Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eardwulf of Northumbria

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 05:53, 4 December 2007.

[edit] Eardwulf of Northumbria

A king of Northumbria from 796 to 806 and probably again after 808. There are no other Northumbrian kings which are FAs already; Wiglaf of Mercia is probably the closest to being a contemporary. This is a co-nomination with Angusmclellan; Angus did the major part of the work on the article. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose:
    • "Another factor in Northumbrian politics in the 790s was Carolingian involvement. After some initial overtures to Offa of Mercia, the most powerful Anglo-Saxon ruler of the day, Charlemagne sought to oppose Mercian power by supporting Offa's enemies. Letters survive from Alcuin, at the court of Charlemagne, in which Alcuin disapproves of Æthelred's behaviour, but he vowed never to cease advising Æthelred. Charlemagne also harboured two exiles in Odberht (probably to be identified with Eadberht Præn) of Kent, and Egbert of Wessex, both of whom ultimately succeeded in gaining the thrones of their respective kingdoms against the wishes of Offa and his supporters." - This is somewhat less than clear to those of us not up on our Dark Age history. In short - Who are these people? A tiny bit more contextualisation, and this would be a fantastic article, but it's not really there yet. Adam Cuerden talk 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
A rather large amount of background has now been added, is currently being referenced, and perhaps will be divided into two sections. I hope that we will now be answering questions such as "what is a dux (or patrician)?", "how did kings get deposed (or killed)?", and "what does Charlemagne have to do with Northumbria?", before readers stop and ask them. Ideally all of this will eventually be forked off into articles on kingship and institutions in Anglo-Saxon England, 8th and 9th century Northumbria, and relations between the Franks and Anglo-Saxon England. Is there now too much background, or does the background itself lack sufficient context for readers to be much actual help to them? Please let us know! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It looks a lot better, but there's still some oddities. The writing is... well, I'm not going to say it's bad, because it isn't, but it does have some infelicities, like "probably to be identified with", "His repudiation of his wife would have strained relations with Archbishop Eanbald II—Eanbald I had died in the year of Eardwulf's coronation" and other odd phrases. There's some inconsistancy between using Duke, eolderman, or dux: certainly explain that all are possible words to use, but stick with one after that. Don't refer to Charlemagne as "the Frankish king". He's one of the best-known people from this period, that just confuses things. Also, in this paragraph:
Initially, however, both Charlemagne and Offa appear to have shared a common interest in supporting King Æthelred.[1] Shortly before Æthelred was murdered in 796 an embassy from Francia delivered gifts for the king and his bishops. When Charlemagne learned of Æthelred's killing he was enraged, called the Northumbrians "that treacherous, perverse people...who murder their own lords", and threatened retribution. His ambassadors, who had travelled on to Ireland and were then returning home, were ordered back to Northumbria to recover the presents.[2] Charlemagne initially threatened retribution for Æthelred's assassination, but in time he became a supporter of Eardwulf.[3] Cenwulf, on the other hand, who became king of Mercia shortly after Eardwulf's accession, is recorded as having fought with Eardwulf in 801.[4]
It rather does seem like someone forgot to then mention Offa's support of Æthelred. Also, the information is later repeated: "Charlemagne had sent gifts for Æthelred, which failed to reach him before his death; Charlemagne was enraged by Æthelred's assassination and recalled his gifts, and according to Alcuin threatened further retaliation which Alcuin was able to prevent."
The phrases have been reworked, I hope satisfactorily. "Duke", "patrician", and "ealdorman" have been eliminated except from some explanatory text; both "patricius" and "dux" remain as they were not thought to be the same. The clause about Charlemagne has been cut; I agree it was unnecessary. For Offa's support, the only evidence is that Offa's daughter married Æthelred, presumably with the intention of forging a diplomatic alliance. That paragraph now mentions the relationship but does not explicitly draw the connection -- does that need to be spelled out, or is it evident in context? Mike Christie (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The quote "the son of King Alhred, as some say" is not attributed.
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In this quote:
[Eardwulf], king of the Northumbrians, led an army against [Cenwulf], king of Mercians, because he had given asylum to his enemies. He also, collecting an army, obtained very many auxiliaries from other provinces, having made a long expedition among them. At length, with the advice of the bishops and chiefs of the Angles on either side, they made peace through the kindness of the king of the Angles
I'm presuming the brackets are to indicate that spelling has been standardised, from their context. This would be all well and good, except this has clearly been translated from Old English anyway, so it's hard to see why you'd feel so worried about that. If it's to replace, say, "the", that's not really clear.
Brackets have been removed. Mike Christie (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
"numismatic evidence" - really, is it necessary to use an obscure word when perfectly ordinary ones will do? You could say "archæological evidence from coinage", for instance.
The change has been made, but could I ask you to consider this again? Using "numismatic" (which is concise and accurate) does make it easy to provide a link to the numismatics article, which I think is helpful. I also didn't think it was that rare a word, and the link helps explain it very quickly; in addition the context of the sentence makes it clear what numismatics must be. So I'd like to change this back if you agree. Mike Christie (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
"...the deacon Aldulf, a Saxon from Britain was sent to Britain" - I know its a quote, but surely we could make a more felicitous translation. Even "the deacon Aldulf, a British Saxon, was sent to Britain" would read better.
Well, I have to say I'm very reluctant to change a direct quote and supply my own translation. I agree with your comment, but would it be fair to say that the reader's reaction should be "The translator did a poor job" rather than "the article is poorly written"? If you insist, I think we can use a rephrasing in square brackets, and perhaps a footnote to clarify what the brackets mean. I just hate to fiddle with direct quotes if I can avoid it. Mike Christie (talk)
We've now replaced the translation with one from another source which avoids the infelicity. I think that addresses everything you raised. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Still needs a little more work. Adam Cuerden talk 14:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Leaning towards support This is, overall, a well-researched and well-written article. There are just a few obscure passages that need explication and few awkward sentences that need polishing.

  • What do you think about including a speculative end to Eardwulf's reign in first sentence of the lead? It seemed a little odd not to put it there, even though the explanation comes later.
I've expanded the lead somewhat to put more of the date info at the top; I'd left it out because the second reign needs to be hedged heavily, as it may not have occurred, but I take your point. See what you think now. Mike Christie (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems a little wordy, but I think the idea is right. It just seemed odd to have no end date. What about something like this (these opening sentences are never precisely right): He may have had a second reign from 808 until perhaps 811 or 830. Awadewit | talk 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; I've made that change. Mike Christie (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it usual not to include any birth and death dates, even if approximate, for these figures?
  • It is not unusual, although when they aren't give it would be conventional to give a floruit (fl. 796–c.830 is what Rollason uses in the DNB). Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That works for me. It is just nice to have an era or something. Awadewit | talk 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added floruit dates per Angus's note. Mike Christie (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How could Eardwlf's father be an ealdorman, when the position began in 900 (according to our cited wikipedia article)? I ask this because there was a link from the lead that I clicked on and I was confused after reading it.
  • Secondary sources use the word ealdorman - it is simply the Old English word used for the Latin terms dux, princeps, patricius, and comes. Our ealdorman article is Wessex-centric but it probably isn't helpful in this context to use a word which readers may understand as being associated with English counties and sheriffs and all sorts of things which are quite alien to Northumbria before the Norman Conquest. I'd suggest using the Latin terms and adding something to the background section on the terminology. Would this be reasonable? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable to me. I would like to think our readers are that knowledgeable. :) Awadewit | talk 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • He was married by the time he became king, though his wife's name is not recorded - "He" refers to Eardwulf's father in previous sentence - I believe you want the sentence to refer to Eardwulf himself?
  • Another factor in Northumbrian politics in the 790s was Carolingian involvement. - This sentence is vague, especially at the beginning of a paragraph.
  • Please see my response to Adam Cuerden above. The background section has been greatly enlarged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing is definitely known of his background, though Symeon of Durham's History of the Kings records that his father's name was also Eardwulf. - Could we have an approximate date for the History of the Kings?
  • Now added: early C12th, based on a lost, late C10th work. An article on the Northern annals would be nice, so I added the link. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent. These details really help the reader understand the construction of history, I think. Awadewit | talk 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In surviving King Æthelred's anger he was more fortunate than Ælfwald's sons, who were drowned on Æthelred's orders in 791. - Do we know why he tried to drown his sons? This is an intriguing little story.
  • Æthelred drowned Ælfwald's sons, but we know absolutely nothing about the context of the drowning of Ælf (sic) and Ælfwine in a lake called the Wonwaldremere (which is surely not Windermere as stated on various websites but rather somewhere near York). I could add a lot of surmise - Picto-Irish analogues, Germanic paganism, mythic significance, yadda, yadda - but it would seem that nobody who knows what they are talking about did this first. Rather a pity really. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wada may have been acting with the hope of restoring Osbald to the throne; Osbald appears to have planned on returning from his Pictish exile, but Alcuin wrote a letter, which apparently dissuaded him as his death, as an abbot, is recorded in 799. - somewhat confusing - perhaps trying to include too much in one sentence?
I've done a rewrite on this, organizing it a little differently. I hope it's clearer now. Mike Christie (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This is clear to me. However, I think it might float past many readers going quickly and many poorly-trained readers. You might think about explaining the abbot bit more clearly - why that means he didn't interfere. You are making the reader do the work, which is fine for good readers.... Awadewit | talk 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded this again -- I'm not convinced I have it right yet, but it's moved in the direction you're asking for. Take another look and let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Better - it is hard to write sentences with all of those qualifiers, isn't it? Awadewit | talk 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In 799, an ealdorman named Moll was killed by Eardwulf's "urgent command". Moll's name has suggested that he was a kinsman of the late King Æthelred, whose father was Æthelwald Moll. The following year, Ealhmund, "the son of King Alhred, as some say", was killed by Eardwulf's men. Ealhmund was remembered at Derby, in the neighbouring kingdom of Mercia, as a saint. - Including a sentence on why this information is important would be helpful to the reader.
The relevance is that it's another example of challenges to Eardwulf, and highlights the dynastic strife of the time. I've prefaced the paragraph with "Two further challenges to Eardwulf are recorded within the next two years"; does that do enough to clarify the relevance? Mike Christie (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly, because it is not clear to the reader why we need all of that other information about Moll. Why is it important that Moll was a kinsman of Aethelred? Why is it important that the challenge came from that dynastic line? You have to connect all of the dots for the reader. :) Awadewit | talk 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason to mention the ancestries of these challengers is that each comes from one of the dynastic lines identified at the top of the article as having been part of the struggle for Northumbrian kingship. The particular dynasty isn't so important. I've changed the sentence to read "Two further challenges to Eardwulf are recorded within the next two years, both apparently from among the noble lines that had been fighting for the throne over the previous decades." Is that enough? I think this points the reader at the earlier discussion. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent - it just helps to remind the reader of all those connections. Awadewit | talk 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • According to one source, Eardwulf was replaced by King Ælfwald (II), about whom nothing else is known. - What source?
  • However, two coins of King Eardwulf by the moneyer Cuthheard were published in the 1990s. - Explain to the reader why coins are a big deal.
  • I've expanded slightly. Presumably there's more could be made of this, but the references I have access to don't go into a lot of detail. All we can say for the present is that the discovery of the coins refutes the previous wisdom that no such coins existed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not more information on these particular coins that I think needs to be inserted, it is information on why the existence of coins is important in studying this period of history. It is not explained to readers why coinage, as evidence, is indicative of anything significant when they arrive at this section of the article. Suddenly, the article just starts talking about coins - this makes sense to a few people who know that coins are one of the few kinds of evidence we have of these reigns, but to many readers, I think, the paragraph's purpose will not be clear. This is another instance, I think, where the article needs to announce why it is including information. Tell readers why this information is important and then tell readers the information. Awadewit | talk 19:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My apologies for being so dim! I hope the little piece that I have now added addresses the broader question without coming across as a non sequitur. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No apologies needed. My phrase "a big deal" was hardly precise! I really like what you've added and the transition works well, I think. Awadewit | talk 21:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The dedication suggests the residence, or certainly the cult of relics there, of a saint of this name: Eardwulf is therefore a candidate for the occupant of the panelled stone structure with processions of bearded and robed figures under arches at Breedon, probably later than the famous friezes, which is dateable to the first third of the ninth century, in the stylistic milieu of the Mercian or Lichfield patrons, by comparison with the cuspidal foliate detailing surrounding the evangelist figures in the Book of Cerne (reproduced in these panelled sculptures) - run-on sentence
Rewritten; take a look and see if that's good enough. Mike Christie (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The 'Book of Cerne' appears to be associated with Bishop Æthelwold of Lichfield (818–830).[33] It is suggested that the (dedication) Hardulph's feast day was 21 August. - Explain the significance of this (I wasn't sure) and reword.
This has been rewritten as a by-product of other fixes, but let me just explain in case it's still not clear: the comment about Æthelwold is simply to indicate the source of the patronage deduction in what is now the earlier part of the sentence. The sentence about Hardulph's feast day is an unrelated but (I hope) informative sentence; it's in this paragraph because this is where we're discussing Hardulph (rather than Eardwulf, who is almost certainly, but not unquestionably, the same person). Mike Christie (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you need to make this connection explicit for the reader - you need to continuously join up the dots for the reader. I think most readers of wikipedia are casual readers - they are not reading carefully. We have to help them out. Also, I think these sentences rely on punctuation too much - use words to indicate the relationship between clauses as much as possible. Awadewit | talk 07:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Angus has done some more work on this, and we hope this is now addressed. Let us know if you agree . . . . Mike Christie (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I would use a more inclusive map - just so that it is absolutely clear we are discussing the British Isles. I was reading this article with my roommate and we started over after the lead because he asked "where is Northumbria?" (and he is a well-educated person!). Again, I would move the map up.
I've created a new map that shows the whole of Great Britain, with just the kingdoms identified, and used that in the first section. I think it's worth having the two maps; the second map is more specific and locates some of the places named in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there an image of the important timeline-changing penny? That would be cool.
Rather to my surprise I can't find an image at the Fitzwilliam EMC, which is a good source for this sort of thing. However, even if I could, it wouldn't be usable unless it was a very old image; I checked with one of the WP copyright mavens and was told that coin images are not covered by the exemption for 2D art. I don't really see how to make a fair use case, either, so I don't think this can be done. Mike Christie (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading this series is certainly bolstering my knowledge of early "English" history! Thanks! Awadewit | talk 06:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I now happily support. Awadewit | talk 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Diff to decipher that Awadewit had two supports, unbolding first one: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, the majority of my concerns have been addressed. Bloodzombie 03:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Oppose for now, several issues with the prose follow:
  • I call out several examples below but there is way too much use of passive voice in the article which has the effect of omitting or obscuring the subject of the sentence.
I think many of these are now fixed; some of the reminder are just because the subjects are unknown. Please point out any that are still a problem.
  • Review comma usage throughout. Several instances of stylistic (but ungrammatical) commas.
Are you referring to commas which are grammatically unnecessary but which serve to indicate reading pauses? I seem to recall a comment in Eats, Shoots & Leaves to the effect that arguments about the correct use of the comma were among the most contentious points in grammar. I have to say I don't see any commas that I find offensive, but point out ones you don't like and we'll see if we can find a compromise. Mike Christie (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my professional opinion of Eats, Shoots & Leaves, you are correct that it is contentious. But, alas, not worth nitpicking in an already quite readable article. Bloodzombie 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Voice: "Æthelred was assassinated in April 796, and was succeeded by Osbald; Osbald's reign lasted only twenty-seven days before he was deposed, and Eardwulf became king on May 14, 796." Passive voice "was assassinated" and "was deposed" eliminates key information - change to active voice and tell us who assassinated and who deposed.
I've tweaked this in the lead, but would like to leave it untouched in the body as the construction lends itself to a natural flow from the previous sentence. Let me know if you think it's still a problem there. Mike Christie (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarity: "He was married by the time he became king..." Who was? The way the sentence reads, it could be either Eardwulf.
Already fixed by Angus in response to a similar comment, above. Mike Christie (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Prose: "His early reign saw a battle..." How does a reign see anything? Reword please.
I've changed this (and all the other instances you reference below), since it's evidently not a familiar usage; however, I might as well mention that it is a well-known idiom. Merriam-Webster, for example, has this as one of the definitions of "see": " to be the setting or time of <the last fifty years have seen a sweeping revolution in science — Barry Commoner>". But it's not a big deal to change it. Mike Christie (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for being so gracious about the subject! It is familiar usage but I find it to be somewhat too informal in tone for an encyclopedia. If you feel strongly about it maybe we can get a third opinion, but since you have already changed them perhaps it's not a big deal. --Bloodzombie 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't find "saw" colloquial. I think it depends on the context. Here it was paired with formal usage so it was "formalized". :) Just another opinion. Awadewit | talk 00:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Context: Not sure what a "dux" is in reference to Wada.. provide context or wikilink.
Dux and patricius/patrician are now explained in the background section and Wada, in the introduction, is now just a plain nobleman. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Voice: "He was deposed in 806..." By whom? Change to active voice and specify.
The difficulty here is that nothing is known about the circumstances in which he was deposed. The body of the article does say this: "Eardwulf was deposed in 806, in unknown circumstances"; do you feel the lead needs to say so as well? I'm a little chary about having too many qualifiers in the lead -- I find it's so easy to add innumerable qualifiers such as "perhaps", "thought to have been", "suggested", and "as far as is known" to articles on this topic. Anyway, if you think it needs to be in the lead, say so and I'll add it. I can't really see a sensible way to put it in active voice, though. Mike Christie (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you saying? You could write: "Unknown persons deposed Eardwulf in 806." :) Awadewit | talk 00:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I am satisfied with that. If the subject is unknown, I see no problem with leaving the passive construction. Bloodzombie 03:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Prose: In the "Background" section, several more instances of various entities "seeing" things... reword please. More instances of "was deposed" and "was restored"; please change to active voice so we know who was doing all this deposing and restoring.
The "saw" instances are fixed; still have to work on the voice. Mike Christie (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not clear how the second paragraph of the "Background" section relates to the subject. How do the actions of Offa and Charlemagne affect Eardwulf?
  • Would you mind having a look at the two proposed replacements on the article talk page? Any comments, be they ever so crushing, would be much appreciated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the first version to the second - it lends a lot of clarity, background, and context. --Bloodzombie 03:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The "Early life and accession" section introduces the term "Eanwine" but does not define it.
Hmm, I'm confused here: "...a descendant of one Eanwine who...is probably to be identified with King Eadwulf's son of the same name". Would "...a descendant of Eanwine—perhaps to be identified with King Eadwulf's son of the same name—who..." be clearer? "Probably" must be downgraded to "perhaps" since Rollason, the expert on Northumbria, does not include this in the Oxford DNB piece. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand now. I did not read "Eanwine" as person, but as a nationality or something, like a "German". --Bloodzombie 03:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Grammar: "A letter of Alcuin to Eardwulf..." Use from instead of of.
Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarity: "Eardwulf's whereabouts following this are unknown." Avoid using this to refer to previous statements - restate what you are referring to.
  • Hope this is ok now, but I am rechecking my notes and books to be quite sure that nobody has hazarded a guess. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Grammar: "Charlemagne had sent gifts for Æthelred, which failed to reach him before his death..." Remove comma and use that instead of which.
Can I ask you to take another look at this? I'm not a prescriptivist, and am happy to switch to "that" if there is consensus that it's an improvement, but I am not at all sure that this fits the usual rules. See Michael Quinion on this. Using the terminology Quinion gives, I think the clause in question is not restrictive: "Charlemagne sent gifts" is a satisfactory sentence that accurately describes the situation, and there are no other gifts implied (or actual) with which we need to contrast these gifts. So the comma and the use of "which" are correct. In fact Quinion comments that this particular case is the only time the usage rule is at all definite: for non-restrictive clauses one should use "which", but one must use a comma. Let me know what you think -- if you believe it's a restrictive clause, say why and I'll be happy to change it if I agree. Mike Christie (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, you are correct. My bad. :) --Bloodzombie 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Prose: "Although Æthelred had been Eardwulf's enemy, Æthelred's killers proved to be equally hostile to Eardwulf." Maybe use murderers instead of killers.
  • "Among the dead was Alric, son of Heardberht, but whether he fought for Eardwulf or against him is not recorded." Why is this relevant?
This has been cut as part of another edit; the relevance was marginal but not worth explaining in the article, so I cut it. Mike Christie (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Prose: "The latter part of Æthelred's reign saw..." same comment on use of "saw".
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Voice: In the "Exile and return" section, there are instances of "It is argued" or "It has been argued". Change to active voice and tell us who argued.
  • Grammar: "The possible identification of Eardwulf with the Saint Hardulph or Hardulf to whom the Mercian royal establishment at Breedon on the Hill is jointly dedicated, is uncontroversial." Hard to read.. rewrite so the "is uncontroversial" is not flapping in the breeze at the end.
Rewritten; take a look. Mike Christie (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks! --Bloodzombie 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • MoS: "The 'Book of Cerne' appears..." Why the single quotes? If this is the name of a written work, both mentions should be in italics.
Done; also linked. Mike Christie (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Voice/MoS: "It is suggested that the (dedication) Hardulph's feast day was August 21." Change to active voice and tell us who suggests. Why is "dedication" in parens?
--Bloodzombie 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Support, but can you attend to these issues?

The infobox is totally redundant and not a pretty sight. Why not use another image in its place, or move one of the existing three images there? Even the bottom one, with a slightly longer caption?

I'm happy to remove it; I never know what the rules are on infoboxes, but I don't like them much myself. I'll see what Angus thinks. I'd rather not use the image of the church, though; that really belongs in the last section. Of the two maps, one doesn't make much sense till you've read more of the article; only the overall map of the kingdoms of the period would work at the top. Mike Christie (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not worried whether there's an infobox or not, but lots of similar articles have one.
None of the images we have seems to me to belong in the lead. If we ever get a picture of an Eardwulf coin, or something interesting from the Breedon friezes, then one of those may be suitable. It's probably fortunate that there are no uninformative C16th/C17th imaginings of Eardwulf by the likes of John Speed or Jacob de Wet to argue over.
A thought: Wiglaf of Mercia and Egbert of Wessex use the name of the person from a ms. of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. How about that? This assumes that there's a free image to be had, which may not be the case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I just created a little gallery of all the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle pages I know of on Wikipedia; unfortunately none have Eardwulf's name. The British library has a half-dozen more images, but you have to buy them to get them in a version that is high enough res. The previews would be free use in the US if they were visible, but they're not. So, Tony, I think the best thing is just to leave the infobox there. Let me know if you have a better idea; and thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some MOS things to fix, please:

    • "twenty-seven", yet "12th". Please decide where your boundary is.
    • "eighth century depositions"—Read MOS on hyphens. There are others like this too.
    • Ellipsis dots: spaces either side unless after a period in the original.
    • Last caption: see MOS on the use of the period.
All done, I believe, including the other occurrences of these problems. Mike Christie (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Prose:

  • the two kingdoms eventually came to peaceful terms"—can you word it better?
I changed it to mention the reason for the conflict rather than the outcome: "In 801 Eardwulf led an army against Cenwulf of Mercia, perhaps because of Cenwulf's support for other claimants to the Northumbrian throne." Mike Christie (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "The church in Northumbria not only wielded spiritual authority, it was also one of the major landowners, perhaps second only to the king."—A sharper boundary would be more comfortable, yes? "... authority; it was one of the ...". As usual, "also" is redundant.
I cut this down to "The church in Northumbria was one of the major landowners, perhaps second only to the king." Does that fix the issue? Mike Christie (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Immediately below the archbishop were three bishops, the bishop of Lindisfarne, the bishop of Hexham, and the bishop of Whithorn." A colon would be better. Tony (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I looked again, and the infobox deflates the impact. I agree that the maps are no good at the top. Coin? Anything else at the commons, like a building/ruin from the period that has something to do with him? Tony (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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.