Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Peasants' Revolt

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peasants' Revolt edit

Nominator(s): User:Hchc2009 (talk)

I am nominating this article as it covers a popular and well-known English rebellion; the article covers the current state of research well, but could do with a polish and advice from a wider grouping of editors. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning Support: Cdtew (talk)

  • "One of the causes of the Peasants' Revolt was the impact of the Black Death in England." - This sort of pops out of nowhere. The remainder of that paragraph is a thumbnail sketch of the English economy at the time, and you don't actually get to the Black Death until para 2. I realize you're trying to give the "Causes" sections some structure (ie, "A. Black Death, B. War in France, C..."), but it reads somewhat awkwardly. I'm certain to a person who knows nothing of the subject it would seem like a non sequitur until they get to the next para.
  • I've played with the intro a bit - see if it works better now. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it illegal to refuse work or to break an existing contract" - Strictly speaking, breach of contract is unlawful - the term illegal being at times fraught with uncertainty. While there's a general consensus it seems that "illegal" means "criminal", there's an argument to be made that anything you can be penalized for at law (but not at equity) is "illegal". I'm usually of the mind that when you mean something has been criminalized, you should say "made it a crime to ..."
  • I think there's a subtle distinction in the medieval law around this, but I think your wording would avoid any confusion, and have changed accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this time with a sliding scale of taxes against seven different classes of English society." - Was the scale regressive or progressive?
  • Strictly speaking, I don't think anyone knows - the amount increased for the upper classes, but I'm not sure if the maths made this genuinely progressive or not (the sources don't say). I've clarified further as far as I can in the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rate of four pence" - this is something there's clearly no accurate way of adjusting to today's currency, but can you give the reader an approximation of the value (ie, "a gallon of wine at the time would have cost between three and four pence" per [1])? The source I cited is illustrative, but it gives potentially reliable sources as its source. I know you have a footnote about larger sums, but it's hard psychologically to compare a four pence one-time or yearly expenditure to 600 pounds yearly income, whereas I think the information would be useful for a reader to understand the burden the poll tax placed on certain classes of people.
  • "Marshalsea Court" - obviously someone curious about the meaning of this could go to the Marshalsea Court page, but it might be worth mentioning the court's unusual jurisdiction to give the reader an idea of why that would have caused unrest.
  • "The poet John Gower feared a repeat in England of the Jacquerie revolt of 1358" - Since the Jacquerie didn't per se happen in England, saying it would be a repeat seems inaccurate. Perhaps "The poet John Gower feared the occurrence in England of a revolt similar to the French Jacquerie of 1358"?
  • "they were except from such requests" - Unless this is part of British English that I may not know about, shouldn't this be "excepted" or "exempted"?
  • No special BritEng, just my bad spelling! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work overall so far. I have more comments to come; I've stopped at ==Events==. Cdtew (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "had claimed that Robert Belling was an escaped serf" - This Robert Belling pops up without introduction; perhaps something like "a man by the name of Robert Belling", or "a man in Kent called Robert Belling"
  • "The people of Kent were furious" - surely not all the people of Kent? Is there a way to stay away from generalizations? The rabble of Kent? (Just kidding, but more seriously) "A substantial number of peasants in Kent"?
  • The original source and the chroniclers gloss it widely, but I've had a stab at rephrasing - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk)
  • "such as Bealknap and Bampton" - Is this the same as Belknap mentioned earlier?
  • Yep, an alternative spelling. I've standardised. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the rebels also targeted houses belonging to Flemish immigrants" - Any reason for this in particular mentioned in your sources?
  • In the background section there's a bit on the hatred of Flemings. Individual attacks are hard to explain from the sources, and most don't; the best we can usually say is that they were competitors, foreign, and had non-English accents. I don't think this instance has any specific trigger. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with eight men-at-arms and a small force of archers" - I seem to recall that he gained more men along the way, correct? Do your sources give an approximation of his command before North Walsham? Right now, as it reads, Henry had 8 men and some bowmen, and went to battle with only that force.
  • The paragraph goes onto say that he left Norwich with a company of men, but have clarified the increase in forces. I've checked back, and I don't think there are any good estimates for the numbers at the battle itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard himself visited Essex, where he met with a rebel delegation, seeking confirmation of the grants the King had given at Mile End" - I think, as it reads right now, the sentence states that Richard was seeking confirmation; it should probably be changed to "Richard himself visited Essex, where he met with a rebel delegation seeking confirmation of the grants the King had given at Mile End" (no comma after delegation). If this is a Britishism, let me know, but even if it is, it's seemingly unclear in this context.
  • "Roger de Bacon was probably arrested" - elsewhere in the article he's referred to as "Sir Roger Bacon"; I'd suggest to pick one and stick with it.
  • "however, with this research has been typically interdisciplinary in nature, involving historians, literary scholars and international collaboration" - I'm not sure this is grammatically correct; the "with" seems to throw the whole sentence off.
  • "Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke argued over the lessons to be drawn from the revolt and the degree of sympathy that should be displayed for the rebels." - I recall Paine strongly took the rebels' side, and Burke I imagine did not, but do you have a source that elucidates this? I can't recall if Burke brings it up in Reflections on the Revolution in France or not.
  • I think the source I used covered it. I've tweaked to bring this out. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Historiography section, you discuss the name "Peasants' Revolt"; is there anything in your sources about the first known use of "Wat Tyler's Rebellion" or any other names?
  • Unfortunately not. I searched a bit when I was researching this, and although I think I could answer it with OR, I can't find a reliable secondary source. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if you need some sort of footnote explaining the Old Style civil year difference -- for instance, while most of the article deals with dates after March 25, 1381, you mention things happening in 1382. If those occured between Jan 1 and March 24, you perhaps should include an (New Style) notation to let the reader know the year was adjusted forward. I suppose in general, readers should know these are all Old Style dates, but those civil year conversion dates might still need an identification (if it indeed qualifies as such).
  • On this one, I think I'd disagree. I've been checking back over the sources used here, and the historians aren't seeing the need to clarify it in their own works. I've checked the MOS for guidance on dates, and I think the article is compliant "as is" with that - but I'm no expert on the MOS, and stand ready to be corrected! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you're right, because the MOS seems to state that all dates should be written in New Style unless you note otherwise. I guess, then, that if your sources don't note whether they're using OS or NS, then we know (by application of convention) that (a) they've converted all pre-Assumption-Day dates to New Style, and (b) likely have not Old Style dates to New Style, which fits with Wikipedia's guidelines. So, I agree this really would be redundant if noted. Cdtew (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Commons instead concluded at the end of 1381" - Is this then end of 1381 Old Style or the end of 1381 New Style? I know you're not giving specific dates, but I tend to think its helpful to add OS/NS information if you're talking about "the end of X year" or "in early X year".
  • " royal council appointed new commissioners in March 1381" - another OS/NS one
  • Image Check: All images appear to have valid PD tags with no issues; as a note, none of the images have alt text, which is not a requirement for ACR or FAC, but it may be useful to review if alt text is needed (or even a simple |alt=refer to caption would be nice).

This is a great bear of an article, but is written exceedingly well and shows that it was a true labour of love. My hat's off to you on what you've done! Cdtew (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work on this! It was a real pleasure to read and review, and it made me dust off my college copy of Alastair Dunn. As an additional note, have you considered a "See Also" section for articles such as Popular revolt in late-medieval Europe, List of peasant revolts, and Jack Cade (which has a similar Kentish influence)? Just some thoughts, but at this point I'm happy to support. Cdtew (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! The list of peasant revolts is hatnoted, so I've added the popular revolt and Jack Cade in as see also's. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- copyedited and reviewed at GAN and, having checked changes made since I last saw it, I think it meets all the A-Class criteria; well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ian. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A few comments, not a complete review:

  • "One of the causes of the Peasants' Revolt were the economic and social impacts of a plague known as the Black Death": I wish people used topic sentences more often, but this one doesn't quite work for me, because it takes too long to get to the statements that support this. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB: "upheaval" sounds fine to me! Thanks Dank. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to his sympathy": in sympathy
  • "they appear to put forward": tense; not sure how to fix
  • "While Richard was at Mile End, the Tower was taken by the rebels. A force of rebels, probably separate from those operating under Tyler at Mile End ...": While Richard was at Mile End, the Tower was taken by the main force of rebels, while a separate group ... ["probably" is probably too much or too little; you could expand with "judged by most historians to be" or something, if the uncertainty is a point of some significance.]
  • "Once inside, the rebels began to hunt down their key targets. Archbishop Sudbury and Robert Hales were in the chapel of the White Tower; along with William Appleton ...": Because so many readers will read the semicolon as if it were a comma (at first), I recommend: Once inside, the rebels began to hunt down their key targets, and found Archbishop Sudbury and Robert Hales in the chapel of the White Tower. Along with William Appleton ... - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forced to agree a new charter": This is a bit informal even in BritEng and looks like a typo to non-Brits, and the subtle distinction between this and "forced to agree to ..." is entirely lost on most of us. Please reword; "agree to" would work, but perhaps "forced to negotiate" is closer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peasants continued to use the memory of the revolt when negotiating rents with their landlords": I'm not sure what this means; were they insinuating they would revolt if rents were too high?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Peasants%27_Revolt&oldid=566987334"