Talk:Æthelwold of East Anglia

Æthelwold of East Anglia has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 25, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Mid‑importance

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Æthelwold of East Anglia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eisfbnore ^talk 17:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will review. --Eisfbnore ^talk 17:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the slight delay of the review; I'm in the midst of my Easter holidays and therefore only occasionally checking in on the wiki. Overall, this seems to be a very well-written and properly sourced article with few things I can put my finger on, so this will be a short and quick review.

Comments

"He was a member of the Wuffing dynasty, who ruled East Anglia from their regio…" – Shouldn't it be "…, which ruled East Anglia"? Just curious. (changed - --Amitchell125 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

"The history of East Anglia and its kings is known from the [[Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum|The Ecclesiastical History of the English People]], compiled by the Northumbrian monk Bede in 731…" – Should the displayed title here be in English or in Latin? If the former, it is not necessary to pipe the link to Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, as The Ecclesiastical History of the English People already redirects there. (piped link altered as suggested - --Amitchell125 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to have the ancestry table in the middle of the article. I would recommend moving it down between See also and Notes – or simply leaving it out, since the WP:SEEALSO link to Wuffing (I removed the redirect, for instance) provides almost the same information one click away. (ancestral tree removed - --Amitchell125 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

The sentence "If the legend that Botolph came to East Anglia through contact with the daughters of Anna at Faremoutiers Abbey is true, he may have received Celtic teaching there, since the abbess Burgundofara was reputedly instructed by Saint Columbanus, the Irish missionary to Burgundy." is a bit WP:SYNTH. Please attribute the synthesis to historian Steven Plunkett (I guess). (offending part of the section made into a comment, it hasn't a source and I don't think as it stands it contributes to the article. - --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

~~Sources look fine, although the Whitelock piece ought IMHO to be formatted with a suitable citation template.~~ I've been bold and used the {{cite}} a.k.a {{citation}} template to format this source. The advantage with that template is that it can be used for any type of source (book, journal, press release, encyclopedia, web entry or whatever), as it automatically identifies what kind of source it deals with through the parameters used in the template. The disadvantage with it, is that it uses commas rather than full stops to separate the various citation details (author, title, publisher, pub year, etc.), and is thus inconsistent with the more specific citation templates, like {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} which uses only full stops. All the other book sources in this article uses {{cite book}}, so I'd recommend using that one for the Whitelock piece as well (I can't do it since I don't have a copy of the source). --Eisfbnore ^talk 16:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC) ({{cite journal}} used - --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

--Eisfbnore ^talk 17:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

I took the liberty to use <blockquote> to format the Bede quotation properly. You can also use {{cquote}} or another suitable quotation template if you want to, since this is — at least what I consider — a pull quote. (no worries - --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

The book "William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum Book 1, chp. 5, p. 89." is mentioned in the notes-section but not in the bibliography. (source added - --Amitchell125 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

The same is for "Warner, The origins of Suffolk" and "Lapidge, The Blackwall Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England" (ditto - --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

A bit of nitpicking: Since the book titles in the citations usually are shortened, I'm puzzled by the fact that Barbara Yorke's book Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England is referred to by its full title rather than simply Kings and Kingdoms (or something like that) in the citations. (alteration made to refs - --Amitchell125 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to have the full Latin quote by William of Malmesbury, if possible. (done! - --Amitchell125 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

--Eisfbnore ^talk 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good, then (almost) everything seems to have been seen to. The only issue left now, is the synthesis that I mentioned in my fourth bulleted comment. Good job so far. --Eisfbnore ^talk 16:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic sentence is now gone, so I am very happy to list this article as a GA. Nicely done, Eisfbnore ^talk 16:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]