Talk:Anna of East Anglia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Parrot of Doom 12:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing... Parrot of Doom 12:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "Anna (or Onna) (reigned from c.633, killed 653/4) was a king of East Anglia, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom" - was it the Anglo=Saxon kingdom, or an Anglo-Saxon kingdom?
• You may want to consider merging the first line of the lead, and the following paragraph.
• "He was one of the three sons of Eni who ruled" - this is a bit open-ended, what did he rule?
• "At the Battle of Bulcamp, the East Anglian army" - which army? Was it Anna's army?

• A minor note, but there's no need to use citations in the lead unless you're citing a direct quote, as everything is in the body of the article anyway. Its my preference not to use cites in the lead, but it will in no way affect my review.

Family and Christian faith

• Looking at the article for Eni and Rædwald, I think you could add a few more details on who and where they came from, for readers unfamiliar with the subject. Something like "was the son of Eni, a member of the ruling Wuffling family, and brother of Rædwald, king of the East Angles from 600 to 625."
• "Saewara" - is anything more known about her other than this name?
• Saewara brought to the marriage a daughter from a previous union named Saethryth" - presumably the union was not named Saethryth
• "The S-alliteration of these names suggests a link with the East Saxon dynasty, a connection which had probably been established earlier through the association of Sigeberht of East Anglia with the Wuffinga family.[4]" - is this the source's opinion, or the general view of most historians? If the former, it would be better to write "in historian Bob Smith's opinion..."
• "Anna became renowned for his Christian virtues" - I was about to change this to "Anna is renowned", but wanted to check first that he still is, that history hasn't changed its view.
• "An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Exning was revealed have distinguished sixth century occupants." - I think this could use a citation.
• "Saint Felix is associated with the foundation of Soham Abbey in the Fens, then located on an island surrounded by marshes and linked between Exning and Ely by a causeway. Anna may therefore have experienced direct Christian teaching in this locality.[9]" - I think there's undue weight here given that its so vague. Writing about the geographical location doesn't really tell us much about Anna.

Accession and rule

• "During 632/3" "In 640/1" "635/6" - you should avoid using slashes like this, and substitute it for prose, or if correct, an endash.
• "Later sources that date Anna's accession as being in 635/6 are possibly unreliable" - I suggest moving this closer to the sentence about the date of the beginning of Anna's reign being unknown - perhaps in brackets.
• "In 641 Oswald of Northumbria was slain in battle by Penda (probably at Oswestry in Shropshire) and Northumbria was then split," - was the split a consequence of Oswald being slain?
• "with Deira ruled by Oswine and Bernicia to the north ruled by Oswiu" - you need to preface Deira and Bernicia, right now people might think they are people, and not regions.
• "Saint Hild was a grandniece of Ēadwine of Northumbria who had been baptised with him in 627. She came to Anna's court intending to join her sister Hereswitha, who had married into the East Anglian royal family. Hild remained there until she returned to run the monastery at Hartlepool.[20]" - why is this relevant to Anna's article?
• "Anna's hold on the western limits of his kingdom would have been strengthened by the marriage of his daughter Æthelthryth to Tondberht" - would have been, or was?
• "Ely has since been considered part of East Anglia. At Ely, Æthelthryth and her minister Owine later accompanied her to Northumbria during her second marriage, to Ecgfrith" - you need to remind the reader where Ely is, in relation to Anna's kingdom.
  • Is Ely still considered part of East Anglia? Right now, the article implies it once was, but is no longer. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Anna endowed Fursey's monastery at Cnobheresburg (possibly identified as Burgh Castle) with rich buildings and objects.[22] In time St Fursey, growing weary of attacks on the kingdom, followed one of his brothers into a hermitage, leaving the monastery at Cnobheresburg to his brother Foillan. A year later he left for Gaul.[11]" - need a link to Cnobheresbury (as in the lead). Who is Fursey?
• I think you need to do a bit of fiddling here. I would suggest moving this paragraph down into the Exile section, and shortening it to something like this: "In 651 Penda attacked the monastery at Cnobheresburg. Regular attacks on the building/place of worship/etc, which had been endowed by Anna with rich buildings and objects, had forced its owner/keeper, Fursey, to abandon it to his brother Foillan. Anna and his men arrived at Cnobheresburg and held the Mercians back, allowing *Foillan and?* the monks to escape with their books and valuables. However, Penda defeated Anna, who was driven into exile, possibly in western Shropshire. He returned to East Anglia in c.654.[24] "

Death and burial place

• "Soon after Penda's son Peada became ruler of the Middle Angles in 654/5" - what happened to Penda?
• "The armies of Penda and Anna met at Bulcamp, near Blythburgh in Suffolk" - presuming Penda is dead at this point, how can he still have an army?
  • I'm still not quite convinced by this. Does the source say explicitly that the army was Penda's? I would have thought that if his son was ruler, the army would belong to him? Parrot of Doom 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• "This is likely, because Blythburgh occupies a defensible position near the fordable headwaters of the Blyth estuary flowing towards the sea at Southwold" - whose opinion is this?

Parrot of Doom 13:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Almost there. Just a few points remaining, and a bit of copyediting (which I don't mind helping you with). Parrot of Doom 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Remaining points

Things to sort out

• The division of Northumbria did occur as a result of the death of Oswald in 641.
• The St. Hild connection wouldn't be included at all if there wasn't such a paucity of detail about events during Anna's reign - it could easily come out.
• All of Cambridgeshire - including the Ely area - is now considered part of modern East Anglia (e.g. the official East Anglia tourism website is http://www.visiteastofengland.com/). I'll alter the article to make this clear.
• At the Battle of Bulcamp it was definitely Penda who defeated Anna and they were both kings of their repective countries at the time. Penda's son was made king of the Middle Angles by Penda himself whilst Penda was still ruling Mercia - an interesting and unusual occurence even for the times - this probably needs to be clarified in the article.

Thanks for the comments--Amitchell125 (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

• Thanks for the clarifications, let me know when you're happy you've updated the article accordingly. In my opinion you should remove St. Hild; it tells us nothing about Anna. If the information isn't already in Hild's article, I'd put it there instead. Parrot of Doom 23:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Hild section was already in her own article. The remaining alterations have been done and should be OK.--Amitchell125 (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to pass this, as it seems to me to be quite comprehensive. Well done on your hard work. Parrot of Doom 16:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Parrot of Doom--Amitchell125 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's an interesting article. If you fancied taking it to FAC I'd recommend making it a little more welcoming to people not versed in the subject (basically expanding it to explain things people might find unusual or confusing), and also using templates for the citations. Parrot of Doom 22:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)