Talk:Eadwald of East Anglia

Eadwald 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.
Review: December 14, 2020. (Reviewed version).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

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

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 23:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): (AGF) It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass:
· · ·

I am planning to complete the review of the article in a couple of days. Borsoka (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{xt|The kingdom of East Anglia (Old English: Ēast Engla Rīce) was a small independent Anglo-Saxon kingdom that comprised what are now the English counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, and perhaps the eastern part of the Fens in Cambridgeshire.}} 1. Consider dividing the sentence into two (or three) shorter sentences. 2. Consider adding a timeframe (when was the kingdom established?) Borsoka (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It perhaps the eastern part of the Fens in Cambridgeshire,... A missing word? Borsoka (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider expanding the first sentence of section "Rule", saying that no narrative sources mention Eadwald or something similar. Alternatively, consider changing the sequence of the second two sections ("Rule" and "Coinage"). Borsoka (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The East Angles seemed to have maintained their independence for a short period after Ecgfrith's death, with Eadwald as their king. 1. I assume the existence of coins bearing Eadwald's name suggests this. If this is the case, it could be mentioned. 2. An unverified sentence in the same section seems to contradict this statement: Scholars have suggested that Coenwulf may have permitted Eadwald to rule East Anglia. 3. Perhaps "regained" instead of "maintained" (in the previous section we were informed that they "strove for independence").
~~The last three sections in section "Rule" are unverified.~~ Borsoka (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Scholars have suggested...~~ Could you name some of them? Could you mention their argumentation? Borsoka (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for writing this article about an obscure king. He is obviously notable, but we have practically no information about him. You solved the unsolvable problem and completed an article about him. Borsoka (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: All the above addressed (I think). Amitchell125 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. One pending issue remained. Borsoka (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: hidden texts are placed in the article. Do we need them? Borsoka (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both issues now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.127.246 (talk) [reply]