be more engaged at FAC. HTH Nortonius (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nortonius. I am not sure whether a link to tithe would be confusing, as it means a levy of a tenth by a religious organization or government, and in this case the ruler was giving away a tenth. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm doubtful of the usefulness of that article – but the lead of that article refers to "freewill offerings", and cites the New Testament; although obviously I'm not going to vouch for its accuracy! And in the present article you have e.g. According to the Chronicle "King Æthelwulf conveyed by charter the tenth part of his land throughout all his kingdom to the praise of God and to his own eternal salvation". I'd be surprised if the two were unrelated. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: does "I'd happily support" mean this is a support? - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nortonius I have added note i on the meaning of "decimation" . Does it look OK? Please also see Dank's query above. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About support, I only qualified it in that way because I'm uncertain of procedure: otherwise my support for this article is unhesitating, so yes, Dank, I support it. About the meaning of decimation – my copy of the 1956 revision of the third, 1944 edition of The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, volume II, p. 2314, has separate entries for noun and verb forms of "Tithe". We know what the noun broadly means; the first definition of the verb reads: "1. trans. To grant or pay one tenth of (one's goods, earnings etc.), esp. to the support of the church; to pay tithes on." That's my bolding, to emphasise that the primary meaning there is a "gift", not a levy. Relevant sources that I have in physical form are temporarily inaccessible in my loft – I'm waiting for a friend to return my stepladder! But you might want to look at Constable, G. (1964), Monastic Tithes and their Origins to the Twelfth Century, pp. 23ff, esp. pp. 30–1, where Æthelwulf is mentioned, and Constable says "The earliest known civil enforcement of tithes in England dates from the middle of the tenth century".[3] A look at Levison, W. (1943), England and the Continent in the Eighth Century, might be productive too. From that, if it still stands, I'd be extremely comfortable in identifying the concept of Æthelwulf's decimation as a tithe, and would suspect that historians' use of the word "decimation" instead perhaps derives in some small way from the uncertainty surrounding it. If you were to agree, I would suggest re-wording the footnote to reflect Constable's analysis of the situation in England pre-10th century, such that Æthelwulf's voluntary donation was not "unusual" per se. Also I might be inclined to lose the last sentence of the footnote, as the article goes into the problem of what was decimated. HTH Nortonius (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything strange about historians using the word decimation. The original OED, which I cite as my source, gives the first meaning as "The exaction of tithes, or of a tax of one tenth", and says that it is particularly used for Cromwell's levy of a tenth on royalists in 1655. It thus (in its older definition) has a similar meaning to tithe without the strong religious connotations. As to whether tithes were voluntary, Stenton says that they were not enforced until the tenth century. Before that they were a religious duty but could be partly donations to the poor. However, that is going beyond what is relevant to this article, so I have changed to (hopefully) avoid raising the point. I am puzzled that you say that Æthelwulf's donation was not unusual. Donations to the church were common, but one including laymen is so far as I know unique. As to the last sentence, I think it is helpful to signal to readers at the start that it was (probably) not a simple donation of a tenth of all Æthelwulf's property. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine – I don't mean to make a meal of it! I'm just a bit torn by the idea of an exaction, or levy, since Æthelwulf can't very well be said to have levied anything on himself...? I'm not sure why you're puzzled, since as you say tithes could include donations to the poor, and presumably lay people are intended, so I'm taken by the parallel as far as that goes – but there I was thinking of the voluntary nature of the donation not being "unusual", rather than its targets. About the word "decimation", I don't think its use by historians is strange either, since medieval Latin has "decimatio" for "tithe" – I think I'm just curious as to whether this connection has been made or rejected directly in any sources. Really, thanks for tweaking the footnote, and I'm quite happy with it as it is! Nortonius (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not remember any historians mentioning a connection between decimations and tithes, but I may well have forgotten. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • I copyedited down to King of Wessex. I see you've got your 3 supports, and you've already dealt with my comments above and at the Peer Review. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hchc2009 edit

A huge amount of work has clearly gone into this; my thoughts are mainly around those sections I was having trouble working through (admittedly with a bad head cold!) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Worth linking "Viking" on first use.
  • I didn't think the language in the lead necessarily always focused on Aethelwulf himself. Could: "The Vikings escalated their attacks on both sides of the English Channel from the 840s, although they were not a major threat to Wessex during Æthelwulf's reign. 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.", for example, be simplified to "In 843 Æthelwulf was defeated by the Vikings in a battle at Carhampton in Somerset, but he achieved a major victory over them at the Battle of Aclea in 851."?
  • I have deleted the first part about the escalation of attacks, but I think that the fact that the Vikings were not a major threat to Wessex in this period is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, "and on his way back he married Judith, the twelve- or thirteen-year-old daughter of the West Frankish King Charles the Bald." - is the age of Judith critical here?
  • I'd have broken the fairly long second paragraph, beginning a new one at "When Æthelwulf returned to England..."
  • "In the twentieth century Æthelwulf's reputation among historians was low, and he was seen as pious and impractical," - would "pious but impractical" be better here? His reputation presumably wasn't poor because he was seen as pious per se?
  • He was seen as impractical at least partly because excessively pious, as explained in the historiography section. Would it be better if I quoted Enright - 'and he was seen as an "impractical religious enthusiast"'? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer that (or go for "he was seen as excessively pious and impractical"?) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "excessively pious and impractical". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed. I do not like having Midlands capitalized and south not but according to OED that is correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the Background section a little hard to follow in places. I liked the first two sentences, which felt very clear, but I then found it hard to trace how the details related to Aethelwulf. For example, "Offa, King of Mercia from 757 to 796, was the dominant figure of the second half of the eighth century. In 776 he lost control of Kent, but recovered it in about 785. King Cynewulf of Wessex (757–786) was able to maintain his position until he lost territory to Offa following the Battle of Bensington in Oxfordshire in 779..." was interesting detail, but I wasn't sure what I was supposed to be drawing out of it. I'd recommend picking up the story with Aethelwulf's dad, as I was looking out for a statement like "Aethelwulf's father, Egbert, was..." which would position the narrative for me.
  • I think a substantial background is helpful, but I have cut less relevant details. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, I wasn't sure where the background on Archbishop Wulfred was going.
  • I prefer to keep this. Its relevance only becomes clear later, but I think that is better than jumping around chronologically explaining the background when it does become relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't pick up on the Coenwulf/Ceolwulf I/Beornwulf/Wulfred dispute when Wulfred does then reappear in the main narrative though - it just says that "Æthelwulf took steps to secure the support of Archbishop Wulfred", without any link to the previous disputes... I couldn't see how the argument between Coenwulf and Wulfred related to/affected this. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later on it says that Wulfred devoted his archiepiscopate to resisting secular control over monasteries but his successor surrendered it. I have not gone into detail about his earlier battles, and I do not think that one sentence is excessive. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposing on the basis of it, but I'm not convinced its helping tell Æthelwulf's story - the key information is picked up later on anyway. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added that the argument was about control of monasteries. I think this helps to bring out that Æthelwulf was able to achieve peacefully what Wulfred - with considerable success - spent his life fighting against. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Egbert was the first King of Wessex of his bloodline for eight generations, " I had to think about what this meant; does it mean that his great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was King of Wessex?
  • That is correct, although he was the great-great grandson of Ingild, brother of King Ine. Would it be better to say "Egbert's paternal ancestors had not been kings of Wessex for eight generations"? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably - would another way to say that "Egbert was the first King of Wessex of his bloodline since King XXXX (dates)"?
  • I do not understand why it is clearer to say that he was the first King of Wessex of his bloodline since x than the first King of Wessex of his bloodline for eight generations. Can you clarify? I prefer eight generation as more vivid. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reasoning is that firstly, "generation" can mean several things - either a "father-grandfather-greatgrandfather" generation or a span of years (e.g. 25-30 years); as put, it isn't certain which one is meant. Secondly, I had to do the maths to estimate when the previous king had been in power (my guess was 160 odd years before, based 20 years between each generation?), and I still wasn't sure which king that had actually been. Stating the last king had been King XXX in year YYYY would have both made the maths easier, and told me who that last monarch had actually been. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed it to avoid referring to generations - and to make the point clearer. Does it look OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard Abels argues..." Could we state inline who Abels is, e.g. "The historian Richard Abels..."? (NB: the same applies to later individuals being mentioned)
  • I am not sure how to deal with this. When I leave out "historian" some editors complain, and when I put it in other editors complain. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as "King Æthelwulf's famous butler"" - it is worth noting that a butler in this period was very different from a butler in the 21st century?
  • "So far as is known, his wife Osburh was the mother of all his children. " - would it be clearer to say "So far as is known, he had six children with his wife Osburh, and no illegitimate children."?
  • It seems clear to me, and I think your version would be doubtful. There would almost certainly have been other children who died young. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " he began to attest when he was around six" - is there a link we can use for "attest"?
  • I cannot find one. The nearest is signature, but that would be misleading as the article defines it as an autograph signature.
  • "In Abels's view, Egbert and Æthelwulf rewarded their friends and purged Mercian supporters." - is there a contrary view?
  • Not specifically, but Keynes emphasizes that they cultivated Kentish support and does not mention any purging. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was probably followed by loss of control of the London mint and Mercian recovery of Essex and Berkshire," I'd have gone for "which was probably followed by his loss of control of the London mint and the Mercian recovery of Essex and Berkshire,"
  • "Egbert restored the East Malling estate to Wulfred's successor as Archbishop of Canterbury, Ceolnoth, in return for a promise of "firm and unbroken friendship" for himself and Æthelwulf and their heirs, and the same condition is specified in a Winchester charter of the same year." - this felt like a long sentence to me; is the "and the same condition..." bit of it essential?
  • It is the point of mentioning the Winchester charter, as another example of how Egbert secured promises of support for his son's succession. I have deleted "in the same year" as it is superfluous. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "Æthelwulf ran a Carolingian-style family firm of plural realms, held together by his own authority as father-king, and by the consent of distinct élites." I think I understood this quote, but it felt like it needed explaining a bit more.
  • How about "Æthelwulf did not attempt to unite the territories he ruled into a unified kingdom, and according to Janet Nelson, he "ran a Carolingian-style family firm of plural realms, held together by his own authority as father-king, and by the consent of distinct élites." Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess my concern was more that phrases like "plural realms", "father-king" and "distinct elites" carry a lot of specialsit meaning; I wasn't 100% sure, for example, that I knew what "father-king" meant. Did it mean that he exercised authority both as a king and as a father? Or that his role as king also resembled being the father of the realm? Or that his role as father was bound up by his being a king? Similarly, I wasn't certain that my reading of "distinct elites" as right. Did it mean geographically distinct elites? Different sorts of elites? etc. If I wasn't sure (and I'd read a bit on the Carolingian empire!) I'd bet that others might feel the same way. It's a great quote, but it felt like it needed unpacking a bit more. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think in the context plural realms means that he governed Wessex and Kent as separate kingdoms and did not attempt to unite them, and distinct elites similarly means the separate geographical elites of the two kingdoms. Father-king is less clear. I took it to mean that he was a father-figure to his people, ruling by commanding respect rather than arbitrarily imposing his will. I am reluctant to add any explanation as it would be my opinion, and close to POV. 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I take your point, but if we're not sure what the quote means, is it helping the typical reader? Hchc2009 (talk)
  • I think one problem was that the quote was misplaced. I have moved it to make clear that it refers to the separate control of Wessex and Kent. Is that better? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lupus thought that Felix had great influence over the king" - I think the capitalisation of king is wrong here.
  • "on 26 December 846 he made a large grant of bookland to himself" - I clicked on bookland, but I still didn't really understand what this meant.
  • Changed. Is it clearer now? 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The silver penny was the sole denomination in middle and later Anglo-Saxon coinage." - is there a simpler way of stating this? e.g. "The only coin used by Anglo-Saxons of the period was the silver penny." or something like that? I also wondered if the paragraph might be broken into two, after "...with a non-portrait design carrying a cross-and-wedges pattern on the obverse."
    Changed to "The silver penny was the only coin used in middle and later Anglo-Saxon England." I have not split the paragraphs as I do not currently have access to the source to footnote the pages which would be relevant to the separate paragraphs. Maybe Mike Christie can help? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The citations point to pages 270, 271, 275, 287-291, and 307-308. Almost everything is in 287-291. The exceptions are 270: the statement that "the penny was virtually the sole denomination in mid and late Anglo-Saxon coinage" (looks like the sense of "virtually" needs to be re-added here); 271: the fact that no coins were issued by Æthelwulf's sons during his reign; 275: the quote from Grierson and Blackburn; and 307-308: the comments on debasement. Everything else is from 287-291. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Paragraph split. Thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Middle Temple hoard," - is there a link or a footnote that could explain what this was/is?
  • There is no link I can find but I have revised to hopefully make it clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ceolnoth, archbishop of Canterbury throughout Æthelwulf's reign," - I don't think the capitalisation is consistent here.
  • "In the view of Philip Grierson and Mark Blackburn" - I'd suggest a comma after this.
  • "Decimation charters": personally I felt this section was straying from a summary style, and went into a lot of historical debate and detail that didn't seem to fit in a biographical article. Might just be me though! :)
  • I did not see how else to deal with a subject which is so controversial, and so important in the context of Æthelwulf's life. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the ODNB or similar deal with it? I'm wondering if there's a comparable, wiki-style biography we could evaluate the weighting against? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The king left Wessex " - I think this should be capitalized
  • "a gold crown weighing four pounds" - should probably have a metric equivalent
  • What would you suggest? I would say 2 kg as 1.8 would be false exactness, but others might disagree. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd probably have gone for 1.8, but either would work for me. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ring is one of two key examples of nielloed ninth-century metalwork, together with a similar ring of his daughter Æthelswith. " - "his" is quite divorced from Aethelwulf by now in the paragraph, so I'd suggest naming him.
  • " firmly associating it with the king" - capitalisation. *Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley, if you run into a problem with some copyeditors insisting that "king" (not used attributively) should be lowercase and other insisting it should be uppercase, please let me know. Style guides are divided on this point. I generally leave it alone, as long as the capitalization is consistent. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dank, I'd argue that MOS:JOBTITLES applies, which gives specific style guidance on the use of king and King. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good argument that King is required by MOS:JOBTITLES (which also requires for instance "the English king", even when referring to a specific king ... go figure). Influential American style guides (such as Chicago) recommend lowercasing it, but copyeditors will typically allow exceptions to avoid offense, uppercasing for instance "the [current] Queen" (which is why the example given at MOS:JOBTITLES isn't representative of common practice). That's why I'm saying that writers sometimes get caught between dueling copyeditors. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dan, but when I think about it I agree with hchc. I would not refer to the current queen as "the queen" (even though I am a republican!) so it has to be "the King" for Æthelwulf. What I do find a problem is whether to say "historian" Joe Bloggs. Some editors such as hchc object if I leave it out, others if I put it in. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're being told to do it both ways, I wonder if one footnote that mentions each historian would satisfy everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dan. What does Hchc think? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd usually vote in favour of in-line attribution of individuals mentioned in articles (e.g. "the historian John Smith", "the 16th-century antiquarian Joe Bloggs" etc.) on the basis that if someone is worth mentioning by name, then its worth explaining to the reader who they are, but if it helps produce a workable compromise, then that's fine by me! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think what some people do not like is the repetition of the word "historian". I will try to use some variety and see whether anyone complains. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks hchc for your very detailed review. Please see queries on some points above. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have covered your points Hchc. Any you are not happy with? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think that's it from me Dudley. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anotherclown edit

  • No alt text for the images so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR req).
Done.
  • No unnecessary dabs, external links check out, no issues with ref consolidation, no duplicate links, image review completed above, captions look ok (no action req'd).
  • In the lead: "but in 843 he was defeated in a battle at Carhampton in Somerset, and he achieved a major victory at the Battle of Aclea in 851." This construction doesn't quite seem right to my ear although I'm unsure of the rules of grammar so I could be off the mark here (I'am Australian and despite claiming to talk English we generally have no idea about such things). For instance it seems to describe two opposing events (a defeat and a victory), however you link them with an "and" which would seem more appropriate for two equal or similar events. As a suggestion try something like "The Vikings were not a major threat to Wessex during Æthelwulf's reign, however, in 843 he was defeated in a battle at Carhampton in Somerset, but later achieved a major victory at the Battle of Aclea in 851."
  • Changed.
  • "...in the south the important southern kingdoms" seems almost tautological.
  • "Southern" deleted.
  • "...seems to have been ended in 850/1" the date range should be presented as "850–51" per MOS:DATERANGE.
  • Done
  • In the references ""Decimation". The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 1971" does not appear to be in alphabetical order.
  • Moved
  • "Grierson, Philip; Blackburn, Mark (2006) [1986]. Medieval European Coinage, With A Catalogue of the Coins in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: 1: The Early Middle Ages (5th–10th Centuries) (corr. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-03177-X." To be consistent with the other entries you should probably present it as "Cambridge, UK".
  • Done.
  • Location of publication for both Miller refs?
  • Done.
  • Likewise for a few of the Nelsons.
  • Done.
  • I did a copy edit and made a few MOS changes, format a reference etc [4].
  • Thenks - please see query below.
  • Otherwise this articles looks in pretty good shape to me (although I admit to having no knowledge of the topic). Anotherclown (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dudley Miles you already have the three supports needed, but it might be good to respond to Ac's comments before I put this up for closing? I'm also going to ask Nikkimaria if she's happy with the image review, as there seemed to be a bit there and the comments aren't conclusive. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikki could you also take a look at the change to the bibliography at [5]. This is a new introduction by Simon Keynes to a reprint of a book by a deceased historian, Peter Hunter Blair. The only way I could see to deal with it was by a postscript, but AnotherClown does not think that works. However the change to show the author as the editor does not seem right to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - those changes look good to me. Dudley - re the postscript - I've no issue with you reverting my change if you don't like it, I'm not here to impose my will on anyone (not that I could anyway). From my point of view I believe my change was IAW the guidance provided at Template:Cite book, and one issue I saw with the postscript is that the template doesn't seem to allow there to be a space b/n the isbn and the text in that field (i.e. smashing it altogether) - at least on my screen, which obviously looks messy (by this I mean it displayed as such "ISBN 1234556445text of postscript"). By all means pls do whatever you believe works best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is a bug in the template. I thought I had put in a non-breaking space to solve the problem but that does not always seem to work. Thanks for your support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That solution for the bibliography looks fine to me. There's one issue left with regards to images - see response above. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Æthelwulf&oldid=1138359475"