Same deal with the list being divided by region and time period, but a list of specific journal articles about specific topics, regions, and/or time periods that do not have a book all to themselves or books to reference said information.
Yes. Yes we should. It would probably take a lot of work, though.
Why have a completely separate list just for articles? Why not integrate the two (i.e., books & articles) into a single bibliography? The reference itself should make it clear whether it's a book or article.
Edit: In case it's not clear from the above, I think articles would be a great addition.
It's an interesting idea. I'm not sure if it would be better to have "articles" as maybe a subset under each of the subjects in the larger books list though, since people are more likely to just say "heyo I want to read about Northumbrian wheat farmers" and go to the book list, not to browse to two different lists to find readings.
Would it be worth it to have a list of useful journals as well? I personally can't keep track of what's out there and it would be nice to have a starting point for some things. Also there's probably some that would interest people but it's likely many people don't know they exist. Things like the IEEE's Annals of the History of Computing or Resurrection which is the monthly bulletin of the Computer Conservation Society in England.
Not unless they're publically available, what's the point of linking to articles we can't access? A book at least is a reasonable expectation for someone to buy whereas I can't believe people will pay for access to journals. I'm probably alone on this though.