« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s):Thelifeofan413 (talk)

Battle of Edington (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I want to promote the article to Featured status. I am ready for any changes and any adjustments.Thelifeofan413 (talk)12:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 47 Electronic Sawyer is unsatisfactory. It goes to an online record of Alfred's will, but the ref covers 3 citations and only the first relates to Alfred's will. You cite the will in Keynes and Lapidge for the first sentence, so why not the second? You will need reliable sources for the other two citations in ref 47.
• You should also cite Keynes and Lapidge for the treaty ref 62.
• Ref 48 cites a record of a primary source. The whole paragraph needs citing to a reliable secondary source(s).
• Ref 67. Project Gutenberg has an outdated 19C translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. There are up to date translations of the relevant years in Keynes and Lapidge and in Swanton, both of which you cite.
• In the sources you should supply full details of the Bennett article, journal name and number etc.
• Burkitt is not a reliable source.Dudley Miles (talk)15:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment@Thelifeofan413: can you please respond to these comments.Nick-D (talk)05:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have finished these. What else do I need to do?Thelifeofan413 (talk)17:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing more with these comments, as long as@Dudley Miles: considers their comments to be addressed. Please note that it's good practice to follow up on comments promptly wherever possible.Nick-D (talk)21:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• I may not have made myself clear about Electronic Sawyer. It is the authoritative source for charters. I was not objecting to you citing it but to referencing the wrong document. Ref 46 (in the version I commented on) is for Alfred's will in Keynes and Lapidge, which is OK. You then mention a later meeting and again (wrongly) cite Alfred's will for it, this time in the Electronic Sawyer. You have now deleted this ref and replaced it with 19C Birch and Sawyer's original 1968 book which is the basis of the Electronic Sawyer. These are both out of date and I cannot check them as I do not have them. You should cite a modern academic reliable source for the charter (and maybe the correct charter in the Electronic Sawyer, although this is not necessary).
• If you want to cite a charter you should cite the Electronic Sawyer, not his 1968 book which is now out of date. I cite it as (of course you do not have to stick strictly to this but you should show the charter number):
• "Charter S 905".The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters. London: King's College London.
• Sawyer was the editor not the author ofThe Illustrated History of the Vikings. You need to show the author and chapter when you cite the book.
• Smyth was a controversial historian who denied that Asser was the real author of the life of Alfred the Great. Few if any historians now accept his claims. His 1995 book needs to be used with care and there is no reason to use his 2002 translation, which is never cited by academic historians so far as I know.Dudley Miles (talk)11:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]