Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Edington/archive2

Battle of Edington

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to turn this to FA. Any constructive feedback is welcome.

Thanks, Thelifeofan413 (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

The referencing is very far from FAC standard. It has a mixture of sfn and non-sfn styles but you should use one style consistently. There are a variety of different sources used by various editors of inconsistent quality.

The standard source on Asser is Keynes and Lapidge, which is sometimes used, but is sometimes cited as Asser and sometimes as Keynes/Lapidge. It should always be cited as Keynes and Lapidge. All citations and quotes from Asser should cite this book.

The best editions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are those of Swanton and of Whitelock and one of those should always be used.

Nineteneth century speculation on the location is not significant for this article, although it would be for a separate article on that subject.

You should not use popular books such as that by Horspool, especially as there is such a vast literature by academic historians.

The article needs a thorough rewrite but you have only done a little light editing. I suggest that you withdraw this PR and thoroughly work through this article, removing all non-academic sources. You will also need to remove sources you cannot get access to and check, as they may have been added by an editor who did not check them properly. If you live in the UK, you should be able to get almost any source by inter-library loan from your local public library.

These are of course my personal views and other editors may disagree with some of them. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I have finished most of your comments.Thelifeofan413 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

There are still many errors in the citations and sources. For example, several sources listed are not used and Keynes and Lapidge is listed twice, neither correctly. It can be listed as * {{cite book|editor-first=Simon|editor-last=Keynes |editor2-first=Michael |editor2-last=Lapidge |title=Alfred the Great: Asser's Life of King Alfred & Other Contemporary Sources |publisher=Penguin Classics |location=London, UK|year=1983|isbn=978-0-14-044409-4}}

There are two common reference formats. One is used in the article, e.g. <ref>Sawyer, Illustrated History of Vikings, p. 52</ref>. This is preferred by some first class editors. Personally, I prefer the sfn format (seeTemplate:Sfn) as it highlights referencing mistakes and makes it easier for readers to find sources. Sawyer would then be cited as {{sfn|Sawyer|2001|p=52}}. Keynes and Lapidge would be {{sfn|Keynes|Lapidge|1983|pp=176-177 and 323 n.90}}. If you use sfn, you need to install the HarvErrors script User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors in User:Thelifeofan413/common.js in order to be alerted to errors. See User:Dudley Miles/common.js for an example of a common.js page If you want further advice on this please advise. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I put the 1st example into the article. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you think this article is ready for WP:GAN, and if not, are there anything extra I have to do. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I have only looked at the sourcing so far, and this is still very unsatisfactory. The bibliography lists several excessively dated sources, some of which are not used. You need to weed them out. The Domesday Book is cited as a sole source, which is not allowed as it is original research. There are several editions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle listed. There should only be one, Swanton, and it should only be cited in conjunction with secondary sources, not as a sole source. If you install the harv script I mention above, you will see that the bibliography is showing many error messages. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the other versions of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. I have added a common.js to my account and am currently working on the article. I am still working on the several excessively dated sources, which I am thinking means outdated references. Also, I do not know to cite the Domesday Book, if not as a single source.

If I have done any mistakes, let me know. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you should delete the Domesday book ref 29 and the statement about Edington which it supports. It is just the entry about Edington, with nothing about the battle. Citing it without the support of a reliable secondary source is original research, which is not allowed.

A similar objection applies to ref 7, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Citing it on its own is original research, and in addition no edition or page number is shown. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I removed all the other references of the other Anglo Saxon Chronicles, and Swanton has already been labelled. I don’t know how to label it then. I need advice on how to cite it.Thelifeofan413 (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I have corrected the Swanton source and put it in its correct alphabetical place. I have also changed ref 19 which cites Swanton to Template:Sfn, which is the method I use, although of course you do not need to use it. You also need to add a secondary source to ref 19 as you should not rely only on a primary one such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

As I wrote above, you can get books through your local library if you live in Britain. Some good sources are Abels, Richard, Lordship and Military Obligation in Anglo-Saxon England, 1988; Abels, Richard, Alfred the Great, 1998; Huscroft, Richard, Making England, 796-1042, 2019; Keynes, Simon & Lapidge, Michael eds, Alfred the Great, 1983; Lavelle, Ryan, Alfred's Wars: Sources and Interpretations of Warfare in the Viking Age, 2010; Naismith, Rory, Early Medieval Britain, c.500-1000, 2021; Swanton, Michael ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, revised ed., 2000. Of course, you do not need to use all of these books, just some of them. You do need to have copies of all the books cited in the article so that you an check that the citations are correct, so you should delete any you cannot get hold of .Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Are there anything else I have to do? I am going to start working on sources, turning them into harvard citations. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

There are almost certainly other things you need to do. I have only looked at the sources so far. I think it is easier to take a bit at a time. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I have turned many of the citations into sfn style, to ask of you to review on my edits, and what to do differently. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I have seen your previous comment on the ref 7, the source was a collection of the other versions of the Chronicle in favour of Swanton. I then do not know how to cite it not overusing the reference. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

With regard to ref 7, do you have access to Swanton? If so you can replace each ref with the correct page in Swanton. But as I wrote above, you should not only cite the AS Chronicle as a source, as that is original research, but also find a secondary source confirming the point. You also need to check the other refs. E.g ref 2 is dead, refs 18, 21 and 26 should be sfn, refs 24 and 27 are to Asser and should use the Keynes and Lapidge edition, ref 30 should use Swanton. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not have the book. If you have the book, may you fill the information?

Other than that, I am going to start to edit. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be better if you got copies of both books. They are available from online booksellers for around £5 plus postage, or you can order on inter-library loan through your local library if you live in the UK. You need the revised edition of Swanton dated 2000 or later. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand and will try to get the book. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I got the information necessary from WP:RX and now will begin working. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there anything else I have to do before submitting to WP:GA. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I am a current coordinator for Wikiproject Military History. I have reviewed the article. User:Dudley Miles has commented that there is more work that needs to be done on this. I agree.

This article actually needs more work to get it to B class. While a B class rating was noted recently on the assessment request page by a well experience user, the rating was not changed from C. It should not be until further editing is done on the citations and at least a few other improvements are made. That would be primarily, if not only, because some citations are not in proper form, being imbedded in links and not referenced by number - which could also affect the b3 criterion assessment on structure. On the other hand, shortcomings in the article seem to be mostly matters of form or capable of ready improvement. The article appears to have enough detail and has a large number of references. Some of them have not been cited, however, and should only be in a Further Reading section; both references (sources) and further reading sections should be in alphabetical order by author.

I don't want this comment to be interpreted as negative because good work has been done and the article is close to B class in many respects and may have potential for higher assessments once that level is reached. A good, comprehensive article is often very close to GA, if not there already. This article is no danger of being deleted. So there is no rush or deadline to make improvements.

I have limited time for the next week or two and some other tasks to do for the project. I think I will have some more detailed remarks to make as soon as I can. In the meantime, others who have commented or may notice the request for peer review may step forward with additional suggestions that you can work on and which might cover others I might make. Donner60 (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I added a Further Reading section. Although you are busy, I would ask for a review on my additions. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

They are mostly very outdated. The exception is the Sawyer charters, but that is an original source and many charters are fraudulent. I would delete the section. There are still several unused books in the list of sources and they should be deleted. I have corrected the ref for Stevenson's edition of Asser, and I noticed that ref 23, Keynes and Lapidge p. 84, does not support the text. You will need to check all the refs, and delete any sources you cannot check. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand and will start to remove. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

How is the article currently and what changes do I have to do. I am wondering if I should add more original prose. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to get the basics right before adding to the article. There are still several unreferenced statements, and all should be referenced, apart from the lead. Ref 29 is not formatted correctly. Several statements are solely supported by primary sources - eg refs 34, 35, 36, 45. This is original research, which is not allowed. Bennett, Huscroft and Naismith are listed in the bibliography but not used. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

How should I reform ref 29 correctly. I will start on all your other points. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The same as the other Keynes and Lapidge refs. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you show all the sentences that need references. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

You have to check this yourself. If a paragraph has no citation at the end, then all text after the last citation is uncited. You need to check the citations for all text to confirm that it is supported by citations. If statements are supported by citations you do not have access to, then you need to either find a source or delete the statement. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

How does this look now with updated references? Thelifeofan413 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I have done all of your points. What should I do next? Thelifeofan413 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

1. You need to check the order of the sources. Some are not in alphabetical order. 2. At least one ref, Battle of Ethandun, is a bad link and should be deleted. You need to check all the links. 3. Most of the text is referenced, but a few paragraphs do not have a ref at the end and need a ref. 4. I do not think the lead image, the stone, is suitable. The label says that it is at Bratton Castle, but there is no explanation how this location is connected to the battle. I suggest you look in Alfred the Great for suitable images.

I have deleted further reading as they are all too dated or original sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)