Talk:Wuffa of East Anglia/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 17:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks very good. Just changing one or two licencing details with the images, but otherwise looks very good. Obviously it's short, but I am satisfied that, given the subject, this is not a problem. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've had to remove an image with sourcing problems which hopefully the uploader can fixed but they haven't got back to me yet so I think the best thing is to pass without, and then you can read if and when the sourcing is improved (or replaced). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, "GA review" is about licencing details and punctuation, but they would never presume to even glance at article content... --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, dab, is there a problem? I went through everything, there was just no point running through things that were fine. The one issue which I thought might be controversial, the article's overall length, I considered carefully and that's why it gets a mention. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, well, I've had a look at some of your deletions I have to say I can't identify what's wrong with the passages. For example,
  • A lack of documentary evidence prevents scholars from knowing if Wuffa is anything more than a legendary figure and the true identity of the first East Anglian king cannot be known with certainty. The historian Martin Carver has argued that Wuffa is "best regarded as an emblematic figure personified from royal origin-myth"...Later East Anglian kings claimed their right to rule by being descended from Wuffa, in the same way that the Kentish kings claimed descent from Oisc. (deleted)
  • The kingdom of the East Angles was an independent and long-lived Anglo-Saxon kingdom that was established after migrants arrived in southeast Suffolk from the area now known as Jutland. Rainbird Clarke identified Wehha as one of the leaders of the new arrivals: the East Angles are tentatively identified with the Geats of the Old English poem Beowulf. Historians have used sources such as the Anglian collection to as an aid in calculating a date for the establishment of the kingdom. Collingwood and Myers note the use of both literacy sources and archaeological finds as evidence in how the region was settled during and after the 5th century, when various disparate groups arrived in Norfolk and Suffolk from different parts of the coast and the rivers of the Fens. (deleted: "rm further terrible prose about East Anglia in general, apparently with no other purpose than to inflate word-count.")
  • The kingdom of the East Angles was bordered to the north and east by the North Sea, to the south by mainly impenetrable forests and by the Fens marshes on its western border. The main land route from East Anglia would at that time have been a corridor, along which ran the prehistoric Icknield Way. The Devil's Dyke (near modern Newmarket) may have at one time formed part of the kingdom's western boundary, but its construction cannot be dated accurately enough to establish it as of Anglo-Saxon origin. (as above)

There is considerable value to the reader to have some background on what he was, or was supposed to have been by legend, if you prefer, king of. Maps and descriptions of kingdoms are a regular feature of good (and featured) articles about monarchs. The prose is adequate by my reading, so I don't understand what you mean by "terrible prose" - it appears to be in good English, with proper referencing. I think your other complaints stem from your doubt that this man ever existed. The article before you deleted these sections did indeed discuss whether he was real, and expressed doubt at the relevant points. The sources provided in the article demonstrate no overwhleming consens against him actually existing: Carver, page 5: It seems reasonable to accept that Wuffa was a genuine historical figure; Collingwood again treats him as actually existing. THerefore it does not seem unreasonable for our article to proceed as if he were real, noting the doubts expressed as appropriate (it being rather difficult to proceed on the basis he does not expressing doubts that he does). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)