Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 24, 2016

Espresso Addict, this one went through WP:TFAR but you might have a look. I generally have edits to make after TFAR. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've lengthened it quite a bit (now just under 1150 characters). There's a bit of a problem with highlighting the date of the beginning of his reign like that. The article is contradictory over whether 560 is his approximate date of birth or accession. I wonder if the lead has been edited recently? Perhaps the article's original authors or another expert could look it over? It might be best to rephrase to say something like he reigned for at least twenty-five years until his death on 24 February 616. (Also note, Æthelburh may not be Bertha's daughter.) Espresso Addict (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The promoted article's lead (2007) stated he was king "from about 580 or 590 until his death". [1] Espresso Addict (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging User:Mike Christie. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Dan; I'll try to look this evening. Pinging Dudley as well in case he has time to take a look; he didn't work on this particular article but he's an expert on the period. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not expert on this early Anglo-Saxon period but I will take a look. A couple of quick comments. I would avoid the word 'canonised' as it is disputed whether this applies to people who lived before the age of formal canonisation. See for example [2]. I would prefer "regarded as a saint". Also, there is a 'citation needed' at the end of the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dudley. I've made the change Dudley suggests to the article lead, and have also copyedited it; other than Dudley's suggestion the only changes that have an effect on the TFAR text are the removal of the mention of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches with respect to his canonization, which is anachronistic; the removal of the mention of Canterbury Cathedral and St. Augustine's Abbey, which is not mentioned in the body of the article; and the mention of the canonization of Bertha and their daughter, which seems to me unnecessary in the lead (and which, in the case of the daughter, is unsourced). I'm not sure of the protocol here so I'll leave one of the TFAR coordinators to make the change to the text. I'm going to go through the rest of the article and do more cleanup as needed over the next day or so, but that should be it for the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. Did you have any thoughts on my original query with regard to his date he started to reign? Unless I'm misreading something, the current dates are conflicting between the info box (590) & the lead (558 or 560); 558 would appear to have him reigning from the age of –2! Espresso Addict (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that; sorry -- I was focusing on the textual changes since the original lead, so I should have caught it anyway, but somehow I skipped it. Anyway, you're quite right. The date of his accession is really quite uncertain, but the article quotes arguments that make it plausibly the end of the 580s. I've changed the article lead to "about 589", but I could see other approaches being taken. Something like "was King of Kent. The date of the start of his reign is quite uncertain, but was probably around 589 or 590" or "may have been around 589 or 590". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the changes outlined above, and have also now gone through the article and done some clean up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consistently great work, Espresso. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. I have some doubts about the balance of the blurb. Æthelberht is chiefly known as the king who presided over the introduction of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England. The Blackwell article on him starts by saying that he was the first Anglo-Saxon ruler to convert, and the DNB article on him says that the arrival of missionaries in 597 was the most important episode in his reign. In the blurb, it is just listed as one of the things which happened in his reign. Any thoughts on this MIke?
2. The coverage of coinage needs looking at. The lead and the blurb say coins began to circulate in Kent for the first time in his reign. The main text says may have begun to circulate. Yorke says the first Kentish coins were probably struck in the late 6th century, which could precede Æthelberht. Blackburn on coinage in the Blackwell Encyclopedia says that Continental gold coins began to circulate towards the end of the sixth century, but does not mention Kent. No historian so far as I can discover mentions Æthelberht in relation to coinage. How about Grierson and Blackburn Mike? The statement that the gold coins minted in England were probably the shillings mentioned in Æthelberht’s laws is cited to Yorke p. 40, but it is not in the source. Blackburn makes a similar statement about law codes generally but does not mention Æthelberht. it is arguable that the main text is a fair deduction from the sources, but in my view it goes a bit too far in deducing. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dudley; thanks for the comments. I'll take a look this evening. Without checking, the Yorke cite might be due to different pagination in our editions -- I know I've run into that once or twice before. More tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks everyone. On the balance issue, broadly half the blurb is devoted to his conversion and its effects; it depends whether one considers the first or last part the most significant -- one could easily argue for either, but Dank likes to reduce repetition (and I agree). I'll add "may have" to the bit on coins for now. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with the "may have"; Dudley is right that that reflects the body of the article more accurately. I've added "probably" to the article lead. Dudley's also right that about the unsourced sentence; I've cited it to Blackburn & Grierson, who clearly seem to believe that the coinage started during Æthelberht's reign. I think we can leave the wording as it is, though; although it is a specialized source, it's just the one source, and they don't actually say "coinage began during his reign"; they just talk about the laws referring to shillings, and what the shillings must have been.
    As for the Augustinian mission, I don't feel strongly about it -- I agree it was the most memorable event of his reign, but it does get a substantial part of the blurb, and the laws and his inclusion in the list of bretwaldas are quite notable too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]