Talk:Ricberht of East Anglia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 21:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, this is an odd one. An article on Ricberht which effectively says that we don't know anything about him. I've been wrestling with this one for a while, and wondering if it can be a GA given it's brevity and lack of information. I even wonder if the article should exist, or be renamed as the death of Eorpwald, or merged into that article. But, as the chap's existence is as certain as anything can be from this period, and that historians have toyed with him a little, I think I have to agree that this article is necessary, and that it can be a GA (if only just!). It does a good job with limited material, but I have to say that the historians quoted look to be reaching a lot, and reading an awful lot into very little data (and this is a criticism of them, not of this article, which does what it needs to do, and does it well). I had a little dig into my (limited) sources, but found nothing on him at all except in Bede.

~~Maybe make the lead clear that Bede never suggests that Ricberht became king.~~ sorted Hel-hama (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps a couple too many "afters" in the lead?~~ sorted Hel-hama (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm getting nothing for Ref 2, and to be honest, the EB is not the best source to use anyway. But I'd imagine this is easy enough to find another source for.~~ reference changed accordingly Hel-hama (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"~~as the result of a pagan reaction the East Anglian conversion": I think your source is reaching a bit here. I'd be reluctant to be so certain, and would hedge my bets with a "possible/possibly".~~ word added Hel-hama (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"~~According to most historians, including Barbara Yorke,": I think we need either the first part or the second, but not both. It's either Yorke's idea, or it is generally held.~~ sentence altered Hel-hama (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"which is generally taken to mean that East Anglia relapsed back into paganism during Ricberht's reign.[9]": As ref 9 is a comment, does it support this statement in the text? (And I took this pretty much as a given from what I know on the topic) reference used in a better way Hel-hama (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"~~Higham surmises that Ricberht's rule of three years, in spite of Edwin,": Although I know what this means, "in spite of Edwin" is a bit vague.~~ sentence amended Hel-hama (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"~~Some historians (such as Michael Wood) have speculated that the ship burial at Sutton Hoo might have been for Ricberht.[10]": This point has already been made.~~ sorted Hel-hama (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Missing ISBN from the Wood book.~~ sorted Hel-hama (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Maybe add something more about his successors; in particular whether or not they were pagan.~~ done Hel-hama (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(~~As an aside, I assume that those who believe he was the Sutton Hoo burial discount any possibly Christian aspect to the burial?)~~ true, I found something to add that helps with that Hel-hama (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dablink for Michael Wood.~~ sorted Hel-hama (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll place this on hold for now, but these should be easy enough to fix. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, passing now. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]