Talk:Wehha of East Anglia

Wehha 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 9, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

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.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Checking against GA criteria

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

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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
neutral
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
stable
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
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am happy to pass this as a good article, congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.^[1]

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.^[2]^{[note 1]}

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)[reply]

References

^ O'Loughlin, J. L. N., Sutton Hoo - the Evidence of the Documents, p. 10.
^ O'Loughlin, J. L. N., Sutton Hoo - the Evidence of the Documents, p. 1.

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

[O'Loughlin-10-1] O'Loughlin, J. L. N., Sutton Hoo - the Evidence of the Documents, p. 10.

[O'Loughlin-1-2] O'Loughlin, J. L. N., Sutton Hoo - the Evidence of the Documents, p. 1.

[1]

[2]

[note 1]