Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cædwalla of Wessex

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 18:16, 6 August 2007.

[edit] Cædwalla of Wessex

Another Anglo-Saxon royalty FAC. Similar FAs, for reference: Penda of Mercia, Ælle of Sussex, Æthelberht of Kent, and Ceawlin of Wessex. Mike Christie (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Why is "Sources" the first section? It seems parenthetical to me. I'd put it under "References" instead, but maybe we have other articles with a "Sources" section up front; I've not seen them. BenB4 09:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The "sources" section is intended to be a brief explanation of contemporary primary sources -- the references section is for the secondary sources, and primary sources in modern editions. I've done this in a couple of other articles (e.g. Ceawlin of Wessex). I think it's useful where the original sources are so few in number that it's helpful to the reader to know how little information we have. It also helps to place in context the later references to those sources.

Some of the textbooks in this field start the same way, with a discussion of sources, and that's where I got the idea. For example, the first chapter of Hunter Blair's "Roman Britain and Early England" is "The Nature of the Sources"; and each chapter of Yorke's "Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England" starts with a section called "Sources". I recently got some comments on another article from an editor who felt it wasn't necessary to do this, but neither of us could cite a style guide in support of our preferences, so I think it's something to be considered on an article-by-article basis. Mike Christie (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support I'd move the "Sources" and "Ancestry" sections, maybe in line with WP:BRSG, towards the bottom of the article. Unfortunately, that'll mean a copy-edit as you'll need to move some of the links about. There's one bit I'm unsure about: "Æthelred maintained overlordship of the Hwicce, in the Severn river valley, and while he was less militarily active than Wulfhere had been in the south, the gains Wulfhere had made were not returned." Shouldn't this be "Æthelred maintained overlordship of the Hwicce, in the Severn river valley, but he was less militarily active than Wulfhere had been in the south, and he did not retain the gains Wulfhere had made."? Otherwise, I think it's unclear who is retaining or returning or gaining control. DrKiernan 11:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tweaked the sentence above in the process of copyediting; I dropped the note on the Hwicce as I don't think it adds much. I hope the new version now reads more naturally. Mike Christie (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Addressing the nature of the sources early on helps the reader get the right idea. I did it in Battle of Svolder and I like it here too. Haukur 15:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm happy to comply with DrKiernan's suggest to move the sources information about, but my own opinion is more in line with Haukur's here. Can I ask for either a consensus of commentators to make this change, or a reference to some policy or style guide that would govern? WP:BRSG, which DrKiernan cites, certainly doesn't mention a sources section of this type, but I think there is a special situation with early biographies -- an understanding of the sources is important to judging what you read. As I said, I am happy to comply with whatever the style consensus is; I don't have a personal stake in it. Mike Christie (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To give two examples of FAs that I have not been involved with, Penda of Mercia does not have a "sources" section, but Óengus I of the Picts does. Mike Christie (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there doesn't appear to be a style consensus, which gives you the freedom to choose! DrKiernan 14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Support—1a and 2a.
  • Opening: you'll have to do something about "(c. 659–20 April 689)". And to top it off, these apparent years are contradicted straight away. Anglicised from the British; let me digest that.
  • The lead is most unsatisfactory in terms of paragraphing and scope.
  • "In 688 he abdicated and traveled to Rome to be baptized. He reached Rome in April of 689, and was baptized at Easter, dying ten days later on 20 April 689." Again, you're messing with my mind over dates. The sequence seems to have vagueness and holes, and inconsistent precision. Why is "Rome" linked? Who doesn't know where it is? Surry isn't linked, but Kent is. Mul isn't but Ine is. I'd minimise the links of places.
  • Why the American spelling? See MOS on links between topics and major varieties of English.

The whole article needs a good copy-edit. Tony 03:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking your points in order:

• you'll have to do something about "(c. 659–20 April 689)": I assume you mean that it should be a spaced en dash. I've made that change.
• these apparent years are contradicted straight away: I think you must be referring to the fact that he died in 689 but was only king till 688. This is because he abdicated; I have mentioned this in the first sentence now to avoid the appearance of contradiction, but it was already mentioned in the lead. To be honest, I'd rather not mention it twice in the lead, so please let me know if you think this is really necessary.
• Anglicised from the British: yes, this sounds weird but it's accurate (though evidently misleading). The British is the term used in history of this period for people who were already inhabitants of the island when the Anglo-Saxons arrived. To "anglicize" a British name at this time meant that it was turned into a form that was more natural to an Anglo-Saxon speaker. I went ahead and cut the word "anglicized" because it's not the main point being conveyed, and it would be quite difficult explain it concisely in-line.
• The lead is unsatisfactory: I'll do a separate rewrite and post another note here when done.
• You're messing with my mind over dates: I'm sorry, but I'm not clear what the problem is with dates. The varying precision is a reflection of what is known. I could get more detailed about that in the body, but I wouldn't have thought you'd want that in the lead. Here's a restatement of what is known (I'm omitting source information): he abdicates at some time in 688, date unknown. He is known to have travelled to Rome, and we know some locations he passed through on the trip. We also know he was baptized at Easter in 689, and since Easter's date is known exactly, we can be precise there. Are you asking for the date of Easter to be included, e.g "baptized at Easter, which fell on 10 April that year, dying ten days later"? If that solves the problem I can make that change; I'm not sure it does so I'll hold off till you comment.
• Links: Surrey is not linked because there was no Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Surrey. Kent is linked to Kingdom of Kent; the apparent inconsistency is because the link is piped. I've unpiped it, so I think that addresses your concern there. I've linked Mul, and unlinked Rome; I agree on both. I did leave the Isle of Wight linked as it may be less well-known to non-British readers.
• American spelling: this is probably because I've spent decades on both sides of the Atlantic and both varieties of English now look natural to me. I will try to clean it up when I do the copyedit.
• The whole article needs a good copy-edit: I'll make a copyedit pass and post back here when done. Thanks for the comments. Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now done a copyedit, and worked on the lead to some degree. You'd said it was "unsatisfactory in terms of paragraphing and scope"; I've adjusted the paragraphing a little, and added one more element from the body: the story of the underkings. I hope this is moving in the direction you are looking for. I've also changed the only US spelling I could spot: "baptize" has been changed to "baptise". If there are others please let me know. I think that I've now addressed all your points, except your comment about "messing with your mind over dates": if you could clarify that I'll have a go at dealing with that as well. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Is it possible to find more images for the article? The one that is found in the box is actually a crop of a painting image found later in the article. That means there is only one image and one map. Avala 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Images are a problem with these early articles. There are no coins from Cædwalla's reign, so I don't think a coin will work -- it would have to be a generic Anglo-Saxon coin from the period. There are definitely no contemporary portraits of any kind -- coins would have been the only possibility. I don't know of any other imaginary portraits, but I think one of those is probably enough, even if there are any. There are no buildings definitely identified with him. That leaves maps; I could perhaps add a map showing the places he is known to have visited. I have done this in a couple of other articles -- see Asser, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Ælle of Sussex for examples. If that would be useful, let me know and I'll see what I can create. Mike Christie (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'll support, because there's a lot of good in the article. It still does need polishing, though. Here are random observations that show that 90 minutes' work by an unfamiliar copy-editor wouldn't go astray.
  • "... evidence of the extent of West Saxon influence is provided by the fact that Cenwalh, who reigned from 642 to 673, is remembered as ..."—Yucko.
  • "However, it appears that the many difficulties and contradictions in the regnal list are caused partly by the efforts of later scribes to demonstrate that each king on the list was descended from Cerdic, so Cædwalla’s genealogy must be treated with caution." Make it "Cerdic; thus, Caedwalla's ..."
  • "which may imply British ancestry"—"Imply" is already hedged with uncertainty; do you need "may" as well?
  • "Despite being in exile"—ungrammatical; will "Despite his exile" do? Tony 10:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed all these points except the first -- haven't figured out a cleaner rephrase yet. I changed "may imply" to "may indicate" rather than "imply", since "imply" connotes logical implication and so isn't very conditional to some readers. I'll think about the first point some more. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 11:37, 27 July 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.