Jump to content

Talk:Ælfhelm of York/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting review. SilkTork *YES! 15:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  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. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

This is a reasonably new article, having been created on 23rd March, so stability is not easy to judge, but it hasn't attracted any problems so far, and one would assume it should be OK in future.

Prose is clear, though inclined to be rather terse and sometimes a bit choppy. Example: "The Old English will of his brother Wulfric Spot, contains many of the details we know about Ælfhelm. For instance, it gives the names of Ælfhelm's two sons, Wulfheah and Ufegeat. It dates to 1002 x 1004, and survives in a 12th century manuscript parchment." Be good to see more flow, and attempt to engage the interest of the reader.

There are no images - which is understandable given the subject matter. There is no requirement to have images, though they can illuminate a text and make it more attractive. Have avenues been reasonably explored, and plausible images, such as that of Ælfhelm's brother - Wulfric Spot, been considered?

The article is fairly short. Short articles are acceptable and encouraged for GA. However, readers do consider if a short article is reasonably complete and broad enough in coverage to give enough information. I am aware that the article does say that there is little information available on the topic, though the GA requirement is that an article should address the main aspects of the topic, not that the article should present the main aspects that could be found after a reasonable amount of research. This is more of a talking point than a objection at the moment.

Article is neutral.

The cites are mainly to offline sources which might prove difficult to check out. I've just ordered the Richard Fletcher from Amazon. I'd be interested in recommendations for what other books are worth consulting.

Ælfhelm may be a minor character in history, but he appears to hold some significance as grandfather of Harold Harefoot and as father-in-law of Cnut, and his death holds interest! I look forward to learning more about him. SilkTork *YES! 19:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're not gonna find much on this guy in any book, though Fletcher's can be read as an interesting if in parts highly dubious narrative of the region in the period. Kapelle's book is worth reading too. Probably best to read is the Baxter Mercia book (which I haven't read yet, but has looked more up-to-date and more solid whenever I've consulted it). Williams I've just btw got my hands on Keynes' Diplomas of Æthelred the Unready, which may allow me to adjust a few points in this article (we'll see). Another I've not read, Ann Williams' Æthelred the Unready, might be worth getting too, though won't say anything on Ælfhelm. Anyways, is what you are seeking just a copy-edit here? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I now have the book, though haven't had a chance to look at it yet. I have noticed however that Fletcher makes Ælfhelm ealdorman of Deira - or is this a different Ælfhelm? Or are you conflating Deira with York? Thanks for the tips on the other books. SilkTork *YES! 07:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Deira" is an early Anglo-British term for the area around York. Fletcher, who is not a specialist in the topic, is using anachronistic terminology. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, but yes, Fletcher's not an expert on the subject. When he conflicts with others, he needs to be used with caution. (He's not a bad historian, just not a subject matter expert). Williams' Aethelred the Unready is pretty decent. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a new book on Cnut, by Timothy Bolton. It's a reworked Phd thesis, and in parts looks like that. I've just finished reading it. Pretty decent on some stuff. Sadly, for this topic, it relies entirely on the Whitelock article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have Lawson's Cnut: England's Viking King which is pretty decent, it's another of the Stroud monarchs works. On page 46 Lawson says "Aelfhelm, ealdorman of Nothumbria, was from a Mercian family, and Wulfheah and Ufegeat were probably his sons, while Wulfgeat may have been their associate." (Lawson has just discussed the ASC entry on Aelfhelm's death.) Further on the same page: "...but it was in 1007 that Eadric received his ealdormanry and John says that it was Eadric (Streona) who had Aelfhelm and the king who blinded his sons. this certainly looks like the "exposed tip of an iceberg" (sourced to Keynes, Diplomas p. 213) in which the king connived at the removal of Aelfhelm and his associates to please Eadric who was thereafter a major influence on the reign." Further, Lawson on page 51 "Cnut at an early stage took as his consort Aelfgifu of Northampton, daughter of the ealdorman Aelfhelm murdered in 1006. This is very likely to signify an alliance with her family, and nothing illustrates better how discontent among the English provided political opportunities for the Scandivanians." That's the sum total of worthwhile notices of Aelfhelm in Lawson. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I should have saved you the trouble by informing that I already had this book. Yes, the bulk of these books contain little and much of it is rambling speculation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the layman, such as me, I feel there could be a little more explanation early on to put things in context. The "York" of the title appears to refer to Yorkshire than than the town of York. And Northumbria needs a few words of explanation. At what point did Ælfhelm become known as Ælfhelm of York rather than Ælfhelm of Northumbria, by which name he also appears to have been known: [1]? Also Ælfhelm of Deira. Bringing these alternative titles into the article and explaining them would be useful. Also be useful to create redirects of those titles in case anyone does a search on them, finds no article, and starts one.

Ealdorman of York redirects to Earl of York, the content of which is not helpful to an understand of the Ælfhelm of York article.

How does Ælfhelm fit into the history of Jórvík - or was that over by the time Ælfhelm was in charge? SilkTork *YES! 07:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Prose is good, though I feel these do not always convey enough meaning for a clear understanding. Some unfamiliar terms would benefit from explanation for a general audience - "Mercian" and "thegn". Though there are wikilinks, these are useful for a deeper understanding, rather than the quick, simple explanation. In places this is done - dux ("ealdorman") - for example. The lead would benefit from reorganisation as the second sentence takes us into his history before his position and notability has been firmly established. The last sentence could well become the second, while some detail from the first sentence of Origins has a place at the start of the Lead.

Appears to be Factually accurate with sources, though there are questions such as the use of the term Ælfhelm of York which are not fully explained. Some questions arise when reading which leads into the question of Broad coverage. I feel this could do with some fleshing out to assist the reader with understanding as much as possible about Ælfhelm.

Stable. And I see no obvious reason why this should become a battlefield.

Images are attractive and useful, so if any can be found that would be good. A map of southern Northumbria would be helpful. Thored, which Deacon of Pndapetzim also worked on, contains three images, which assists in bringing the material to life.

I may have some more comments later. SilkTork *YES! 07:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will work on this. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to that. I'll put this on hold until the end of June to allow time for the issues above to be addressed. I have the article on my watchlist so I can track progress. SilkTork *YES! 11:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it for you now? PS, I kinda forgot about this, partly because you gave such a large time-limit and so I de-prioritised it! :/ Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The changes are moving this in the right direction. However, I think that lack of activity for a month combined with a minimal effort at development will incline me to close as not meeting the criteria. I'll cast my eye over it again and give my final verdict shortly. SilkTork *YES! 18:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's little way to expand the article, it's already more comprehensive than anything else. I forgot about this article, but really you didn't suggest much concrete improvement nor why its "issues" make it fail GA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in here, but I just noticed Silk's google search for mentioned above. The first site is from Britannia.com, never a very reliable source. The second site is an Society for Creative Anachronism wiki. The third is marginally useful, possibly. The fourth is a genealogy site. The fifth is another SCA bit, this time from a newsgroup. The sixth is a german timeline and the seventh I got a "could not connect" error. More useful is a Google Scholar search, which shows no mentions of "Ælfhelm of Northumbria". As for Ælfhelm of Deira, the second Google Search, there is one site returned, and this is from the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. While I have great respect for them, they are sometimes a bit inconsistent in how they name things. A more relevant search is Google Scholar, which shows no matches for Ælfhelm of Deira. I have to share Deacon's puzzlement also, I'm not sure what improvements have been asked for? Jorvik was over by the time Ælfhelm was mature, so that's a non-issue. As for the Ealdorman of York redirecting to Earl of York, that's about right, Ealdorman is (roughly) an earl. More correctly, a precursor, but indeed, that is the correct redirect. Surely you're not asking that the Earl of York article be rewritten in order for this article to attain GA status? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ealdormen are really hard to work out because secondary sources don't cover them very well. You need to consult seriously obscure works, such as papers in old or minor journals and unpublished Phd theses to workout a line of earldormen even for places like Mercia. Ealdorman of York redirects to Earl of York just now, but as Earl of Northumbria and Northumberland are different articles, I suppose there's an argument for a separate Ealdorman article or redirect to a developed Earl of Northumbria article (the plan I currently have). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how this is one of the two oldest GANs the oldest GAN left, I trust these issues will be worked out soon. (imo, a 10th-11th century guy with a 16kb article is certainly not short) Wizardman 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as withdrawn

[edit]

My comments above have not been satisfactorily addressed, and the attention paid to the article has been scant and patchy (6 edits in total since the GA review started, and the first of those over a month after the review). My feeling is that the uncertainties regarding the correct naming of Ælfhelm have not been approached in the article. I am pleased to see that some improvements have been made to provide explanations for the general reader, though there is still some way to go. There is not a lot on Ælfhelm himself in the article - a considerable amount of space for such a short article is given over to other people - so I would still like to see more information. Despite these observations I feel that the article could be improved to GA level with some thought and guidance. I had hoped to be able to provide that, but impetus and motivation has evaporated in the two months since taking this on - and I have to admit that Fletcher's book lies covered in other papers on my desk. Rather than fail this, I feel the more appropriate thing would be for me to withdraw and allow someone else to come in and provide the guidance needed. SilkTork *YES! 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ælfhelm_of_York/GA1&oldid=1091485981"