Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edward the Elder

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Edward the Elder[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)

Featured article candidates/Edward the Elder/archive1

Edward the Elder was the son and successor of Alfred the Great. He built on his father's achievements to defeat the Vikings in southern England, and united Mercia and East Anglia with Wessex into one southern kingdom. He has been described as perhaps the most neglected of English kings. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

It might be best to leave the wikilink to Ælfweard of Wessex simply as that and leave the questions over whether he ever reigned on his respective page.

This looks OK to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"East Anglians were forced to buy peace". Never heard that expression before. Do you mean sue for peace?

This is in the source and means pay the Vikings to go way. How about "pay off the Vikings"? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that will work.

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Edward sent a combined West Saxon and Mercian army which harassed the Northumbria]]n Danes, and seized the bones of the Northumbrian royal saint Oswald from Bardney Abbey in [[Lincolnshire". Incomplete wikilinks?

Corrected. Don't know how I missed them. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Indy beetle for the review. See replies and query above. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much knowledge on the subject, but all my comments have been addressed and I see no problems with the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Serial Number 54129[edit]

So far, so insubstantial as to not really constitute a review, but

marriagable > marriageable

Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surrrey > Surrey

Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it for now :) looks good, I must say. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Serial Number 54129 Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After literally an hour's ceaseless searching, I can't find anything technically wrong with this, so am pleased to support its passage through to the place it must now be. Normally I'd like a specialist in the period to pipe up; but it seesm that that in this particular case, that is, in fact, the author :) 05:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Serial Number 54129. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

"Mercian leades": ?

Corrected to leaders

You changed "and laid down that jurisdiction belonged to the king and his officers" to "and asserted that jurisdiction belonged to the king and his officers". I have changed again to "and his legislation established that jurisdiction belonged to the king and his officers", which better reflects the meaning of the source.
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Dank. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: G'day, Nikki, this one looks close to closure. If you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at the images? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

13-century should be hyphenated in lead caption

Done Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Will_of_Alfred_the_Great_(New_Minster_Liber_Vitae)_-_BL_Stowe_MS_944,_f_30v.jpg needs a US PD tag

Changed to PD-US-1923. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coin_of_King_Edward_the_Elder.JPG: I'm a bit unclear on the licensing here. Do the given tags apply to the coin itself, the plate, or both? If one of the latter two, what was the author's date of death?

The author died in 1926, but I do not know whether he was the photographer. I have changed the licence to PD-old-70-1923, the same as File:Athelstan 924-939 coin.jpg. This is in Æthelstan, so not queried when this went through FAC. Is it OK?

File:Edward_the_Elder_coin_imitation_silver_brooch_Rome_Italy_c_920.jpg pictures a 3D object, so PD-Art isn't correct and a tag for the photographer's copyright is missing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise what it should be please?

For the coin, life+100 and PD-1923 are correct. For the photographer...unfortunately that would have been up to him. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Nikki. I have changed to PD-Old-100-1923. I do not understand about the photographer's copyright. Do you mean the permission field? This is not completed on almost all photos I have looked at, including photos I have uploaded. The upload wizard does not provide for completion of this field, so far as I know. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki. Please advise. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any further thoughts on the last query Nikkimaria? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is, the current tags on the image page - life+100, published before 1923 - both apply to the object itself. However, since this is a three-dimensional object, the photographer would also receive a copyright for creating the photo. As it is claimed as own work by uploader, it would have been up to the uploader to decide under what license they wanted to release the photo - and it would appear they did not do so. The problem of course is that it appears they are no longer active to ask about this. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria. I see now. Does that mean I cannot use the photo? Dudley Miles (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes, although I don't know whether Commons has provisions for cases where uploader didn't include a license for own work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, could you please advise which of these you are happy with and which are still outstanding? Looks good to go other than the image review. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like, with the images now in the article, the one thing outstanding is an author date of death for File:Coin_of_King_Edward_the_Elder.JPG. Is the plate credited anywhere in the source? If no, perhaps PD-EU-no_author_disclosure would be a better fit? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki. I put author unknown assuming this referred to the moneyer. Herbert Grueber was responsible for the illustrations and he died in 1927. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have asked you Nikki - what should I change the author field to? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so in that case I would have both - coin unknown, illustration Grueber (d. 1927) - and in that case the current tag works. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lingzhi[edit]

Inconsistent use of Location parameter (37 with; 7 without)

I have found 2 books where I missed the location field, and have corrected. The rest are online sources which do not give a location. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P/PP error: Yorke 2001, p. 25, 29–30; P/PP error: Davidson 2001, p. 206–07.

Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a genuine question, not a leading question or a hint: Does AEthelhelm fall before Abels in the sort order customary for this field?

Æ is usually treated as AE. I have corrected the order. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Lingzhi. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foot, Sarah (2010) && Thacker, Alan (2001) Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and the rest checked for consistent formatting. Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent use of Location (39 with; 5 without);Miller, Sean (2004).Stafford, Pauline (2004).Stafford, Pauline (2011). Yorke, Barbara (2004a).Yorke, Barbara (2004b). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are all online sources which do not show a location. I am not clear what location means for online sources. Is it the HQ of the company hosting the website? Presumably the publisher would not see any need to advertise this or tell readers if it moved. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, sorry to trouble you. I was actually whipping through the list again and missed the fact that I had mentioned this earlier... Websites often have locations, but I never use web resources, so I am not 100% sure where that info might be found on the page... I can try to look for a couple good examples..or we can ask @Mike Christie:. Actually, location is optional, but consistency is required. Your easiest bet might be to delete all the ther locations, though some people believe that location is necessary information. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that location is optional but I have always shown it since a reviewer recommended it on an FAC. I have never had a query before to showing it on print sources only, and I have understood that consistency does not apply in this case, although as you say Mike should be able to advise. Some academic books show location and not publisher in the bibliography. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I'm not really an expert on source formatting -- I always get something wrong. I believe location is not required for websites, but Brianboulton or Nikkimaria would be much more reliable on this than I am. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Location is not required for websites. It usually isn't published at all. Most companies use a bureau service, and don't even know themselves where the servers are located. Locations are useful for books, and should always be included for book sources. The five you cite are from the ODNB. In this case, {{cite odnb}} is used, and no location is necessary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Hawkeye7 Dudley Miles (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.