Wikipedia:Peer review/Edgar, King of England/archive1

Edgar, King of England

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

.

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend nominating the article for FAC and I would like feedback on potential problems.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead

Saving my spot here; comments to follow within the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should probably mention his death date. Perhaps "Edgar was King of England from 959 until his death in 975", or something to that effect.

It is mentioned in his birth and death dates. "Edgar (or Eadgar,[1] 943/944 – 8 July 975)," Dudley Miles (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Ælfgifu's death date is necessary to mention in the lead.

Deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that seneschal incident notable enough to mention in the lead? Maybe replace it with "Edmund was killed in 946, and as his children were infants he was succeeded by his younger brother Eadred, who died in 955.

It is important to explain that it was an accidental death. Just saying killed would wrongly imply political instability. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link Monasteries in the lead?

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto with Viking (invasions).

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that stands out to me is that while the lead mentions the success of Edgar's reign, it does not discuss criticisms of it, which clearly exists baed on the Assessment section.

I agree and will think how to word it. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:King Edgar from All Souls College Chapel.jpg's caption has the word "glaas". What is that? A typo?

Fixed Dudley Miles (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a note after citation six that presents the contemporary reality that some historians consider Alfred to have been the first English king would be appropriate.

Alfred won a crucial battle but he was far less powerful than many earlier kings. He is only considered the first English king by popular writers, not historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence "These counsellors included their mother...", it would be less confusing to separate the names using semicolons, rather than commas because several of the listed individual have titles that also require commas.

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...who was known as the Half-King..." Would there be quotations around "Half-King" because it is a false title? I'm not sure myself. Anyways, who called him that? Historians? Contemporaries? Random chroniclers in the medieval period? Because Lord knows they loved to make stuff up. This needs a bit of clarification.

It is covered in Æthelstan Half-King and he is frequently mentioned in other articles without an explanatory note. I am not clear why this article needs an explanation which was not considered necessary in the other articles. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A citation in the first sentence of the Early life section would be nice, although I'm sure it's covered somewhere else.

It is covered by cite 14 half way down the next line. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link saint? If you do so, please make sure there aren't any duplicate links for this word.

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link Ætheling. Not necessary: but a note or brief few words may be beneficial when explaining what an "Ætheling" is, seeing as the position was more complicated than being a mere prince.

Linked. The position is complicated and much debated. It also changed over time. Any brief note would not cover it and I do not think this is the place for a long essay. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC) It is sometimes defined as "prince eligible for the throne". Would that help? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that will do nicely. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:King Edgar from All Souls College Chapel.jpg seems to depict an Edgar in advanced age and already sitting on the throne. Is the early life section really the most relevant place for it?

Moved. As the caption explains, the head was replaced in the 19C. This was done by someone who cannot have known that he died by 32. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Historians have often been critical of Eadwig, portraying him as irresponsible or incompetent..." Did they consider him irresponsible and incompetent? Those two go hand-in-hand; I don't see why it would be one or another.

"Or" covers "and". For example, if someone cannot vote if they are a foreigner or under 18, then they can be both. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot, but link charters upon first mention.

Linked to Anglo-Saxon charters. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Keynes? I did a search of the article and this is Keynes' first mention, but there is no description.

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to "attest" a charter?

It links to Anglo-Saxon charters#Charter forms, Does that cover it? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be beneficial to introduce Anglo-Saxon England as either a book, journal, or whatever type of publication it was.

Clarified. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...in addition to temporary liaisons," That comma should be a period.

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelred, whose disastrous reign earned him the epithet of "the Unready": I'm not sure if this is true, but I've heard that "Unready" is actually a mistranslation of "ill-counseled" or "ill-advised". I'm sure you know more about Æthelred than I do, but I'd just like to confirm.

It is true that it is a mistranslation, but he is still generally known by that name and it would confuse readers to descrbe him as the ill-advised. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"After Edgar became king of the whole of England on 1 October 959": Some more detail about how Edgar became king of all England would be helpful. The previous sections only described him as a Mercian king, but then the article randomly jumps forward in time without mentioning how Edgar's accession came to be.

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...but from the late 960s northern magnates were more regularly represented" I suggest adding "starting" in front of "from".

It looks better to me as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link Capital city?
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Charters are problematic sources due to the difficulty of distinguishing genuine ones from the large number of fakes" Maybe "fakes" should be replaced with another word, like forgeries or counterfeits.

Changed to forgeries. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"with peaks in 961 to 963 and 96" What is meant by peaks? Peaks in the issuing of charters?

Changed to highest numbers. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link regnal year?
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Hundred Ordinance was formerly called I Edgar" Called that by whom? Contemporaries or modern historians? Perhaps its both, or another group entirely?

By 19C and early 20C historians. Added "by historians". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" Plaintiffs had to exhaust other avenues before they were allowed recourse to the king, judgements had to be just and punishments had to be appropriate" This sentence does not read well: perhaps an "and" is needed before "judgements".

This looks OK to me. It is a list of three with the usual comma after the first and "and" after the second. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is a surely? Is there a link that can make the meaning clear to a casual reader? Or would a short explanatory phrase be in order?

It is a typo for surety. Fixed and linked. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link Danelaw.

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back with more comments after dinner. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"pre-reform which broadly carried on the diverse coinage of his immediate predecessors" What does diverse mean here? Numerous denominations of coinage?

Added "design". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link moneyer

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The document dates to around 973, perhaps after Edgar's coronation in Bath on 11 May" Is there a reason Edgar's coronation is not mentioned in the infobox?

Coronations are rarely mentioned in Anglo-Saxon sources and it is disputed whether this was a first or second one. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"learning had declined to a low level": "to a low level" is redunadant in this sentence, methinks.

I do not think it is redundant to specify the extent of the decline. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In 972/973 Edgar sent an embassy to the German emperor, Otto the Great" The term "German emperor" here is incorrect. "Holy Roman Emperor" would be preferred; what does the citation say?

The term Holy Roman Emperor is disputed for this period. It is not used in contemporary sources until 1254, and many historians argue that it is therefore incorrect to use it for earlier emperors. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

annus mirabilis should be in a language template. Likewise with any other foreign-language terms in the article.

Some editors have started to use language templates, but they are not widely used and I am not sure how helpful they are. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link Wales or some other relevant link to Wales?

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"He is venerated each year by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches on 8 July.[222][223] Two of his children, Edith and Edward, were revered as saints.[224]": The terminology of Christian theology is a tricky one. When you say venerated, do you mean as a saint or as venerable? The sentence about Edith and Edward implies that Edgar was not a saint; if he is, I would suggest adding an "also" in front of "revered".

I see that Edgar is not listed as a saint in the Catholic Encyclopedia and have revised the passage. See what you think. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems acceptable. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link Danish conquest of England (if that is the correct link, of course)?

The link is eccentric. It goes to one battle and I do not see a suitable article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations 222 and 238 do not appear to back up the claim that "Peaceful" is commonly used in popular histories, not to mention that citation 222's reliability and use in the article is questionable.

I am not sure of your point here but I have changed "popular histories" to "popular sources" as they are not really histories. Cite 222 is an RS for popular usage, which is what it is used for. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Someone told me this regarding the Edward I FAN, so I thought I'd pass it along: if possible, try to eliminate single-use website sources, such as citation 223. The sources you've listed in the Sources section seem wonderful; try using them more.

I do not agree. Sources should be used as necessary, and if an online source supports only one statement, that is fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing this earlier would have spared me worlds of pain :( Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend organizing the Sources section using the following template, or something similar: Refbegin|30em|indent=yes.

In my opinion, that template is ugly and forces you to search up and down through the columns to find the source you want. A simple list is much cleaner and better. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back from dinner. That should be the last of my comments at this PR. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dudley for your prompt and logical replies. I am terminating activity at this PR in terms of comments now, but if you decide to bring this to FA, I will gladly review. Good luck, Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I lied. That was not my last comment. Here's my last comment: I noticed that all the images are on the right side. Maybe switch up the directions a little? Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having them all on the right looks fine to me. Having some on the left sometimes works but sometimes forcces the text into looking awkward. If other editors want to try rearranging the alignment that is fine with me, but it is not something I want to get involved with. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aza

Just a thought, the line "Historians disagree whether this was the result of Eadwig's incompetence as king or a previously agreed division" seems too far removed from the topic of Edgar to be warranted in the first body paragraph of his lead. Aza24 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Aza24. *The reason for the division of the kingdom between Eadwig and Edgar does not seem to me removed from the top of Edgar, but I do not know whether the comment could be more clearly expressed. How about "Historians disagree whether this was the result of a revolt by Edgar's supporters against Eadwig's incompetence as king or a previously agreed division"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I believe I read the sentence incorrectly, thinking the division involved Eadwig and Eadred instead. Though I do contend that "Eadwig's incompetence as king" may be too vague so perhaps your suggested change would be better. Aza24 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]