Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wihtred of Kent
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 04:16, 23 October 2007.
Anglo-Saxon king of Kent. FAs of contemporaries include Ine of Wessex and Æthelbald of Mercia; FAs of other kings of Kent include Æthelberht of Kent and Eadbald of Kent. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I would make the lead a single paragraph, opposed to 2 small paragraphs and 1 sentence. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
"Bede's correspondent on Kentish affairs was Albinus, and these views can almost certainly be ascribed to the church in Canterbury." Can you explain or wikilink Albinus?"It was also in 694 that Wihtred made peace with the West Saxon king Ine, which he achieved by paying compensation for the killing of Caedwalla's brother, Mul, in 687" I don't quite follow why Ine was fueding with Wihtred over Mul, as it happened pre-Wihtred? Could you make it a little clearer?Could the Laws section give some idea if Wihtred's laws had a lasting influence?Succession is a bit sparse, although I'm guessing that's due to lack of information. Perhaps a comment about Mercian dominance?
J.Winklethorpe talk 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've dealt with each of these except the third; I don't believe there was a great deal of influence but I don't know how to cite the negative. What I could do is mention the most famous use of laws in Anglo-Saxon history, which is that Alfred the Great makes explicit reference to Ine of Wessex's laws and Aethelberht of Kent's laws, but not to the other two Kentish codes, Wihtred's and those of Hlothhere and Eadric. This would be a reference in the negative, so my inclination is not to add it, but let me know what you think. I've been able to find a few sentences placing them in context historically, for example this: "In the days of Wihtred and Ine in the seventh century such laws were of limited application geographically, but by the time of Aethelred the Unready their scope had become national . . . For some five centuries the laws of kings were in fact normally approved and sanctioned by the king's councillors and such long-continuing practice cannot have failed to enhance the authority of the king's council." This gives some historical context, but only to say that they can be placed in that context, not to give them any influence. Is this worth citing? Mike Christie (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An additional comment on the succession: yes, there's not much information known. I could put in some details on just what the conflicting evidence is that makes the chronology after Wihtred's death so difficult, but that's not really to do with Wihtred. It seemed simpler just to be concise, and leave those details to the articles on his sons. Mike Christie (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I was just stretching around trying to think of areas for expansion. It doesn't sound like the extra info you have is relevant to Wihtred, so I'd say to leave it as is. Anyway, another great article (and, um, just how many more of these kings are there?). Support. J.Winklethorpe talk 19:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I think I'm running out of easy targets. The remaining ones have either almost nothing known about them (e.g. Ceol of Wessex), or the articles out there are in fair shape already (e.g. Anna of East Anglia or Aethelwulf of Wessex). One editor's done a pretty good pass at the East Anglian kings, and another has quite a bit of work on the Northumbrians. I've been trying to focus on kings whose articles were stubs, since that way gives the most benefit to the encyclopedia. There are a couple more stubs, at least -- I've been eyeing Wiglaf of Mercia for example. After that I may have to start working on the start-class ones. Overall there are at least a hundred of these guys, but no more than thirty or forty are major. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I was just stretching around trying to think of areas for expansion. It doesn't sound like the extra info you have is relevant to Wihtred, so I'd say to leave it as is. Anyway, another great article (and, um, just how many more of these kings are there?). Support. J.Winklethorpe talk 19:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An additional comment on the succession: yes, there's not much information known. I could put in some details on just what the conflicting evidence is that makes the chronology after Wihtred's death so difficult, but that's not really to do with Wihtred. It seemed simpler just to be concise, and leave those details to the articles on his sons. Mike Christie (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've dealt with each of these except the third; I don't believe there was a great deal of influence but I don't know how to cite the negative. What I could do is mention the most famous use of laws in Anglo-Saxon history, which is that Alfred the Great makes explicit reference to Ine of Wessex's laws and Aethelberht of Kent's laws, but not to the other two Kentish codes, Wihtred's and those of Hlothhere and Eadric. This would be a reference in the negative, so my inclination is not to add it, but let me know what you think. I've been able to find a few sentences placing them in context historically, for example this: "In the days of Wihtred and Ine in the seventh century such laws were of limited application geographically, but by the time of Aethelred the Unready their scope had become national . . . For some five centuries the laws of kings were in fact normally approved and sanctioned by the king's councillors and such long-continuing practice cannot have failed to enhance the authority of the king's council." This gives some historical context, but only to say that they can be placed in that context, not to give them any influence. Is this worth citing? Mike Christie (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellently written as always. Karanacs 16:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely written and, apparently, nicely cited. The only addition I was going to suggest was something about his wives, but I have added it myself now. I'm not sure how to add the citation of Kelly's DNB entry to the 'References' section at the bottom, but will endeavour to find out when I have time.Ycdkwm 09:15, 21 October 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.