King Æthelwulf of Wessex was the father of Alfred the Great, and one of the most successful and important Anglo-Saxon kings. The article has gone through thorough peer and A Class reviews. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK
Extensive image check has been done during A-class review.
All images are PD or CC, with sufficient source and author info - OK.
Tweaked a few license tags (all PD, just minor clarifications) - OK.
Æthelwulf was first recorded in 825. - comes across as fairly abrupt and needs some context. Maybe semicolon to next sentence?
destroying the long Mercian ascendancy over southern England. - "destroying" is a funny verb here (I keep thinking it should be with solid things...)...I'd go with "shattering", "disrupting", or even "ending"
"silver penny" - can this be linked somewhere?
Should Liber Vitae be italicised?
Æthelwulf's reputation among historians was low in the twentieth century. - I'd say either "poor reputation" or "low regard or esteem" - but not "low reputation"
I prefer the existing wording. "Poor reputation" to me suggests someone untrustworthy, which does not apply to Æthelwulf. Maybe see what other editors think? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-links for counties - the article links the counties in "Laverstock in Wiltshire", "Steyning in Sussex", and "Carhampton in Somerset", but the same counties are not linked on first mention. Not sure, which handling is best (the towns are linked anyway) - but it should be consistent for all similar terms throughout the article.
The last lead paragraph mentions a drastic change in opinion about Æthelwulf as a ruler, but is quite vague about the actual reasons. To paraphrase a bit: the main article lists internal administration, foreign relations, and the adaption of new ideas among his strengths. Some of this background information should be summarized in the lead as well to explain this change in historians' views (the last lead para is short anyway and would benefit from a minor expansion).GermanJoe (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Family - "The second son, Æthelbald, is first recorded as a charter[d] witness in 841" -> link "charter" to Anglo-Saxon charters? This would also make the footnote redundant - a bit distracting here in the middle of a statement.
Decimation charters - "Susan Kelly described them as "one of the most controversial groups of Anglo-Saxon diplomas"" -> should have an immediate source.GermanJoe (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very interesting article, detailed and thoroughly sourced. Some parts like the "Decimation Charters" cover complex sub-topics (at least for a layman like me). but the article does it best to present the information as clearly as possible. Suggestion: in the long run, when more analysis or details become available, information and research about those charters could be split and covered in a more specialized stand-alone article about those documents. GermanJoe (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I took part in the peer review, and the article was in fine shape then. It has subsequently been polished and expanded further and certainly commands my support for promotion to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria handsomely. Two tiny queries: St. Bertin gets a full stop but St Peter, St Paul and St Neot don't; and "where it is less then the tenth part" is in a quote, but I'm just checking that the source has "then" as opposed to "than". That's my lot. A fine article: revisiting it has been a pleasure. Tim riley talk14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim, very helpful as always. I have deleted the stop - I don't know why I put it in as I was taught that there should be no stop when the last letter in the abbreviation is the last letter in the word being abbreviated. As to "then", I do not now have access to the source but I am sure it is correct. I have added a comma after "less" to make it clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will have a look soon. Wondering if Anglo-Saxon (and other terms only linked in the intro) should be linked at first occurrence in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-native English speaker, words like debacement, numismatist, and decimation were unfamiliar in their context, and could perhaps need links.
I have linked debasement and numismatist. There is no suitable link for decimation (which is unfamiliar in its sense here to almost all native English speakers), but I have explained it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the charter image under Pilgrimage to Rome and later life not in the former section, where it seems to belong?
"would not have expected their successes to yield permanent fruit. ... When Æthelwulf succeeded in 839": "successes" in the previous sentence may influence the reading of "succeeded". "succeeded to" something would be better.
Thanks very much Dan. I have reverted the change『Æthelwulf did not give his son the same power as his father had given him』to "this son" as I think it could imply that he was giving Æthelstan less power than he gave his other sons. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's complicated. Æthelwulf is not known to have appointed another King of Kent after Æthelstan died until he went on pilgrimage, so he seems to have given his surviving sons even less power until his absence from Wessex changed the whole situation and he had to give more. Maybe it is best just to replace "his son" with "Æthelstan", in spite of the repetition? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I commented at the peer review and I think the article is in fine shape, and easily worthy of featured status. A couple of minor points that don't affect my support:
The lead doesn't make it clear that the battles at Carhampton and Aclea were against the Vikings.
Why is Michael Enright described as American, when the nationality of other historians is not given?
In the past editors have objected to me referring to each historian repetitiously as "historian x", so I left it out. Then an editor at A Class objected to me leaving it out. Describing him as American was part of my attempt to satisfy both views by introducing some variety to the descriptions. I am open to suggestions/advice. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the result of other comments then I'll strike my comment. I think I'd leave out "American" myself, since it gives the impression that his nationality is relevant, but it's a judgement call. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too was involved in the earlier reviews, and likewise I have some minor comments to make that don't affect my support – I'm a bit pushed for time right now, but I am looking and making notes so here's this for now, more later: having discussed the points listed below I can only say that I think this article deals with its complex subject in an exemplary fashion.
In the lead:
The wikilink to Anglo-Saxon England now points to a redirect, since that article was moved by consensus to "History of Anglo-Saxon England" on 28 September. Of course there's WP:NOTBROKEN, but in this instance, for example if the link were being added now, I see no benefit in pointing to the redirect. Unless there's reason to think the article might ever be moved back...? Just a thought, ignore or dispute at your pleasure!
I was told off years ago for putting in a pipe when a redirect already exists. It is considered bad practice. I can track down the rule if you are interested. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can imagine! It's just that in this instance the rule seems silly, as the redirect didn't already exist. As I said, ignore this point at your pleasure! Nortonius (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note Mike Christie's comment re battles, I was thinking the same. Danes might be specified, or the sentence with the battles and the preceding one might be run together with "... reign: in 843 ...".
Done.
Was Æthelwulf the sole operator in his daughter's marriage to Burgred? If so that might be explained in the appropriate place, otherwise "In 853 his daughter Æthelswith was married to King Burgred ..." might be more accurate.
Changed. Personally, I see no objection as a marriage then would have been a political alliance by the father, but I see that historians generally prefer your wording.
I do get the (presumably) political aspect of the marriage but I prefer the accuracy of the changed version, thanks for doing that. I don't see why it couldn't say "Æthelswith was married to King Burgred" – I think it would also fit, and remove any suggestion that romance played a part – heaven forbid! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't – it's just that I think to modern eyes "X married Y" carries a presumption of romance and happy families. We can't know either way. Whereas to my eyes "X was married to Y", albeit wordier, is a simpler statement of fact in that it presumes nothing at all. Of course YMMV. Nortonius (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a completely unscientific survey of the articles on the Norman kings (excluding William II) and "married" and "was married" seem to be used randomly, with one or two "father married his daughter to", and a majority for "x married y". I do not see the implication you find in the expression. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following Offa's death, King Coenwulf of Mercia (796–821) maintained Mercian power: would "dominance" be better? At this point I think saying only "power" begs the question of what this was.
Given the discussion of relationships here, I find myself wondering who Baldred was: WP doesn't seem to know, but I expect someone has offered an opinion. For example Hasted has him driven "across the Thames into the northern parts",[2] so Mercian seems a reasonable guess; but K.P. Witney, The Kingdom of Kent, 1982, pp. 226–7 says that "[t]he probability is that Baldred ... was an ealdorman, perhaps from Sussex," and describes him as an "adventurer"! Witney's not great, I wonder if there's anything better or more recent. Just a word or two here would be good I think, if a source can be found. Even if it's just e.g. "of unknown provenance".
He has a brief entry in ODNB by Kelly, who describes him as a "very obscure figure", and speculates that he may have been a relative of Beornwulf as both their names started with B. I do not think there is anything which can usefully be said about him which is relevant to Æthelwulf. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the same applies to many other people mentioned, and explaining them all would bloat the article with details not specifically relevant to Æthelwulf. I think it is better to rely on the link for people who want to know more. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
England had suffered Viking raids in the late eighth century, but there were no attacks between 794 and 835: for accuracy, might this be better as something like "but there were no attacks reported between 794 and 835"?
I think Judith needs naming in the (currently) final sentence of this section, beginning "There were no children from this second marriage ...", in place of "she".
Unlike their Mercian predecessors, ... Æthelwulf and his father cultivated local support, governing through Kentish ealdormen, and promoting their interests. Is there a consensus in the sources – or any suggestion – that Egbert and Æthelwulf's Kentish connections made them more attractive as rulers in Kent? Or less objectionable. If so, that might be made explicit.
... the same condition is specified in a Winchester charter: I would like to see either the charter specified, if only by a ref, or a change to "a charter preserved at Winchester" followed by a ref. I'm assuming that's the case, not knowing which charter is concerned...?
... Kentish monasteries chose Æthelwulf as their lord, and he undertook that after his death, they would have freedom to elect their heads: I think there's either one comma too many there or one too few – I'm looking at the one in "death, they", which I think ought either to go or be paired with one in "that after".
Egbert's conquests brought him wealth far greater than his predecessors had enjoyed ... The wealth of the West Saxon kings was also greatly increased by the conquest of south-east England ...: an unintentional bit of duplication, or...?
Repetition deleted.
The sentence about fatalism seems a bit throw-away to me, and I wonder, is it a view that's held widely these days? I seem to remember noticing it being added to the article, apologies for not bringing it up before; but it is a bit of a new one on me. I'm nowhere near as in touch with current thinking as I'd like to be, but this fatalism doesn't seem to have affected Æthelwulf's grandson Edward the Elder, or his great-grandson Æthelstan. Does it deserve the prominence it's given here, in closing the section? Otherwise this is the kind of thing I'd put in a footnote, suitably qualified.
This is a difficult one on a subject I know nothing about. It is from a leading Anglo-Saxonist, Richard Abels, in 1998, and Anglo-Saxon fatalism is discussed elsewhere, for example at [3]. The notion of wyrd, fate, is discussed in Pratt's The Political Thought of King Alfred the Great, which I will have to read some day. I do not think we know enough to say that it did not affect Edward and Æthelstan. It certainly did not prevent them acting effectively, but then the fatalism of their pagan forebears did not either. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then, if in doubt, I would leave it out, or put it in a footnote: "acting effectively" is what I had in mind regarding Edward and Æthelstan, and is what seems most pertinent here; and the notion seems to me at any rate more appropriate for a broader article on Anglo-Saxon kingship than for this bio. Nortonius (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Towards the end of the section, two close occurrences of "bookland": the first time this word crops up it is linked, but an explanation is held over to the next sentence. I'd be inclined to simplify this by changing to "... on 26 December 846 he made a large grant of land to himself in South Hams in west Devon. He thus changed the estate from royal demesne, which he was obliged to pass on to his successor as king, to bookland, which could be transferred as the owner pleased ..."
At the Battle of Aclea, might it be better to say "Æthelwulf and his son Æthelbald", partly because Æthelbald hasn't been mentioned for a while, and partly because there are several occurrences of that name around that time (although most may represent the same man)?[4]
About Ealdorman Alhhere, is he not identical with the ealdorman "Ealhhere of Kent" who was killed by Vikings in 853? My copy of the ASC has "Ealhhere" under 850 and 853 (Garmonsway, 1972). PASE has no record of an "Alhhere", but has "Ealhhere" fighting a great army and capturing ships at Sandwich and fighting alongside Huda against a pagan army on Thanet.[5]
The silver penny was almost the only coin used in middle and later Anglo-Saxon England: I think this sentence needs re-casting somehow, as the locative "middle [Anglo-Saxon England]" conflicts with the chronological "later Anglo-Saxon England". Maybe something like "The silver penny was almost the only coin used in the mid- and later Anglo-Saxon period in England".
I did wonder myself – one can be "in the middle of [doing] something", which obviously is primarily chronological (or sequential), but it's a bit colloquial (Cambridge Dictionaries Online has it under "idioms"[6]) and every other dictionary definition I've seen is locative. Remember though that I'm insisting on nothing here! Nortonius (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were four main phases of the coinage distinguishable at both mints ...: I think it would help lead the reader if『during Æthelwulf's reign』were tacked onto the end of that.
I'm a bit confused by this sentence: In about 848 both mints switched to a common design known as Dor¯b¯/Cant – the characters『Dor¯b¯』on the obverse of these coins indicates either Dorobernia (Canterbury) or Dorobrevia (Rochester), and "Cant", referring to Canterbury, appeared on the reverse. Does "Cant" always appear on the reverse in this series? I'd be inclined to change the sentence to "In about 848 both mints switched to a common design known as Dor¯b¯/Cant – the characters『Dor¯b¯』appeared on the obverse of these coins, indicating either Dorobernia (Canterbury) or Dorobrevia (Rochester), and "Cant", referring to Canterbury, appeared on the reverse." Otherwise I think it needs clarifying.
Per the source "Cant" was always on the reverse. I think Nortonius's phrasing is an improvement, but it's also a bit closer to the source -- this is one of those cases where it's very hard to paraphrase far from the original wording. What the source says is "A new non-portrait coinage was issued with DOR¯B¯, for either Dorobernia (Canterbury) or Dorobrevia (Rochester), in the obverse field and CANT (Kent) in the reverse ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, silly me – "Cant" for Kent, not Canterbury! Well, I did say I was confused... Agreed re the difficulty in paraphrasing, I wonder if something like the following would be adequately varied: "the obverse was marked with "Dor¯b¯", which could represent both Dorobernia (Canterbury) and Dorobrevia (Rochester), while the reverse was marked with "Cant" (Kent)." Although I'm sure Dudley will have his own thoughts on that. Nortonius (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it looks like the confusion is my fault -- the confusion of Kent and Canterbury is in the current text, and I believe I wrote that sentence; must have been a moment of inattention on my part. Sorry about that. How about just switching "Canterbury" to "Kent" in the existing sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "decimation charters" are divided by Susan Kelly into four groups: can we lose the scare quotes there, as the phrase appears in scare quotes in the first sentence in this section?
Scare quotes again for second and subsequent occurrences of "first decimation" and "second decimation" – lose them?
Historians always distinguish the terms in some way, quotes or capitalisation or both, and I think rightly as signalling that it is a special term. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per your complaint below (with which I completely agree), could you justify capitalising here, instead of the scare quotes? If not then stay with the scare quotes by all means, it's just that I've been told off for using too many of them myself in the past. Nortonius (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree in preferring capitalisation to quotes but is it against Wikipedia rules? Dank can you advise? on this - also on "one of the most perplexing problems", and Liber Vitae below. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Decimation is "unfamiliar in its sense here to almost all native English speakers", then either capitalize it as a proper noun (if your sources support capitalization), or don't use it. I'd rewrite "... one of the most perplexing problems in ninth-century diplomatic" as one of the "most perplexing problems" in the study of ninth-century charters. No opinion on Liber Vitae. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under Keynes' first alternative there is a second explanation of the significance of "booking" land: I think that's perfectly reasonable here, especially since "folkland" crops up here for the first time; but I think it could healthily lose "... and could be disposed of freely by the owner. "Booking" land thus converted it by charter from folkland to bookland."
Sorry – I suspect I was just getting a sense of déjà vu there having looked at the article so closely, looking again today it looks fine to me. Nortonius (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the decimation Æthelwulf may have conveyed royal folkland by charter to become the bookland: "the bookland", or just "bookland"?
For example under Keynes' second alternative, scare quotes could be lost from every instance of "booking", since the first occurrence of the word (also in this section) does without them.
[Æthelwulf] displayed a sense of dynastic insecurity evident in his father's generosity towards the Kentish church in 838: should that be "also evident", since Æthelwulf's sense of dynastic insecurity presumably didn't drive Egbert's generosity in 838?
"... one of the most perplexing problems in ninth-century diplomatic" (study of charters): I remember that the meaning of "diplomatic" was an issue in one of the earlier reviews, I just find "(study of charters)" a bit inelegant, and would ordinarily want to avoid those brackets. Would something like "... diplomatic", or the study of charters" be better?
Should "Liber Vitae" be in italics, given that the link is to a page that (barely) describes this type of book, rather than to a page for the particular Liber Vitae that is mentioned? The italics led me to expect the latter. If the italics arose from the mention of the book being in Latin, I would suggest removing the italics and having scare quotes instead. My own inclination would be to say the same for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle when referring to the varying manuscripts, as is the case later in the same sentence, rather than to a published volume such as Garmonsway's. But I know that I seem to be out of step with most on that, both on WP and elsewhere!
Well on that one I agree with what I understand to be Wikipedia practice. I think italics are a helpful signal to the reader that a book or manuscript is being referred to.
It just occurred to me that "Liber Vitae" need not be capitalised, as a liber vitae is a type of book, of which the one from Brescia is just another example. That would shut me up – but just as you like! Nortonius (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that the identity of "Kent and the south-east" came up in an earlier review, but I've just noticed there is now a footnote in this section, currently "p", that says "The sub-kingdom of Kent included Essex, Sussex and Surrey." I wonder if that shouldn't be moved to an earlier position in the article, and possibly then duplicated as necessary; or perhaps it might be dispensed with entirely if that information, with its ref, were moved into the body of the article. For example, under "Early life", it might be worked into the sentence "Æthelwulf was descended from kings of Kent, and he was sub-king of Kent and the south-eastern provinces of Surrey, Sussex and Essex, which were included in the sub-kingdom, until he inherited the throne of Wessex in 839."
Done - and "south-eastern provinces" deleted as it seems superfluous with the revised wording.Dudley Miles (talk)
King Æthelwulf's ring:
... whereas the art historian David Wilson ...: a fairly trivial point, but would "whereas" not be better as "and", since the points made by Nelson and Wilson seem to be complementary rather than conflicting?
Well it's still a fairly trivial matter, and again it's up to you; but as I see it Webster confirms that the ring is of the 9th century; Nelson agrees and emphasises that successful kingship in the 9th century encompassed Æthelwulf's gift of a ring "to a brawny follower"; and Wilson reminds us that it was ever thus among the Anglo-Saxons in England. A successful Anglo-Saxon king had to be a "good lord", pagan or otherwise, and the giving of rings and other treasure was an essential practice. In his preface to Gregory's Dialogues Bishop Wulfsige of Sherborne, Asser's predecessor, described Alfred the Great as a "ring-giver", and "the greatest treasure-giver of all the kings he has ever heard tell of".[7] I honestly don't see the conflict. Nortonius (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well she did say ninth, but I agree it would still as true if she had said sixth, so I have taken out "whereas". I have made the Wilson comment a separate sentence as I am not sure it is right to use a comma when there is a colon in the middle of the Nelson quote, Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Historiography:
Early medieval writers, especially Asser, emphasise his religiosity, and his preference for consensus seen in the concessions made to avert a civil war on his return from Rome: I would move the third comma to follow "consensus".
Yes you have indeed! With this edit I'm adding one last thought to the point about the "Liber Vitae" that you might consider (but need not!); but mainly I've changed the padding to my support at the top of this section – well done, and I very much appreciate your engagement with the points I raised. Nortonius (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This came up at A Class. I was asked to add page numbers to the bibliography but I forgot. Now done, with help of London Library staff who kindly checked sources I do not have now. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest italicizing Electronic Sawyer as a work title
Support Have watched this from the ditch for a few months, and made (very) minor ce's along the way. A fine achievement, drawn from broad sources of knowledge. Happy to see this here. Ceoil (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GermanJoe has suggested that the discussion of the Decimation Charters should be a separate article. This seems to me a good idea. I could create King Æthelwulf's Decimation Charters with a summary in this article. Do other reviewers agree and, if so, would it be better to make the change now or wait until the review has finished? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can do it PDQ then I would agree, otherwise I think this article is in fine shape and it would be a shame to risk disrupting the review unnecessarily. Might I suggest "Decimation charters of King Æthelwulf", since the charters would be the subject of the article rather than the king? Just another thought. Nortonius (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about timing; create the new article first, and once that's done adjust this article to suit. If this article has passed FAC by that time I'm sure you won't be hurting it by trimming just that section, and there's always FAR in the unlikely event that anyone thinks the article has really suffered from the change. I agree with Nortonius on the article name, by the way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a few days in the nomination, so a quick limited re-organization of 1 section would work. Present reviewers will just have to add a small note, that the revised version is still OK afterwards. The less stressful approach for you as editor would probably be to wait until FA-closure - but that's completely up to you. Both approaches should be fine. GermanJoe (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the concern? There doesn't seem to be a size issue. It seems GJ suggested a split only once more detail is added about the charters? FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well an editor commented at A Class that he did not think that a prolonged discussion of different editors' views on the decimation charters was suitable for a biography article, and I assumed that Joe was tactfully saying the same thing. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment it's a judgement call, but if you try writing the separate article and discover there's not enough material for a standalone article, then it's clear the material you have should stay here. If you find you can expand it significantly (which I am sure will be the case) there's a better argument for making the current section more concise. I don't think the article is unbalanced as things stand, but I think a sub-article, and some summarization at this article's level, would be a further improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that I could expand it, but I think the subject is already covered adequately and I would much rather carry on with my current projects than re-visit the decimation charters. If reviewers think the article is OK as it is, I will abandon the separate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, don't think a split is necessary at this point. If someone wants to make a more detailed sub-article, they should of course be free to do so, but I don't think that should have any consequence for this FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: The suggestion was a suggestion for further development "in the long run" (literally, no tact intended ;) ). So the current acticle version is certainly FA-worthy as is. Sorry, if that side note caused any confusion. GermanJoe (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
