Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ceawlin of Wessex

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 01:10, 7 July 2007.

Ceawlin of Wessex

Passed GA; I hope this is now ready for FAC. Some other Anglo-Saxon royalty FAs, for comparison, if useful: Ælle of Sussex, Penda of Mercia, Æthelberht of Kent. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did the GA review of this article, and it is easily up to FA standards. Great job as usual. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much I should comment on this article, since I created the earlier version mumble years ago of this article which stood until this extensive -- & very readible -- rewriting. I will note a couple of things. First, I am pleasantly surprised that (I'm guessing here) Mike Christie referenced a number of sources which I had in mind, but did not mention in that earlier version. However, I am a little puzzled about the style used for sources: to me it seems that the entries are duplicated at length, once in the notes then again in the references. Could this be condensed? lastly, there are a few other sources & points that I feel could be added -- but I'd rather discuss these with Mike offline, rather than suggest that these must be added for the article to obtain FA status. -- llywrch 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the references and notes; I am not sure what the MOS really wants here. I have always used the full form of the sources in the notes, since I figured that subsequent edits might detach other mentions of those sources from the article. However, I know there is also a style where the "references" section shows full source details, and the "notes" section just uses summary style: "Kirby 1991, p. 42", or something similar. I don't mind switching if MOS requires it; I was just being conservative about keeping all the data in each location. For the other points, Llywrch, please post on the article talk page and I'll follow up there -- I look forward to seeing your comments. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally (and this is just my opinion), I would think that as long as it is unambiguous, there is no need to convert all references to one style or another. In fact, several guidelines, policies, and ArbCom decisions recommend against it. References should be complete, be cited to reliable sources, and used unambiguously so everyone can easily see where each fact comes from. This article does that in spades. Other Featured Articles use different formats and do it equally as well. Different is not always better. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support—mostly well-written. But I notice this bit, which needs fixing in a number of places:

The sources are also inconsistent on the length of Ceawlin’s reign. The Chronicle gives it as thirty-two years, from 560 to 592; but the Regnal Lists disagree: different versions give it as seven or seventeen years. A recent detailed study of the Regnal List dates the arrival of the West Saxons in England to 538, and favours seven as the most likely length of Ceawlin's reign, with dates of 581–588 proposed.[10][15] However, the sources do agree that Ceawlin is the son of Cynric, and he is usually named as the father of Cuthwine.[16] There is one discrepancy to be noted in this case, too: the entry for 685 in the [A] version of the Chronicle assigns Ceawlin a son, Cutha; in the 855 entry in the same manuscript, Cutha is listed as the son of Cuthwine. Cutha is also named as Ceawlin’s brother in the [E] and [F] versions of the Chronicle, in the 571 and 568 entries, respectively.[17]

Whether Ceawlin is a descendant of Cerdic is a matter of debate, however. Subgroupings of different West Saxon lineages give the impression of separate groups, of which Ceawlin's line is one. It has been suggested that some of the problems in the Wessex genealogies came about because of efforts to integrate Ceawlin's line with the other lineages: it was very important to the West Saxons to be able to trace their ancestors back to Cerdic.[18]

Present tense is odd. Colon after semicolon is awkward. "Seven years", not a length of seven. Remove "to be noted". Lots of however, but and also. Explicit references to sources ("it has been suggested that ... [18}"; smoother to say "Some of the ... may have come about ... [18]". So perhaps fresh eyes need to run through the whole thing; most of it looks pretty good, though. Tony 05:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've done a copyedit pass and I hope have dealt with most of these points. I left the present tense in place; I hesitate on this usage but ultimately I think the sense can be justified. The documents were written in the past, but are present now for us to cite as sources in historical debates, so in that sense the Chronicle "says". The writer of the Chronicle "said" something in 890, but the Chronicle itself still says it today. If there's a consensus that this is not a style we want to see in WP, I can change it, but I thought I'd explain my reasoning. Mike Christie (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written article and of FA quality. Kyriakos 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.