The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:14, 15 June 2011 [1].

Anna of East Anglia[edit]

Anna of East Anglia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel I have met all the criteria, and made the article about Anna both informative and readable. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources comments

Ref fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have made the map an external link, but referred to it in the 'Notes' section and given it a more detailed reference. The note has been amended to clarify the location of the Gyrwe people. Hope this helps. --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edmund Bishop's book added with other sources --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not quite clear about the distinction you are making between primary and secondary sources. Perhaps you could explain.

FA articles about similar subjects differentiate between primary sources, containing material which is close to the subject, and secondary sources, which use material from primary sources. Offa of Mercia, Ceawlin of Wessex and Coenwulf of Mercia are examples where the sources have been separated, but with a slightly different format from mine. I'll change 'Anna' to use the format used in these three articles. WP:PRIMARY allows the careful use of primary sources, and I have made sure that the sources used in 'Anna' are from 'modern' publications and that I have avoided analysing them. The primary source information about any of the Anglo-Saxon kings is scarce and is included by other editors writing similar articles, but it's information that's been edited/translated by respected and published historians. --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
format changed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, sources look appropriately scholarly and reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Lead: "In 645 Cenwalh of Wessex was driven [ ] his kingdom by Penda", missing word? GermanJoe (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Support. Note to closing delegate: I'm a significant contributor in edit count, but it was all copyediting work; so I don't believe there's any conflict in supporting. Comments by Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library). I've reviewed this a couple of times over the last few months and it's close to FA. Just a couple of minor points:

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

done. --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comment An interesting read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It's usual to wikilink on the first use, many pages are initially linked way down in the text
Done. --Amitchell125 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm prepared to take it on trust that people who write academic works about history are historians, don't need to preface their names with that (sometimes twice)
Now you've mentioned it, it seems obvious. Fixed accordingly. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can you tweak the splitting of Northumbria to avoid repeating "part" — you could probably just drop the first one?
Done. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - from a layman. Lead could use some slight improvements for clarity and following WP:LEAD as a summary introduction of the article:

  • Lead "Anna's wife was probably of East Saxon origin." - East Saxon not mentioned in main text.
She's not in the lead section now. --Amitchell125 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Little is known of Anna's life or his reign, as few records have survived from this period" - those problems aren't mentioned in main text, i'd suggest to move this common background information to main text. Maybe a small section briefly discussing the various sources and their influence on today's knowledge about Anna would be useful.
done --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In 645 Cenwalf of Wessex was driven from his kingdom by Penda, and was converted to Christianity during the three years he spent as an exile in Christian East Anglia at Anna's court." - The sentence and it's relevance for Anna himself is not clear for laymen, probably due to the complexity of the event. Can it be clarified, why this was a main event for Anna? If it wasn't a significant event, it shouldn't appear in lead.
lead section modified to help with this point. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "After Anna's reign, East Anglia seems to have been eclipsed by its more powerful neighbour, Mercia" - not mentioned in main text in the same way. I'm assuming Anna's military defeats were one cause for this decline, but this should be stated, if true.
  • Make sure, the lead doesn't introduce new facts or thoughts, which are not mentioned in the main text and that the lead can be understood as a "stand alone" summary of the main text.
  • Early Life and marriage - the article introduces 2 possible wifes, Sæwara and Hereswith, but Hereswith as wife is dismissed rather quickly as "erronous assumption" with only one source (Rosalind Love). The article should be clearer, if this is common consensus among historians (add atleast one more source) and briefly state, why this assumption is erronous.
fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accession and rule "It was by means of marriages such as this that the Kings of Kent were able to become well-connected to other royal dynasties." - that's great for Kent, i suppose :), but i'm not sure, if this information is needed in an article about Anna of East Anglia. What did East Anglia gain from it? Military support? Diplomatic leverage?
  • Image "The ruins of Burgh Castle ..." caption is no complete sentence => no period.
Fixed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support. Aside from some minor concerns with the lead a nice and informative article. GermanJoe (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review, WP:V adherence to sources, and close paraphrasing check outstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can confirm that the article adheres to sources and does not paraphrase too closely; I reviewed most of the sources prior to FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Mike-- image review pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media: Looks like everything checks out, but a few fixes would be good. I have deleted the local copy of File:Devil's Dyke Cambs.jpg per CSD F8 (I can reverse that if you like) but the version on Commons could do with a one line description of what is shown. File:Anglo-Saxon England 2.svg should really have a similar license to the base image (at least, it needs to be a ShareAlike CC license), and Template:Information would be a good addition. Same applies to File:East Anglia (circa 650).svg. Not a big deal, but File:Wall-of-Burgh-Castle-England-UK.jpg could do with the author's death date, if known. File:Blythburgh writing tablet.jpg needs stronger sourcing- what's the book it was taken from? When was that published? Is that the first time the sketch was published? Who drew it? When did they die? Again, Template:Information would be great. (Also, Seaxburh in the article lead is a dab link.) J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information about the Devil's Dyke photograph: "The photograph shows the the top of a section of the well-preserved defensive linear earthwork known as the Devil's Dyke (in Cambridgeshire, England), looking SE towards Newmarket." Would you be able to put a description based on this information into WikiCommons for me? --Amitchell125 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
dab link fixed - no other dabs or broken ELs. GermanJoe (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Burgh Castle image can be found at http://www.archive.org/stream/oldenglandpictor01kniguoft#page/36/mode/2up - Charles Knight died in 1873. --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The writing tablet image came from [2], The Victoria History of The County of Suffolk, volume 1, edited by William Page, published by Archibald Constable and Company Ltd (1911), reprinted for the University of London Institute of Historical Research by William Dawson & Sons Ltd, Folkestone (1975) (ISBN 0-7129-0647-9). The tablet was presented to the British Museum in 1902. The artist is unknown, but possibly C. Pivetorius, as written under the drawing in the book, and it was not drawn after 1911, so it cannot be assumed that the artist died over 100 years ago.
J Milburn, I am not up to the task of doing what you have recommended. Could you help? --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I'll see what I can do. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've updated the licensing and information on all the files I mentioned based on what you said here. I changed a few licenses, but they can all be considered free as far as enwp is concerned. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More