Wikipedia:Peer review/John/Eleanor Rykener/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John/Eleanor Rykener[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

.

Following a curious FAC which tanked quickly, it was a recommendation to get further commentary from other editors. John/Eleanor has recently been thoroughly probed at GA—many thanks to the intrepid reviewer!—now I'd appreciate a broader commentary if possible. Looking forward to all constructive commentary and criticisms as how, if it is deemed possible, to further advance the article. On edit: I've struck that bit, as on reflection it's probably not for me to dictate what is or is not constructive. Many thanks all! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

All comments are merely suggestions!

  • Your external link has a scan of the original record; perhaps that would make a good lead image? I appreciate that it's not really readable, but it will add a little visual interest. (As you have done with John Fresshe!)
    • Dead right!—Absolutely as I have done with John Fresshe...and Nicholas Exton, and a Duke of Norfolk...you get the picture :) I looked into this when you raised it previously. Unfortunately they're not exactly the same source; the images you see on those articles are from The National Archives—and everything they release (unless specified otherwise) is done so under the Open Government Licence, which is good ole CC-BY compatible. Now, the problem here is that the Rykener interrogation is held by the London Metropolitan Archives (archives for the City of London) and they claim that council of london documents are not released under the OGL and are therefore held under their copyright.
      In an email, they replied to me that we do not think that the Open Government procedures are relevant at all to this material, as it is a scheme directed at central government records, administered on behalf of the Crown by the National Archives...The City of London Common Council, its work and its records, are of local government status. I note they say "we think", so are probably guessing at this stage  :)
      I'm not sure about fair use either; I'm under the impression that the article needs to be specifically about the item that is claimed as fair use—but this is about the man rather than the document. In any case, I'd like to be wrong about all of the above. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no way it would be justified as a non-free image. However, I would have thought that this is a scan of an indisputably PD source document, meaning that, from the perspective of the WMF, the image is in the public domain. I may be wrong about this, though. For more information, take a look at Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • FANTASTIC  :) Cheers! Gone with that. And will just have to wait for the source review I guess...thanks very much for the suggestion, I'd never come across it yet. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
V rudely forgot to ping J Milburn re. their BLOODY FANTASTIC idea about pd-scan  :) Thanks very much! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All that is known of Rykener's life comes from records of his interrogation by the mayor and aldermen of London." How about for sure, given that there are other Rykeners that may be him?
    • Agreed and added; but known of Rykener's life for sure or known for sure of Rykener's life
  • "did embroidery" is a slightly ugly phrase.
  • Just an aside: I think the third paragraph of the lead is great.
    • Thanks very much!—although I added a "that"  :)
  • "An alternate offence that he could have been prosecuted for was sodomy," I don't like this; Rykener has yet to be introduced in the main body of the article. Perhaps you could switch it to something like "Another sexual offence for which people were sometimes prosecuted...". I'd recommend talking about sodomy generally in a background section, rather than tying it explicitly to Rykener. Same with the "Rykener's London"; I'd just switch it to "1390s London" or something. I suppose I would have a paragraph on prostitution, a paragraph on sodomy, a paragraph on crossdressing, and a paragraph on "hermaphroditism". And I'd drop reference to Rykener altogether, as before.
    • Right; I made some tweaks, but not finished yet. I removed the mentions of Rykener re. sodomy etc, which depersonalises it (now Another sexual offence for which people could be prosecuted for was sodomy, but this would generally be by the church in its own courts...—better?); I replaced "Rykener's London" with "Late-fourteenth-century London", as I thought "1390s London" may have been a little specific, and kind of implied that in the 1380s, on the other hand, a bloke could wear a ballgown for breakfast  :) All those different paras you suggest—would they be slightly short? (MOS:PARA doesn't seem too keen)
  • "There was strong tradition of fictionalising the preference" What preference? Was "hermaphroditism" seen as a preference?
    • No, that was dumb writing; how about: he thirteenth-century jurist Bracton described it as being...and there was also a strong tradition of fictionalising it...?
  • "Sir William Foxley and a Sir John and a Sir Walter" How about "Sir William Foxley, a Sir John, and a Sir Walter" (or lose the second comma if preferred)
    • Done
  • I think you could be a bit clearer about the barmaid/bartender issue. Was he working as a woman in the bar? That's what's suggested in the lead, but it's less clear in the article body.
    • Right! I've changed it baldly to "barmaid", as the sources are pretty explicit he was (acting as?) a woman through this period (cf. the note about the job being seen as promiscuous). I think I was attempting gender-neutral there :)

Only read the first few half... I was watching TV at the same time. I'll be back! (Also, please double-check my edits, but I think they should be uncontroversial.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "such questioning would have been a particularly "heavy burden" for Rykener to bear alone"" Could you check the quotemarks here?
    • "/'
  • "unaware of Rykener's true gender" This sounds contentious. How about sex?
    • Contentious? Moi?
  • The sentence beginning "That Rykener was not" is quite twisty-turny; some dashes might help.
    • H'mm; Is That Rykener was not—as far as is known—prosecuted may reflect the contemporary view that a prostitute was, by definition, not just a woman who took money for sex, but a sinful woman. any better?
  • "nothing is known for certain as to his later life" of?
    • done
  • "There were three Rykeners in late" at least, surely? (Also, you list three in the footnote, but the subject of the article is surely a fourth!)
    • Indeed, "at least" makes sense; of the footnote, one of the Johns is this one, which means he might also be the other one.
  • "Since such a definition is debatable in the twenty-first century" I don't know what this means- do you mean something like "since the definition of bisexual is debated in the..."?
    • Yes, rephrased per you.
  • "Even as a prostitute he is a dishonest trader: he poses as a woman selling straight sex to male clients, whereas he is, in fact, a man masquerading as a woman"." If there was a period after woman in the original source, that creates a complete and self-contained sentence, so the period should be within the quotemarks here.
    • Done; carried away with the LQs.
  • "A near-contemporary (but possibly apocryphal) European example was Ulrich von Lichtenstein, a Styrian knight who rode across Europe dressed as a woman and taking part in tourneys." Example of what?
    • Try A near-contemporary (but possibly apocryphal) European crossdresser was...?
  • Could you check your translation of The Miller's Tale? There are a lot of footnotes making it difficult to read, and what looks like some rogue punctuation.
    • Indeed! I was sourcing the translations of individual words, which amounted to madness. But the Harvard page does it in one go, so much simpler.
  • We have a (featured!) article Gropecunt Lane, by the way.
    • Yes indeed; I only haven't linked to it because the GC Ln reference is inside a quote here.

A bit more to look at yet. Really great read. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Considered comments to follow after a thorough perusal, but at a first skim-through I boggled at the caption for St Katharine's by the Tower in Regents Park. I was, when still working for a living, librarian to the Crown Estate – which owns Regents Park – and as far as I recall, the church is an early 19th century Gothic Revival effort, and not by any stretch of the imagination the original mediaeval building moved, brick by brick à la Crosby Hall. Please check this. Tim riley talk 00:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oblast. Thanks Tim riley...I assumed it had been re-cladded or something. I was slightly confused by the saga of the church, as I'm sure I also had a refernce to it being moved (from Regent's Park!) to Limehouse or somewhere...so if it's OK with you, I'll just get rid of it. I was scrabbling around for images you see—that's the only one in the bottom half.
    It looks like I'll have to return to scrabbling, as there are only two on commons for St KbtT: the first one I was using before, but Nikkimaria noted licensing discrepancies, so this one was always second best. Thanks for the information though, it's much better to know now than later. If you have any ideas by the way (I might be overlooking something obvious) feel free to suggest. Thanks! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're scratching round for illustrations, might an old map of the City – plenty of them online – fill a gap? Just a thought.
      • I think the suggestion about the court record above gives us the image back, but thanks for the suggestion.
Comments on the text

I'm not sure about the structure of the narrative. In my view – which I believe is generally shared – the lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article; after the lead, the main article should, as it were, start from scratch, with no referring back to the content of the lead. That being so, the first paragraph introduces "a case like Rykener's" out of the blue. I don't think you should have any specific references to Rykener's case in a "Background" section: they belong lower down in my view. With them removed, the Background section would be an excellent and clear summary of the state of affairs prevailing at the time of the events you go on to describe.

  • Yeees; tricky. I think I've resolved this, by moving the pertinent aspects to the end of the "Arrest" section, which deals with the Mayor's interrogation. Any better?

That point apart, I have only these few quibbles.

  • Wording
    • "All that is known of Rykener's life for sure…" – something is either known or it isn't: no need for "for sure".
      • Ah  :) thing is, Time riley, J Milburn said the polar opposite up there I'm afraid, so—what happens now?
        • It's kind of you to give me an E, but I'm a bit old for that sort of thing. As to the wording, the choice is entirely yours. If you share my view that one either knows something or one doesn't then you may like to follow my suggestion. If, per contra, you think one can know something for a bit sure, for sure-ish or for not-very-sure then by all means ignore my suggestion. But I see you say "all that is known" sans phrase in the main text. Tim riley talk 18:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Happy to talk what we can and cannot know, but I fear I would bore people quite quickly! My worry was that I wouldn't want to indicate in the lead that all we have to talk about is the particular transcript, when, in fact, we have some possible details about his later life. A compromise position would be something like "Though historians have tentatively linked Rykener to a prisoner of the same name, all that is known about his life...". Josh Milburn (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you want "inquisitorial" rather than "inquisitional". The former is the usual word for the criminal justice system of France etc, whereas the OED defines the latter as "Of or pertaining to the Inquisition; of or pertaining to inquisition or inquiry, esp. such as is harsh, strict, or prying".
      • Indeed, I suspect the differences between the two were probably pretty fluid at this time, but if it makes more sense to modern definitions, then of course.
    • Is there a distinction between Lollardy and Lollardism? (Question asked from pure ignorance).
      • Certainly not that I intended: Acc. Collins, they're both derivatives ("Lollardry", too!)
    • I like "circumlocation" (which I take to mean going round in circles – a familiar condition) but I think you mean circumlocution.
      • Ha!
  • Capitalisation
    • "the Mayor" or "the mayor"? We have both forms at present.
      • I've capitalised Mayor
    • why "Bishop of London" but "rector of Theydon Garnon" and "vicar of Stanton"? Are capitals reserved for the senior clergy?
      • Capped.
    • Seasons: you capitalise Summer but not winter. I favour the former style, but unfortunately, the MoS recommends the latter.
      • Have to follow the MOS then, Tim, sorry!
    • "middle ages" (note 19) or Middle Ages (note 25)?
      • I think lc is probably more usual nowadays
  • Spelling
    • If possible you should be consistent with the subject's surname. At present you give it variously as "Rykener" and "Ryekener". No doubt the spelling was variable in the fourteenth century, but we need not follow suit.
      • Indeed...the latter was a typo
    • Why sometimes spell "focused" with an intrusive extra "s"? (Two "focussed"s and one "focused" in the current text.)
      • BritEng
  • Notes and refs
    • Note 9: the Chaucerian quote "In al the toun…" isn't delivered by "the main character". It is said by the narrator – the Miller – of the parish clerk, Absolon. (It is also rather a pity that you cut the quotation off, omitting the next two lines, "But soth to say, he was somdel squaymous/Of fartyng, and of speche daungerous")
      • Thanks for the clarificaton; I've adjusted the text slightly which I think clarifies this? Also added the next two lines just for you  :) I wonder how long they'll last!
    • Bibliography: typo in the entry for C Beattie's book.
    • ISBNs: unlike the others, 9780485111309 is lacking its hyphens. It should be 978-0-485-11130-9.
      • Done.

I hope these points are of use. Tim riley talk 12:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

  • I look forward to seeing this at FAC, and am most pleased to see Mr Serial take this route.
    • @Ceoil: many thanks! Apologies for the (extremely) belated response to your review—I got involved in a few other bits and pieces and this completely slipped my mind. Here's to it though.
  • The lead sentence is way too aggressive
    • I was tempted to offer this up for broader discussion, such as at FAC, to reach a common consensus as to how best to phrase something of admittedly some delicacy. But, Ceoil, have you any personal suggestions on how to introduce the opening sentence? If so, I'd be much obliged! Later: I've changed it to was a 14th-century transvestite sex worker arrested in December 1394 for performing a sex act with another man, John Britby, in London's Cheapside. Thoughts? "Sex act" doesn't sound a little euphemistic, no?
  • The lead strikes me as written from a 21 century POV. EG; pinp is blue linked, but did it mean that at the time? (The OED indicates it was a term to indicate police informers. If not I'd just say organised or exploited by, or some such.
    • As a starter, I've unlinked the word to dispel it slightly of modern associations; but the sources do use it in that sense too.
  • Reading through otherwise St. Caurgula (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had sex with various men in Brouderer's house, as did women, including her daughter. He had sex with men and women, including priests and nuns. This needs a bit of clarity as its confusing and there is obvious repetition. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes; because it's the lead, I removed the extraneous stuff about Brouderer's daughter and tightened it: How is "He had sex with various men in Brouderer's house, and is also known to have slept with women, priests and nuns."?
  • The lead is off putting long and meandering; its left to the reader to extract notability. Any trimming should be reducing to essential facts, and removing verbosity.
    • I've had a gin at it, some tightening, compression, omission. Better?
  • I don't like the title, which seems rather a 20th century (rather than 21st c.) solution. To avoid accusations of projection, and for simplicity, my preference would be for John. As is, its a hedged headache. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, this has been raised loads of times. I'm not wedded to any title in particular (and indeed, JR was my original title). But the sources refer to him as John/Eleanor, which is what led me. But it's certainly something that will need community input to resolving, I agree.
  • Following the Black Death - you mean following a specific outbreak?
    • Indeed, and I've corrected the wikilink (per WP:EASTEREGG), and put in a footnote to emphasise how drastic the demographic shift had been.
  • here is not, says Goldberg...That Rykener was not - does not read well
    • Tweaked.
  • That Rykener was not—as far as is known—prosecuted may reflect the contemporary view that a prostitute was, by definition, not just a woman who took money for sex, but a sinful woman. Very confused sentence that could be removed as we have a detailed telling of the outcome.
    • Combined woth above, see what you think.
Thanks again Ceoil, let me know what you think of these changes. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Ceoil, any thoughts? I hope that all is well! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

A very unusual and intriguing topic. I'm working through slowly, so my review will be in fits and starts, with hopefully more starts than fits. Here are some comments on the lead and background sections:

Lead
  • "fl": I think you need to wikilink this, as not all your readers will be classically-educated geezers. Also, I'm unsure about using "floruit" for a single year – I've generally seen it in relation to a range of years or some other specified broad period.
    • I'm happy to link it—if only I knew how! Per MOS (somewhere) I used the {{fl}} template, but that doesn't seem to enable a link. I don't really see the point in having a swanky template for such an obscurantist term when it expressly forbids lining to it! I disagree that it can't be used for a single date though, although it may be less common.
  • I found the phrase "what is now presumed to be" a little heavy-handed, with its mdashes. The single word "putative" would suffice, perhaps?
    • Absolutely.
  • "would have been seen as having committed" is tortuous. "Rykener stood to be accused of..." might be simpler
    • Right; I went with "Rykener stood to be accused of two offences""—would "Rykener stood to be accused of having committed of two offences" be even tighter?
  • "while sodomy was as an offence against morality" – word missing? ("was seen as"?)
    • Of course!
  • "On his return to London, he had further encounters behind the Tower of London, including with priests". Where is "behind the Tower of London"? It's a huge complex, as indeed it was then. Also, you don't need to mention the priests twice in the same paragraph.
    • It's a little vague, I agree; but the source used the phrase "the back streets around St Kat's", etc., and I wanted to avoid the phrase "the back streets"—slightly gossipy and probably begging for drive-by a {{where}} tag...also removed the second mention of priests.
  • "J. A. Schultz has viewed the affair as more important than the medieval German courtly-love epic poem, Tristan and Iseult." That is a somewhat misleading paraphrase of what you say in the article, which is "more important to historians". That's hardly surprising since Tristan and Iseult is not a historical work. You should avoid using words like "more important" when referring to things that are not comparable.
    • Does "has viewed the affair as of greater significance to historians" cover that?
  • "herself responsible" – I'd delete the redundant "herself"
Background
  • "Prostitution was still the main sexual offence that courts prosecuted in medieval England—when they did—seen as it was as the most dangerous to the moral fabric of society." Very clumsy construction, again blighted by an awkward insertion (no double-entendre intended). Perhaps: "Prostitution was the most frequently prosecuted sexual offence in medieval England, perceived as most dangerous to the moral fabric of society."
    • Great, thanks, I stole that—although added "being" before "perceived"?
  • "Of the possible two sexual offences, this was deemed the worse" → "Of these two sexual offences, sodomy was deemed the worse"
    • Ditto
  • "Contemporary attitudes towards prostitution were very much that it was a necessary evil to be (hopefully) controlled." The parenthetical "hopefully" is non-encyclopedic. I would tighten this sentence, and place it after, rather than before, Aquinas's dictums, so that it reads less like an editorial summary: "Prostitution was thus seen as a necessary evil, that if not eliminated could be controlled".
    • Right—many thanks, that does read better.
  • I'm dubious about the "but" that begins the last sentence of the first para, and I'd end it "hear cases involving either offence".
    • Yes
  • "The best-known was one from Lübeck, whose story was told..." Lübeck is not a person, so "whose" is inappropriate. Suggest: "The best-known was from Lübeck, a story told..."
    • Done, thank you.

More on its way. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Brianboulton for these, hope my adjustments are satisfactory and akin to your intentions. Anon, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Life

Some reorganisation of the section is advised:

  • The first paragraph, after the first sentence, should be presented as a subsection under its own heading, as with the "Oxford" and "Arrest" subsections. You could call the subsection "With Elizabeth Brouderer" or some such. That first sentence, suitably amended, could then form a brief introduction to the whole "Life" section.
    • Right Brian, good idea—I suggest "At Elizabeth Brouderer's house", as in, "At the Sign of the Bells and Motley"?
  • At present this sentence reads: "Little is known of John Rykener the person, and all that is comes from his answers to his interrogators", needs redrafting. The first clause is unnecessary since the second covers it, but you need to expand a little, to explain the "interrogators" of whom this is the first mention in the main text. My suggested redraft of the sentence is "All that is known of Rykener's life comes from his answers during his interrogation in the Mayor of London's court, following his arrest in December 1394".
    • An excellent suggestion thanks—lifted and retweaked, the sentence now contains a little of the rest of the section
  • The first section should begin: "At his interrogation, Rykener described how he was first dressed as a woman..." etc
    • Done
  • "Here Rykener was taught how to sleep with men as a woman and get paid for it." Something not quite right with this wording. He could be taught to sleep with men while feigning womanhood, but could he be taught to "get paid for it"?
    • Point; how bout "Here he was taught how to sleep with men as a woman, and to be paid for doing so."?
  • If you're writing in BritEng, you need a "that" after "so" in "were so Brouderer"
    • Done
  • I found some of the prose in this paragraph confusing, and distinctly awkward when we get to "...when Rykener told Philip that Rykener was the wife of..." Some general rewriting, for clarity, is advised.
    • Tweaked—I think. Say you?
  • The sentence beginning: "Rykener also told the Mayor..." seems redundant to this article.
    • Gone
Oxford etc
  • "They went with him in the marshes" – does it help us to know that? We know they were "sexual clients" so can hazard a guess what they were up to, marshes or otherwise.
    • For our green-fingered readers  :) seriously, yes agreed
  • "The three knights had employed Rykener frequently" – not sure about "employed" here. Perhaps "had used Rykener's services frequently"?
    • Lifted, thanks
  • I don't much like the pic. Too modern, and lacking any semblance to the historical counterpart.
    • Ah! Shame. I went to a lot of trouble for that—it was a bank holiday, an ideal time for avoiding cars...except there was a bloody marathon or something instead, which is why the road closures
  • Link Burford and Beaconsfield – with the link you can drop Buckinghamshire
    • done
  • Words like "inn" don't need wikilinks
    • done
  • "Britby claimed to have been looking for a woman..." Britby has not been mentioned since the lead, so some brief introduction is necessary: "John Britby, who was arrested with Rykenar, claimed..." etc
    • Thank you
  • Link Theydon Garnon and decapitalise "rector". Perhaps begin this sentence:
    • Right—actually this is the second mention of TG in thebody, and I aleady linked the first

"Another client, Theydon Garnon's rector, also seems..." etc

    • Great, thanks
Arrest
  • Link Cheapside. It is still a busy commercial district; also, these words are self-explanatory and don't need a link.
    • Agreed. I was tempted to say "then as now"—but in the end omitted it
  • "preceeding" → "preceding"
    • Done
  • "the answers as recorded were not his own personal confession" – I'm not sure I fully understand; does this mean that the recorded answers were not in the form that he gave them?
    • Kind of, yes; I've expanded that point slightly, but basically, the interrogation was in English ("MedEng") but then recorded in Latin, so K&B are suggesting that something could have been lost in translation, as it were
  • I think "frequently" rather than "commonly" in third line of para 2
    • Agree, thanks
  • "He had most certainly been disabused by the end of it" – reads as editorial comment.
    • Yees—I've lost the "most certainly"; but that is exactly the thing that Dinshaw is saying herself: "JB might not have been disabused when the two were apprehended. but by the time of his interrogation at the latest, Britby understands that Eleanor is a man"

Will finish up tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Brianboulton, think I've answered/addressed your points—maybe a couple of queries? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last instalment

Aftermath
  • I donth think "Aftermath" is a suitable heading. "Aftermath" is the consequences of what's happened before. Here, we have essentially a series of speculations. Something like "Speculations and motives" might be appropriate, but "aftermath" is not.
    • Agreed; although I don't really want to invite speculation that whole section is mere speculation...I've gone for "Political context and later events" which seem to cover the contents?
  • "most probably being a clerk". I think I'd say "ecclesiastical clerk", since clerk alone is too general a description.
    • Done
  • Paragraph break required after "on the individuals themselves".
    • Done
  • Comma needed after "couldn't remember them all"
    • Well—this is a quote?
  • "Their third conclusion..." For clarity I'd say: "The third of the Lollards' twelve conclusions..."
    • Thanks for the rephrasing
  • Probably another para break after "priestly abstinence"
    • Done
  • "Goldberg compares the Mayor's actions in the face of public concern over sexually-active priests with twentieth-century politicians campaigning against immigration.". I'd be interested to know on what he bases this odd comparison
    • He's not quite as explicit as that, so I've removed it as being not directly relevant. Although, as a piece of OR, I think it's an excellent point that a RS should make  :) Rudy Giuliani springs to mind
  • "a massive loan" – just a loan, in encyclopedis neutral-speak
    • True
  • "The fact that Rykener's interrogators seem to have been particularly interested in his dealings with the clergy may account for the fact that they saw fit to bring him before a Mayoral court after all." I can't make head nor tail of this, quite apart from "the fact that ... the fact that".
    • Mmmm, yes, convoluted. I've added a little more to explain why they would do such a thing, as well as rewrite the problematic sentence.
  • "Judith Bennett considers the number of times "hermaphroditism" is mentioned in contemporary texts to indicate an incurious acceptance of the state". Not grammatical at present, but also lacks some clarity. Perhaps: "...considers that the frequency with which hermaphroditism is mentioned in contemporary texts indicates an incurious acceptance of the condition". Who, by the way, is Judith Bennett? And is she "questioning whether", or is she suggesting what might be the case?
    • Used your rephrasing, thanks; linked Bennett, as we have an article, and clarified that yes, it was her suggestion.
Historical significance
  • You can't link half of the title of a book or article or whatever it was.
    • Removed.
  • Out of curiosity, given the dates of his "calendar" (1413-1437), why is Thomas summarising a 1394 case?
    • Because I put in the wrong volume  :) adjusted to the earlier one
  • I'd omit "tantalisingly", and avoid questions about who said it and where.
    • Done
  • "The case has been described as offering a "microcosmic view of medieval English sexualities and the gulf that lies between the medieval and the modern". Sounds good, means...what? Whose description is this?
    • Added a bit to explain they were talking about the differences in expression
  • Link "bisexuality". In what sense is the definition of the term "debatable?
    • I can't for the life of me remember where that came from now, so have removed an reworded slightly. Linked.
Recent scholarship

I can't say much on this section as I am not a scholar in this field. I think there's an unnecessary "on the other hand", since Dinshaw is not making an opposite point.

    • Done
In culture
  • As you're referring to the "World Puppetry Festival in Charleville-Mézières, France" you might mention that the Turku music festival is in Finland.
    • Yes
  • Does Timo Vantsi deserve a mention by name (playing the title role in a puppet production)?
    • Well; I redlinked em thinking there might be sufficient in sources to make a stub from.

That concludes my read-through. I have not looked at the rather dauntingly detailed "Notes", although I see that no. 7 is uncited. That's all I have to say at this stage, other than to commend your ingenuity and industry in bringing the article thus far. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've sourced fn7 (now 6, btw due to some earlier reformatting)
@Brianboulton: May thanks for all the work you've put in here, such a thorough review is really appreciated. As always, feel free to point out if / where I haven't satisfactorily addressed your suggestions or criticisms. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room

SC[edit]

An excellent read – much more polished than when I first read it. All good, but there are a few nit-picking quibbles and suggestions for you:

General
  • There are times you use the definite article for people and times you don't – you should make it consistent (with, would be best in my unhumble opinion!)
    • H'mmm: for the life of me, I can't find this. Can you give me a couple of examples? ("Out, damn'd blindspot!")
      • These are the ones I can see... "says historian J. B. Post", "as historian Katie Normington", "Medieval scholar J. A. Schulz"
  • There are times you introduce people ("The historian Carolyn Dinshaw") and times you don't – ("as Katie Normington notes"; "Jeremy Goldberg has compared") I always feel it's best to add (even more so where there is no linked article) to put the area of expertise in the article, or we wonder if Jeremy Goldberg is a bloke in the pub! ;)
    • Right; the thing is, in some places I refer to multiple historians in consecutive sentences. Wouldn't that lead to some repetition? The "Scholarship" section, for example, is quite heavy with...err... scholars  :) Any ideas on getting around this?
      • There's a balance to be had. I think in the Scholarship section, I think you can drop it (you've introduced most by then, and it's evident from the section title what's your talking about. Further above, us your judgement, but vary when possible, even if it's a quick search to show a specialism (is the person talking about the Medieval Tales a literature specialist, rather than historian, for example). Otherwise, vary between historian, scholar, Medieval scholar, academic, or (more specifically), "in his examination of medieval prostitution, Bloggs writes...", etc.
  • I see Goldberg is actually linked further down, so this should be moved up
    • Linked to the first mention in lead.
      • Lead plus first other mention would be best (there is a degree of flexibility, and in long articles I've seen something linked usefully three times.
Background
  • When you say Mayor of London, I presume you mean the Lord Mayor? (I'm presuming it wasn't one of Siddiq's predecessors!) Either way, a link to Lord Mayor of London or equivalent might work.
    • Absolutely (although, funnily enough, only since 1354). How about full-title-plus-link for the first mention and then shortened for the other ~25 times?
      • Absolutely - best way to do it
  • Pipe a link to Mass from Mass in the Catholic Church?
    • Done, cheers.
Life
  • Link Cheapside Later, in the "Arrest" section, you call it "the Cheapside area of London, a busy commercial district" – it may be worth moving this description up to the first mention.
    • Moved to "Life", opening para.
Scholarship
  • "One scholar": is it possible to name them?
    • Yep, done so: I only hadn't mentioned him by name this time because he gets namechecked in the lead.

Please ping me if/when you go to FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Many thanks indeed for looking in, and I've addressed some of your points immediately, but there's a couple above I'd appreciate a smidgin' of guidance on if you can. Thanks a lot! (And, yes, I'll be sure to). —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No probs - answered above; if you need more input, or I've made things even more unclear, let me know! - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/John/Eleanor_Rykener/archive1&oldid=1142590071"