Wikipedia:Peer review/Eadwig/archive1

Eadwig

This is the latest of my articles about Anglo-Saxon kings, and I should be grateful for comments about changes needed to make it suitable for FAC. Pinging Mike Christie and Tim riley.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Placeholder; I should be able to look at this in the next day or so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• "He later came to be seen as an enemy of monasteries, but most historians think that the reputation is unfair": this feels a little imprecise -- perhaps "this reputation"? Or "most historians now disagree with this view"? Though you have "historians disagree" in the next paragraph.

• Changed to "this reputation". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• "and this is seen as either an attempt to buy support or favouring his own favourites at the expense of the powerful old guard of the previous reign": "and this is seen" begs the question of who is saying this; if the statement is supported in the body, I would make this something like "which may have been either". And perhaps "rewarding his favourites" rather than "favouring his favourites", to avoid the repetition.

• Changed to "this is seen by some historians as either an attempt to buy support or rewarding his favourites at the expense of the powerful old guard of the previous reign". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Edgar succeeded to the whole kingdom when Eadwig died,": ends with a comma? Perhaps incompletely edited. I think it would be good to give his death date here; we have it in his dates at the very start, but it could stand being mentioned here.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Their view was generally accepted by historians until the late twentieth century, but in the twenty-first century some historians have defended Eadwig": when did the view change -- late 20th or early 21st?

• Changes in consensus take place over a period. I think it is better not to be too specific. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think the background section could be trimmed a bit -- we have a whole paragraph that ends in 924 with the death of Eadwig's grandfather. Mentioning Edington, and Æthelred and Æthelflæd, doesn't feel necessary for context. And the fact that Æthelstan invaded Scotland before the reverse invasion that led to the Battle of Brunanburh also seems a bit more than we need.

• This is intended to provide context for a section you have not yet come to. Some historians argue that the division of the kingdom was agreed in advance, that the union of Wesses and Mercia was recent and unity was not then considered desirable in itself. Mercia as a separate kingdom until Æthelred accepted Alfred's lordship following Edington, Æthelflæd's role in the 910s, the attempt of the Mercians at semi-independence under her daughter and Æthelstan probably being only king of Mercia at first all provide this context. I have deleted Scotland and Brunanburh as not needed. Do you see anything further I could delete without losing this context? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'll revisit at the end. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Eadwig was being pursued by a well born woman and her adult daughter with "indecent proposals", hoping to secure marriage to one of them": suggest "Eadwig was being pursued by "indecent proposals" from a well born woman and her adult daughter who hoped to secure his marriage to one of them".

• I do not think it makes sense to say that someone was being pursued by a proposal. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  OK, but I would still like to avoid "proposals" being the closest noun to "one of them", to avoid a momentary misparsing in the reader's mind. How about " According to Dunstan's earliest hagiographer, who only identified himself as "B", a well born woman and her adult daughter, who hoped to secure a marriage with Eadwig to one of them, were pursuing Eadwig with "indecent proposals", and he..."? And a separate point: you use historic present for B in other places ("B names one of the women...") so shouldn't it be "who only identifies"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Changed to your wording. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• "but he does not mention that her daughter was Eadwig's future wife, Ælfgifu": I can see why you phrase it this way, but it bothers me, because "was" implies this is a fact we are learning, whereas in fact the whole story is likely a fabrication. How about "B names one of the women as Æthelgifu, the mother of Eadwig's future wife, Ælfgifu, but he does not name the daughter in his account as Ælfgifu"?

• I do not see a problem. The story was probably a fabrication, but it is not disputed that he mentions Æthelgifu, and that Ælfgifu was her daughter. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's a minor point, and I'm OK if you leave it as is, but the pedant in me dislikes the implied reading that Ælfgifu definitely acted as described in the story. If Tim sees no problem with it I can let it go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Changed to you version but left out last two words. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• "the scarlet woman portrayed in later polemics": are there polemics not based on B? If so it might be worth saying that.

• I have deleted. It is unclear who some of the polemics were aimed at as some writers believed that the scarlet woman was Eadwig's mistress, not his wife, but I do not have the sources to discuss that. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• "a cathedral with a friendly bishop": is there evidence Ælfsige was friendly to Eadwig or sided with him against Dunstan? We haven't said so to this point in the article.

• I am not sure how to deal with this. I discuss Ælfsige in the religion section. He was a friend of Eadwig and an enemy of the reformers. I have left out the comment about friendly bishop. Does it look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think that takes care of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Embedded external links such as you have in note [e] are frowned on by the MoS if I recall correctly; can you package that into a web citation instead?

• I can change it if you think it is necessary, but it is a standard note in my ASC king articles and no one has queried it. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I won't raise an objection at FAC, but others might. I agree it's helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest linking thegn.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

More tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Many thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

More:

• The statements about coinage not being issued in Edgar's name during Eadwig's reign seem surprisingly definite to me. Of course you have to go with whatever the sources say, but I'm surprised because I would think it's just statistics, and hence some doubt would remain. Eadwig was king for four years, and Edgar for another sixteen, so the difference between the expected number of coins for Edgar if he did or didn't issue coins from 955-959 is the difference between 16 and 20 which I would have thought is small enough for considerable uncertainty. Or perhaps Edgar's coins after Eadwig are marked "Rex anglorum" or something else which would imply they post-date 959. As I say, if the sources are unambiguous I'm OK with leaving this unchanged, but if Blount gives more information, perhaps a footnote?

• That occured to me, but Blount, Stewart and Lyon devote a two page appendix to it. They argue that the number of Eadwig's coins for Mercia is high for four years, let alone two, so issues there must have been in his name. Historians accept this reasoning - probably they do not like to challenge numismatists in their own field - and we certainly cannot. 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• "they did not take the view of Æthelwold and his circle": we've mentioned a couple of different Æthelwolds; this is presumably the Abbot of Abingdon, but perhaps say so, or even just link again.

• Changed it to Bishop Æthelwold, even though he did not become a bishop until after Eadwig's death. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• You cast no doubt on William of Malmesbury's negative comments until later in the paragraph when you say the reformers "rewrote the history" of the perido; if his comments are thought to be influenced by the anti-Eadwig propaganda, it might be worth saying so as we introduce his quote. Overall I think the section makes the situation clear; I'm just suggesting a word or two around the long quote to make the reader aware there is doubt about it.

• The sentence before the William quote is "Eadwig donated both to communities of Benedictine monks and of secular clergy,[90] but he was later portrayed as an enemy of the movement who despoiled the monasteries and favoured the secular clergy." Doesn't that cover it? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• What's the relevance of the 993 charter? Does it add anything to the previous sentence?

• It is additional evidence that not everyone at the time saw Eadwig as an enemy of monasteries. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Without either a translation, gloss, or link, I think "damnatio memoria" is not going to mean much to most of our readers.

• Added link. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

That's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Many thanks again Mke. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Looked through again and I don't have further comments. I will keep thinking about the background section but I see your point there. Otherwise this looks very good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TR

I've done a quick sweep for typos, and will be back with thoughts, if any, on the actual content. Tim riley talk 20:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)