Talk:Æthelwold ætheling

Future reference

The following article should be of some use to help expand the article:

• Lavelle, Ryan. "The Politics of Rebellion: The Ætheling Æthelwold and West Saxon Royal Succession, 899-902." In Challenging the Boundaries of Medieval History: The Legacy of Timothy Reuter, ed. P. Skinner. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 22. Turnhout, forthcoming. Cavila (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Æthelwold of Wessex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC) I'll do this one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	on hold for seven days for points to be addressedPassed.

Comments

• suggest using refbegin refend templates on the Sources to reduce font size Done

Done.

• no citation points to Keynes and Lapidge, suggest moving to it to a Further reading section

Citations 3 and 6 are to Keynes and Lapidge.

Ah, you are right, I should have been clearer, the links between the Citations section and Sources section don't work.

Is this OK now?

No, link is still broken. I'm not sure why as yet, I use shortened footnotes (substantially easier to work with IMO), I'll have to have a look at how to do it with the citation syntax you are using.

Is the problem that I have not linked the citations and sources? I thought this was OK as some featured articles such as William the Conqueror and Egbert of Wessex (both articles of the day) do not appear to link them. If you think they should be linked, can you point me to the best format? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(just skimming through) Fixed the problem. "ref=harv" only makes sense, when templates like "sfn" or "efn" are also used - otherwise you can disable the function by omitting the parameter or disabling it with "ref=" in the cite-template. GermanJoe (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this. The source must have been copied from an article which was using Harvard linking (if that is the correct term). Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is overlinked Done

Done

• The coin image needs a better caption and the copyright status does not look right. The coin itself is very old, but the photograph of the coin is what should be addressed by the licensing etc. Can you talk me through this please?

I have provided fuller details in the caption and copyright status, but the status is probably still not satisfactory. I was trying to think of a posssible image and a coin seemed the only possibility. The BM report on the Silverdale Hoard at [1] said that it included one of his coins, but the only image I could find was from the PA in a Daily Mail article at [2]. Some images of Anglo-Saxon coins in Wikimedia such as [3] are copied from modern books, so I concluded that this image should be acceptable. I have since found reproductions in a 1985 academic article at [4]. Would an image copied from this article be acceptable or should the image be deleted? I might be able to find an image which is out of copyright in the sources cited in the article, but most of them look too old to have photos.

I fear the image is not ok, I will ping an image guru for a second opinion. User:Nikkimaria, could you have a look at the image here for me, please?

Hey both. Peacemaker is correct that we require appropriate licensing for both the photo and the object itself; even in cases where freedom of panorama applies, it's the photo licensing that is required. Since this particular image is a press photo, it will probably need to be deleted. In terms of replacing it, I have a suggestion: the British Museum has photos of that coin and indeed seems to have most of the hoard in its collection; would it be possible to seek their permission to use such an image? The other image you mention, incidentally, is sourced to a modern book that credits the museum for that particular image. You could also investigate Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Photos_requested, although that page is not very active - if no one responds try asking previous respondents directly. Hopefully the coin is publicly displayed. If all else fails, you might need to use a more general image instead, or even no image at all, although that would be less than ideal. Hope that helps! Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Actually, looking again, the BM site attributes the coin to a different reign? You might want to verify...Nikkimaria (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Nikki. I suggest the image be removed, and a military person infobox or appropriate map added. It is not ideal I know, but it needs something visual. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the image. Thanks to Nikkimaria for pointing out the misattribution. Looking closely, the coin has Harthacnut on it, not Alwaldus, and has been wrongly labelled by the PA. I have found a map of the right time and added it as an image. Does this look OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• the lead and background need to provide more information on the time period in which he lived

I will work on this.

• it is not clear why marrying the unnamed nun would be "politically important" Done

I have found a source which clarifies the reasoning. Does this look OK now?

Yep.

• single sentence paragraph needs to be amalgamated into the para above Done

Done.

Review completed, on hold for seven days for the above to be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. This is my first attempt at getting an article to good article status, so any help where I am not addressing issues correctly will be appreciated. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Just the lead to fix now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to deal with this in the next couple of days. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done on an excellent article. Passing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change of name of article

Historians never refer to Æthelwold by the name of this article, 'Æthelwold of Wessex'. In indexes to academic histories he is usually listed as 'Æthelwold ætheling' or 'Æthelwold, son of King Æthelred I'. I suggest that the article should be moved to one of these, with a slight preference for Æthelwold ætheling. Any other views? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The current title is confusing if you're not already familiar with the term "ætheling". It's not capitalised, so is or is it not part of his name? Is it a surname? If it's a disambiguator, why no parentheses? And it doesn't even appear in the article until midway down. I'd prefer it in parentheses, and explained or linked in the lede. That, anyway, is the quickest fix. Srnec (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have explained it in the lead. Is it OK now?

That's better, but the title still looks jargony—like a borrowing from contemporary charters, which professional historians would have no qualms doing. Compare Edgar the Ætheling, where it's clearly a nickname. I'm not sure the average reader will know exactly what to make of this title. Srnec (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it looks like jargon, but I cannot think of a better title. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Reading through the article per a request from Dudley Miles; here are a couple of thoughts.

• The map shows definite boundaries between the various domains. I'm not as familiar with the history after about 850, so I don't know if this is a relevant comment, but the question of whether maps should show boundaries or not has come up on some of the earlier articles. An example of a map without boundaries is at Ine of Wessex. I've generally preferred to avoid the maps with boundaries for the articles I've worked on, but perhaps after 900 the sources start to show maps with more definite boundaries.

• There is a change. The new edition of the Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia has no boundaries for its 700 map and boundaries with some blank areas - obviously doubtful areas - in its 900 map. The map is the best I could find. I thought of asking for an expert to do one specially for the article (which I have for a couple of articles) but I concluded that in this case the map gives a good general picture so I did not need to ask for a special one.

• "Edward retaliated with a raid on East Anglia, and when he retreated the men of Kent lingered": I associate "retreat" with military defeat, so I wasn't clear that it was Edward who was retreating here. How about "Edward retaliated with a raid on East Anglia, and when Edward's forces withdrew the men of Kent lingered..."?

• Done.

• "The Danes were victorious but suffered heavy losses, including the death of Æthelwold, ending the challenge to Edward's rule." How about "The Danes were victorious but suffered heavy losses, including the death of Æthelwold, which ended the challenge to Edward's rule"?

• Done.

• "he was followed by four sons in succession": how about "he was followed by four of his five sons in succession"?

• I would prefer not. I would need to explain the other son, which is not relevant.

• How about using File:Coin of Aethelwold (Alwaldus) c.900.jpg?

• This was used in the article but I was told at FAC that it is not allowed. Coins are 3D, and photos of them therefore require artistic skill and are copyright.

That's everything; the article is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Mike Christie. I now have the article at TFA at [5]. I also have Hermeneutic style at FAC at [6] - it currently has 2 supports. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  I'll take a look at both; I don't usually get involved at TFA but I will try to review hermeneutic style; I read it when you nominated it and have been meaning to get back to it. A pity about the coin, but perhaps it is currently tagged incorrectly in that case. It's hosted at commons, and marked as public domain in the U.S., which it shouldn't be if it's copyrighted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• The coin is wrongly tagged. I took it out of the article when I was told to but I must admit I could not be bothered to work out what the correct tag should be - probably I should mark it for deletion but I do not think the case against it is strong enough for that. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Will

Curious: Is that an actual page of Alfred the Great's will? Amazing that it should have survived more than a millenium. (Odd that it doesn't appear at Alfred the Great.) Could make a good FP. Sca (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is one of only two surviving Anglo-Saxon kings' wills. I agree it would make a good addition to Alfred the Great's article, but I do not know what you mean by an FP. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That was quick! See WP:FPC. Thanks. Sca (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted the edits stating that Æthelhelm became Archbishop of Canterbury. Æthelhelm was a common name - PASE lists 33 men with that name. Athelm or Æthelhelm was A of C and died 926 (not 923), but no expert on the period thinks he was the same man as Æthelred's son. In your first edit you cited Yorke 2001 pp. 30-31. She says there that Æthelred's son Æthelhelm is not recorded after being mentioned in Alfred's will. See also the short entry on Athelm in the online DNB at [7]. (You can get access if you have a British public library card). Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Æthelwold ætheling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104205501/http://www.pase.ac.uk/pdb?dosp=PAGE_CHANGE&N=2 to http://www.pase.ac.uk/pdb?dosp=PAGE_CHANGE&N=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Death date

Would someone mind editing Æthelwold's Revolt and Battle of the Holme to put the uncertainty of the date in there? I would do it myself normally but I'm short on time now and very likely to forget. Thanks so much. —howcheng {chat} 00:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)