# Talk:Eorpwald of East Anglia

I'm intending to completely rewrite this article, starting with an infobox.--Amitchell125 (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
General improvements made, references still required.Amitchell125 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eorpwald of East Anglia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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): 
Some spots where the prose could use work
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Spots of places where opinion need citing
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Needs to incorporate Kirby's ideas on the subject as well as cutting some of the extraneous information on Edwin that isn't needed here
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/Fail: 

General:
Suggest making the map a bit bigger, it's perfectly okay to use a bigger size on a map in order to allow folks to read the map.
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
the map was inadequate, so I made a new one. --Amitchell125 (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Lead:
You need to explain what "c." means to folks who won't know. Handily, we have a nice little article on circa that you can link to. Generally, we do something like (reigned from circa (c.) 624, assassinated c. 627 or 632).
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
"He was a member of the East Anglian ruling ..." the "he" that is meant here is ambigous - do you mean Raedwald or Eorpwald?
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"Shortly after his conversion, he was killed by Ricberht, a pagan noble, and so became the first English king to suffer death as a consequence of his Christian faith, though the motive for his assassination was probably political as well as religious." Very convoluted sentence here, suggest breaking it up into smaller sentences.
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Early kings:
I'm generally NOT a fan of using abbreviations like "c." in the body of the text. Abbreviations like that are jargony, and are better replaced with full words such as "about" "around" "near" etc.
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"In 616, he defeated and killed..." he who? Last name mentioned in Aethelbert...
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"...in the Battle of the River Idle and then installed Edwin as the new king." New king where?
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"...Rædwald was not only king of the East Angles within the Wuffing dynastic succession, but..." the "within the Wuffing dynastic succession" is just plain redundant here and should be cut.
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"This suggests that Eorpwald was the younger sibling and only became his heir after his elder brother Rægenhere was slain in 616." ... "his heir" who's heir? Last name mentioned is Eorpwald...
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Edwin:
This section is chronologically out of step here, as you've already discussed him being put on the throne - I'd strongly suggest abandoning the idea of subsections here in the "background" section and just integrating it totally chronologically.
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"While Edwin was in exile ..." this is the first mention of any exile for Edwin - wouldnt' it make more sense to mention that above when you're mentioning Raedwald putting Edwin on the throne? It makes the reason why Raedwald did so much more understandable...
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
"...it had been foretold to him that he would one day become a greater king than any Englishman before him, were he to consider accepting Christian teaching...." Two problems here - no such thing as "Englishmen" here and the phrasing is awkward. Suggest "he had a dream where he was told if he converted to Christianity, he would become the greater than any that ruled before him."
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
on second thoughts, cut --Amitchell125 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
"If the account of that conversation contains truth, it signified that Rædwald foresaw Northumbria's future power and intended that Edwin should succeed to the highest authority after him." Opinion, and needs citing.
removed - not needed --Amitchell125 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm unclear why this long digression on Edwin/Paulinus is in here. Also, this is the first I've heard about York being an important bishopric in the Roman British church! This whole second paragraph is quite honestly useless as far as telling us more about Eorpwald and should be cut. IT's also uncited and a bit POV ("The first conversion of Anglo-Saxon Northumbria was therefore within the Roman Church.")
cut --Amitchell125 (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Accession:
Whole of the second paragraph here is uncited - and contains opinion that needs citing. Much of this is unneeded as far as telling us about Eorpwald - if folks want to know, they can find it out from Edwin's article.
agreed, sorted out --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Need a cite for "persuaded to accept the Christian faith and sacraments"
done--Amitchell125 (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"...recorded that his baptism took place during 632.." who's baptism? Last person mentioned is Felix.
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
"The conversion had the general political benefit of bringing the entire eastern seaboard from Northumbria to Kent, with the exception of the Essex under the dominion of Edwin and his Christian allies." Opinion, and needs a citation.
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Death:
The long latin quotation is really unneeded unless you're providing a translation, as most folks reading this won't have enough Latin to even begin to translate it.
Agreed - quote removed --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"The attribution of these three years to the supposed rule of Ricberht is a banner of convenience, though the fact that his name was remembered at all, when East Anglian history of this period is dependent upon very fragmentary records, indicates that he was a person of some importance." two things here - one "banner of convience"? Needs a plainer explanation. Second, this is opinion and needs citation.
mostly cut --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
"Acknowledging that no material evidence exists to support the theory that Eorpwald or other members of his famly are buried there, Martin Carver has speculated that historians could use regal lists and other sources of information to identify the occupants of the different mounds and has used Eorpwald's relationship as the son of Rædwald to place him in either Mound 1 or 2." Long awkward sentence, suggest breaking down into two or three sentences for clarity
done ---Amitchell125 (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Referencing - I'd expect a bit more information from Yorke, and Kirby's Earliest English Kings. Also, you've got Yorke's Kings and Kingdoms in the references, but not in the Sources.
source added --Amitchell125 (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Coverage -
There is nothing on the struggle that Kirby postulates between Eorpwald and his half-brother Sigeberht - who was eventually driven into exile in Gaul. Kirby notes that this struggle probably contributed to the fact that Edwin was able to secure the primary position in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Strongly suggest incorporating information from Kirby's Earliest English Kings pp. 63-67.
done, but I used other pages from Kirby --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
LOoks good! Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)