# Talk:Wuffa of East Anglia

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wuffa of East Anglia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)

"which instead names his son Wehha..." I thought Wehha was his father? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I know you added a bit to explain, but i still think it's contradictory: "Historia Brittonum... names Wehha as the first ruler"  "Guillem Guercha ... was the first king of the East Angles ... Guercha was a distortion of the name Uffa, or Wuffa"  doesn't that mean Wuffa's the first ruler? Yours confused, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  23:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that a large part of the article was cut. I have restored the article, which is listed as 'good', whilst retaining the proposal to merge the article with another one. Am I not right in believing that a consensus should have been reached before the article was altered so drastically? I am of course quite happy to improve the text if I am provided with guidance that is a little clearer than, "who writes this stuff?"... Hel-hama (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I notice that after I reverted your edits, you then made edits which included changing the lead section so that it differs significantly from the previous version and removing the GA icon. Two templates have since been added. I agree with the comments made by Grandiose in Talk:Wuffa of East Anglia/GA1 following the deletions you made. We appear to be within a WP:BRD cycle, and I would therefore be grateful if you could explain your concerns more fully than you have in your edit summaries. We can then perhaps work together to reach a consensus. Hel-hama (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A template proposing that this article is merged with Wuffingas has been added to the article. No merger rationale has yet appeared, the Wuffingas article been not given an appropriate merger tag, users involved in the affected pages have not yet been notified, etc.. If the proposer feels unsure of the correct process to adopt, I suggest this link, which might prove useful. Hel-hama (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)