Talk:Rædwald of East Anglia/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Eisfbnore ^talk 11:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article, section by section, but leaving the lead until last.

Sources

The second sentence in the first paragraph: "There is no reason to believe that East Anglian monks and scribes produced less work than elsewhere." is a bit POV. I would recommend rewording it and merging it with the next sentence, into to something like: "Historian Barbara Yorke suggests that the reason for the paucity of East Anglian sources was caused by the Viking expansion in the ninth century, and that the monks and scribes of East Anglia did not produce less work than elsewhere." (I guess that the entire first paragraph is based on York's work, correct me if I'm wrong).

The first sentence in the second paragraph seems fine, although I cannot verify the source, since the Google Books preview does not present at the pages 28–30 (WP:AGF). The following sentences in the same paragraph are not referenced, but they seem uncontroversial and verified in the Bede and Edwin of Northumbria articles (WP:BLUE).

The first sentence in the next paragraph: "Later chroniclers, such as Roger of Wendover, gave information about East Anglian events, but it has been suggested that the annalistic format used at the time forced these writers to guess the dates of key events. Such later sources are therefore treated with caution.[1]" is a bit weasly. Who else than Roger of Wendover gave information about East Anglian events? Who had suggested the date guessing? Who are treating this sources with caution? I would recommend simply saying: "Roger of Wendover gave information about East Anglian events, but Yorke suggests that the annalistic format used at the time forced these writers to guess the dates of key events." I'm not quite sure what to do about the last sentence, but it can be retained, since it's definetely not the weaselist part of the sentence. IMHO, it is redundant (it's almost implied by the former sentences), but I'll leave that decision to the contributors of this article. The rest of the paragraph seems fine, well-sourced and balanced (Perhaps a bit of WP:SYNTHezing, but I'll have a deeper look into it later on)

~~The forth, one-liner paragraph, should be merged with one of the other paragraphs.~~

--Eisfbnore ^talk 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The context of Rædwald's kingdom

~~This looks to be a very reasonable section, my only objection is the lack of citations in the second paragraph.~~

--Eisfbnore ^talk 08:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family

This section has too many brackets in the prose. For instance: "He was the son of Tytila of East Anglia (whom he succeeded) and was the elder brother of Eni." could be rephrased to: "He succeeded his father Tytila of East Anglia, and was the elder brother of Eni." or: "He was the son of Tytila of East Anglia—whom he later succeeded—and was the elder brother of Eni." The sentence "He also had an older son (or stepson, according to William of Malmesbury), Sigeberht, whose name is unlike other Wuffing names, but is typical of the East Saxon dynasty." ought to be broken into two sentences: "He also had an older son, which William of Malmesbury suggested was his stepson. His name was Sigeberht, which was an uncommon name among the Wuffing names, but was typical of the East Saxon dynasty.", or: "His older son was named Sigebehrt, an uncommon name among Wuffing names, though it was typical of the East Saxon dynasty. William of Malmesbury stated that Sigebehrt was not Rædwald's older son, but his stepson". The brackets are gone, but the weasel "It has been suggested that" must be removed as well. --Eisfbnore ^talk 20:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the bracket thing is the section very reasonable and well-sourced.

--Eisfbnore ^talk 08:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early reign and baptism

~~This section has two {{cn}} tags. Also, the entire first paragraph is unreferenced.~~

There is too much "apparently" and "likely" in this section. Recommend attributing these statements to historian(s) that are being cited (mostly Plunkett). For instance, write "According to historian Steven Plunkett, she and her pagan teachers persuaded him to default in part from his commitment to the Christian faith.[18]" instead of "She and her pagan teachers apparently persuaded him to default in part from his commitment to the Christian faith.[18].

--Eisfbnore ^talk 09:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rædwald and Edwin of Northumbria

Edwin's exile

Only the two last sentences in the last paragraph are referenced, and the ~~two other paragraphs have no citations.~~ second paragraph has only one referenced sentence. The first paragraph is completely unreferenced.

~~Any information on when Æthelfrith married Acha?~~

~~"...so ensuring that the Bernician rulership of all Northumbria would be unchallenged." Replace "so" with "in that way". Is it really necessary to say "all Northumbria"? Isn't "all" implied?~~

~~"treacherously slain" sounds a bit dramatic.~~

"Edwin wandered secretly as a fugitive through various kingdoms and at last sought the protection of Rædwald in East Anglia." is a bit weasly. State which kingdoms he wandered through or leave it out.

~~The word "refused" is used a bit too often in this section. Avoid repetion by inserting synonyms like "declined", "rejected", etc.~~

~~Any information on when Edwin had the chance to escape?~~

The Battle of the River Idle

~~Again, too many brackets in the prose. Apart from that, the section is completely fine.~~

--Eisfbnore ^talk 12:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rædwald's imperium

~~Quite a short, reasonable section. However, the first paragraph is unreferenced.~~

~~Brackets ought not to be used in "caption prose" either. In this case, I guess that you can simply remove them and leave the sentence as it is.~~

--Eisfbnore ^talk 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The development of Gipeswic

The sentence "During the first quarter of the 7th century, the quayside settlement at Gipeswic (Ipswich) began to assume importance as an estuarine trading centre, receiving imports of pottery and other goods from other trading markets situated around the coasts of the North Sea." is a bit heavy. It can be shortened somewhat by replacing "began to assume importance as an estuarine trading centre" with "became an important estuarine trading centre", and "receiving imports of pottery and other goods" with "receiving imports/goods/pottery".

The use of "likely" must be replaced by attribution of historians. For instance, write "Plunkett suggests that the founding of Gipeswic took place under Wuffing supervision." instead of "It is likely that the founding of Gipeswic took place under Wuffing supervision.". Also, the use of "although" and "probably" is a bit editorializing.

~~The second paragraph is reaaally heavy. It consists of one overly long sentence, which should be broken up into two, if not three different sentences.~~

~~Please remove the brackets around the phrase "(including burials under small barrows)" and insert commas instead.~~

--Eisfbnore ^talk 13:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death

The sentence "It seems probable that he died before Edwin converted to Christianity in 627 and also before Paulinus became bishop of Northumbria in 625.[28]" should be attributed to the historian (Yorke). Change "It seems probable..." with "Barbara Yorke suggests..."

I note that many of the sentences in this article start with "Rædwald...". Here, you can remove the repetition and the passive voice in the sentence "Rædwald was succeeded by his pagan son Eorpwald," by writing "His pagan's son Eorpwald succeeded him..."

Sutton Hoo

Remove the brackets in the sentence "There, large mounds (which were originally much higher and more visible) can still be seen, overlooking the upper estuary of the River Deben.[30]" by rewording it to: "There, originally much higher and more visible mounds can still be seen, ...", or "There, large mounds—which were originally much higher and more visible—can still be seen, overlooking the upper estuary of the River Deben.[30]"

Reword the sentence "In 1939, a mound (now known as Mound 1) at Sutton Hoo was discovered to contain an Anglo-Saxon burial of unparalleled richness." to "In 1939, the mound at Sutton Hoo now known as Mound 1 was discovered to contain an Anglo-Saxon burial of unparalleled richness.

"However the magnificence of the ritual and possessions, the far-reaching connections that they demonstrate and the inclusion of objects denoting the personal authority of the individual buried or commemorated there, points to a person of exceptional status." is a bit heavy and editorializing sentence. Reorder it and attribute the statement to Yorke, and if possible remove the words "exceptional" and "however". The next sentence also needs attribution ("Yorke suggests that the treasures buried...")

~~The sentence "It will probably never be known for certain who this was, but Rædwald is the most likely candidate" is a bit POV and needs attribution.~~

A bit of WP:SYNTH: "The inclusion of bowls and spoons which have been interpreted as baptismal gifts does not conflict with the story of Raedwald’s conversion." I guess Kirby is the one who should be attributed?

~~There is more synthesizing in the same paragraph, such as: "this makes it more likely", "makes it likely that", etc.~~

The sentence that starts with "It must also be noted" must be rewritten. Actually, the third no-no example over at MOS:OPED is "it should be noted" :) The same is for "An additional difficulty is that...".

~~Sweden is linked twice in the last paragraph.~~

There is one weasel in the last paragraph: "It has been suggested …" Please attribute. I see that this one has been changed to "It has been suggested by Bruce-Mitford …", which is better, but I'd recommend simply saying "Bruce-Mitford suggested that …".

--Eisfbnore ^talk 13:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

All sources seem reliable, but could you tell me a bit more on the nature of the Dumville work? Is "5" the volume number? Is it part of a series? Eisfbnore ^talk 14:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Ah, it was a journal article. But why does the publisher parameter link to http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ASE ? Why not simply link to Cambridge University Press? --Eisfbnore ^talk 19:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Citations such as "Bede, iii. 6", "Campbell" and "DNB00, 'Redwald'" are not complete. Please add more information to them, at least a title.~~

Lead

The lead seems fine, in summary style and without any citations (which I think is good for a lead section). However, there is one long start-paragraph and three choppy two-sentence paragraphs in it. I'd recommend merging them all into three or two paragraphs. Eisfbnore ^talk 14:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Overall, this is a very well-written article, but the prose could be enhanced by removing brackets in the sentences, and the article generally needs more inline citations. Placing on hold. Eisfbnore ^talk 14:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progress seems to have stalled somewhat. The brackets are — as far as I can see — gone, but the article still suffers from mediocre referencing and weasel words. Thanks to the nominator for the quick action, anyway. --Eisfbnore ^talk 20:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And btw: I see that many of the images have forced image sizes. According to WP:ImageSize, image sizes shouldn't be forced without good reason. And I see no good reason for forcing them here; they actually appear to be too small on my screen. --Eisfbnore ^talk 20:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been significantly improved over the last days, and it's definitely very close to be listed as a GA. There is only one {{cn}} tag left in the article, and a few of the notes are lacking significant information. The main issue left to solve now, is the synthesizing in the article. Combining two facts to ascertain a third is not acceptable for an encyclopædia, and must be removed/attributed to historians. I'll list the three syntesizing sentences below:

"However, it is also thought possible that these dates were derived from an older series of annals, though some contradictory dates indicate there may have been some confusion of sources.[3]" – Since this sentence has got a citation, I hope the synthesizing between the dates and confusion of sources can be attributed to Plunkett.

"The earlier date of 599 has been explained as a mistaken reference to the death of Rædwald’s father, Tytila, and the latter date is commonly given as Rædwald’s date of death, though there can be no certainty.[43]" – I hope that the statement on the uncertainity can be attributed to Plunkett as well.

"One unusual item was a large 'sceptre' in the form of a whetstone, that showed no sign of previous use as a tool: it has been suggested that this was a symbol of the office of bretwalda." – Who has suggested that this was a symbol of the office of bretwalda? (This one is more of a weasel than a synth)

--Eisfbnore ^talk 15:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am passing the article, since significant work has been done to solve the issues I've mentioned. There is only one weasel left to remove

, but that is not a severe problem at all. I'm glad to list the article as a GA. Thanks very much for the interesting article and the quick action from Amitchell25. Best wishes. Eisfbnore ^talk 13:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]