Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelbald of Mercia

Æthelbald of Mercia

Passed GA recently; some sprucing up done since then. Note: there have been suggestions made for further research by a Wikipedian who is an expert in this area: see the talk page section covering the issue, which suggests that this is not necessary to complete before FA. As noted there, I can include the information based on the citations mentioned in the talk page, if reviewers here feel it's necessary. All comments gratefully received. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• That image that initiates the Mercian dominance certainly doesn't need to be 300px wide, so I reduced it to 200. I didn't see a need for it to be left aligned either, so I threw it to the other side. Looks a tad tidier I think. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• I gather that Æþelbald is the Anglo-Saxon spelling of his name. (I found it on a list of kings). Could it be added to this page? These days we seem to use the less common alphabets in our articles all the time. EdJohnston 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a difficult one to deal with. There was no "standard" spelling of his name, and a look at the PASE website (choose "Æ" (at the top of the screen), then "Æthelbald", then "Æthelbald 4", and then "Recorded name") shows over thirty different possible spellings in the original sources. You can see one of them in the charter image I've used in the infobox: it's spelled "Aetdilbalt" there. I have changed the name in the template you mentioned to Æthelbald, so that's consistent now. I could add a couple of the alternative spellings as examples, and mention the multiple other spellings, but I don't think that's a common approach. So I'm inclined not to mention these old spellings. In modern texts (the last couple of hundred years, at least) one doesn't see anything but "Æthelbald", "Aethelbald" or "Ethelbald". Mike Christie (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: Needs some copyediting to meet the "compelling or brilliant" standard of writing. Some issues I spotted on a quick read through:
  • Mercian domination of England was continued after Æthelbald's death by Offa, the grandson of Æthelbald's cousin Eanwulf; between them, Æthelbald and Offa ruled Mercia for about eighty years, with a short gap between their two reigns. - Many isses with this sentance. First, its a "run on sentance" in that it contains MANY separate independant clauses crammed together in one sentance. Secondly, it has some misplaced modifiers that make it hard to read. "death by Offa" parses as a death CAUSED by Offa; this needs to be rewritten to be cleared that the domination was by Offa, and that the death was unrelated to him.
  • For eighty years, from 716, when Æthelbald came to the throne, until the death of Offa in 796, Mercia was ruled by two strong kings, with Beornrad's very brief reign of less than a year between the two in 757 - Awkward sentance. Again, what you are trying to say here is "Two great Mercian kings dominated Britain in the 700's: Aethelbald and his grandson Offa". The way the sentance is written it is hard to follow this train of thought.
  • By 731, Ethelbert had all the English south of the Humber under his overlordship - Context needed. Who is Ethelbert, and why are we talking about him here. He isn't even wikilinked.
  • After Aethelheard succeeded in this struggle for the throne, there are subsequent indications that he ruled subject to Mercian authority, and it may be that Æthelbald helped establish both Aethelheard and his brother, Cuthred, who succeeded Aethelheard in 739. - Another run on sentance. Consider breaking up into separate sentances. There are no less than 6 clauses squished in here.
  • The chronicler, almost certainly a West Saxon, was probably merely adding Egbert's name to Bede's original list of seven, rather than claiming that no other kings achieved similar power in England—as neither Æthelbald nor Offa were kings of Wessex perhaps the chronicler does not mention them out of regional pride. Run on sentance.
  • Does NO Image exist of him? Has no one painted or drew a picture or made a statue or anything? If there are extant images of him (even ones made much later) it may help flesh out the article. Heck, even an "Aethelbald in art" section (if there is lots) may be useful if there ARE extant images of him.

Overall, the article is well referenced and informative and fairly comprehensive; I just think the prose needs some punching up. Consider the league of copyeditors for help. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done a pass, addressing the points you raised, and trying to find and fix other issues. The "Ethelbert" sentence was just a typo -- it should have been "Æthelbald", and is now corrected. Please let me know what you think.

With regard to an image, there's certainly nothing that purports to be a likeness. Sometimes a coin is used in a situation like this: see Canute the Great for an example. However, I don't know of any coins from Æthelbald's time that are good enough to use. See these coins for example; I don't think they're an improvement over what is currently on the article. There's also a Britannica image, presumably from the 1911 edition. Take a look at Egbert of Wessex, which uses one of these pictures; there's a discussion on the talk page which covers both sides of the debate. Personally I think this sort of image isn't worth much -- it doesn't give an accurate impression of dress, and is just the product of a Victorian engraver's imagination. So I'd prefer not to use it unless reviewers here insist (or can find something better!). On an "Æthelbald in art" section: I don't think there's enough art out there (or indeed any); a Google search doesn't find anything but the EB image, at least, and I've seen nothing in the books I've been using. Mike Christie (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not sure about this one so far. I don't think the balance of the prose is quite right yet. I know that it is not always helful to talk about prose in general because editors require actionable specifics, so I will try to give some examples (to illustrate what I'm driving at rather than be comprehensive). The prose is never less than functional, however, and I am not far off supporting.

To make a general point first: writing about early history, where the evidence is scant, is a considerable art. The writer has on the one hand to juggle all sorts ifs and maybes, which can sound vague, and on the other to give almost microscopic attention to what evidence there is. The effective balancing of these two different elements is, in my opinion, what makes for satisfying writing about the Anglo-Saxon period. On Wikipedia, I suspect that this balance has best been achieved by User:Angusmclellan's articles, in particular Óengus I of the Picts. In the present article, I feel that the balance has too often drifted too far in the direction of the vagueness aspect, perhaps out of a feeling that the general reader will not want to go into too much detail, but in my opinion more of the few documents that do survive should be put under the microscope in the text.

Some specific points and questions:

• Dates of Offa. If there are scholarly issues about these, perhaps they should be discussed, since it says here that he reigned for 41 years, whereas the more usual figure is 39 (I can remember that from exams at school(!), and I see that Britannica goes for that figure (757 to 796), as does our article on Offa). Also I wouldn't say that they are "an additional forty-one years": they are just years.

• "Æthelbald had Mercian royal blood, although his father, Alweo, was never king. Alweo's father, Eowa, was apparently king of Mercia from perhaps 634 to 642, though there is some confusion over differing accounts, and Eowa may have actually been one of two co-rulers of Mercia, sharing the throne with his brother, Penda."

Here, I feel that the article summarises an issue without giving the reader enough information to grasp what is being summarised: in other words, we get the uncertainty of "apparently", "perhaps", "some confusion", "differing accounts", "actually may have been", without being provided with the causes of this uncertainty. The key, I think is "differing accounts": what were these accounts? I presume they were Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, whose differences are always interesting. In this sort of history, I feel we should pounce on any information, even if, as usual, it is contradictory or inconclusive. The article is not so long as to make such elucidations burdensome: dynastic origins were always important to Anglo-Saxon kings.

• "...and it was he who drove Æthelbald into exile, according to the Life of the hermit Guthlac of Crowland, a kinsman of Æthelbald's."

I don't think we should abbreviate the title of the Life of Guthlac without first introducing it. Once again, we are so short of documentation that we should pounce on what we do have. I also think it should be made clear that this life was written by Felix, because it read to me at first as if this was a life of Æthelbald written by Guthlac, or a life of Guthlac written by himself. We might also be given some more information about Guthlac and where he lived: did he live on one of those islands that used to exist in the fens before they were drained? Such islands were common places to escape from enemies, which might be a reason why Æthelbald went there (Alfred the Great chose a similar hiding place at Athelney Island; so did Hereward the Wake, according to legend), so if a ref can be found, the nature of the place might be worth mentioning.

• "Guthlac often provided Æthelbald and his followers with shelter at his cell in the fens of the east midlands. Guthlac prophesied greatness for him, and Æthelbald later rewarded Guthlac with a shrine when he had become king."

The vagueness creeps in again here. "Shelter at his cell", even if it comes from the Life, is a bit awkward, since it is hard to imagine a future king and his followers sheltering in a cell, unless it was raining. We have to provide a note of scepticism when the old sources, even Bede (who likes to spice things up with the odd miracle), say this sort of thing. (We can use the word "claimed" without its being original thought, especially since some aery-faery things happen in this Life of Guthlac, it seems (the prophesying, etc.) Kirby adopts a note of scepticism about this source, and so I think should the article.

• Apart from the comments about the "bretwalda" tag, the article rather takes for granted that the reader understands how overlordship worked. It might be worth researching this aspect to produce some lines on the topic for the article. What was the relationship between kings? Was there always a high king, even when not noted by Bede? What was Æthelbald's relationship with the East Angles (se my note on the talk page), or with the Hwicce, for example?

• "Æthelbald seems to have reasserted his authority over the West Saxons by the time of his death, since a later West Saxon king, Cynewulf, is recorded as witnessing a charter of Æthelbald at the very beginning of his reign, in 757."

I think the article should maybe explain the significance of "witnessing a charter" here, or else the point may not come across.

• Although there are particular mentions of Æthelbald's influence on church affairs, did his pre-eminence over southern kings give him a say in the appointment of the archbiship of Canterbury? I think it might have, which would be quite significant. The church at this point in history was highly international: if Æthelbald was in touch with Boniface in Germany and presiding at councils or synods under the aegis of the archbishopric of Canterbury, this speaks of a growing European dimension to Mercian power (we know that Offa was to correspond with Charlemagne about marriages between their children), as well as the coming of the age of temporal rulers requiring church sanction for their reigns. (My overall suggestion here is that there might be some larger points to be made about Æthelbald's significance.)

• "Boniface sent the letter to Ecgberht, the archbishop of York, telling him to edit the letter as he thought best; and he also sent it to Herefrith, a priest whom Æthelbald would listen to, with the request that he read it to Æthelbald."

This isn't clear to me. Did he sent Ecgberht the letter to edit before sending it on to Æthelbald? If not, what does "edit" mean in this context? More interestingly, does anyone say why Boniface sent this to the archbishop of York, since York was in Northumbrian territory? Would the fact that York was under Canterbury mean that Æthelbald, who was influential at Canterbury, might thereby be influential at York, or that in Europe he was regarded as the chief king of all English kingdoms (not just the southern ones but including the north)?

• "A subsequent letter of Boniface's to Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, implicitly encouraged him to hold a synod..."

"Implicitly encouraged" sounds a bit odd to me; does this mean "hinted that he should"? This is a case where I think it would be better to report what he actually said. (Where there are documents, we should foreground them, I think; the article does this well with the Ismere Diploma paragraph, in my opinion.)

• "A claim made in a ninth-century document that Æthelbald had killed the kinsman of a Mercian abbess has also contributed negatively to his reputation."

Again, which document? Go for it.

It's a promising article, and I congratulate Mike Christie for bringing it up to this standard; I do believe it can still be improved, however.