== Naming historians in the text == 

 Although, as those unfortunate enough to be "regular readers" here will know, I have often defended the use as sources in the article of one volume histories like Duffy, Norman, Vidmar & McManners (of the Oxford Illustrated History), I now think we should avoid attributing views to them in the main text, if the views are not especially linked to them in the overall academic context, which I think is generally the case in the examples now in the article.  Norman in particular is named 3 times (& linked twice btw) in the main text, once in contrast to Duffy on the 1st century, on which neither are specialists or would I'm sure want to claim any originality in their views.  Norman's other two text mentions are in the context of areas & periods closer to his specialism (I'm not sure how close), but we are only referencing his general work, not a more specialised one.  I think it would be better at points like these to have a footnote pointing to the general histories taking different views, but only name historians in the main text who have made an important original contribution to the study of the issue at hand, or produced the "standard work" on the subject.