Jump to content

Talk:Order of Brothelyngham/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 05:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Assessment[edit]

I will add comments a section at a time, and let you know when I have completed the review. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References [edit]

Whilst reviewing the article it became clear that almost all the sources used can be freely access online. I would provide the following with a url:
  • This is both vols; added |origyear= param though.
  • Well, he's the editor, not the author.
He's the author according to the Hathi Trust and others, and the books themselves specifically name Hingeston-Randolph, but as there's no agreement amongst libraries, publishers, Google books, etc. and it's not important for GA, I'm happy to acquiesce. -- Ami
  • Consider adding {{open access}} (appears as Open access icon) after the references that are openly accessible. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gvozdeva, K. (2008) - add '(in French').

Lead section [edit]

  • (caption) - link Exeter Cathedral, link Grandisson (amended to 'John Grandisson'); change 'the Brothelynghamites' to 'the Order of Brothelyngham'.
Done.
  • At present the lead section doesn't stand alone as a concise version of the article (see MOS:INTRO to know where I am coming from). Not everything needs to be included in the lead section, but I think the following important points in the main text need to summarised somewhere in the lead:
• On 11 June that year John Grandisson, the Bishop of Exeter, writing from Chudleigh, instructed his chief agents in Exeter to investigate the order… they were instructed to condemn the order…
• …their abbot … ruled them as from a theatrical stage…
• The Brothelyngham monks paraded their abbot around the streets of Exeter…
• …the members of the order seem to have considered themselves players rather than villains.
• … debauched in their behaviour… certainly disobedient …
• It is possible that the title was bestowed upon the gang by the bishop…
• The name Brothelyngham was probably a satirical nod towards Sempringham Priory, which… was an obvious target for popular satire as it was the only abbey in the country which housed both monks and nuns…
• In 1351… another group of pseudo-monks… …in Townstal "claimed power”… without Grandisson's permission…
Think I caught all of that, except the 1351 bit, good idea!

Included in the lead section, but not to my knowledge in the main text:

  • ...probably as a satire or protest against the church... - 'probably'; 'or protest' both aren't in the article.
Adjusted.
  • They dressed as monks and elected a madman as their abbot, although there is no indication that they had ever received any theological training whatsoever. - 'no indication that they had ever received any theological training' isn't discussed in the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it relates to the 1351 mob, but I agree not to Brothelyngham, so removed.

Background [edit]

  • Amend reference 3 (Busby) to 'p. 16, note 3', (I found only 87 pages).
Done.
  • Who are E. K. Chambers and G. G. Coulton?
Added unfalse titles.
  • ... Sociétés Joyeuses,… - this phrase might be unfamiliar to readers. I would add a note to explain it, citing Gvozdeva (The Cultural Heritage of Medieval Rituals, p. 66).
Good idea: unfortunately, Gbooks is pissing me about atm, and I can't access anything from it (just blank pages, most odd), so I had to try and remember the clip I saw. Think it's accurate, but I will make it more discursive when I can.
  • I would remove the reference to Luxford in the middle of the first sentence, as the same once occurs at the end of it.
Done.

Riotousness in Exeter[edit]

  • Remove 'city' from the title.
Check.
  • Consider removing reference 2b (Chambers) - it's not required, since 2c is at the end of the sentence.
Well, it's interpolated with Gvodska.
Understood. --Ami
Good catch; although it is over 200 years later, it's still probably more revlevant than any of the images I'm currently using. Which are all crap.
  • Amend link John Grandisson to 'John de Grandisson' (as it is in his Wikipedia article, etc.); remove second link for Exeter Cathedral in the first paragraph (only one is required).
Going by soures, of course; good catch with the wikilink.
Both excellent, thanks. Can't believe I missed habit!
  • Who are Chope, Derek Brewer, Hingeston-Randolph and Gvozdeva?
Mostly already identified by trade, couple added.
  • ...considered themselves players… - c/e to 'considered themselves as actors'.
Done.
  • Move the link excommunicated to the first paragraph of the section.
Done.
  • ...prevent the church… and To the church… - Church (in capitals), consider one instance of 'the Church' using Religion in Medieval England.
Church capitalised throughout (when referring to thbe organisation) and linked in lead and first use.
  • Link abbey, monastery; episcopal chair (Cathedra).
Done.
  • Move the image to the right of the text. To be honest, I don't feel the image of Grandisson's coat of arms has much relevance in the article. What are your thoughts?
No, it's pony: removed.
  • ...like a monastery… - consider amending to 'as were English monasteries during the period'.
Done.
  • ...they greatly disturbed… - remove greatly (a peacock term).
Done.
Done.
  • The leader of the Order—whom the members idolised—was a known "lunatic and raver"—was appointed its abbot. This sentence needs copy-editing to help to improve the prose.
Yes, agree.
  • ...again imitating the bishop's dias. - why 'again'?
No reason; removed.
  • Indeed, Chope points out… - remove Indeed, (an example of editorialising).
Done.
  • ...for the participants, "such sport is as much folklore as drama",… - Derek Brewer is quoted accurately, but I don't know what he means. Can you explain it? Also, are the participants the members of the order, or their victims?
Difficult this: on re-reading the source, I got the impression that it was how it appears to modern historians, but caouldn't really tell you why. Perhaps I can email him; I assume he's the same Brewer as in Boydell and Brewer.
I would hide the sentence (ready to be re-introduced at a later date if you want to contact Brewer) unless you feel you want to keep it there. What's written about the phrase doesn't look too bad now, but the phrase itself is still a bit puzzling to me. --Ami
  • "beset in a great company the streets and places" and "in lieu of sacrifice, nay of sacrilege" - they are apparently quotes, but whose words are they?
Cited.
  • According to MOS:QUOTE, "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style" - I would reduce the times that text is quoted from different sources to about half the number existing at present, and replace the quotes with paraphrased text.
Right.
  • They would have understood the word to mean… The sentence needs copy-editing, as it makes little sense at present.
Changed to "have meant".
  • The text in the quotebox is in English, but the citation is for the text in Latin. Replace the current reference, perhaps using Chope (pp. 62-4).
Added.
  • Grandisson noted that, although the gang called this ludus,—"under colour and veil of a game, or rather a farce", he says—simply, "it was sheer rapine". This needs to be copy-edited, to something like 'Grandisson disputed how he thought the gang thought themselves as "under colour and veil of a game, or rather a farce", instead describing their activities as "sheer rapine". Also, I would consider moving the first reference to the end of the sentence.
Right.
  • ...a contemporary record describes them as "a pestilent sect, guilty of great excesses" in the city. - as the 'record' is part of an index to a 19th century book (and so is not contemporary), and the page it refers to does not quote this text, it should be removed.
True dat; I'll try and find a source for a similar quote.
  • I can't see how reference 23a (Gvozdeva) can be used to cite the word 'chaotic'.
"bordélique" is close enough I fancy.
C'est bien. --Ami

Later events [edit]

  • Can you explain for me what reference 27 (Boissonade) is citing?
The textile trade.
  • ...causing "much disturbance". - amend the text in the quote marks (or remove the quote marks), as Brewer actually writes 'causing great disturbances'. (MOS:PMC)
Good point; I've recast the sentence so as not to quote Brewer when it's s easily paraphrased.
  • ...a lodestone … - replace this phrase, as it is idiomatic.
Done.
No, this is, as in "temporal" community, i.e., the non-ecclesiast part of society (i.e., most!).
I think the term lay community is open to misinterpretation, as it depends on the historical period, religion, etc. and so should be replaced to help make it clearer and more understandable to readers. --Ami
Amended. --Ami

Historiography[edit]

  • Link mendicant order.
Nice one, done.

Notes[edit]

  • Indeed, Chope points out… - remove 'Indeed' (an example of editorialising).
Done.
  • Link Latin (with a capital letter).
Done.
  • ... let alone the provinces. - I looked, but couldn't find where Chope wrote this. My error?
Don't know yet; I can't find my copy, and now InternetbloodyArchive has got "essential maintenace". Gah.
"...there was no regular theatre even in London for more than two centuries after this date..." (Chope, p. 64). --Ami
  • ...it was a generic word ... - I would replace it with theatrum.
Good call.

On hold[edit]

Hi Serial Number 54129, I have completed the review, and placed the article on hold for a week. There's clearly some work to do for it to reach GA status, but many of the points raised are easily fixed. Please let me know if you have any queries. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sup, Amitchell125, I think I've dealt with most of your queries (apologies, but due to problème technique I'm having difficulty in checking a couple of sources, but I'll get back for them), exc for much of your suggestions re. Bibliography, which is purely er consistency rather than philosophical objections. Although consistency itself could well count as a philosophical objection, I suppose. Thanks for a thorough review though! Happy Diwali  :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the points I have raised about the Bibliography section are required for GA, and are not mentioned in WP:CITEHOW, so the section can stand as it is. However, the changes I have listed are helpful for editors, reviewers and readers. Are you happy that I add them in at some stage? Amitchell125 (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125: Absolutely no problem whatsoever, and can I say I appreciate you approaching it this way? This must be the epitome of collegiality. ——SN54129 09:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passing[edit]

All sorted bar a couple of points, and a double check for any minor errors. Thanks for producing a decent article about an interesting topic, passing now. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Brothelyngham/GA1&oldid=991458907"