This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Edmund Ætheling article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Edmund Ætheling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 ( talk) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Websites verify content | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Hard to decide without context | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images provide good insight into topic | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Comments:
Apart from the short lede, which needs a little more expansion, this article can certainly get to GA status in a short timespan. I will provide a (very-quick, I expect) thorough read-through when the concerns above (image, lede, readability) are resolved. LT910001 ( talk) 07:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'd say your simple change to the lead makes all the difference. I also note that you've been the primary creator and editor of this article, over only a month. With no outstanding issues I'm promoting this to GA status. Well done! LT910001 ( talk) 07:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
There are no references in the introduction or infobox. The introduction states "After the Siege of London (October 1016), Edmund Ironside signed an agreement with Cnut the Great, in which they agreed that Cnut would rule England south of the Thames, whereas the rest, including London would remain among Ironside's possessions." This is the opposite of what other articles say. Ironside kept the land south of the Thames (Wessex), and Cnut got the rest (Mercia and Northumbria), which is the where the Danes occupied on and off for years. McLerristarr | Mclay1 21:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear wikipedians.
Hello. My name is Ansokuko-San, a Japanese Wikipedian. I have some questions about rough expressions in this article. If you can specify them, please tell me.
( I am now nominating this article of Japanese version for the Good Article, but some veterans are asking me to make it more specific in some points. I need your help……)
Three points below are now being asked by veterans.
・ < Edmund and Edward were recorded as being "somewhat grown, and had passed twelve years" when they arrived in Yaroslav's capital, Gardorika [27] >
→ the veteran is asking me about the name of literatures that prove those sentences above.
・< A mid thirteenth-century letopis (chronicle) records nothing of Edmund and Edward's stay at the Kievan court, although later Russian chronicles do mention their refuge.[29]>
→the veteran is asking me about the specific name of letopis that prove those sentences.
→the veteran is asking me about later. When were those later Russian Chronicles made? He is saying there are too many Russian chronicles to find the right ones mentioned here.
These three points are all about I want to ask. I hope they are resolved.
Regards. 安息香酸 ( talk) 03:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
The extensive biography of Edmund in this article is not supported by historians of Anglo-Saxon England, who say that there is almost no reliable information about him. Edmund and his brother Edward the Exile were sons of King Edmund Ironside and grandsons of Æthelred the Unready. It is known that Edward and Edmund were sent to Sweden as infants by Cnut to be murdered, but the King of Sweden was unwilling to kill them and sent them to Hungary, where Edmund died, possibly after a stay in Kiev. This article's far more detailed biography is mainly sourced to a book by Garriel Ronay. I do not have access to it, but I have found an article by him setting out his views, where he says that his main source is an account by Geoffrey Gaimar, who is unfairly dismissed by historians as unreliable ("Edward Aetheling: Anglo-Saxon England's Last Hope", History Today, Volume 34 Issue 1 January 1984). Simon Keynes describes Gaimar's account as "confused and (one suspects) largely fanciful" ("Crowland Salter", p. 363). Frank Barlow wrote that "because of the twelfth-century Gaimar's inventions in his Lestoire des Engleis, some very strange accounts of Æthelred's descendants are in circulation". Barlow cites Ronay's book as an example of these very strange accounts (The Godwins, p. 91 n. 25). There are other errors added after the GA review, but the basic point is that the article is fundamentally flawed as it is mainly based on an unreliable source. Dudley Miles ( talk) 15:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
unfairly dismissed by historians as unreliable(emphasis mine), why should we perpetuate that unfairness and continue to dismiss him?
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Edmund Ætheling article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Edmund Ætheling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 ( talk) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Websites verify content | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Hard to decide without context | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images provide good insight into topic | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Comments:
Apart from the short lede, which needs a little more expansion, this article can certainly get to GA status in a short timespan. I will provide a (very-quick, I expect) thorough read-through when the concerns above (image, lede, readability) are resolved. LT910001 ( talk) 07:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'd say your simple change to the lead makes all the difference. I also note that you've been the primary creator and editor of this article, over only a month. With no outstanding issues I'm promoting this to GA status. Well done! LT910001 ( talk) 07:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
There are no references in the introduction or infobox. The introduction states "After the Siege of London (October 1016), Edmund Ironside signed an agreement with Cnut the Great, in which they agreed that Cnut would rule England south of the Thames, whereas the rest, including London would remain among Ironside's possessions." This is the opposite of what other articles say. Ironside kept the land south of the Thames (Wessex), and Cnut got the rest (Mercia and Northumbria), which is the where the Danes occupied on and off for years. McLerristarr | Mclay1 21:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear wikipedians.
Hello. My name is Ansokuko-San, a Japanese Wikipedian. I have some questions about rough expressions in this article. If you can specify them, please tell me.
( I am now nominating this article of Japanese version for the Good Article, but some veterans are asking me to make it more specific in some points. I need your help……)
Three points below are now being asked by veterans.
・ < Edmund and Edward were recorded as being "somewhat grown, and had passed twelve years" when they arrived in Yaroslav's capital, Gardorika [27] >
→ the veteran is asking me about the name of literatures that prove those sentences above.
・< A mid thirteenth-century letopis (chronicle) records nothing of Edmund and Edward's stay at the Kievan court, although later Russian chronicles do mention their refuge.[29]>
→the veteran is asking me about the specific name of letopis that prove those sentences.
→the veteran is asking me about later. When were those later Russian Chronicles made? He is saying there are too many Russian chronicles to find the right ones mentioned here.
These three points are all about I want to ask. I hope they are resolved.
Regards. 安息香酸 ( talk) 03:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
The extensive biography of Edmund in this article is not supported by historians of Anglo-Saxon England, who say that there is almost no reliable information about him. Edmund and his brother Edward the Exile were sons of King Edmund Ironside and grandsons of Æthelred the Unready. It is known that Edward and Edmund were sent to Sweden as infants by Cnut to be murdered, but the King of Sweden was unwilling to kill them and sent them to Hungary, where Edmund died, possibly after a stay in Kiev. This article's far more detailed biography is mainly sourced to a book by Garriel Ronay. I do not have access to it, but I have found an article by him setting out his views, where he says that his main source is an account by Geoffrey Gaimar, who is unfairly dismissed by historians as unreliable ("Edward Aetheling: Anglo-Saxon England's Last Hope", History Today, Volume 34 Issue 1 January 1984). Simon Keynes describes Gaimar's account as "confused and (one suspects) largely fanciful" ("Crowland Salter", p. 363). Frank Barlow wrote that "because of the twelfth-century Gaimar's inventions in his Lestoire des Engleis, some very strange accounts of Æthelred's descendants are in circulation". Barlow cites Ronay's book as an example of these very strange accounts (The Godwins, p. 91 n. 25). There are other errors added after the GA review, but the basic point is that the article is fundamentally flawed as it is mainly based on an unreliable source. Dudley Miles ( talk) 15:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
unfairly dismissed by historians as unreliable(emphasis mine), why should we perpetuate that unfairness and continue to dismiss him?