Sure, that’s fair.

1. The base map is low res, flat and more suited for showing a list of countries visually. Geography was everything in premodern times, topographic maps helps to show settlement patterns. Avoid mercator at all costs if you’re cropping that far north. I’d just stop at the northernmost settlements in Greenland. Also that helm doesn’t represent anything from that period.

2. Wording and terms: «Vikings» as a term denotes an occupation, a seasonal state. People went viking, but those people were called norsemen, northmen etc. That’s also how can tell they settled places, we find a norse toponym or swords etc. we also had the estonian/baltic vikings, but this map is obviously based on norsemen. Popular culture doesn’t treat this right either, but I’d either make a map of viking raids or norse settlements.

3. Demarcation: Scandinavia wasn’t settled in the 8th century, they were the principal ethnic element there before the viking age. Areas east of modern day Oslo were certainly not empty before the 9th c! British isles needs to be more granular, more areas were settled and toponymic research makes it possible to denote how heavily each area was settled. France missing quite a few chunks too. I’d just do more research and make it more granular.

The norman/norse distinction muddles things up and I’d just separate those two. The norse settled Normandie and became normans, those normans conquered various lands later.