Æthelwold was the son of Alfred the Great's older brother, King Æthelred I, and he thus had a strong claim to the throne of Wessex. He rebelled after Alfred's death, but was killed at the Battle of the Holme. He has been described as "one of the 'Nearly Men' of early medieval Europe". Dudley Miles (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Support Comments from Tim riley
This article seems to me of FA quality, rather than A class, and I shall have no difficulty in adding my support. A few minor comments, none of which affect my support for the promotion of the article:
"Æthelwulf, who succeeded in 839, were successful in resisting them. Æthelwulf died in 858, and he was succeeded by four sons in succession" – rather too many successes here?
Revised. OK now?
"kings should be adults, so he was succeeded" – mine is an old fashioned view, I know, but I don't consider "so" a conjunction. Many disagree with me, and I just mention the point. (Further examples later in the text, too, if I have converted you to my point of view, but I'm perfectly prepared to be overruled.)
It is recognised by the Oxford and Cambridge online dictionaries, but I have no strong feeling either way. Any suggestion for an alternative?
Fine as it is. I just raised the matter and am not pressing my views on you. Tim rileytalk 11:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"and nearly conquered Wessex" – is this the same as "conquered most of Wessex?" If so, perhaps more precise to say the latter.
"nearly succeeded in conquering Wessex" would be more accurate, but it would be another 'succeeded'. I cannot think of a better wording.
"ambiguous and vague - and deliberately so" – I think the MoS would have you use either a spaced en-dash or unspaced em-dash instead of the hyphen here, regardless of how the source is punctuated. See WP:Manual of Style#Typographic conformity. The same goes for later instances, such as one half-way through the quote about Alfred's will.
Done. (I have never understood the rules, but some expert seems to come along and correct it when I get it wrong.)
That's a very practical approach to the matter. Tim rileytalk 11:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"his rebellion against Edward soon after Edward's death" – I know this is in a quote, but I don't see how you can rebel against somebody after he's dead.
"in the view of historian Pauline Stafford" – my apologies for riding a hobby-horse, but this is an example of an anarthrous nominal premodifier, perfectly good in American English, but in these isles widely regarded as tabloidese. The insertion of a definite article before "historian" would solve the problem.
"delegitimise" -- a word unknown to the Oxford English Dictionary. Perhaps “invalidate”?
I wondered about that and checked with the Oxford online dictionary, which does have it. I do not think 'invalidate' would be right. Would you prefer "present a politically important marriage as illegitimate"?
What's good enough for the OUP online is good enough for me. Tim rileytalk 11:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"may be Holme in Huntingdonshire (now part of Cambridgeshire)" – would the name Huntingdonshire have been applicable at the time? If not, it seems unnecessary to mention it here: "Holme in Cambridgeshire" would suffice.
Changed. An interesting point. I cannot find how far it goes back on a quick search, probably to the later Anglo-Saxon period. I think historians of Anglo-Saxon England tend to give the old counties because they like the continuity back to their period and resent losing it in the 1974 reorganisation.
"Æthelwold was amongst the leaders" – mere personal preference, but I never know what "amongst", "amidst" and "whilst" have got that "among", "amid" and "while" haven't, apart from unnecessary letters.
Changed. (I rather like the word amongst, but you are right.)
"According to historian Martin Ryan" – another anarthrous nominal premodifier.
The quotation marks in the block quote are another case where the MoS bids us silently replace the punctuation of the original with WP's standard: the single quotes should, I think, be doubles.
ISBNs – most are hyphenated, but a few are not. By the bye, it doesn't matter here, I think, but when you get to FAC you may like to reflect that there is evidently a convention, not enshrined in the MoS as far as I know, that ISBNs are all given in either the 10-digit version or in the 13-digit form, and not a mixture of both: WorldCat will oblige.
I will check this out. I did once change the hyphenation for consistency, and it was not recognised as an ISBN, so I have assumed since then that I had to stick to whatever was in the source.
I'd be happy to do the necessary before you go to FAC if you give me the nod. Tim rileytalk 11:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Entirely happy to do both. I shall be asking you in a week or so to look at an article, currently in one of my sandboxes, when it bursts forth into the main space. It will be almost up your street, I think, despite jumping straight from prehistory to William Rufus, missing the Saxons, alas. As to the ISBNs here and the List of nature reserves, just drop me a line on my talk page when you want me to look in. Tim rileytalk 15:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"Blunt, C. E. … cited in british and irish archaeological bibliography" – capitalisation.
That's all from me. I look forward to adding gladly add my support. Tim rileytalk 16:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
"before the witan at all, That it did": probably something missing
No, it is correct. Sadly, Smyth did not have Dank to copy edit! I have just noticed that it was my error. I put a comma instead of a stop. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I had left out 2 sentences as I was concerned they would make the quote too long, but on second thoughts I have added them as they make his reasoning clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Support Comments -- Dudley's are always good, tightly written articles so I just have a few comments to follow my usual copyedits:
I admit I had to read the last para of the lead twice as "Danes" on its own suggested invaders even though you'd qualified it earlier as "East Anglian Danes" -- would it be improper to refer to them as "East Anglians" where you simply say "Danes"?
I think some readers might think East Anglians meant Anglo-Saxons so I have changed it to East Anglian Danes. (I think this is better for clarity even though it is repetiton.) Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Structure, detail and comprehensiveness seem fine to this admitted non-expert on the period.
Nothing leapt out re. images and sources but I always feel more confident when Nikkimaria casts her eye over them... ;-)
Well done as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I am confused here. The coin was scanned from a book, not the internet. The first link is to an article which does not exist and the second to the coins category. Can you advise further? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Was missing the second "Commons", fixed now, thanks. The issue is that taking a photograph of a coin generates a new copyright, for the photo itself. Since the coin was scanned from an image in a fairly recent book, if that photo is original to that book then it is quite likely still under copyright, even though the coin itself is long PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
File:Flag_of_Northumbria.svg: this likely isn't creative enough to warrant copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This is on the Northumbrian monarchs template added by another editor. I do not know of any evidence that they had a flag at that date so I have deleted it. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Argh. Two out my three images do not have proper licensing. I do not know the source for the map, so I have replaced it with one copied from a 1910 book. It is not as good, but I assume there is no copyright problem. I have deleted the coin and will see whether I can track down an image which is old enough to be out of copyright. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I have not been able to find an out of copyright image of an Æthelwold coin. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Possible to provide page numbers for the Williams entries? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing  (no action req'd)
There seems to be some bibliographic information missing, including most works which are missing place of publication, while a few of the journal articles are missing publisher, location and issns.
I have added missing publishers and issns. I have never shown location and this has never been raised at FAC so I have assumed it is not a requirement. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Well I can't say I understand the mentality of providing an incomplete citation but each to there own I guess. Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
"Æthelwold attempted to raise an army to support his claim, but he was unable to get sufficient support to meet Edward in battle, and he fled to Viking-controlled Northumbria, where he was..." The prose is a little repetitive here, specifically "he" is used several times and may be redundant in a few places, also an issue with one of the commas I believe. For instance consider: "Æthelwold attempted to raise an army to support his claim, but was unable to get sufficient support to meet Edward in battle and fled to Viking-controlled Northumbria, where he was..."
I believe it is customary for instances of multiple citations to appear in numerical order. For instance: "...he would live or die there". should be . Can these be re-ordered? (a nitpick I agree). Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)