Wikipedia:Peer review/List of monarchs of East Anglia/archive1

List of monarchs of East Anglia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is a complete list of the kings of East Anglia and is both informative and of a high quality. I believe it is a useful article for anyone who wants to find more about this fascinating period of Anglo-Saxon history.

I would particularly like comments on the 'Notes' column, which I have used sparingly, perhaps too much so.

Thanks, Hel-hama (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Interesting, if a little confusing in some respects:-

Per the lead: "After 749, East Anglia was ruled by the kings of Mercia, or by kings whose genealogy is not known. In 869, a Danish army defeated the East Angles and killed their king, Edmund the Martyr. The kingdom then fell into the hands of the Danes and eventually formed part of the Danelaw." This statement is at odds with various details in the table:-
- The first Mercian king in the table is Offa whose reign began in 757, not 749.

sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- What about Æthelberht II, who according to the table reigned from 779 to 794, and Eadwald? How do they fit in?

Eadwald section expanded, Æthelberht to follow... Hel-hama (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelberht sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The table shows an appaent restitution of the East Anglian dynasty between 830 and 869, not covered in the lead. Is this the case?

Restitution of the East Anglian kings mentioned in lead section. Hel-hama (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Who ruled East Anglia between 869 and 875?

nobody, but it needs to be confirmed.Hel-hama (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the timeline on the left particularly confusing.
- It is unheaded

done Hel-hama (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- No obvious reason is given for the colours used. What do they signify?

key added, table re-done in a uniform way. Hel-hama (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Most significantly, the timeline is not aligned with the table, which is irritating as one has to keep scrolling to make sense of it.

sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the notes in the table are uninformative. One example (re Æthelred II): "Replaced by Alfred the Great of Wessex in 879". What does "replaced" mean, here? Alfred doesn't appear in the table as a king of East Anglia.

sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in this area, but I think that some distinction should be made in the table between those kings whose historicity is undoubted, and those who may or may not have existed. This applies not just to the first, quasi-mythical names, but to such as Hun, whose authenticity is, I understand, doubted.

Timeline amended to reflect your point. Hel-hama (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the listed sources are not cited in the article and should be listed separately as "Further reading". (Astley, Higham, Keary, Newton)

done. Hel-hama (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these points are helpful. As I am not able to watch individual reviews, please ping my talkpage if there are issues in this review that you wish to discuss, or if you would like me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have dealt with all the points I raised, and the list looks much better now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]