Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelred the Unready/archive1: Difference between revisions

Æthelred the Unready (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 8 December 2025, 10:31 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of later Anglo-Saxon kings, and the largest in terms of sources, with three academic biographies published in the twenty-first century. Æthelred the Unready is not a highly regarded king, as his nickname implies, and his reign ended in catastrophe with the country on the verge of Danish conquest. but historians have partly rehabilitated his reputation over the past fifty years. Pinging Tim riley. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave this an exhaustive going-over at peer review and am happy to support its promotion to FA: after a final rereading it seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 22:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dudley Miles, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

The images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions. Except for Aethelred charter 1003.jpg, all have alt-text, so I suggest adding an alt-text to this one as well. Some caption nitpicks:

• The obverse has the Lamb of God and the reverse the Holy Spirit shown as a dove add a period since it is a full sentence
• Drawing of the tombs of Kings Sæbbi of Essex and Æthelred in Old St Paul’s Cathedral by Wenceslaus Hollar. remove the period since it is not a full sentence

Phlsph7 (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ping.

The images have captions and alt-texts.

• tenth-century Boswoth Psalter, I think it should be “Bosworth”

• The images of the Ramsey Psalter and the Bosworth Psaler are each placed right at the end of a section, which is an odd position. It would suggest moving them somewhere to the start or middle of a section, ideally next to the text that is relevant to them. Not sure if their size should be reduced since they are quite big.

• It is one of the few examples of Anglo-Saxon art which can be securely dated to the period of Æthelred’s reign. (There would probably be more images to choose from if the British Library site was fully functional.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Phlsph7.

  One problem I see with the three new images is that they may not be relevant enough to justify inclusion. According to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, images should serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject. Merely being from the same period is probably not enough. The article already has several relevant images, so unless there is a connection that I’m missing, it might be better to remove those three again. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “and the Danish Viking conquest of England” Link it at first mention in the article body?

There is an article called Cnut’s invasion of England. Danish conquest of England would be a better name in my opinion, but that’s another subject. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that fits the bill, it should be definitely linked, and yeah, perhaps have its title changed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Viking itself at first mention outside the outro. It looks like maybe the background section was at some point moved down, hence many links are not at first mention?

• Link Devon at first mention?

• Irish Sea should also be linked at first mention instead of further down as it is now.

• Any images of relevant places or objects to show?

• Norman conquest, Old English, and Battle of Assandun are duplinked. This script can help highlight duplinks:[1]

• “the contemporary ASC A as well as ASC C” is the second one also contemporary? The “as well as” makes it ambiguous. If not, I’d state it explicitly that it isn’t, or just say “and”.

• “which led to his being called “Æthelred the Unready”” but through this, did the general perception/knowledge of what his name meant also change/was lost to time, or was there an awareness of the original meaning? “Unready” has quite a different meaning…

• “The medievalist Cyril Hart” you introduce this researcher by occupation, but not many others mentioned. Any reason for the inconsistency?

• “but most historians think that his mother Æthelflæd was a wife of Edgar.[36] She was the first of Edgar’s three consorts” any article to link to that goes into this sort of polygamy? Does not seem like a very Christian practice.

It seemed ambiguous when I read it, as there is no indication one replaced the other. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not seem ambiguous to me, but how about replacing “She was the first of Edgar’s three consorts, and by the second one, Wulfthryth, he had a daughter Edith” with “She was the first of Edgar’s three consorts, and and she was followed by Wulfthryth, by whom he had a daughter Edith”? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any elaboration is good. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “was only thirty-two when died” missing “he”, I assume?

• “The nobility seized the opportunity given by Edgar’s removal” earlier you say he died unexpectedly, but this makes it seem like it was an action?

• “Æthelred’s father, King Edgar, was only thirty-two when died in July 975, and his death was probably unexpected.” Do we have any more details about the circumstances? Coupled with the sentence above, seems confusing.

• ” and the attacks on the monasteries were halted” What attacks?

• “and she probably brought up other sons before her death” clarify if grandsons are meant here?

• “In Charter S 876 of 993 (see right)” I’m pretty sure such self-references are discouraged as, depending on what app Wikipedia is viewed from, it’s not necessarily certain that an image is even placed where you state it is. For example, some web viewers show images always centred.

• “and Norse (Norwegian) Vikings” Why is “Norse” even needed here? Norwegian Vikings are Norse by default.

• “Æthelred in a mid-thirteenth century life of Edward the Confessor” what does “a” refer to? A copy? An edition?

• This is how it is described in the file description. Unfortunately, the source is the British Library and the link is down due to the cyber attack. Other sources describe it as a genealogical roll. As I wrote above, I have consulted Johnbod on the images. I will add more in a few days when I receive a book he cited and it will probably be best to delete this image, particularly as the lead one is similar. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MS Royal 14 B VI is indeed a genealogical roll, not a life of Edward the Confessor. It has been reuploaded since the cyberattack and can be found here (Æthelred’s portrait appears at the top of the fifth picture). – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think images that show different interpretations are interesting for the reader, so one image isn’t taken for granted as the “true” appearance, and since it simply breaks up the text for the reader, making it easier on the eyes to parse and read. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “where Æthelred died on 23 April 1016” I assume from his sickness, but are there any more details? Seems a bit like an unceremonious aside considering its the subject of the article.

• “Drawing of the tombs of Kings Sæbbi” give an approximate date in caption?

• “At the beginning of the eleventh century, a number of monks” Anglo-Saxon? Where they sent by the king? Could be good to specify, even if it may seem obvious, as this paragraph currently seems kind of detached from the surrounding text.

• “The tomb (portrayed right)” same self-reference location issue as earlier.

• “after Eadric and his men fled the field”

• I’m surprised to see such lengthy quotes at the end of the article, as that’s usually discouraged, but since no one else seems to have objected, I guess it’s ok.

• The Reputation section could perhaps benefit from having specific years listed in-text for the various publications mentioned/quoted, a bit hard to follow the chronology now.

• I have added the dates of the biographies, but in general I think too many dates could be confusing. The basic change in outlook was in the 1970s. After that, saying that a historian wrote one thing in 1986 and another in 2011 may imply a change of mind, whereas it was just when they were writing about different aspects of Æthelred’s career. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will pop in here, probably after FM finishes above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Æthelred came to the throne after the assassination of his older half-brother, King Edward the Martyr, a crime which deeply shocked people. : we’re in the primest of real estate here in the first paragraph of the lead — is this the best use of it? I can’t imagine that the murder of a king would attract any other reaction, and we don’t seem to go anywhere with how this shock was important for Aethelred’s life.

• How about expanding and rearranging for clarity as: “The epithet “Unready” is a pun on Æthelred’s name in Old English, Æthel (noble) and ræd (counsel). He came to the throne after the assassination of his older half-brother, King Edward the Martyr, and as the beneificiary of a crime which deeply shocked people, Æthelred may have started his reign in a weak position.” Dudley Miles (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s much better, and closer to what we have in the body. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor raids in the 980s escalated to large scale attacks from the 990s, and as the English were rarely victorious in battle the king and his advisers resorted to giving the Vikings tribute to leave England, payments which are often (incorrectly) called Danegeld: a long and slightly rambling sentence. Suggest a full stop after “990s”.

• With my linguist hat on: I’m not sure something can be “incorrectly” called Danegeld if that’s what most people call it. However, that name might be anachronistic, which isn’t quite the same thing.

• they were hampered by suspicion between them, Eadric’s treachery and Æthelred’s poor health: as the list items are reasonably complex, this would be a good candidate for an oxford comma, or else “by Aethelred’s…”.

• Cnut returned soon afterwards and Edmund and Æthelred tried to unite against him, but they were hampered by suspicion between them, Eadric’s treachery and Æthelred’s poor health. He died in April 1016 and Edmund carried on the war until he died in December 1016 and Cnut became king of all England.. I think this bolded “He” needs to be “Aethelred” for clarity.

• Failure in war continued, and in 1002 he ordered the St Brice’s Day massacre of Danes, which is seen by historians as a sign of his increasing paranoia, which culminated in the rise of Eadric Streona in about 1009.; another good candidate for a split: a relative clause on top of a relative clause is always going to be a bit unwieldy.

• in the later Middle Ages he acquired his epithet “the Unready”. this slightly contradicts the body (at least by omission): there, we said that he had “Unraed” by the early C13th, and “Unready” was an eggcorn from that.

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• But skaldic poetry has been less influential in forming Æthelred’s reputation. – Awkward to start a sentence with “But”, suggest “However, “

• a Viking king, but he recovered it when they expelled King Erik Bloodaxe – Is Bloodaxe this Viking king, or is it a different one?

• Replaced with “accepted a Viking king, but he recovered it when they expelled the last one, Erik Bloodaxe“. OK?

• Eadwig had appointed Ælfhere to be ealdorman of Mercia, and he –who is “he”, Eadwig or Ælfhere?

• Ealdormen were the second rank of the lay aristocracy below the king. – This explanation comes a bit late, after the term already appeared in the text, and after which the reader would already have clicked on the wikilink to learn what it is.

• opposition to Edward, a youth given to frequent outbursts of rage, was probably opposed – the opposition was opposed?

• These pledges could only have been imposed on Æthelred because his rule was seen as having been both as an unjust ruler and a military failure – a very convoluted sentence, is it possible to word it more simply? Is there one “as” too much?

• Still not convinced about that sentence. It basically says that “his rule” is “an unjust ruler”, which makes no sense. Can’t we put it more plainly, with less words, maybe because he was seen as an unjust ruler who failed militarily or something? —Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Eadric Streona raised an army in the south and Edmund in the north, but Eadric then defected with forty ships and Wessex submitted to Cnut. In December 1015 Edmund raised an army – So Eadric raised two armies? What happened to the first one?

• I read it like this: Eadric raised an army in the south and Edmund raised one in the north. Then, Eadric defected. Then, in December 1015, Edmund raised an army. If there is indeed only one army that Edmund raised, I think that the wording is misleading. —Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what you mean now. I was confused by you saying originally that it was Eadric who raised two armies. Changed to “In December 1015 Edmund raised a new army” to clarify that the old one had dispersed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• taken by meetings of ecclesiastical and lay magnates at meetings of the witan – the meetings took place during the meetings? That’s a bit confusing; I don’t think we lose much by removing the first “meetings”?

• He and his advisers applied the system of frequent recoinages more effectively than it had been in the past, helping to create a system – By applying a system, he helped to create a system?

• was produced much greater quantities – “in” missing?

• It is possible that John of Worcester and Ailred of Rievaulx were referring to different wives – Shouldn’t this come before the list of children, where the wives are discussed?

• I think that discussing the two possible wives before a heading ‘Known children of Æthelred and Ælfgifu’ would be even more confusing. The two wives theory is a bit niche so how about making it a note rather than main text? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• …which are all based on a version… I assume this is a lost version.

• This is ambiguous. The original ‘common stock’ is a lost version as surviving versions differ from it substantially. The source does not spell out the status of the original source of Æthelred’s reign, but I assume that the surviving texts are copies of uncertain reliabilty. I think it is safer to stick to the existing wording. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• …Danish Viking conquest… Do we need both adjectives?

• Historians writing after the Norman Conquest… I would clarify that these are medieval historians.

• But skaldic poetry has been less influential in forming Æthelred’s reputation. Why? (Reliability or lack of knowledge?)

• …King Alfred the Great (871–899)… Æthelstan (reigned 924–939)… Be consequent.

• …he enriched Benedictine monasteries at the expense of lay landowners and secular (non-monastic) religious institutions I am not sure I understand it: did he expropriat laymen’s property to grant it to the Benedictines or he preferred the Benedictines when granting lands?

• The term is not recorded … by Anglo-Norman historians, and is first recorded in the early thirteenth century. Contradiction? Do we know who was the first to use it or in which document was it first used?

• The medievalist Cyril Hart…The historian Barbara Yorke… Scholars mentioned in previous sections are not introduced.

• Scholars are not individually described when they are listed among historians, as when I wrote “Since the 1970s historians have become increasingly sceptical of the reliability of this account” and go on to list historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “Aetheling” is only italicised on its first mention.

• …his namesake… I would delete it.

• After a generation of peace,… I would delete it.

• …one of the most famous… Is this text verified by the cited sources? Is it necessary?

• …the sacred apostle… Consider linking it to Andrew the Apostle to make the text clearer.

• I feel that including the wikilink might be helpful, as there are no apostles mentioned in this section, while a church dedicated to Andrew the Apostle was mentioned earlier. Borsoka (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• …, and Æthelstan, who died two years before his father, left six pounds to “St Edward and Shaftesbury” in his will I would delete this text.

• … Æthelred’s first wife… Who was she?

• The order was probably popular, and there is evidence that it was carried out in Oxford. In 1004 Æthelred renewed the charter of the Oxford church of St Frideswide, which had been burnt down when Danes in the town had taken refuge in it during the massacre. I would consolidate and shorten the two sentences. Borsoka (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• …, after an absence of nearly ten years, most of which he had spent fighting, and finally defeating, Olaf Tryggvason’s challenge to his position in Norway I would delete it as it is partly repetition, partly out of scope.

• …carried through changes at court described by historians as a “palace revolution” Some details? I assume the changes are detailed in the following sentences, but the reference to “court” makes me hesitant.

• They were probably paid by the institution of a new tax called the heregeld (army tax), which was the basis of the post-Conquest tax called Danegeld. Note “d” contains the same information.

• …by her children Why not “their”?

• It offered the stoutest resistance of any area to the Vikings and became his main base during the later stages of the war. Repetition of info mentioned previously.

• …based on dies… I do not understand it. A link?

• The standard of purity of the silver was high… Some quantitive statement?

• Following inconclusive battles at Penselwood in Somerset and Sherston in Wiltshire, Edmund lifted the Danish siege of London and then defeated the Danes at Brentford and Otford. He pursued Cnut into Kent and Eadric Streona defected back to him. I would delete or radically (by at least 75 percent) shorten the text.

• I would radically shorten section “Reputation”, especially taking into account that the article’s size exceeds the ideal 8,000-9,000 words.

• The article does slightly exceed 9000 words, but it is a top importance Anglo-Saxon article. I have made minor cuts to the reputation section, but the rest does seem to me to be worth keeping. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Æthelred probably married his first wife… I would name her (“Æthelred probably married Ælfgifu…”).

• This raises a point which is covered in the ‘Marriages and issue’ section, but which I have not sufficiently emphasised. The evidence that she was called Ælfgifu is weak, and I have edited to clarify this. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]