This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Æthelstan 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 27, 2014. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Note: Battle of Brunanburh is currently an empty page, voted for deletion. If anyone knows anything about it, now's a good time to do the article :) -- Sam
In Policital and Military life, it is stated that Athelstan had no children of his own. However, in the next section, it is stated that "Athelstan's daughter Aelfgifa married Boleslav, King of Bohemia." So, did he have children or not?
As far as I can tell, other online sources confirm that Athenstan was unmarried, and I could find no source other than Wikipedia that he had any daughter named Aelfgifa.
Athelstan certainly did not have a daughter called Aelfgifa (or Aelfgifu) - she was the son of his brother Edward and is one of the many siblings of his mentioned in Athelweard's 'Chronicon'. Also as a general comment for this page I would certainly a section on charters - under Athelstan's reign for the first time we have evidence for a royal chancery, producing a series of charters that provide perhaps our best insights into the workings of his court and his imperial asperations.
" Only a year after his crowning he had a sister to Sihtric, the viking King of York." What does this mena? Shoould it read " Only a year after his crowning he gave a sister in marriage to Sihtric, the Viking King of York"?
I keep seeing Alwara, the mother of Leofric (famous for being the husband of Lady Godiva) listed as Athelstan's daughter. Is this correct, or just a innacuracy that's spread around? - Indy Gold 19:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It strikes me as curious that the article states Athelstan was crowned in 924, yet the following picture of the crowning stone is date DCCCCXXV, that is 925. I'm certainly no British History scholar, but it would be nice to clarify this. Perhaps the date on the stone relates to a different event? -- Daxav
This article has absolutely no sources: I'm putting a tag up.-- Dark Green 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Athelstanobv.2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The coin pictured in this article is incorrect. It is a coin of an earlier East Anglian king of the same name. Search under Aethelstan of England, not Aethelstan of East Anglia.
In several places the Old-English name of Athelstan is spelled with eth (Ð or ð, pronounced like th in "the"). It is written with Thorn (Þ or þ) in this article, however. Can anybody check which letter must be used instead of "th"?
The two letters are completely equivalent in OE (unlike in Icelandic, where one is voiced and the other not) and hence the variation.
Aethelstan had no daughter married to the son an heir of Guy, Earl of Warwick. First of all, in Aethelstan's time, there was no Earldom of Warwick, or for that matter, there were no earldoms at all. Likewise, there was no secular nobleman in England named Guy. There is no individual at the time named Reynburn, which is not an Anglo-Saxon name, or any other name. Someone just out and out invented this. There is no documented woman named Leonetta (little lion, but not in Anglo-Saxon - the English did not name their daughters after lions). There is no record that Aethelstan ever married and no record that Aethelstan had any children, daughter or son. The entire story is just made up. It has no basis in fact, and has never appeared in a reliable source. Agricolae ( talk) 01:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be well served to actually READ the source material I cited. You say they are "not reliable sources". OK. Perhaps instead of deleting those refereces, it would be more intellectually honest to add a sentence to my edit; "these sources are refuted by " and then your own sources? Reynburn (or Reyburn, or Reyborn(e), I've seen several spellings) de Beauchamp, the father of Wegeat/Weyeth who was the father of Wigot/Wigod. So far, you've offered nothing other than "I said so" as proof. I would be happy to be proven wrong if you can actually point out some research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efeist ( talk • contribs) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help with this query? I have been asked whether the Anglo-Saxon name of Beoferlic, for the current town of Beverley, East Riding of Yorkshire, was still being used during the reign of King AEthelstan 895 - 939, when he visited the tomb of St John of Beverley on his way to the Battle of Brunanburh. My view, is that it is reconciled with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles being written in Old English between the mid 5th to mid 12th Centuries, but I can find no definitive information to confirm this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beoferlic ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
In the article's introduction, it says that his success in battles lead to him claiming to be the "first King of all Britain"...but surely, Britain didn't exist back then.
Wouldn't the actual claim be something more along the lines of "first King of all the Britons", as in the ancient Briton peoples? KoopaCooper ( talk) 19:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Those who aren't devoted followers of In Our Time just missed a programme on Athelstan - linky - with Melvin Bragg talking to Sarah Foot and John Hines. Interesting stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Throughout the text, the name is spelled either as Ae or AE with the two letters connected (don't know how to connect them here). One way should be used for ease of reading. Just a thought. 75.222.13.95 ( talk) 09:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
A discussion of the controversy over the accession of Athelstan is appropriate, but I think we should be more balanced on AElweard. The source that claims he succeeded as king is very late - the ASC simply reports that the dead king's son died 16 days later and was buried with his father. There is no scholarly consensus that AElweard actually succeeded at all, so we need a more nuanced account. Agricolae ( talk) 18:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
As you say, opinion is not as unanimous as I thought.
Do you think it is fair to say that most historians now think that Ælfweard was briefly king of Wessex? Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
In case anyone here is interested, there is a debate at Talk:List of English monarchs#Article definition ? about whether that list should begin with Æthelstan, or start earlier (it currently begins with Offa and then Egbert). Only about 3 or 4 users have participated so far, and it might be helpful to get a broader selection of opinions. Thanks. Richard75 ( talk) 22:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
For a detailed discussion of Athelstan's sisters and what the different chroniclers said about them, see [2]. Agricolae ( talk) 21:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Given that we have a contemporary representation of Athelstan ("the earliest surviving Anglo-Saxon royal portrait"), shouldn't we lead with that rather than an idealised stained-glass window? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Michael Wood has a new BBC TV series, last week Alfred, this week Edward and Æthelflæd, next week Æthelstan. Dudley Miles ( talk) 12:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Agricolae can you look at note b and see whether you are happy with it. Also do you have a source for your edit saying "a prince near the Jupiter mountains"? I think I remember that it is a quote from Æthelweard but all the sources I can find just say the Alps. Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you to all the contributors for this article. I have some suggestions that I hope you will all feel are relevant.
(1) There are several occasions where he have "Historians think.." or "So and So believes...". I respectfully suggest that where there is consensus the third person should be used "Athelstan did / was ...." and then supply one or references.
(2) There are several places where one POV is given undue weight. The 'Legacy' section is a good case in point. A more neutral tone is needed where only one viewpoint is available.
(3) Lack of citations: There are several places where a particular POV is presented without a reference. Either a reference is needed or it should be written in neutral tone.
The article has promise, but to be honest it doesn't read well at the moment.
VeryLargeCommercialTransport (
talk) 19:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)VeryLargeCommercialTransport
I have asked for peer review of this article. Advice gratefully received. Dudley Miles ( talk) 23:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Dank has pointed out at peer review that the article is inconsistent in the number format used, e.g. eighth or 8th. This is because I prefer to spell out, but another editor changed some instances to the numeric format. WP:CENTURY says that either is acceptable but articles should be consistent in which one they use. I will therefore change all to spell out (e.g. as eighth) unless other editors object. Dudley Miles ( talk) 15:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sarastro1 ( talk · contribs) 20:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This is looking good at first glance. As it is quite long, it may take a little while to get through it all. Rather than list everything, I will do minor copyedits myself, but feel free to revert anything that I mess up, or that you are not happy with. Also, I assume this article is headed towards FA. I'll keep that in mind, so if I post anything which does not relate to the GA criteria which you are not happy with, please let me know. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Lead
Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Primary sources
Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
More to come. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Early life:
Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
More to come. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The struggle for power:
Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
King of the English
The invasion of Scotland
Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The Battle of Brunanburh
Administration:
Sarastro1 ( talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Law:
I'm hoping to finish by the end of the week now. Generally, this is looking good, and the Kingship section so far is excellent. Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Coinage:
Sarastro1 ( talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Learning:
Sarastro1 ( talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
British monarch:
European relations:
Revised
Legacy:
General:
I'm pretty much finished now, so I'll place this article on hold for now. I don't think it needs much more, and should pass easily. Sarastro1 ( talk) 18:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The article currently states: "According to William of Malmesbury, after the Hereford meeting Æthelstan went on to expel the Cornish from Exeter, fortify its walls, and fix the Cornish boundary at the River Tamar. This account is regarded sceptically by historians, however, as Cornwall had been under English rule since the mid-ninth century. Thomas Charles-Edwards describes it as "an improbable story", while historian John Reuben Davies sees it as the suppression of a British revolt and the confinement of the Cornish beyond the Tamar. Æthelstan emphasised his control by establishing a new Cornish see and appointing its first bishop, but Cornwall kept its own culture and language.[49]"
there are several things that go against this criticism:
The Annales Cambriae record that in 875AD, King Dungarth of Cerniu (Cornwall) was drowned.
Asser in his life of Alfred, written in 893, lists Cornwall alongside Wessex and other recognised kingdoms that existed at the time:
John of Worcester in his Chronicon ex chronicis tells us that in the year 915 the Vikings "sailing round the coast of Wessex and Cornwall at length entered the mouth of the river Severn."
Historian Michael Wood (In Search of England: Journeys Into the English Past, 2001) supports Malmsbury and backs it up with archaeological evidence from Exeter.
All in all it's fine to include criticism but the statement "Cornwall had been under English rule since the mid-ninth century" is plainly wrong. Plus there are historians who back Malmesbury's account. Bodrugan ( talk) 13:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The claim that "Æthelstan is regarded as the first King of England" seems to require qualification. While some modern historians take this view, there is a more nuanced discussion at List of English monarchs, which effectively gives this title to Alfred the Great. And I hope I need hardly say that, historically, nobody took this view. John M Baker ( talk) 01:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Did someone take a poll?
How do you know what the majority of historians regard him as?
I removed the statement, due to lack of supporting statements or citations within the body of the article. See WP:VER. See also WP:WEASEL.
Then why include historians in the statement at all? As long as the references support it as a fact, why not put "He was the first king of England"? Is it likely that he wasn't? The Transhumanist 00:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears certain that Æthelstan's kingdom included what was the Viking kingdom of York before and after him, and that the Viking ruler before him was Gofraid ua Ímair. There is uncertainty over whether the Viking ruler after him was Olaf Guthfrithson or Amlaíb Cuarán - see Æthelstan#cite_ref-144 note k. I therefore suggest altering the succession box to read
Alekksandr ( talk) 19:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
User:John M Baker you reverted my deletion of the Brooke citation. You have dated the source 1972 but Worldcat at [4] shows 3rd edition 2001. Do you have a 1972 copy and can you confirm that pages 119-24 are correct for the citation in your copy? (It seems a large page range for such a simple statement.) If so, can you add the edition number and isbn shown in your copy of the book to the bibliography. Thanks. Dudley Miles ( talk) 07:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure it should be sourced, but I see sources. I don't source from my iPad though. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I would like to expand the statement in the introduction that “Aethelstan never married and had no children” with some further information taken from Sarah Foot´s biography (pages 57-59), but this article is so well written that I am loath to spoil it. I thought something along the lines of:
If this is added (preferably rewritten in a more elegant style), where should it go – under “Reign”, or under a new header?
Arthurs Grandchild ( talk) 21:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
A fair chunk of content on Æthelstan in this BBC program not sure how much of that can be used as a source, but probably worth looking at EdwardLane ( talk) 20:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The article references "Vikings"; however, was an occupation, a form of raiding or piracy. The people who invaded England were the Danes, and they established Danelaw and tried to form Daneland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.20.51 ( talk) 16:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
One wonders how correcting an obvious misspelling and adding a missing link counts as a bad edit, so I have restored both the spelling and the link. Celia Homeford ( talk) 11:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I added this date to the box as this was the day that Deheubarth, Alba and Strathclyde submitted to Æthelstan and England was unified and founded. Faren29 ( talk) 21:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Athelstan (cropped).jpg --> File:Aethelstan.png
While I like the current image of the infobox. I don't feel the image suited well for the infobox. So, my purposed is that make the current image move to different section while the File:Aethelstan.png be the new image. SpartanMazda ( talk) 01:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it fair to state that It is the oldest surviving portrait of an English king whilst the source states The picture is the earliest portrait of an English king wearing a crown? - Neptuunium ( talk) 10:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Æthelstan 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 27, 2014. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Note: Battle of Brunanburh is currently an empty page, voted for deletion. If anyone knows anything about it, now's a good time to do the article :) -- Sam
In Policital and Military life, it is stated that Athelstan had no children of his own. However, in the next section, it is stated that "Athelstan's daughter Aelfgifa married Boleslav, King of Bohemia." So, did he have children or not?
As far as I can tell, other online sources confirm that Athenstan was unmarried, and I could find no source other than Wikipedia that he had any daughter named Aelfgifa.
Athelstan certainly did not have a daughter called Aelfgifa (or Aelfgifu) - she was the son of his brother Edward and is one of the many siblings of his mentioned in Athelweard's 'Chronicon'. Also as a general comment for this page I would certainly a section on charters - under Athelstan's reign for the first time we have evidence for a royal chancery, producing a series of charters that provide perhaps our best insights into the workings of his court and his imperial asperations.
" Only a year after his crowning he had a sister to Sihtric, the viking King of York." What does this mena? Shoould it read " Only a year after his crowning he gave a sister in marriage to Sihtric, the Viking King of York"?
I keep seeing Alwara, the mother of Leofric (famous for being the husband of Lady Godiva) listed as Athelstan's daughter. Is this correct, or just a innacuracy that's spread around? - Indy Gold 19:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It strikes me as curious that the article states Athelstan was crowned in 924, yet the following picture of the crowning stone is date DCCCCXXV, that is 925. I'm certainly no British History scholar, but it would be nice to clarify this. Perhaps the date on the stone relates to a different event? -- Daxav
This article has absolutely no sources: I'm putting a tag up.-- Dark Green 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Athelstanobv.2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The coin pictured in this article is incorrect. It is a coin of an earlier East Anglian king of the same name. Search under Aethelstan of England, not Aethelstan of East Anglia.
In several places the Old-English name of Athelstan is spelled with eth (Ð or ð, pronounced like th in "the"). It is written with Thorn (Þ or þ) in this article, however. Can anybody check which letter must be used instead of "th"?
The two letters are completely equivalent in OE (unlike in Icelandic, where one is voiced and the other not) and hence the variation.
Aethelstan had no daughter married to the son an heir of Guy, Earl of Warwick. First of all, in Aethelstan's time, there was no Earldom of Warwick, or for that matter, there were no earldoms at all. Likewise, there was no secular nobleman in England named Guy. There is no individual at the time named Reynburn, which is not an Anglo-Saxon name, or any other name. Someone just out and out invented this. There is no documented woman named Leonetta (little lion, but not in Anglo-Saxon - the English did not name their daughters after lions). There is no record that Aethelstan ever married and no record that Aethelstan had any children, daughter or son. The entire story is just made up. It has no basis in fact, and has never appeared in a reliable source. Agricolae ( talk) 01:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be well served to actually READ the source material I cited. You say they are "not reliable sources". OK. Perhaps instead of deleting those refereces, it would be more intellectually honest to add a sentence to my edit; "these sources are refuted by " and then your own sources? Reynburn (or Reyburn, or Reyborn(e), I've seen several spellings) de Beauchamp, the father of Wegeat/Weyeth who was the father of Wigot/Wigod. So far, you've offered nothing other than "I said so" as proof. I would be happy to be proven wrong if you can actually point out some research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efeist ( talk • contribs) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help with this query? I have been asked whether the Anglo-Saxon name of Beoferlic, for the current town of Beverley, East Riding of Yorkshire, was still being used during the reign of King AEthelstan 895 - 939, when he visited the tomb of St John of Beverley on his way to the Battle of Brunanburh. My view, is that it is reconciled with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles being written in Old English between the mid 5th to mid 12th Centuries, but I can find no definitive information to confirm this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beoferlic ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
In the article's introduction, it says that his success in battles lead to him claiming to be the "first King of all Britain"...but surely, Britain didn't exist back then.
Wouldn't the actual claim be something more along the lines of "first King of all the Britons", as in the ancient Briton peoples? KoopaCooper ( talk) 19:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Those who aren't devoted followers of In Our Time just missed a programme on Athelstan - linky - with Melvin Bragg talking to Sarah Foot and John Hines. Interesting stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Throughout the text, the name is spelled either as Ae or AE with the two letters connected (don't know how to connect them here). One way should be used for ease of reading. Just a thought. 75.222.13.95 ( talk) 09:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
A discussion of the controversy over the accession of Athelstan is appropriate, but I think we should be more balanced on AElweard. The source that claims he succeeded as king is very late - the ASC simply reports that the dead king's son died 16 days later and was buried with his father. There is no scholarly consensus that AElweard actually succeeded at all, so we need a more nuanced account. Agricolae ( talk) 18:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
As you say, opinion is not as unanimous as I thought.
Do you think it is fair to say that most historians now think that Ælfweard was briefly king of Wessex? Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
In case anyone here is interested, there is a debate at Talk:List of English monarchs#Article definition ? about whether that list should begin with Æthelstan, or start earlier (it currently begins with Offa and then Egbert). Only about 3 or 4 users have participated so far, and it might be helpful to get a broader selection of opinions. Thanks. Richard75 ( talk) 22:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
For a detailed discussion of Athelstan's sisters and what the different chroniclers said about them, see [2]. Agricolae ( talk) 21:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Given that we have a contemporary representation of Athelstan ("the earliest surviving Anglo-Saxon royal portrait"), shouldn't we lead with that rather than an idealised stained-glass window? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Michael Wood has a new BBC TV series, last week Alfred, this week Edward and Æthelflæd, next week Æthelstan. Dudley Miles ( talk) 12:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Agricolae can you look at note b and see whether you are happy with it. Also do you have a source for your edit saying "a prince near the Jupiter mountains"? I think I remember that it is a quote from Æthelweard but all the sources I can find just say the Alps. Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you to all the contributors for this article. I have some suggestions that I hope you will all feel are relevant.
(1) There are several occasions where he have "Historians think.." or "So and So believes...". I respectfully suggest that where there is consensus the third person should be used "Athelstan did / was ...." and then supply one or references.
(2) There are several places where one POV is given undue weight. The 'Legacy' section is a good case in point. A more neutral tone is needed where only one viewpoint is available.
(3) Lack of citations: There are several places where a particular POV is presented without a reference. Either a reference is needed or it should be written in neutral tone.
The article has promise, but to be honest it doesn't read well at the moment.
VeryLargeCommercialTransport (
talk) 19:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)VeryLargeCommercialTransport
I have asked for peer review of this article. Advice gratefully received. Dudley Miles ( talk) 23:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Dank has pointed out at peer review that the article is inconsistent in the number format used, e.g. eighth or 8th. This is because I prefer to spell out, but another editor changed some instances to the numeric format. WP:CENTURY says that either is acceptable but articles should be consistent in which one they use. I will therefore change all to spell out (e.g. as eighth) unless other editors object. Dudley Miles ( talk) 15:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sarastro1 ( talk · contribs) 20:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This is looking good at first glance. As it is quite long, it may take a little while to get through it all. Rather than list everything, I will do minor copyedits myself, but feel free to revert anything that I mess up, or that you are not happy with. Also, I assume this article is headed towards FA. I'll keep that in mind, so if I post anything which does not relate to the GA criteria which you are not happy with, please let me know. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Lead
Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Primary sources
Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
More to come. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Early life:
Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
More to come. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The struggle for power:
Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
King of the English
The invasion of Scotland
Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The Battle of Brunanburh
Administration:
Sarastro1 ( talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Law:
I'm hoping to finish by the end of the week now. Generally, this is looking good, and the Kingship section so far is excellent. Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Coinage:
Sarastro1 ( talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Learning:
Sarastro1 ( talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
British monarch:
European relations:
Revised
Legacy:
General:
I'm pretty much finished now, so I'll place this article on hold for now. I don't think it needs much more, and should pass easily. Sarastro1 ( talk) 18:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The article currently states: "According to William of Malmesbury, after the Hereford meeting Æthelstan went on to expel the Cornish from Exeter, fortify its walls, and fix the Cornish boundary at the River Tamar. This account is regarded sceptically by historians, however, as Cornwall had been under English rule since the mid-ninth century. Thomas Charles-Edwards describes it as "an improbable story", while historian John Reuben Davies sees it as the suppression of a British revolt and the confinement of the Cornish beyond the Tamar. Æthelstan emphasised his control by establishing a new Cornish see and appointing its first bishop, but Cornwall kept its own culture and language.[49]"
there are several things that go against this criticism:
The Annales Cambriae record that in 875AD, King Dungarth of Cerniu (Cornwall) was drowned.
Asser in his life of Alfred, written in 893, lists Cornwall alongside Wessex and other recognised kingdoms that existed at the time:
John of Worcester in his Chronicon ex chronicis tells us that in the year 915 the Vikings "sailing round the coast of Wessex and Cornwall at length entered the mouth of the river Severn."
Historian Michael Wood (In Search of England: Journeys Into the English Past, 2001) supports Malmsbury and backs it up with archaeological evidence from Exeter.
All in all it's fine to include criticism but the statement "Cornwall had been under English rule since the mid-ninth century" is plainly wrong. Plus there are historians who back Malmesbury's account. Bodrugan ( talk) 13:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The claim that "Æthelstan is regarded as the first King of England" seems to require qualification. While some modern historians take this view, there is a more nuanced discussion at List of English monarchs, which effectively gives this title to Alfred the Great. And I hope I need hardly say that, historically, nobody took this view. John M Baker ( talk) 01:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Did someone take a poll?
How do you know what the majority of historians regard him as?
I removed the statement, due to lack of supporting statements or citations within the body of the article. See WP:VER. See also WP:WEASEL.
Then why include historians in the statement at all? As long as the references support it as a fact, why not put "He was the first king of England"? Is it likely that he wasn't? The Transhumanist 00:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears certain that Æthelstan's kingdom included what was the Viking kingdom of York before and after him, and that the Viking ruler before him was Gofraid ua Ímair. There is uncertainty over whether the Viking ruler after him was Olaf Guthfrithson or Amlaíb Cuarán - see Æthelstan#cite_ref-144 note k. I therefore suggest altering the succession box to read
Alekksandr ( talk) 19:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
User:John M Baker you reverted my deletion of the Brooke citation. You have dated the source 1972 but Worldcat at [4] shows 3rd edition 2001. Do you have a 1972 copy and can you confirm that pages 119-24 are correct for the citation in your copy? (It seems a large page range for such a simple statement.) If so, can you add the edition number and isbn shown in your copy of the book to the bibliography. Thanks. Dudley Miles ( talk) 07:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure it should be sourced, but I see sources. I don't source from my iPad though. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I would like to expand the statement in the introduction that “Aethelstan never married and had no children” with some further information taken from Sarah Foot´s biography (pages 57-59), but this article is so well written that I am loath to spoil it. I thought something along the lines of:
If this is added (preferably rewritten in a more elegant style), where should it go – under “Reign”, or under a new header?
Arthurs Grandchild ( talk) 21:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
A fair chunk of content on Æthelstan in this BBC program not sure how much of that can be used as a source, but probably worth looking at EdwardLane ( talk) 20:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The article references "Vikings"; however, was an occupation, a form of raiding or piracy. The people who invaded England were the Danes, and they established Danelaw and tried to form Daneland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.20.51 ( talk) 16:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
One wonders how correcting an obvious misspelling and adding a missing link counts as a bad edit, so I have restored both the spelling and the link. Celia Homeford ( talk) 11:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I added this date to the box as this was the day that Deheubarth, Alba and Strathclyde submitted to Æthelstan and England was unified and founded. Faren29 ( talk) 21:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Athelstan (cropped).jpg --> File:Aethelstan.png
While I like the current image of the infobox. I don't feel the image suited well for the infobox. So, my purposed is that make the current image move to different section while the File:Aethelstan.png be the new image. SpartanMazda ( talk) 01:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it fair to state that It is the oldest surviving portrait of an English king whilst the source states The picture is the earliest portrait of an English king wearing a crown? - Neptuunium ( talk) 10:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)