Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dispute between Darnhall and Vale Royal Abbey/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 24 March 2022 [1].

Dispute between Darnhall and Vale Royal Abbey edit

Nominator(s): SN54129 19:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pity the poor folk of 14th- and 15th-century Cheshire, with their Rachmanesque landlord in the figure of the villainous Abbot of Vale Royal condemning them to perpetual slavery for fifty years... and the rest! They protest their rights to the Abbot. He finds against them and imprisons and fines them. They protest their rights to the King. He finds against them and returns them to the Abbot. They are imprisoned and fined by the Abbot. They protest their rights to the justiciar. He finds against them and returns them to the Abbot. They are imprisoned and fined by the Abbot. They protest their rights to the King and Queen. The Queen supports them. The King finds against them and returns them to the Abbot. They are imprisoned and fined by the Abbot. You get the picture. Needless to say, there were increasing fatalities among the good brothers, culminating in the eventual murder of—you guessed it—the Abbot of Vale Royal.
Hopefully this is worthy of your attention, and I look forward to your suggestions and comments for improving this article further. Thanks all! SN54129 19:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review—pass, no licensing issues found. (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review. I am sure that I have read this before.

Lead

  • Caption: "the Abbey's foresters prevent them from exercising their rights within". What does this mean? Within what?
    The Royal forset.
  • "whether they had villein, or servile, status." This could be read as meaning the choice was between these two.
    Distinguished.
  • "exclusive forest- and other feudal rights". Is the hyphen a typo?
    Yes.
  • "their feudal lord, the Abbot of Vale Royal Abbey". If you are referring to abbots in general, lower case initial; if a specific one ... And elsewhere, eg "The Abbots, for their part".
    Wut.
MOS:JOBTITLES. would you like me to do them?
@Gog the Mild: That's a very kind offer; if you wouldn't mind. My eyes are going funny by now  :) SN54129 19:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their House had ..." Why the upper case H?
    Fixed.
  • "Their House had commenced major building works". Is it known when?
    1277 (almost immediately).
  • "Edward I's Welsh campaign". Could we work in somewhere that this was a military campaign?
    Changed to "Welsh wars".
  • "Either way". Er, so far you have only suggested a single way.
    The Abbot's way or the highway (to Over). Removed.

Footnotes

  • "(especially court rolls)" Link court rolls.
    Linked, tweaked.
  • "Edward III invaded Scotland in March 1333, crushing the Scots at the Battle of Homildon Hill that July." Wrong.
    Spot Today's Deliberate Mistake. Now fixed, in memory of your blood pressure...
:-)
  • "The Ledger and its author". Ledger either in italics or with a lower case initial.
    Italicised; think I got all of them.
  • "Physically violent expressions". As opposed to non-physically violent?
    My favourite kind. Fixed.
  • "in the middle of saying Mass". Why the upper case M?
    Back then it was even *spoken* with a capital letter. Lower-cased.
  • "by a patron of his Abbey". Why the upper case A?
    Right!

More to follow. Leaning oppose - insufficient and inadequately obtuse footnotes. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ho ho ho :P ...see below.

Main article I

  • "both money and stonemasons were diverted". Perhaps a word as to why stonemasons, of all people, were suddenly in short supply?
    Added footnote re. the King's Ancient Works.
OK, that's sufficienly obtuse to save the nomination.
  • "increasingly precarious." Do you mean the first word? (Or can it be removed?)
    It can.
  • "When their tenants appeared before his manorial court". "their ... his"?
    Fixed, probably.
  • "In East Anglia, there was a similar tenant's revolt against the Abbot of Bury St Edmunds Abbey in 1327 which were similar to the struggles of Darnhall and Over." 1. "similar ... similar". 2. "there was a ... which were"
    Clomp.
  • Link Peasants' Revolt.
    D'oh. Good spot.
  • "to paying massive death duties." Does the source support "massive"?
    The source uses "huge death duties", so [2].
  • "tried to refuse the Abbot payment for these customs and services". I though the customs and services were imposed on the locals, why are they paying for this imposition?
    Clarified.
  • "An Abbey servant, John of Budworth, was killed". Was this also in 1320?
    Indeed. Clarified.

Main article II

  • "refusing to grind flour at the Abbot's mill". Suggest "Abbot" → 'abbey'. And maybe explain why the Abbot would care about this?
    Done. A footnote explaining the tenurial form of millsuite suggested itself.
  • "for on their release they sent a delegation to the King, who was at this time "in the north parts"". How long were they imprisoned for? They brought, and I assume lost, their case in 1329 and were imprisoned "on their return to the village". Edward arrives four years later. Really?
    This I Do Not Understand. But in case, that whole sentence has been rewritten completely!
  • "on one occasion they travelled as far as Rutland". Perhaps give the actual distance?
    Done.
  • Lead: "Abbot Peter ... also engaged in feuds with the local gentry, resulting in his eventual murder in 1339"; article: "probably during a raid on the Abbey's crops or outhouses—both Abbot Peter and his cellarer were killed. Although details of the exact circumstances of their deaths are unknown, it may also have been the result of a feud with the local gentry rather than the villages." Which?
    Clarified; note NM picked up on this too.
  • "at risk of attack from the surrounding countryside." A fascinating image.
    "As you value your life or your reason, keep away from the Moor", as the lady said. Done.
  • "He argues that what remained was seasonal work—such as would be required at harvest time—but that, while peasant resistance—such as that which had been seen in Darnhall and Over—continued through the next decade, it was also in decline, perhaps suggesting that it was less necessary." A little complicated. Perhaps split into two, or even three, sentences?
    Good idea; done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've addressed your points Gog, and I thank you for them. Please register your oppose as soon as possible; I wouldn't want you to edit-conflict with the numerous editors queuing up with their speedy-deletion templates :O SN54129 18:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Just A/a left I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead says the death was of a clerk, text says a groom - which is correct?
    Clarified groom.
  • The lead attributes Peter's death to the gentry feud, whereas the text is more uncertain on the cause
    Indeed, tweaked lead on account of this uncertainty.
  • See MOS:PAGERANGE
    Check.
  • Axon: is "en" meant to be a location, or is it a misplaced language code?
    The latter! It gets auto inserted using VE. Removed.
  • Ranges should use endashes, even in titles
    Done.
  • Harding: can you verify that both location and publisher are correct as listed?
    I think I just managed to annoy two of the oldest universities ever in a single edit. But, Cambridge.

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Nikkimaria, for those suggestions, which I think I've addressed. SN54129 18:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • I read the first sentences three times before realizing that villein status and servile status were the same thing; it read to me as if "villein" and perhaps "serf" were in opposition, since I couldn't give you a definition of either. Could we do this without the "or"? Perhaps "that is, servile"? Or just "whether they had villein (servile) status"?
    Done.
  • "due to it having been": suggest "because it had been".
    Done.
  • "Such disputes between religious houses...": at this point we haven't mentioned the dispute in the body of the article; I think we could make this just "Disputes between religious houses...".
    Agree. Done.
  • "in a similar struggle to the villagers of Darnhall and Over": suggest "in a struggle similar to that of the villagers of Darnhall and Over".
    Done.
    I think "to that of" would be a bit better -- I was looking to get struggle not being similar to villagers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new Abbey was unpopular locally, as both the grants of land its creation required and those for its day-to-day requirements impinged on villagers' customary liberties, locals claimed": suggest "The new Abbey was unpopular locally, as locals claimed that both the grants of land its creation required and those for its day-to-day requirements impinged on villagers' customary liberties".
    Done.
  • I see reading through that the village of Over is mentioned almost as much as Darnhall, including in the article's first sentence. Should the article title be "Dispute between Darnhall, Over, and Vale Royal Abbey"?
    Ah-ha! See below  :)
    Commented below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you mention iron ploughshares I'd suggest including "to demonstrate their status as freemen" from the associated note, since otherwise a reader has to click on the note or be baffled.
    Excellent point.
  • "they rose vi et armis": do we need to use the historical term here? Would the article lose anything if we said something like "they took up arms"?
    No; done.
  • "moaned" seems a bit colloquial.
    Done.Indeed! It's because I felt I already overused the word "complaint"; but now swapped out.
  • Can we avoid or gloss inline "oyer et terminer"?
    Done, with a short fn for clarity.

All minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Mike Christie, all excellent suggestions, which I've gone alone with. Just the one thing—the title. I absolutely agree. I mulled over various titles at the time, and Over should really be mentioned. But I felt Dispute between Darnhall and Over and Vale Royal Abbey was both unclear—might imply it was a tripartite struggle?!—as well as the clunkiness of "and... and...". I considered Dispute between Vale Royal Abbey and its feudal tenants perhaps? SN54129
Yes, the first option is a bit odd-sounding. I think it would be good to include Over in somehow, though. Your second option would work for me, or you could use a comma: "Dispute between Darnhall and Over, and Vale Royal Abbey, or do something like Dispute between Vale Royal Abbey and the villages Darnhall and Over or even Dispute between Vale Royal Abbey and its feudal tenants Darnhall and Over. Or Vale Royal Abbey dispute with Darnhall and Over? To be honest I think your second suggestion is better than any of mine. I'm certainly not going to oppose over the title, and in fact am supporting below since there's just one nitpick left above, but if you do move it I would wait till after promotion as that simplifies FAC bookkeeping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

Happy to support the promotion of this article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I have a few small suggestions about the prose, but they don't affect my support and I leave them for the nominator to accept or reject as he wishes:

  • "On a number of occasions" – there are those who get aerated about "a number of", insisting it should just be "some" or similar. I can't say the question arouses any strong feelings in the Riley bosom but I mention it here anyway.
  • "building commenced in 1277" – I have raised my eyebrows at "commence" at another of your FACs already today, SN54129. It was a prissy verb there and is a prissy verb here – still one of Fowler's "genteelisms", and a plain "began" or "started" would be preferable.
  • "As such, relations between the Abbey and its tenantry" – not quite sure what you mean by "as such" here. If you mean "consequently" or "as a result" it would be as well to say so plainly.
  • "They beset the Justiciar of Cheshire, the King himself, and even Queen Philippa in their search for redress. Indeed, the latter may have supported them" – you can only have the latter of two and there are three here. (You have a similar construction in the lead, but slightly differently phrased, and I think you get away with it there.)
  • "killed in the melée" – this falls between two stools: if you're chucking accents about you need a circumflex as well as an acute – mêlée. I think the word is perfectly good English in 2022 as a plain "melee", but the OED and Chambers both favour "mêlée", and who am I to argue? (Answers on a postcard, please.)
  • "to stymie the villagers' suits" – a touch slangy (and out-of-date slang at that: the stymie was dropped from the rules of golf in the year I was born, in the reign of the late King George VI.)
  • "the Abbot moaned" – another slightly slangy usage, possibly? Something like "complained" might be more formal.
  • "Says Mark Bailey" – this construction seems to me a little convoluted. "Mark Bailey says" seems to me more natural and flowing.

I hope these are of some use, and they are such minor points that I am happy to support the promotion of the article whether or not you act on them. Tim riley talk 20:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, and apologies for not noticing this until now. I appreciate your suggestions, and, indeed, have addressed them. I don't think you've ever made one that wasn't for the best. The genteelisms have gone the way of all things!
Thanks for the support! SN54129 13:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. After another look at the article, may I suggest that in the last sentence of the Attack on Abbot Peter section, although "prior to" is a perfectly good phrase, it jars a bit in a sentence in which the prior is followed immediately by "the abbot's"? Perhaps rather too many ecclesiastical eminences in one sentence, and a plain "before" might be preferable here. Just a thought. Tim riley talk 18:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dispute_between_Darnhall_and_Vale_Royal_Abbey/archive1&oldid=1079092535"