Wikipedia:Peer review/List of monarchs of East Anglia/archive1
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.
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.
- What about Æthelberht II, who according to the table reigned from 779 to 794, and Eadwald? How do they fit in?
- The table shows an appaent restitution of the East Anglian dynasty between 830 and 869, not covered in the lead. Is this the case?
- Who ruled East Anglia between 869 and 875?
- I found the timeline on the left particularly confusing.
- It is unheaded
- No obvious reason is given for the colours used. What do they signify?
- Most significantly, the timeline is not aligned with the table, which is irritating as one has to keep scrolling to make sense of it.
- 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.
- 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.
- Several of the listed sources are not cited in the article and should be listed separately as "Further reading". (Astley, Higham, Keary, Newton)
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)