# Talk:Battle of Edington

Actual Locations.
There is little clear evidence of locations of either the fort to which the danes retreated or of the battle itself.  My problem with the Wiltshire site is that it is over 76Km from Athelney and requires an army to cross tidal marshes and fording several difficult rivers and then to attack up a steep gradient.  Attemts to war game a win in Wiltshire show the possibility  as remote.  Ethandun means a hill or down in an empty place or possible an isolated hill.  This isolated hill has to offer a tactical advantage to Alfred.  The Somerset Levels had many isolated hills at that time from the imposing Brent Knoll with Battleborough at its base to Burtle (so called) Hill that was a dune just 8 foot above high tide. Edington on the poldens is on a ridge of hills  so is only an approximation of an ethandun.  Having written Narrative Verse and NOT History about the campaigns I am well versed in the issues and have come to the conclusion that historians seem not to have got all the details right as yet.  As is said: "more research needed" (for verses google IWVPA Wessex Sagas) 

The Description of this Battle is very poorly done, and to confusing to follow. Other battles and campaigning need not be mentioned when talking about the Battle of Eddington itself.  You digress way off topic and mention things that should be talked about in "Events before the Battle"

Yes, I've created an "Events before the Battle" section. Dzw49 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
"Alfred seems at this time to have ineffectually chased the Danes around Wessex, while the Danes were in a position to do as they pleased. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle attempts to convey the impression that Alfred held the initiative; it is "a bland chronicle which laconically charts the movements of the Danish victors while at the same time disingenuously striving to convey the impression that Alfred was in control",[14] although it fails. Even if Alfred had caught up with the Danish force, it is unlikely that he could have accomplished anything. The fact that his army could not defend the fortified Chippenham, even in "an age... as yet untrained in siege warfare"[14] casts great doubt on its ability to defeat the Danes in an open field, unaided by fortifications. There was little that Alfred could do about the Danish menace between 875 and the end of 877, beyond repeatedly paying the invaders off."

This section seems incredibly slighting and assumptive, and lists only a single source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4404:3400:6600:D891:7994:6157:2233 (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC) 

This edit [1] constitutes almost the entire article and has references to publications that the editor didn't even bother to add.  I'm guessing it's copied from somewhere else.  Without the references and source of this huge edit, I'm afraid it should be removed. --Ronz 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reported to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2007_September_5/Articles --Ronz 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I am not convinced enough that it is a copyvio. Anons also can greatly expand an article. Garion96 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Not a copyvio. I wrote this as a research paper for school and decided it would be useful here, so I added a (suitably trimmed and edited) version. I don't know why I didn't add the works cited list then; I've been meaning to add them since I noticed the omission, perhaps a month or two later, but just somehow never got around to it until now. Golwengaud (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are new arguments - reason to doubt that the battle of Edington was in Wiltshire, but happened in the village of Eddington - on the north :side of the Polden Hills and the Sedgemoor - in Somerset. The hills had a Roman road along them, which linked the town of Ilchester to the :port of Combwich on the river Parrett. In the same year (a few months before in 878), party of Vikings led by Ubbe Ragnarsson, brother of :Ivar the Boneless and Halfdan Ragnarsson, landed on the coast at Combwich with 23 ships and twelve hundred men. They were defeated whilst besieging :the fort of "Cynwit" (Battle of Cannington). They would have retreated to the river, and the Roman fort which stood at the only defensive mound :allong the river, at Bridgwater. Alfred was just 6 miles south at Athelney. Guthrum would have followed Alfred South, using the rivers and the :Bristol Channel. The fortress mentioned after the battle may have been Bridgwater, where the survivors of the battle of Cannington may have :been recovering. Thus not distant Chippenham. Further arguments to support this lie in the fact that a defeated Guthrum was baptised at Aller :(Enmore church, as claimed, did not exist at this time) which is just 4 miles (South) away from Eddington (Somerset) and a peace treaty was signed :at Wedmore - 3 miles North of the village.
I do believe a reference would be in order here (see WP:NOR). SwordSmurf (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Edington is the most likely site for the Battle of Ethandun, but I find the name and contents of this article quite wrong, indeed, frankly misleading. Our only source for the battle is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which calls it the "Battle of Ethandun". Many, like me, think the site was probably at Edington in Wiltshire, but the movement which changes the name to the "Battle of Edington" is not a scholarly one, and it won't do to state this location as a fact. We should surely move this article to the title "Battle of Ethandun" and then put the points of view about the three most likely sites. Any comments? Dzw49 (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As no one commented, I have now moved this to Battle of Ethandun. Dzw49 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The geographic coordinates currently shown for the battle (51° 26′ 25″ N, 2° 14′ 32″ W) indicate a place in the fields quite near Chippenham but rather a long way from Edington. If it is worthwhile having geographic coordinates at all for a battle of which the site is controversial, perhaps they should point to Bratton Camp (51° 15′ 49.95″ N, 2° 8′ 34.49″ W) near Edington, where, according to the apparently prevalent view, the battle took place.
Frans Fowler (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Done -- I eventually found where to do it.
--Frans Fowler (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Battle of Edington article calls it the Battle of Edington; the King Alfred's Tower article calls it the Battle of Ethandun (User Dzw49 having changed Edington to Ethandun in the King Alfred's Tower article in February, 2009). On the Talk page for King Alfred's Tower I'm suggesting the reference(s) there be changed back to Edington and I'm mentioning it on the Battle of Edington Talk page because there has been much discussion about Edington v Ethandun
Frans Fowler (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Edington/CommentsTalk:Battle of Edington/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 14:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 09:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the reference to the battle being featured in Bernard Cornwell's novel the lastThe Last Kingdom, as that novel ends two years prior to the battle taking place. While the battle does feature significantly in the The Saxon Stories series, it is the second novel in the series The Pale Horseman that covers the events leading up to and during the battle and which sees the series' hero and narrator Uhtred of Bebbanburg participate in the battle with his allies. The battle is an important event in the series, not least as two key characters die in it. I suspect some of the confusion is that the TV adaptation of the novels is also called The Last Kingdom.Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I think you will find that quite a few Wikipedia articles include an "in fiction" section.  I note that this section includes an important work by an important writer, G.K. Chesterton.  I question whether all the references given are invalid. PatGallacher (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Some articles include lists of references in popular fiction, but not high quality ones such as Henry II of England, which is an FA. This has a discussion of cultural depictions with reliable sources, not in list form, and a link to a separate article, Cultural depictions of Henry II of England, for those interested. This model could apply to the Edington article. The Chesterton ref and maybe the Cornwell one are probably discussed in reliable sources which could be cited, and the other books could be hived off to a new article, Cultural depictions of the Battle of Edington. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Either this sort of material is encyclopedic or it isn't.  Some reasonable quality articles do include a "popular culture" section e.g. Henry III of England.  Whether this material is hived off is a separate issue, mainly determined by the length of the articles. PatGallacher (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Henry III has a popular culture section as text (not a list) with reliable references explaining why the depictions are significant, like Henry II but with a slightly different title, and as I suggested for this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Battle of Trafalgar and Battle of Flodden have similar sections, a list of occurrences in popular culture.  I'm not disputing that this could be improved, but that doesn't justify taking a hatchet to it. PatGallacher (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Whether some articles have lists is not relevant. Many articles have unsatisfactory sections, but that is not a justification for adding more. Referenced discussions of a subject in popular culture are a useful addition to articles. Lists of unreferenced trivia are not. Our aim should be to make Wikipedia a first rate encyclopedia, not a ragbag of trivia. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


### 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)

This peer review is now closed.
Thelifeofan413 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Cheeky little edit, rv dupe wl, auto ed. Keith-264 (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thelifeofan413, your expanded lead is a solid improvement but I still think there are a few areas where it could align more closely with MOS:LEAD and MOS:MILHIST in tone and structure. Here's a proposed revision:

Proposed Lead revision The Battle of Edington or Battle of Ethandun was fought in May 878 between the West Saxon army of King Alfred the Great and the Great Heathen Army led by the Danish warlord Guthrum. The battle took place near Edington in Wiltshire, where Alfred secured a decisive victory that halted the Viking advance into Wessex.
The engagement followed a period of sustained Danish incursions into Anglo-Saxon territory. In early 878, Guthrum launched a surprise attack on Chippenham, forcing Alfred into hiding in the marshes of Athelney. After rallying local forces, Alfred confronted and defeated Guthrum at Edington, then laid siege to the Viking position, compelling their surrender.

Following the battle, Guthrum agreed to terms that included his baptism, withdrawal to East Anglia, and the establishment of peace through the Treaty of Wedmore. The outcome preserved Wessex as an independent kingdom and marked a turning point in the Viking wars, laying foundations for the eventual unification of England. Aeengath (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Aeengath (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I am going to add this into the article. Thank you. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

While the raid on Lindisfarne is no doubt important do we need the whole quote and so much as a % of the total background sections word count devoted to it, reading the article I was more interested in what had gone on immediately prior with the Great Heathen Army & in Mercia and Wessex 
@Thelifeofan413 LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Edington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Thelifeofan413 (talk · contribs) 17:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I'll start this one shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Images properly licensed
Ecgberht of Wessex met in battle a force of 35 ships met in battle reads oddly to me
xt|6-7 Jan 878 spell out the month and use a slash instead of a hyphen since it was only a single night
link Somerset on first use
although it fails. Whose opinion is this?
Fix your duplicate links
Not done, specifically Guthrum, Somerset
nternal disunity was threatening to tear the Danes apart, and they needed time to reorganize. Fortunately for Wessex, they did not use the time available effectively. Who says this? And this needs to be impartial.
Not done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
in a 'most insolent manner' Fix the italicization here
Change the inscriptions from all caps to sentence case
more later--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I have completed your checklist.  Thelifeofan413 (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Earwig reports 38.3%, copyvio unlikely. Most of the issue seems to be the quoted inscriptions--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand how to fix the issue. May you elaborate further. Other than this, I have finished everything. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, I'm just required to check for copyright violations--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
In the text, you refer to notes with letters, but in the notes section, they're numbered
Fix the page numbers in cite 20
What is cite 31 used for? The VCH link refers to Iley Oak in passing, but says nothing about Alfred's movements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Need an ISBN for Burkitt--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Guthrum and Alfred the Great should be linked in the lede, they don't need to be linked any further. The same is generally true of all your other links. They should be linked on first use only unless there is a great deal of text between the mentions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
I have finished what you said. Is there any more to do? Thelifeofan413 (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Spot checked cites 3, 17, 35, 46, 56--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

... that the Tudor historian Polydore Vergil accidently said that the battle site for the Battle of Edington was in Abdington instead?

Reviewed:

Thelifeofan413 (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC).

Comment: No redlinks in hooks. Either remove it, or create the article and run this as a double hook if it is long enough. Roast (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I remove the red link in the hook by linking what the article links it do, but they’re spelled differently… for some reason? 1brianm7 (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Not a review, but since I tried to fix the typo myself before being edit conflicted, I'd like to note that it'd help if the Lavelle source supported the hook since reinterpreting medieval histories tend to cross the WP:SYNTH line (similar to WP:GRLIT). ミラP@Miraclepine 17:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)