Talk:Anna of East Anglia/Archive 1

GA Review

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

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)

Review comments

I'll add notes here as I go through the article.

• I think a background/sources section would be helpful; it's not required but it might be useful for readers not familiar with the topic, per Parrot of Doom's comments above.
• I think the FMG source is likely to be challenged at FAC -- the word "genealogy" is usually a red flag. This particular sort does look as though it's at the scholarly end of the range, but can you provide any evidence that it's a reliable source? It could be self-published by Charles Cawley. Does no other source discuss the possible connection to the East Saxons?
• Same question for Dr. Sam Newton's site and the Hidden East Anglia site.
• Is there a need to say that Ely is regarded as part of East Anglia? That seems like a digression into modern sources; if the point is that the absorption of Ely may have led to a view at the time that it was part of the East Anglian kingdom, I think you'd need a source that addressed it directly, not one that discusses a later view of Ely.
• How about a family tree? I could put together something like File:Descent_of_children_of_Oswiu.gif if you think it would be useful; probably from Tytila through Anna's children.
• I'm not an expert at formatting sources, but I see at least one issue -- I think the main point is that the reader ought to be able to go unambiguously from the footnote to the cited work. The footnote for ODNB doesn't lead the reader to a reference quickly; it seems to be the 1900 DNB but I think that's not clear enough. However, you should probably switch to the ODNB online since that is now free access: the URL is http://www.oxforddnb.com/. I just saw that on a talk page today; very handy. Another example is Scarfe, which appears to refer to West, Scarfe & Cramp; I wouldn't use the middle name as the reference there. I'd suggest using all three names, but the primary one is probably OK too.
• The Dunbar footnote is missing a page number.

  Now it doesn't look as if you're using that source, so I'd just cut it from the list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  I've now cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• WP:LAYOUT doesn't require it, but I think it's more usual to have the footnotes first and then the works. It's optional though, so up to you.
• "her remains were inauspiciously taken to the abbey at Ely": why was this inauspicious?

  Striking since this has been cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• You sometimes use an "æ" in the A-S names, and sometimes don't; e.g. Sæberht, but Sæwara. I think it would be best to be consistent; I'd suggest using whatever the relevant Wikipedia articles use, assuming they are consistent.

  I fixed one additional one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think you need the {{Details}} hatnote in the first section; you link to Wuffing and that's probably all that's needed.
• Links should be placed at the first occurrence of the linked word; I haven't looked for instances of this but I did notice that Blythburgh is not linked on the first appearance.

  I fixed this for Blythburgh and will look out for other instances when I copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am not sure about this, but I don't think the Liber Eliensis can be uncritically used as a source; aside from the fact that it's very late, it is specifically mentioned as unreliable on other points -- see the ODNB article].
• Also from the ODNB, is it worth mentioning that the notion that Hereswith is the king's wife has been mentioned and is incorrect? If the ODNB thinks it's worth mentioning, we might do so too.
• I think it might be good to move the middle paragraph of "Family and Christian faith" to after the death section; most of it concerns events that occurred late in his reign or after his death, and it disturbs the chronological order of events in its current position.
• Kirby mentions the placement of Anna's daughters in a Frankish monastery as evidence of a continuing Frankish connection; in his discussion of Rædwald he talks about the possibility of Frankish support for the kingdom. I don't recall seeing this in other sources but if it is it could be mentioned; even if it's just a comment of Kirby's it might merit a footnote.
• When you mention the South Gyrwas, I think it would help the reader to give whatever is known or conjectured of their location -- if I recall correctly it isn't known with certainty, but even saying that would help.
• The list of sources that goes with the footnotes should match the ones used in the footnotes; it looks as if you're not using Whitelock, James or Florence of Worcester, so I'd suggest dropping those. "Further reading" sections can be useful if there are specific sources that are worth directing the reader to, but there aren't really specialist sources that just address Anna, so I don't think there's a need for that here.

  I cut Rosalind Love too, and will have another look for this when I copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Another personal preference: I don't think it's necessary to have both the navbox and the succession box, but there are editors who do like to have both. Personally I just keep the navbox, since that has more information and includes everything that the succession box has.
• Withburga is mentioned in the infobox but her name is given as Wihtburh in the body of the article.

  I went ahead and fixed this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• When you have uncertainty, as in the question of whether Wihtburh is Anna's daughter, I think it's good to give the reader as much information as possible about the reason for the uncertainty -- is it a late source? are there contradictory sources? Is there an uncertain identification of common names? Does it depend on a possibly forged charter? If your sources don't give you the details there's not much you can do, but Kirby and Yorke, in particular, are very good about citing their underlying sources.

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's everything for now; I haven't gone through my sources to see if there's anything else to be added, but I don't see anything obviously missing. I also haven't done a copyedit but would like to, if you don't mind; I find that's usually best left to last since the prose tends to change in the course of a review anyway. The article is in good shape; I know that's a long list of comments above but I really think they are quite minor and easily fixed, and some are just personal preference. I look forward to seeing this at FAC. Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's enough to be going on with, thanks for helping me. I'll start tackling your recommendations in a few days.--Amitchell125 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That addresses everything except the background section -- I might draft one and post it to the talk page for discussion. I'll try to get to a copyedit this weekend, and will post any additional comments below. This is looking good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

I'm going through the notes above and striking them as I see they're resolved; I'll add some additional points here.

• I recommend asking someone like Nikkimaria to take a look at the sources and see what comments they make. I see a couple of inconsistencies, but I'm terrible at spotting all of the things that can be wrong with sources, and Nikkimaria will give you good feedback. Some things I spot: you use all three names from West, Scarfe and Cramp in the footnote, but Fryde is the only name you cite from that source; you have a bare web reference which needs a retrieval date and a publisher; and you have a lower case "origins" in "The origins of Suffolk": I know that reflects the source but I think that sort of thing is usually silently regularized in source lists. If you like I'll ask Nikkimaria to look at the article.

all done --Amitchell125 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Striking because you've fixed the points I raised; I'll let Nikkimaria check the other issues she raised below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• If I make any changes you dislike in copyediting, please just revert, or post a note here, or both -- I figured it would be easier to make the edits than to post notes about them.
• The note about Augustine and Ely in the lead doesn't have any support or sourcing in the body; can you clarify?

No I can't - so the sentence was removed. --Amitchell125 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I can't see anything wrong with the Latin Library online source for Bede, but it doesn't say where the source was scanned from and might not be regarded as reliable. I think it might be OK to leave the link as a convenience, but if you want a Latin version I'd cite something like Colgrave (which I have if you need me to provide page numbers).

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• The notes on Sæthryth don't quite work for me; you mention Sæwara's name but the cite for her name is a later section -- you could fix that with a cite but it seems more natural to let Folcard's Life provide the name in sequence. I also think it's more natural to put the English in the article and the Latin in the note. Plus looking at Plunkett he doesn't really say that the connection is likely, only that it's "tempting". How about something like this:

  Before he became king, Anna was married, according to Bede, who refers to the saint Sæthryth as "daughter of the wife of Anna, king of the East Angles". In Abbott Folcard's Life of St Botolph, written in the eleventh century, Botolph is described as having been at one time the chaplain to the sisters of a king, Æthelmund, whose mother was named Sæwara. Folcard names two of Sæwara's kinsmen as Æthelhere and Æthelwold. Since these are the names of two of Anna's brothers, historian Steven Plunkett suggests that it is "tempting" to consider that Sæwara was married to Anna, and that Æthelmund might be Anna's full name.

  Then the notes could include the Latin, and a note might also mention the possibility that Æthelmund might refer to an otherwise unknown subking of the East Angles. One other point on this: why "Before he became king"? Bede doesn't make it specific but the only date he does give is 640 which is after Anna's likely accession. Separate point: I wouldn't link those names to Anna's brothers: it's conjectural that that's who those names refer to.

done (all points agreed with) --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "In 631 Anna was probably at the Suffolk village of Exning, an important settlement with royal connections,[7] and, according to the Liber Eliensis, a 12th-century English chronicle written at Ely which cannot be completely relied upon,[1] the birthplace of his daughter Æthelthryth. By tradition, Æthelthryth is said to have been baptised at Exning in a pool known as St Mindred's Well.[8]" Is "the birthplace of his daughter Æthelthryth" sourced to James? If so, I'd suggest:

  In 631 Anna was probably at the Suffolk village of Exning, an important settlement with royal connections,[7] which may have been the birthplace of his daughter Æthelthryth.[ref to James][Footnote pointing out the unreliability of the Liber Eliensis.] By tradition, Æthelthryth is said to have been baptised at Exning in a pool known as St Mindred's Well.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• The note about Hereswith from the ODNB is good to have but Kelly doesn't give specifics; after a bit of digging it appears that the misconception is due to the Liber Eliensis. I found a couple of mentions in Janet Fairweather's translation via Google Books. The Catholic Encyclopedia specifically says that the Liber Eliensis is mistaken here. I think this is worth expanding a little just to mention the source of the error.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I reworked this a bit -- see if that looks OK. I took out the ref to Alban Butler's book, since it is just used to refer to Saethryth as Anna's step-daughter, which is correct so not very interesting in this paragraph which is about an erroneous statement. I merged some of the material into a single sentence which has made it quite long but seemed to me more logically ordered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've copyedited the first sentence of the lead, but I left in the statement that he came to the throne about 633. However, I don't see justification for that date in the body, which makes it seem more likely to have been about 641. Can you clarify?

hopefully on the way to being done - see comments below on consistency of dates.--Amitchell125 (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Struck; we have the thread below on accession date so if we need to make more changes we can discuss it there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have the 1991 edition of Kirby's Earliest English Kings; I suspect the p. 207 reference you give is to a discussion that's not in that edition, but only in the revised 2000 edition which I'm guessing is what you're looking at. However, Kirby does use the 635/636 dates in the edition I have. Can you tell me what the basis for the change in dating is?

I've looked at the p. 207 note in Kirby (2000) and I'm a bit stuck on why Kirby knows that Sigeberht was alive when Fursa left for Gaul. If Sigeberht was alive then, Anna wasn't king until after this date - 640. How does Kirby know Sigeberht was alive then? --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it either. Bede doesn't give enough details to be sure of dates; he just says Fursa left when heathen attacks increased; I supposed he could mean Penda's attack but I don't see how that can be certain. I've also just realized that the info from Kirby is now out of sync with the later material in that paragraph, since Kirby says it's 640/1 but from the first edition of his book I have him saying 635/6. Can you tell me what the second edition says about the battle? The section I'm looking at is in the chapter "Northern Anglian hegemony", in the section titled "The reign of Oswald", in the first paragraph. Is there a corresponding section in the second edition? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, p. 74: "Penda's invasion of the territory of the eastern Angles c.640/1 when he slew in battle both King Ecgric and the ex-king, Sigeberht, who had been brought out of his monastery to lead the army with Ecgric (HE III, 18),[note 26] terminated, as far as can be seen, the exercise of royal power among the eastern Angles by the direct descendants of Raedwald (see Appendix, Fig. 5 [the family tree of the Wuffings]), and made the repression of Penda's ambition imperative if Oswald were to reconstruct the paramount position which had been Eadwine's." --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Aha. That's almost identical, except my edition has 635/6 instead of 640/1; Kirby must have given up on the LE in the interim. What does note 26 say? In my edition it says "That this event occurred in 635/6 or 636/7 is clear from the Liber Eliensis ... in which Anna is said to have been in the nineteenth year of his reign when he fell in battle. This was in a year the Chronicle A gives as 654 (s.a. 654), the year before the battle of the Winwaed. The battle of the Winwaed, however, may have taken place in 656. If Anna was slain in 655 in his nineteenth year, he succeeded in 636 or 637. There is no certainty, on the other hand, that Anna's death was dated by reference to the Winwaed and if Anna fell in 654, he succeeded in 635/6. The Irish annals place 'the battle of Anna' in 655 (AU s.a. 656)." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"That this event occurred in 635/6 or 636/7 is clear from suggested by the Liber Eliensis ... in which Anna is said to have been in the nineteenth year of his reign when he fell in battle. This was in a year the Chronicle A gives as 654 (s.a. 654), the year before the battle of the Winwaed. The battle of the Winwaed, however, may have taken place in 656. If Anna was slain in 655 in his nineteenth year, he succeeded in 636 or 637. There is no certainty, on the other hand, that Anna's death was dated by reference to the Winwaed and if Anna fell in 654, he succeeded in 635/6. The Irish annals place 'the battle of Anna' in 655 (AU s.a. 656). But Sigeberht was alive when Fursa, an Irish abbot living among the eastern Angles, left for Gaul where he found Erchinoald as mayor of the Nuestrian palace, which office Erchinoald acquired in 641: so Sigeberht probably survived until c.640/1. C. Stancliffe, 'Oswald, "most holy and victorious king of the Northumbrians" ', in C. Stancliffe and E. Cambridge (eds), Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint (Stamford, 1995), pp. 33-38, suggests that the xix of the LE may have been in error for xiv (p.53, n. 100)." --Amitchell125 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I think we can drop Kirby's 635/6 now; I'll make some changes this evening if I get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the lead to match the changes you made in the body; I think this is done now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• "It was during his reign that the Mercians began to be Christianised, perhaps under the auspices of the East Angles." Kirby's source for this is Yorke's Kings and Kingdoms, p. 63; I think Yorke would be a better source and she provides a couple of additional specific details -- the basis for her suggestion is that the Middle Angles already had a bishop when Peada became their king, and since Mercia was pagan it is possible this was due to East Anglian influence -- Penda was never Christian, and Peada only converted when he married Ealhflæd.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK -- I tweaked it a bit more to avoid saying that the East Anglians provided the bishop, since Yorke doesn't actually say that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• What's the basis for saying that Æthelburg and Sæthryth were not "willing participants"? Do you mean that they didn't make royal alliances? If so, I think it needs rephrasing; it seems too strong, since it implies that there were royal alliances that Anna wanted them to make. I don't have Yorke's book on nunneries but she may comment on the reasons royal women went to religious houses, so you might find something there. Also, you have "sent", which may be too strong; Yorke just says they "entered" the monasteries without assigning a cause.

done - I may expand on this later --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

expanded --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That looks very good; a nice touch of background comment there from Yorke. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• "It was by means of marriages such as this that the kings of East Anglia were able to become well-connected to other royal dynasties" -- this is from Kirby, so as above I can't be sure if he's added something to the 2000 edition, but in the 1991 edition his discussion of the marriage of Seaxburh is in the context of Kent's connections to other dynasties, not East Anglia's. Unless Kirby has something additional to say I would make this sentence speak to the value of the connection with Kent specifically, since Kent was, per Kirby, influential and well-connected.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• What's the source for Cenwalh's conversion to Christianity at Anna's court in 646? You cite the ODNB article on Anna but I don't see it there; is it in the article on Cenwalh? Kirby mentions the conversion but the original source seems to be Bede, who gives no date for it that I can see.

source added, with a bitt of rewording to the text as well. --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That works -- the date is now noted as being per the ASC so it's not stated as definite; I think that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've now found a note in Plunkett on this; p. 110 -- it's a bit unclear but I think he means 647. He seems to be relying on William of Malmesbury, but Plunkett doesn't provide notes so it's hard to tell. I can't find anything in Malmesbury in the Google Books edition, but that doesn't prove it's not there.

• You locate the South Gyrwe "south of Crowland", based on Yorke p. 65; she is more specific on p. 11 where she says they "were probably based around Ely", so you might want to use that instead.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why "Gyrwas" rather than "Gyrwe"? I checked a few sources and they all use Gyrwe; I think I have seen Gyrwas used too, but I'm not sure where -- do you have a source that uses that spelling?

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• The Catholic Encyclopedia is a bit old to be a good secondary source, so I looked up the marriage to Tondberht in Yorke, and found that she gives the date as probably having been after Anna's death, though she admits uncertainty. I think it would be better to use Yorke as the source here and mention the date as uncertain; the underlying source is Bede, who gives little clue to the date. Also, you mention that the marriage strengthened the East Anglian hold on that part of the kingdom; Yorke says that but the Catholic Encyclopedia does not, so that's another reason to use Yorke.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Æthelthryth, accompanied by her minister Owine, travelled from Ely to Northumbria": what's the source for this? I can't find these details in Yorke. I think you're probably taking it from the description in Bede IV.3, which is fine, but in that case I would cite Bede directly as well as Yorke. P.S. I just spotted a mention of this in Yorke, p.70, so you could also use that.

Yorke used. --Amitchell125 (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Note 11 has a comment about seeing Kirby for the dating of the battle in which Ecgric was killed; you use that note in three places but in only one is that comment relevant, so I'd suggest splitting it out into a separate note.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• You've italicized Cnobheresburg, which I know is the convention in the literature when a location is unknown, but I don't think we can use that convention in a general purpose encyclopedia. I think you should explain in the text or a footnote that the location isn't known for sure, but it is possible that it's Burgh Castle. I also don't think you should link from Cnobheresburg since that could mislead a reader into thinking the identification was definite. Similarly, I wouldn't italicize Icanho or Winwæd.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I like including the OE for the mention of Anna's death, but I would suggest translating it (and citing the translated edition); and I'd also give the year under which the entry occurs. If the year in the ASC is inaccurate, as is often the case, clarify that in the text or a note.

Is the Online Edition of the ASC in Old English acceptable as a source? - if not, do you have access to a suitable publication (I don't)? Changes made --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You could use this. I think the source you give is reliable but a book reference is probably safer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I switched this to the 1865 John Earle -- I am concerned that the website might not pass muster at FAC as an RS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence starting "Since Bede" (last para of the Death section) has no source; it's not sourced by the Liber Eliensis page that the following sentence is sourced to. It's not particularly contentious but I think it's good practice to source statements like this -- finding a source is an indication that a historian thinks this is worth mentioning.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear on this. It wasn't the ref to Bede (which you've supplied, and which is fine) that I was looking for; it was a ref for the whole sentence. That is, you say "historians have regarded Anna as an extremely devout and pious man, renowned both for his Christian virtues and the exceptional number of his descendants who were made into Anglo-Saxon saints" -- can you either cite someone saying that historians have regarded Anna as very devout, or else cite one or two historians that refer to him as very devout? The reason I'd like a citation is to make sure that this is indeed the quality that historians most mention about Anna. E.g. one could also write "historians have regarded Anna as Penda's main adversary in the south" or "historians have regarded Anna as the most important East Anglian king"; these are statements of overall assessment, and to ensure that the article is neutral I think they need to be sourced.

It's proving rather difficult to find any historian that is prepared to state that Anna was devout, only that he was Christian and that he had saintly daughters. It seems his reputation as a devout Christian comes from Bede's comments. I'll modify what I thought was an obvious statement. --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yorke mentions the possibility that Anna was succeeded by both his brothers ruling together (p. 69); might be worth mentioning as a possibility, even if only in a footnote, when you talk about the succession.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest adding Anna's brothers to the family tree. And how about Seaxburh's daughters? They are notable and I think there's room.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Information from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has allowed historians to place Wihtburh's death at c. 743": I think this is an unnecessarily round about way of putting it. The F ms says her body was founded uncorrupted in 798, 55 years after her death, so it implies she died in 743. How about: "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions her death when it records that her body was found uncorrupted in 798, 55 years after she died. The resulting date for her death of 743 is much too late for her to have been a sister of Æthelthryth, who was born in 636." and cite Swanton for the ASC reference.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

OK; I re-added the Yorke ref, which I assume you didn't mean to cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Kirby gives 654/655 as the possible dates for Anna's death; I don't know if that's revised in the later edition, but it seems to be at odds with the 653/654 dates you give. I also found (note 26 in the "Northern Anglian hegemony" chapter) Kirby's explanation of his calculation of the dates; he does use the "possibly unreliable" Liber Eliensis, which says Anna died in the nineteenth year of his reign. You now mention the unreliability, but I think the calculation itself is of interest to the reader and since Kirby explains it there's no reason you can't give the details. There's also a note up above about the discrepancies in the death dates -- you give 633 for his accession but I think Yorke supports about 640 or later, if I remember rightly.

Everyone's dates are different! I'll do some homework and sort out my discrepancies. --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to give "possibly early 640s" for the death of Sigeberht (quoting Yorke) and I'll explain Kirby's dates in the 2000 ed. of his book (640/1). Anna's death will be "653 or 654" (quoting Yorke again, p. 63) and make the article consistent. Ug.--Amitchell125 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ug indeed. I've had another look through the books and the dates are a nightmare. I'm going to go ahead and add a bit of additional discussion based on Kirby; please revert or comment here if you don't like the additional material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, done; see what you think. Essentially I just added Kirby's interpretation, which takes the LE at face value; Kirby's a reliable source so if he believes the LE and Kelly and Yorke don't then we can say that historians don't agree on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good now. --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes; thanks for sticking it out through figuring out these dates. Nice to have that settled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Plunkett (p. 110) says that Anna probably provided military support for Cenwealh's return to his throne; that's probably worth mentioning.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, Mike. I'll work my way through your points during the next week or two, depending on how difficult they are to tackle. I appreciate your offer to tackle the draft background section. Please ask Nikkimaria for his help with the sources, it sounds like a good idea. --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a her, not a him, I believe! I left her a message; she's busy but I hope she has time. No hurry on any of this, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I still have this excellent article on my watchlist. If you would like to go to FAC Amitchell, and would like my assistance, please don't hesitate to ask. Parrot of Doom 20:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hello all! Mike asked me to offer some commentary on sourcing and citation consistency. Before I get into specifics, I should mention that it'd be a good idea for someone to go through and make sure there's no overly close paraphrasing, and that citations actually support the material that they're supposed to be sourcing (I'm definitely not accusing you of anything, but these are things currently emphasized at FAC). I should also point out that I'm not a subject-matter expert, so I can't speak to source comprehensiveness (ie. whether any major sources have been omitted, or whether a minority-viewpoint source is overused). With that out of the way, let's get down to details:

• Starting with a non-source comment: WP:MOS - fickle, constantly changing, and also something checked at FAC. As a few quick examples, don't italicize quotes (instead use straight double quotation marks), use ndashes instead of hyphens for breaking up sentences, and be consistent in what is spelled out in terms of numbers (why "eleventh century" but "8th-century"?). It's nitpicky work

done, but Old English and Latin quotes have been kept in italics --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done my best with this paragraph of the review - please advice if more needs doing. --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Don't use bare URLs as citations - you need at least title, publisher, retrieval date for web-based sources

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation or The Ecclesiastical History of the English People? Online or Electronic edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? Check for consistency between Notes and Sources

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely English People - no changes made --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Some further inconsistencies here - for example, Blackwall or Blackwell Encyclopedia? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well - my spelling error. --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• ref 25, 39: why no title?

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• ref 26: which Yorke?

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Compare punctuation for ODNB citations

sorted --Amitchell125 (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic information for bishop

sentence taken out as I can't find the bishop's name! --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include only one or all authors for citations to multi-author works

checked - but I couldn't spot any problems left to do --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether notes end in periods or not

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Other sources" are in roughly alphabetical order; why aren't "Primary sources" the same? Why is one Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in Primary and the other in Other? Check source organization

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Publisher for Bede (or at least this version of it)?

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Publisher for ODNB, Catholic Encyclopedia?

CE source removed (it's outdated); ODNB done --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Don't wikilink London

London is linked within a template, which I have attempted to edit. --Amitchell125 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Italicize ODNB, no quotes

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Be detail-oriented - check for minor inconsistencies like whether initials are spaced or unspaced, etc

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why specify country for Woodbridge but not ex. Bury St Edmunds?

country/county details removed accordingly --Amitchell125 (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Lots of detail work to do here - I'll check back in a bit, feel free to ask if there's something I haven't made clear enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review -- I had spotted two or three of these points but I knew you'd find things I missed. Much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks much better, although there are still some minor inconsistencies - good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing

I've started the process of making the changes as suggested, my record of where I am is at User:Amitchell125/anna. --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it be easier for you to just edit the lists above? That's done quite often -- see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fluorine/archive2 for an example. Either is fine but it might be easier to keep track if you did it that way -- then if necessary I or Nikkimaria can respond after your comments, which keeps threads together. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Pre-FAC quick read through...

• Remove the old DNB and CE cites. They just detract from your scholarship. If the information contained there can't be sourced to something more modern, chances are good it's outdated and no longer considered accurate.

CE removed --Amitchell125 (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• You don't list the ODNB ref in the other sources section - just in footnote 1. Make this conform to the rest of the citations - there is a template Cite encyclopedia which will be useful here.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest you break out ALL explanatory notes into the notes section, rather than mixing them up in the footnotes. It'll look cleaner.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Still need to work on the footnotes - you aren't consistent with the italicizing of names - also, decide on ONE edition of the ASC and use it exclusively, that's just good practice.

italicizing done. --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Point taken about the ASC versions, but Swanton is needed because of his introduction, which is cited in the article, and Earle is used because Swanton did not publish the Old English version of the ASC, and Earle did. The OE needs a cite. How can I get round this? --Amitchell125 (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Cite the introduction specifically. There should be a "chapter" field in the citation template that allows you do to that. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In the end I checked Mike Christie's source (Earle) and realised it didn't contain any English translation, so both sources will be kept. I've added the language in the cites to clarify this. --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• You have references in the footnotes which aren't in the sources section - Bishop (footnote 50)

source added --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• You can use "et al." for works with more than two authors - so "Fryde, et al. Handbook of British Chronology, etc.

done --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Generally we don't use honorifics such as "St Jurmin" or similar to refer to people in the text, especially when we are talking about them when they were alive.

  Done -- the only place this was happening was the paragraph on the canonisation of Anna's children, so it was sort of appropriate, but since the paragraph starts by saying they were all canonised I think it's fine to cut them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely some overlinking going on .. I count numerous links to Jurmin, Eorcenberht, etc. It's a royal pain in the butt to check these, I know, but it's important.

Query - is there only supposed to be one link for each article linked? (e.g. Jurmin has 3 (infobox, lead section, main text) and needs to be reduced to 1 (lead section)? --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

One in the infobox and one in the article is fine. You can also choose to link in the lead as well as the body (which would make three links). However, you've got links to Jurmin - one in the lead, one in the infobox, a link in "death...", and a link in "descendants". The second link in "descendants" is redundant. Eorcenberht's is only listed three times in the article, but is linked each time. I often find it helpful to do a search through my browser for linked terms, to make sure I'm not linking them more than once. On really long articles (say Wilfrid, length, where you're 8000+ words), it's acceptable to link twice in the article body - once in the beginning, and once somewhere in the last third or so, IF the term/person/link is very important. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

over-linking sorted. (Links in family tree retained) --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Throughout his reign Anna was forced to oppose Mercian aggression against his kingdom and also to support his allies against Penda." needs a citation. Also an explanation for why this was so. David Dumville in "Essex, Middle Anglia, and the Expansion of Mercia in the South-East Midlands" (In The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms ed. by Steven Basset, Leicester University Press, London 1989, pp. 123-140) page 132 says that the East Anglian kingdom was the main rival with Mercia for the Middle Anglian kingdom - and that this is probably the explanation for why the Mercian's continued to repeatedly attack the East Angles from the mid 630s through 654. He also states that "The Mercians' original principal rivals for this territory [Middle Anglian] must have been the East Angles who would therefore have become hereditary enemies."

above quoted section modified and cited using Yorke. --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well, you just made me very happy by inspiring me to check used.addall.com for a copy of Bassett, which I've been trying to find under $50 for several years; there was one with a mis-spelled title for $30. Anyway, as I read this you could use Dumville to support the first half of the sentence in the article, but not the second -- agreed? I looked through my sources on Mercia and can't so far find anything that talks about Anna's allies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Dumville used as suggested. --Amitchell125 (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest, Ealdgyth. --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone interested in medieval English history ... of whatever time period, deserves support and help! The more of us, the better. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Any objection to adding to the MILHIST tag?

As the leader of a political unit at a time of war, this article fits the criteria ... and it's also just the kind of article that military historians love. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I reckon. --Amitchell125 (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Potential April Fools material

Mentioning "King Anna" would fit well on Wikipedia's April Fools main page. Fences&Windows 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)