Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ælfwynn, wife of Æthelstan Half-King/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 September 2022 [1].

Ælfwynn, wife of Æthelstan Half-King

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ælwynn was an important figure in tenth-century England, but as with almost all women in this period, very little is known about her. The article is therefore short even though it is comprehensive and I hope it will be found suitable for FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review


Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]
  • Taking this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ælfwynn was the wife of Æthelstan Half-King, Ealdorman of East Anglia. He was called the Half-King because it was believed that he was so powerful that King Edmund I (940–946) and his brother King Eadred (946–955) depended on his advice. There's a lot of "he" usage in the second sentence and the following one, perhaps Ælfwynn was the wife of Æthelstan Half-King, Ealdorman of East Anglia, who was called the Half-King because it was believed that he was so powerful that King Edmund I (940–946) and his brother King Eadred (946–955) depended on his advice.
  • However, Cyril Hart, suggest introducing him, and other modern historians, perhaps However, historian Cyril Hart, and so on.
  • He was part of Edgar's inner circle as his camerarius (chamberlain) until 963 suggest He was part of Edgar's inner circle, serving as his camerarius (chamberlain) until 963

Comments

[edit]
  • Is there any way to link or explain what a "lay magnate" is/was?
  • ""had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side." - closing quote mark is missing

Comments from Z1720

[edit]
Non-expert prose review.
  • "became the dominant secular magnate" Suggest wikilinking to magnate
  • I'm a bit confused as to how the image relates to this article. Maybe add a second sentence in the caption describing Ælfwynn's relationship with King Edgar?
Source review - pass
  • All high quality
  • "Æthelsige 26 (Male) Uncle of Ealdorman Æthelwine 2, fl. 983x985" should have an access date, as it is a web-based database that could be updated at a later date. Also suggest archiving it, if possible.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. I read the article before Dudley nominated it, and have just read it through again; I can't find anything to criticize or improve. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Unlike Mike, above, I didn't see this article before its nomination for FAC, but I'm with him in failing to find anything to criticise or improve. It would be one of our shorter FAs, certainly, but to my layman's eye it seems comprehensive, and is certainly a good read, well and widely sourced and evidently balanced. Seems to me to meet the FA criteria on all counts and I look forward to its appearance on the front page. Tim riley talk 20:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Johnbod

[edit]

Comment from Ian

[edit]

Coord note -- Hi Dudley, I was looking to close this but "however"s always catch my eye, as I'm sure everyone knows, and I think However, the historian Cyril Hart, in his entry on Æthelstan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, stated that Æfwynn "was of undistinguished birth" needs further consideration anyway. Earlier you state unequivocally that Æfwynn came from a wealthy Huntingdonshire family. If you feel the weight of evidence is in that direction, perhaps Hart's comment is better as an addition to footnote a rather than being in the main body -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to deal with this. Hart was not questioning the wealth of her family, just whether she came from the aristocracy. Personally, I think that the evidence is against his view, but as he is a leading expert and it is in ODNB, I thought I had to put it in the main text. I could change it to However, the historian Cyril Hart, in his entry on Æthelstan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, denied that Æfwynn came from the aristocracy, stating that she "was of undistinguished birth". This verges on SYNTH, but maybe does not cross the line? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I assumed that all wealthy families back then were ipso facto of the aristocracy, but perhaps it's not that simple so I agree you should probably leave Hart in the main body -- if you use the bit about his denying (or "doubting"?) that she was aristocratic by birth, I think you could safely remove the hated "however" at the start of the sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in order to avoid confusion it is important to signal to the reader that Hart is disagreeing with the views in the previous sentence, but I am open to suggestions how to do it without using the word "however". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that including "denied that Æfwynn came from the aristocracy" signals that disagreement without the need for further qualification. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we will have to agree to disagree. I have tried it without "however", and it does not seem to me as clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be best I recuse coord duties at this point. The use of "however" to contrast two sources smacks of editorialising, and I still think the reader can get the point without it. I'd be interested in a second opinion and/or suggestion for reword from John, taking advantage of his recent return to the fold.... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from mujinga

[edit]
  • Thanks for an interesting article, it does well to keep things clear with all the names. I was following until the last paragraph of "Life and family", where I wasn't sure who Ælfwold was. Would it be worth adding "another son" or suchlike, since Ælfwold has not been mentioned for a while.
  • Also in the same paragraph, there are two "mays": on "She may have played a crucial role in its establishment" I'm not able to check the source, is there a disagreement here?; on " Ælfwold was a strong supporter of monastic reform who may have put to death a despoiler of Peterborough Abbey", the note says Simon Keynes thinks it was Æthelwine, so is it worth saying who thinks it was Ælfwold?
  • I have looked again at this. Keynes cites the old 19C edition of the Latin text which mentions the killing and points out that the killer was described as a dux (ealdorman), but Ælfwold was not a dux. The authorative modern edition and translation of the text, published after Keynes wrote the comment, names Ælfwold as the killer and the editor says dux was a mistake. I have deleted Keynes's comment and "may have", and added a citation of the modern edition. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

[edit]

I am indebted to Ian Rose for summoning me here, as I would otherwise possibly never have read this great little article. Fascinating, well-sourced and likely to be comprehensive. Worth reading alone for the new knowledge that there was a unit called a hide. Fascinating, as is the whole story.

I agree with Ian about the "however". Here is the text in question, stripped of wikilinks and citations:

The late tenth-century writer Byrhtferth of Ramsay wrote that her son Æthelwine: "had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side. In praising her, Archbishop Dunstan said that she and her kindred were blessed."[a] However, the historian Cyril Hart denied that Æfwynn came from the aristocracy in his entry on Æthelstan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, stating that she "was of undistinguished birth".

Can I suggest amending it to:

The late tenth-century writer Byrhtferth of Ramsay wrote that her son Æthelwine: "had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side. In praising her, Archbishop Dunstan said that she and her kindred were blessed."[b] The historian Cyril Hart wrote in his entry on Æthelstan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography that Æfwynn "was of undistinguished birth".

One weakness of the section is the over-reliance on quotes, which, by their nature, cannot be altered. They can be summarised though. Here's what that might look like:

The late tenth-century writer Byrhtferth of Ramsay wrote that her son Æthelwine came from an illustrious mother,[c] but Cyril Hart wrote in his entry on Æthelstan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography that Æfwynn "was of undistinguished birth".

We've slimmed down the quotes (while keeping the footnote for those who want the full quote), and lost the (appearance of) editorialising with "however". The reader will be able to see that the sources seem to contradict each other without framing it with a "however". The "but" does that better I think. They will also guess that the ODNB would have got a historian to write the article on a historical figure. Cyril Hart is wikilinked in any case.

I prefer the last version, but would still support the second one. John (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ The translation is from Michael Lapidge's edition in Latin and English in 2009. He wrote that Æthelwine "was born of royal stock, and had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side". Andrew Wareham in 2005 quotes the 1879 edition in Latin by James Raine, which leaves out the comma, and Wareham takes "royal stock" to refer to Ælfwynn.
  2. ^ The translation is from Michael Lapidge's edition in Latin and English in 2009. He wrote that Æthelwine "was born of royal stock, and had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side". Andrew Wareham in 2005 quotes the 1879 edition in Latin by James Raine, which leaves out the comma, and Wareham takes "royal stock" to refer to Ælfwynn.
  3. ^ The translation is from Michael Lapidge's edition in Latin and English in 2009. He wrote that Æthelwine "was born of royal stock, and had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side". Andrew Wareham in 2005 quotes the 1879 edition in Latin by James Raine, which leaves out the comma, and Wareham takes "royal stock" to refer to Ælfwynn.

Many thanks John and Ian Rose. I am reluctant to get rid of the quote. So little is recorded about her that a contemporary comment is worth quoting in full. We obviously understand "however" differently, as I would not take it as editorialising, just a synonym for "but", signalling to the reader that the next clause gives a different view to the previous one, which is meaning 3 in OED. So how about just changing "however" to "but"? "The late tenth-century writer Byrhtferth of Ramsay wrote that her son Æthelwine: "had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side. In praising her, Archbishop Dunstan said that she and her kindred were blessed." But the historian Cyril Hart denied that Æfwynn came from the aristocracy in his entry on Æthelstan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, stating that she "was of undistinguished birth"."

As to getting rid of "historian", I agree with you, but other editors insist on it before giving support. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost a philosophical thing with me; please see my essay on it, and there is MOS:EDITORIAL as well, which says "More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second."
I'm not so keen on the two sentences, one starting with "But". We wouldn't be losing the quote, just summarising it in the article and leaving it in full in the note. The benefit of this is it allows us to run the two sentences together. It shouldn't be so surprising to readers of medieval history that sources sometimes vary, that they need to add a special word signalling it.
"John says A; Dudley says B." seems more precise and logical in an encyclopedia than "John says A, but Dudley says B." or "John says A; however Dudley says B." See how it's starting to sound like Dudley won the argument?
Oh, and we should definitely have the date for the writing of the Hart article. John (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously interpret but and however differently. In this context I would just take to mean contrasting views without any implication of which is correct. If I was a reader I would initially take Hart as to be expanding on the previous sentence, and would do a double take and read it again to see that he is disagreeing. But or however is meant as a signal of a contrary view. However, (sic) on further checking I am increasingly doubtful about the Hart comment. With or without a qualifier it reads as an authoritative view, and I do not think it is. He was obviously not aware of the Byrhtferth quote as he would have cited it in his detailed article on Æthelstan. He does quote another source (which has not been translated) as describing her as having had inclyta genealogica. Google translate is not good for Latin, but this seems to mean something like famous or renowned genealogy. I am now inclined to move Hart to the footnote, contrasting the views of him and Wareham, but I will check further and come back to you in a few days. Thanks again for your detailed domments. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John and Ian Rose. I have finally tracked down the situation. I was wrong to say that Hart was unaware of the Byrhtferth quote. He just cited it to the wrong source. As the only source he cites says that she was of a "distinguished lineage", I cannot see any basis for saying in ODNB that she "was of undistinguished birth", so I have moved the comment to the notes. Does it look OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's much better. John (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me too, thanks Dudley and John. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ælfwynn,_wife_of_Æthelstan_Half-King/archive1&oldid=1113040648"