Talk:Wehha of East Anglia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 11:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Two found, one fixed, I tagged the other as it is unclear what the target should be.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Second disambiguation sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Reasonably well-written and sufficiently compliant with the manual of style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   What makes {http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/history/anglian_collection.html} a reliable source?

I agree, source removed. Hel-hama (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Consistency: Book titles are given inconsistently, e.g. The Age of Sutton Hoo and Age of Sutton Hoo; Newton, The Origins of Beowulf , p. 105. needs bibliographic details in the Sources section; The Earliest English Kings and Kings; Palgrave, The Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth needs bibliographic details in Sources; Rainbird Clarke, R. or Clarke - be consistent; Fitzpatrick-Matthews, Keith (2006). "The ‘Anglian Collection’ of Royal Genealogies". Keith’s History Pages. is listed twice in sources.

   All in all this is a bit of a muddle and needs sorting out.

All sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is the difficult part. Can an article based upon a few scraps and passing mentions ever be considered broad in its coverage? I shall think on this. On due consideration, this article summarises the few sources about Wehha very well. It is a broad as it can be.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   neutral

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   stable

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   licensed and captioned

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am happy to pass this as a good article, congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

O'Loughlin

O'Loughlin appears to try to connect Wehha to the Lombards who lived in Italy at the time and makes the claim that the name Weohstan had no connection to Scandinvia:

Lindqvist's conjecture that Wehha is a hypocoristic form of the name Weohstan is linguistically not possible, according to O'Loughlin, as Weohstan is a later West Saxon name.

O'Loughlin notes that Wehha and his father Wilhelm can be linked with a person named Wehilo and his father Weho, who are listed in a genealogy found a manuscript of the laws of Rothari, a 7th-century king of the Lombards.

However, Weohstan is indeed considered to be the Anglo-Saxon rendering of a Norse name. See references in Weohstan. Should O'Loughlin's claim be presented so uncritically as it is in this article?--Berig (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

References