Wikipedia:Peer review/Edmund I/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edmund I[edit]

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend nominating it for FAC and I would like so far as possible to deal with any queries first. Pinging Mike Christie and Tim riley.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • Do we need to know about Guthfrithson minting Viking-weight coins at York after the conquest of the Five Boroughs? There's nothing in that paragraph that is diffident enough to require reassuring the reader that the conquest was complete.
  • I think it is of interest as an indication that he had not just conquered but was trying to return to older Viking ways. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dispute summarized in footnote [e] sounds significant enough to at least mention in the text. I don't think the details need to be given, just a statement such as "though this chronology is not universally accepted", with the footnote attached to that.

More later. Looks very good so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • You capitalize "Continental"; is this usual? Googling some books I see it both ways, but it looks odd to me.
  • I take "the Continent" to mean mainland Europe and "the continent" to mean the continent previously referred to. Dictionaries have this sense. See [1]. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like the diplomatic relations, this probably represents": seems a bit informal. How about "This is the only surviving evidence of contacts between English and Continental churchmen which continued from Æthelstan's reign; as with diplomatic relations with the continent, there were probably more extensive contacts for which documentation has not survived", or something like that?
  • Saying it is the only surviving evidence goes beyond the source. Would "As with diplomatic relations" be better? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that works; I made the change and it looks good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In note [o], "as Eadred attests above Eadgifu, which he started doing in late 943 or early 944" -- I don't know what "he started doing" refers to.
  • Changed to "Eadred attests above Eadgifu, whereas before late 943 or early 944 Eadgifu attested first" Dudley Miles (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see there is no citation pointing to Brooks & Kelly (2013b).
  • Deleted. One of the advantages of sfn used to be that it highlighted unused sources, but this facility has been deleted. It still highlights citations with missing sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I use importScript('User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js'); // Ling's source review script in Special:MyPage/common.js; it adds a "Show ref check" link to the sidebar which checks for several useful things. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It concerned ecclesiastical matters, and was convened by Edmund and attended by archbishops Oda and Wulfstan." I think this needs rephrasing; the law code concerned ecclesiastical matters, but the council was convened, so we can't have "it" as the subject of both.
  • The paragraph concerning II Edmund and III Edmund starts by referring to "the other codes" but ends with "the code" -- are we talking about one or both?
  • I have revised the section to deal with these problems. Does it look OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and give him a royal estate at Glastonbury": I see why you phrased it this way, but the present tense jars with the surrounding past tense. How about "Dunstan was to be a key figure in the reform and Archbishop of Canterbury, and according to his first biographer he was a leading figure at Edmund's court until his enemies persuaded Edmund to expel him; the king later had a change of heart after a narrow escape from death, and gave him a royal estate at Glastonbury, including its abbey."
  • It looks OK to me. Perhaps see what other reviewers say. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His men gave £60 to the shrine": I think this needs at least a footnote, given that earlier we say there were no coins but pennies. Were there 240 pennies to a pound that early?
  • Added a note. It was a unit of account of 240 pence.
  • "whether by establishing a nunnery or living as an individual": I'm not sure what is meant by "living as an individual".
  • Changed to "whether by establishing a nunnery or living a religious life in their own homes". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence starting "Ryan Lavelle comments that..." makes it sound like we're referring to Lavelle's PhD thesis, but from the bibliography it seems more likely to be Trousdale's. Should "in his PhD thesis" go in square brackets after "as Alaric Trousdale has recently done" inside the quote?
  • The last paragraph of the assessment pays a lot of attention to Trousdale's PhD thesis; I see he's now a professor, but just wanted to check that you're confident this is not unbalanced.
  • This is an issue I have devoted a lot of thought to. Trousdale's thesis is the only good source on administrative aspects of Edmund's reign, but it has been almost wholly ignored. Other historians say that there was continuity with Æthelstan without looking at the evidence. It does seem to me to meet the criteria for a reliable source. It has been academically peer reviewed, one chapter h\as been published in a book of essays by historians, and it is taken seriously by Ryan Lavelle, who is the only historian I know of who has read it, probably as an external referee on the PhD thesis. I think Lavelle may exaggerate the case Trousdale makes for Edmund's importance in administrative reform, but his comments were written before Molyneaux's highly regarded book dating the crucial changes to Edgar's reign. The most important part of Trousdale's thesis in my opinion is his demonstration that there were radical changes in the top rank of Edmund's witan, with a shift towards reliance on Mercians and East Anglians compared with Æthelstan's West Saxon bias, but I did not think I could emphasise this in the assessment section as it is not the aspect of the thesis supported by Lavelle. My plan is to submit the article to FAC and then submit it to the Wikijournal of Humanities, hoping to get feeedback from academic historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything. These are all minor points. The only problem I might foresee at FAC is that some specialist terms such as "recension" are not explained inline. This is fine with me, so long as they're linked, but you might want to read through with that in mind and see if more could be done for the lay reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have gone through the article and I cannot see any terms which need explanation and do not have one - or a link. As I explain below, I have deleted the link to surety as the article is not helpful. The term seems common enough to me not to need explanation. Do you disagree? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Mike. That is very helpful. I will go through your comments, but first deal with your copy edits. I have queries on three. 1. I am not sure about "whom", but Tim agrees with you and I am sure you both know more about grammar than me. 2. The link to surety is not helpful. It is the correct word according to OED, but the wiki article is about one specialised usage, the guarantor of a debt, which is not the usage here. 3. "Record" is much too strong a word for the hagiography of Cathroe. Historians accept the broad outline, but there are obvious errors of detail. (One of Woolf's reasons for arguing that Erik Bloodaxe had an unrecorded earlier reign in York is that the hagiography claims that Cathroe stayed with him in York, which would be impossible on the accepted chronology.) I will need to think how to deal with your query without using the word. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Mike. I have finished my replies. Any comments on them? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The rule on "whom" is actually one of the easier bits of English grammar to remember; just recast the subordinate clause as a simple sentence and see if it ends up with "he" or "him". For "advisers, such as Oda, whom he appointed Archbishop of Canterbury" we get "he appointed Oda as Archbishop of Canterbury"; i.e. "he appointed him". It's "him" so we use "whom". Re Cathróe, yes, I should have remembered how fanciful most hagiographies are. I might now even go in the other direction and suggest a footnote letting the reader know that hagiographies are unreliable but this detail is accepted, but that's a judgement call I leave to you.
    Other than that, everything I have not responded to above is fine as you have it. Looking forward to seeing this at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Only on the prose, of course. I am wholly inexpert on the content, on which I will simply remark that it looks comprehensive, balanced and authoritative to my layman's eye. As to the prose, a few minor suggestions:

  • General
  • Commas after "On such-and-such a date/time/occasion": as we know, AmE insists on unnecessary commas after all such phrases and BrE doesn't, using commas only when helpful to the reader. (My stock example of which is "On first reading Joyce, Beckett was excited", where without the comma people might momentarily wonder who Joyce Beckett was.) In this article you sometimes use a comma after a plain date and sometimes don't: "In 934 he invaded Scotland" -v- "In that year, Edmund ravaged" and "In 944, Edmund expelled" -v- "in 945 Harald captured Louis", "When Edward died in 924, he controlled all England" -v- "During Æthelstan's reign West Saxon ealdormen" and so on. Not a matter of great consequence, but it might be as well to be consistent. I'd leave the commas out if I were writing this article, but I'm not.
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
  • Eadred was succeeded by Edmund's sons in succession – "succeeded … in succession": infelicitious phrasing, though no alternative suggestion leaps to mind. You may like to ponder.
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first major setback for the West Saxon dynasty – you need to disambiguate the link to "West Saxon"
Fixed by another editor. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oda, who he appointed Archbishop – I'm old-fashioned enough to insist on the accusative "whom" in such phrases
I do not remember ever using "whom". Merriam-Webster sums it up "though now often considered stilted especially as an interrogative and especially in oral use". Still as Mike has already changed it to "whom" I am outvoted. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
  • Map of the British Isles in the tenth century – the alt text merely repeats the caption, which is not helpful. Perhaps a few extra words naming the major kingdoms?
I always just repeat the caption in the alt text and no one has objected before. Added to caption and alt text. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The loss and recovery of the north
  • First para: three place names are linked to disambiguation pages: Tamworth, Lincoln and Stamford. And I don't think you need to – or should – link Lincoln and Stamford again in the poem that follows.
Already done by another editor. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was described by Frank Stenton as … – but when telling us what other historians say/said, above and later in the piece, you use the present tense, as would I. Ditto for "Stenton commented" a line or so later.
I prefer the past tense for people long dead - let's see what other reviewers say. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "brings out the highly significant fact … its author understood political realities" – that's quite a long quote at 76 words, and if you are going to use all of it, I think it should be a block quote.
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • granting land in the Danelaw to supporters in order to give them an interest – there are those (of whom I am not one) who get aerated about "in order to" and insist it must be simply "to". I just mention it here as it may come up at FAC.
As you say. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was baptised in 943 – if "emphasizes" with a z, earlier (an obsolescent practice in BrE now almost unique to the Oxford University Press, as far as I can see) then why not "baptized" here? (Similarly for "characterised" -v- "centralization" -v- "emphasises" later on.)
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legislation
  • very similar to 'Constitutions' previously promulgated – I think the MoS would have us use double quotes.
Fixed. Is Wikipedia the only one to use double quotes? I always see single quotes in books so far as I remember. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long quote "all shall swear … what he discountenances" – could do with being in a blockquote, I think.
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Religion
  • If the Aethelwold in the last sentence of the first para is the same chap, which I take him to be, we've already had a blue link for him in the Background section.
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Learning
  • The 'Vatican' recension – another place where I think double quotes are wanted
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marriages and children
  • Edmund probably married his first wife Ælfgifu around the time of his accession to the throne as their second son was born in 943 – I think I'd put a comma after "throne" to make it clear that the "as" means "because" rather than "at the same time".
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death and succession
  • His sons were still young children, so he was succeeded as king – I was brung up to believe that "so" is not a conjunction in formal English. Others may disagree with me, but I'd write "and so" or even plain "and" here, I think.
It sounds OK to me so I have obviously been brung up wrong.

That's all from me. A meagre haul, unsurprisingly. Pray ping me when you get to FAC. I need a lie-down now, having come more or less straight from reviewing an article full of Nyuserres, Neferirkares, Neferefres and Netjerirenres to one full of Ælfflæds, Æthelflæds and Ælfweards. I'm on to Frederick the Great next, where I shall be less at sea, and can at least spell the names of most of the characters. – Tim riley talk 12:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim. I will go through your comments with close attention. You seem to be under the flattering delusion that I understand the rules of grammar. It is a weak point of mine and the inconsistencies you point out are due to me guessing what the rule is and guessing differently at different times. BTW I find blockquotes very ugly and prefer simple indenting. I assume you are happy with this as you did not comment on the places where I have indented for quotes. There is one point I would like your opinion on. I have a notion that it is correct to use the present tense quoting someone who is alive or very recently dead and past if they are long dead. I used the past tense for Stenton - though not consistently - as he died in 1967. Do you think this is wrong? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show me someone who thinks he understands the rules of English grammar and I will show you someone unhinged. There are rules, certainly, but anyone who thinks he knows them all is a lunatic, and the lunatics do not even agree among themselves. I don't think "wrong" (or "right") is a relevant adjective when it comes to referring to long-dead authors in either past or present tense. I would certainly write, "As Shakespeare says ..." or even "As Plato writes" (if I'd ever read Plato), and I think mine is the more usual usage, but I certainly don't think it would be wrong to say "As Plato wrote". I entirely agree with you about simple indenting as opposed to block quotes, but MoS zealots will have none of it. I compromise by using {{blockindent}} rather than {{blockquote}}, which reduces the ugly expanses of white space, and have so far got away with it. – Tim riley talk 13:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Tim. I have looked at my last FA and the quotes were changed to blockquotes. I did not like the excessive white space, but I did not argue about it. When I said I find them ugly I was using the wrong term. I assumed you were referring to the style I have seen with horrible heavy giant quote marks. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks FAC-ready to me. To answer your two points, above, Merriam-Webster is American, and can be safely disregarded so far as the Queen's English is concerned. As to single-v-double quotes, there is a somewhat over-simplified rule of thumb that BrE favours single first and then double: I reported, 'He said "What do you mean?" and then left'. and AmE the other way about: I reported, "He said 'What do you mean?' and then left". (If you want an example of how Amerenglish differs from the Mother Tongue, American grammarians have a superstitious belief that the comma before "and can safely", above, must not be there, but they would insist on an unnecessary one in "On Monday I did the laundry." It takes all sorts!) See you at FAC. Don't forget to ping me. – Tim riley talk 13:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Edmund_I/archive1&oldid=1043197175"