Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peasants' Revolt/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 Ucucha 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Peasants' Revolt edit

Peasants' Revolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it covers a turning point in English history, complete with a cast of thousands, dramatic events, bureaucratic incompetence and revenge... It has been through an A-class review over at MilHist, and I believe it now meets the standards for a Featured Article. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. No changes in prose since I reviewed this for A-class. Lively, clear writing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: I moved one image to the Commons and cleaned up the licensing a bit on several of the images. Most of the images are legitimately in the public domain, and those that aren't are freely licensed. The images are all used appropriately, with informative captions. Be careful: captions that are sentence fragments should not have a period at the end, but captions that are complete sentences (e.g. "Richard II meets the rebels...") or that contain complete a complete sentence (e.g. "...the King is represented twice...") should end in a period. I think "An illustration from Vox Clamantis by John Gower, a poem describing the revolt" has the wrong punctuation or should be reworded. Would "14th century rural scene of reeve directing serfs, Queen Mary's psalter" be improved with a "from the"? – Quadell (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed, I think. Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you ordering works by the same author in Bibliography?
  • Should be by year; have corrected one mistake. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caught one and corrected. Thanks Nikki! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell edit

This article is excellent. The prose is truly among the best Wikipedia has no offer; it brings the subject to life and makes it intereresting, without doing injustice to the sources. The organization is just right, the amount of background material is balanced, the footnote usage is carefully thought out, the lede is a great summary, etc. The concise "aftermath" is particularly good. I just have a few questions and suggestions for improvement.

  • As stated in the image check, there are a few captions that could be improved or standardized.
  • I've made some changes as per the above - let me know if there are others. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...has interested Marxist historians and writers alike..." All Marxist historians I'm familiar with are also writers. A rewrite would make this clearer.
  • "The central elite had not intervened in this way before, or allied itself with the local landowners in quite such an obvious or unpopular way." This is a very strong statement, and I'd love to check the source, but page 285 is not available for preview. Does the source (and the weight of other, related sources) support such a sweeping assessment?
  • The original runs: "...the government was intervening in the economy in a new way. Before the Black Death, the state had an interest in maintaining law and order.... After the Black Death the ruling groups temporarily closed ranks, and used the power of the state to defend the interests of the rich in a blatant manner... The ranks of society below the gentry felt that the state was losing any claim to impartiality as it became so closely identified with the landed interest.". Dyer's one of the best economic historians for this period, but similar views include Alan Harding, who notes "the major fact of 14th century society was the growth of an aristocratic county community embracing both magnates and gentry", using the legal processes to deal with what they perceived as "a rebellious servant class". Miri Rubin discusses how employers "mobilised their influence in Parliament" to produce a "royal reaction to their plight" through the legal processes, integrating this into the local gentry systems, and producing "a byword for unjust oppression". Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edward III should probably be introduces as "Edward III of England" at first mention (first sentence of "War and finance"), since he's introduced in the context of France.
  • The taxes in this section say things like "levied at the rate of four pence on every person". Is that a one-time tax, or annually, or what? The previous statement "Taxes in the 14th century were raised on an ad hoc basis" make me think these were one-time requirements for money, but one-time taxes are such a foreign concept to modern audiences that perhaps this could be more explicit.
  • It was still a one-off tax. I've tweaked the text slightly to reinforce this, see if it works... Hchc2009 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rebels rejected the proposals of the Bishop of Rochester"... what proposals? Did he just propose that they go home and stop complaining, or did he offer something more substantive? (Do me know?)
  • We don't have 100% visibility, but they included the peasants returning home - I've added this in. I suspect it was a "go home and we won't take the matter any further" kind of offer. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frequently the rebels required the signing of charters -- St Albans' abbey surrendered its rights, and the University of Cambridge gave up its royal privileges. You mention that later, discussing the charter that ended Feudalism, that "the royal charters signed under duress during the rising were formally revoked", but does that include these other charters as well?
  • I don't think I've seen anything on the fate of the local charters, but will check. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This feels a littly clumsy: "...and although there are dangers in relying on these records excessively, the earlier perception that that the rebels were only constituted of unfree serfs is now rejected." Also, would [nb 13] fit better after "excessively"?
  • The first paragraph of Historiography states that contemporary chroniclers were biased against the rebels, and no sympathic accounts survive. This is not hard to believe, but it also needs to be well-supported by secondary sources. Unfortunately I can't see Strohm or Jones, and I can't find support for Walsingham's bias in Dunn. Can you confirm that the claims of bias are adequately supported?
  • Strohm notes that there are no surviving accounts "favourable to the motives of its participants" and that "even those chronicle accounts that sound sympathetic to modern ears... were presented by their original authors as self-evident exposure of the folly of the insurgents". Jones notes that Walsingham was "hysterically biased against the rebels"; I wouldn't use Jones for contentious statements, but this was reflected in the other main sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are four separate sources backing up the statements about Hilton's 1973 Marxist account, but I'm surprised to see that Hilton (1973) is not one of them. Is there a reason for that?
  • It was deliberate. If memory serves, I was keen not to stray into OR, and Hilton's book doesn't explicitly state his sympathies or interest in the rebel cause in a way I could find a cite for; similarly, drawing out that it particularly sets itself in the context of wider peasant revolts felt close to original commentary (albeit fairly low-risk OR!). In the end I went for other authors' statements about Hilton etc., thus the four sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks: I examined the sources for references 6, 8, 20, 43, 59, 70, 99, 178, 226, and 285. In all cases, the statement in the article was fully supported by the sources listed. Further, the information in the sources was extremely well-synthesized, summarizing the points made without any hint of plagiarism.

All in all the article is very strong, and I look forward to supporting when these issues are addressed. – Quadell (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this fulfills all the requirements of a Featured Article. – Quadell (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I was the reviewer at GAN, when I did a reasonable amount of copyediting, and subsequently supported at MilHist ACR on prose, structure, coverage/neutrality, referencing and image licensing. Having checked alterations since I last reviewed, I see no reason why it shouldn't be Featured as well. Double-checked for dab links and found none. John Gower is duplicated, but at each end of the article so doesn't fuss me particularly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiklinking fixed. Thanks Ian. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
    • "Richard met with the rebels" – I see the article is mostly written in UK English, in which one meets with abstract things such as approval or doom, but just meets people.
    • "of radical cleric John Ball" – without a definite article this is a tabloidese construction of the "Today Premier David Cameron said…" type. Acceptable in American usage, I believe, but inappropriate here.
    • "executing the Lord Chancellor" – "executing" suggests a judicial process rather than a mob lynching. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "execution" in this sense as "the putting (a person) to death in pursuance of a judicial or authoritative sentence". Perhaps the neutral "killed" would be safer.
    • "On 15 June, Richard left the city" – a small point, but as the article is in British English it seems a pity to adopt the American practice of putting in an unnecessary comma in such phrases.
    • "comprising the Lords, the titled aristocracy and clergy, and the Commons, the representatives of the knights" – the wording makes it unclear how many bodies are meant. It would remove the ambiguity it you used brackets or parenthetical dashes for the explanatory words.
  • Outbreak of revolt
    • "He based himself out of the town of Brentwood" – based in, surely?
    • "The rebels deposed the absent Archbishop" – they may have declared him deposed, but were they in a position to depose him in practice?
    • "executing them" – more lynchings dignified overmuch; some further examples later in the article
  • All now match up with the original sources. In some cases, execution is used by the source because the rebels claimed to be acting in the King's name. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "convinced a few thousand of the rebels to leave" – Americanism. In British English "convince that" or "of" but "persuade to".
    • "convince them to return home" – ditto
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "issued a famous sermon" – issued seems an odd word. Preached would be more usual.
    • "meet with the rebels" – as above
  • Events in London
    • "You sometimes refer to "prisons" and sometimes to "gaols". Is there a distinction?
  • Technically, yes, but the sources I've been using don't seem to use them consistently. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "June 15" – consistent date format wanted
    • "The chronicler accounts" – should this be "the chroniclers' accounts"?
    • "and convinced them to follow him away" – as above
  • Aftermath
    • "began to reestablish" – earlier you hyphenate re-establish. Rather to my surprise I see the OED hyphenates the word.
    • "as historian Michael Postan" – another place where a definite article would improve the prose
  • Rebels
    • "as historian Christopher Dyer" – ditto
    • "as historian Rodney Hilton" – ditto
    • "5 and 15 percent" – as above
    • "historians Steven Justice and Carter Revard" – as above
  • I'm not sure that a "the" is right here. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historiography
    • "George Trevelyan" – almost exclusively known by his initials. So unexpected is "George" here that I wondered, till I checked, if you referred to his father.
    • "critiqued" – the OED has this as an Americanism; perhaps just "criticised"?
  • I'm not sure that criticised sounds quite correct here; critiqued (from the French, surely?) has a more subtle tone. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "historian Michael Postan" – we've had his full name and job description already.
  • But not close to the text; it's not a common name, and many readers can simply jump down, skipping the earlier definition.
    • "Morris'" – better to use the customary English form of possessive, Morris's
    • "writer John Robinson – final tabloidese omission of definite article

This is a fine article, and with a bit of polishing of the prose will, I am confident, meet the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I hope I have time for a full review, but in the meantime:
  • I can't see that the effects of the Revolt, as given, include the effect on the young Richard. It may be speculative, but historians normally give some of the explanation for his very exalted, and finally fatal, idea of kingship to his experiences then.
  • I don't disagree, but I'm drawing a blank for a citation. I've tried Saul, Rubin and a few others. I'll keep looking. It may be one of those really obvious historical points that no-one ever spells out! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several picture captions are below FA standard and have been neglected. I have made some changes but more are needed. The Queen Mary Psalter has an article too, the last image is by Burne-Jones and so on. Whether that can be called the "main gate" of Bury St Edmunds Abbey I'm not sure; the other big gatehouse is older and taller. If you have a picture of a picture, is it necessary to say in the caption it is a picture? There seems room for this Death of Wat Tyler from Froissart. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main gate caption fixed; this was the main entrance into the town, and had just been built a couple of years before the uprising, if memory serves. Various changes made - see what you think. On my screen I can't see an easy way to fit an additional image into the article without letter boxing etc., but all screens look different etc. and I may be in a minority. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Lead:
    • Is it really correct to link "radical" in the lead to "far-left politics"? I note that our article on John Ball links to Christian radicalism... which is probably a better fit. Certainly, "far-left politics" is utterly about modern politics, not medieval radicalism.
  • Agree - a much better link. Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and Richard's party cut Tyler down" ... a bit unencylopedic? I'm of two minds on this - it's an accurate description of what happened, but it does read a bit like a tabloid account.
  • I struggled for an alternative that either wasn't bland, or captured the action without carrying additional implications. I've simplified - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why "Unrest continued until the intervention of the Bishop of Norwich, Henry le Despenser, who defeated" giving name and title here but not "executing the Lord Chancellor and the Lord High Treasurer, whom they found inside" earlier?
  • Economics:
    • Link "manors"?
    • Dyer 2009 does say 50 percent mortality from the Black Death, but he's careful to qualify it as an estimate. I think we need to be clearer that it's all estimates, not quite as cut and dried as folks may think reading what's here in the article. Prestwich, in Plantagenet England (2005) p. 545 states "The overall death toll in England may well have been not far short of 50 per cent." It's worth noting that these two works don't cite their sources for these guesses, and that most larger scale works on the period usually give a death rate of a third for the whole of Europe. The subject of the Black Death is undergoing a lot of new research and it's in considerable flux - it's probably best to qualify this a bit more to avoid the impression that a 50 percent figure is solid.
    • "The central elite had not intervened" do not like the phrase "central elite" here - "royal government" would be much better. Dyer, the source for this, calls it the "government", I'll note.
  • The anthropologist coming out in me...! Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saul Richard II pp. 60-61 discusses the resentment of the serfs at the attempts of the landlords to enforce manorial customs and exactions as another contributing factor in the revolt. It's obliquely mentioned, but not explicitly stated as a cause.
  • I've pulled it out slightly more clearly - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • War:
    • "Edward died in 1377, leaving the throne to his grandson, Richard II, then only ten years old." uncited.
    • "The raising of these taxes had affected the members of the Commons much more than the Lords." awkward sentence - perhaps lose the "had"?
  • Agree - an end to unnecessary pluperfects! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entry:
    • Saul Richard II p. 64 and footnote 35 disagrees that Tonge is proven to have opened the city up to the rebels. Also he notes that two other aldermen were also indicted on similar charges of opening gates to the city ... this should probably be covered.
  • I've clarified - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On the north side of London, the rebels approached Smithfield and Clerkenwell Priory, the headquarters of the Knights Hospitaller, headed by Hales." The way this is written, it implies that Hales led the rebels...
    • "and one of the men on the rebel's execution list, had a narrow escape when the crowds " .. passive. Suggest "and one of the men on the rebel's execution list, narrowly escaped when the crowds "
  • Taking:
    • Saul discusses the trip to the meeting on 14 June as being "eventful" and mentions that the group was accousted a couple of times. Might bear mentioning.
    • Picky but important "Lady Joan and Joan Holland, Richard's sister" Joan Holland was Richard's half-sister. So it's not quite true later that "the royal pair" - Joan Holland wasn't royal.
    • Saul mentions a death toll of about 150 or 160 foreigners on the day of 14 June, including 35 Flemings who were dragged from St Martin in Vintry and beheaded.
  • I've added the church killings, which appear in several secondary sources; the 150 stat isn't used widely elsewhere, though and the source (Walsingham) is questioned on this one elsewhere, I think. 19:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Smithfield:
    • Saul states that Tyler demanded the disendowment of the church, the ending of the practice of outlawing, and the equality of men except for the king. This should probably be mentioned?
    • Saul also points out that the various accounts of the chroniclers differ in some details and describes these differences - in regards to the death of Tyler. Probably needs explicating. Also Saul points out that the historians who've studied the issue also differ in why it happened, with some thinking Tyler provoked the episode, and others putting it down to an accident or to the instigation of the king.
  • I'll work through the rest, but I think some of this is captured in footnote 11 of the article - do you think it needs expanding further? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would probably be better to have more of this in the body of the article - the differences are enough to make it a good idea to explicate them in the body of the article, especially as Saul makes a pretty hefty point of their differences. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will take a look. I'd gone for the minimal "consensus" agreed account in the main text, as per Dunn, but will see what else can be done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppression:
    • "the King dispatched Thomas Holland, the Earl of Kent, and" Holland was the king's half brother also.
    • "20 June, Thomas of Woodstock, the Earl of Buckingham, and" Thomas is also a younger brother of John of Gaunt and uncle to Richard.
    • Earlier you say that Jack Straw is not sure to have existed, but now it's "Jack Straw was captured in London and executed"? Inconsistent.
  • Normally I'd chastise anyone using John Robinson's Born in Blood or The Templar Revelation as sources, but these are used properly to point out the fringe viewpoint - not as sources for the actual article content.
  • Except for the few concerns above, the article is well sourced and comprehensive. I forsee little problem supporting after the above is taken care of. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ealdgyth and Johnbod, having spent ages searching through my slightly disorganised house (or "library", as my partner likes to term it...) I've drawn a blank on finding my original copy of Saul, and have put another one on order through Amazon this morning. I'm travelling with work this week armed only with an iPhone - which isn't great for editing on - due back next Saturday, so will make the other suggested changes then, and then crack on with the Saul bits then. My apologies for the delay. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, finally back home following a day's driving. Nigel Saul's book has arrived in my absence, will get to work! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose

  • Add an infobox
  • The section headings names vary between places and events - e.g. Essex and Kent vs. March on London or Events in London
  • Move a few more images to the left to balance the pages.
  • Do we really need that See Also section?
  • Notes usually arise from editorial differences but 12 seems like too many to me which probably could be better dealt just with wikilinks.
  • 130+ references out of 297 to one book (Dunn 2002) is a high percentage considering the size of the bibliography. Kirk (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to give outside opinions here on two of the points you raise. The notes were very valuable to me as a reader, and I don't think they could be effectively converted to wikilinks without sacrificing quality. And I don't believe the addition of an infobox would add anything to the quality of this article. These are just my opinions, so feel free to ignore, but I hope they are helpful. – Quadell (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not have an infobox. The notes are fine, & I don't agree that "Notes usually arise from editorial differences" - they are mostly used for things that are worth adding or explaining, but not in the main text. If there is one top modern source, I don't think c. 45% of the refs being to it is in itself a problem. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in every particular with Johnbod's comment, above. Tim riley (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On an infobox, I'm not convinced that one would add much to this particular article. Happy to be convinced otherwise though!
  • I think the one I added is helpful; the names could use a little attention, thanks!
Kirk, on Essex, Kent, London etc. I'm not certain I can see the problem - could you explain what the issue is that you'd like fixed?
  • Maybe for the sections that don't have a defined location you can add a map? The March on London might be Middlesex as a location - is that the terminology Dunn uses?
On See Also, they're not linked in the main article and seem fine to me (NB: I don't think I personally added them in, but they seem reasonable enough). Was there a particular concern with them?
  • Could you explain why the reader should see also Jack Cade? These articles don't seem interconnected and they don't share many links; also, the style these days is to put them in the sections where they are appropriate instead of at the end. Let me know if I can help figure this out! Kirk (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I agree with you about 12 footnotes being excessive, given the size of the topic.
In terms of the referencing, I believe that the article meets the criterion of being "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Dunn gives a reasonably up-to-date, comprehensive and neutral review of the subject, which is why I've used him for the standard "narrative" referencing. If there's particular concern about individual cites, where perhaps you think that a different author/source would be more appropriate, I'm happy to examine them of course. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider my note suggestions below; the citations are ok since a lot are doubled up with others. Its a very well sourced article! Kirk (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were the dates of the rebellion, location(s) including battles, end result, who was fighting who, and who were the major persons involved? Put that in an infobox and I'll strike my oppose.
  • Mmm, not sure this'd be classed as an actionable objection unless there's a rule stating that all historical incidents require infoboxes (I tend to work with military bios and units, where they're a given). I say this simply as another reviewer, since I've commented (and supported) earlier and therefore recused myself from FAC delegate duties here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian, assuming infoboxes fall under 3. Media, and I'm arguing this article would benefit from a summary so the reader can get basic information about this conflict without having to slog through the whole article so its missing a key media item. Media itself is pretty vague but I think its actionable. Kirk (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, specifically the leaders of the rebellion are not in the lead other than Wat Tyler, and you only find out later John Ball was a leader; I think this article would benefit from a concise summary of the facts. Kirk (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added infobox; the leader's names need some work. Kirk (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sections would make more sense if you were consistent with how you named them, that's all I'm saying. Where is a "March to London" on a map? Was it in Essex and Kent?
  • The first See Also wasn't really very helpful and the second could either be mentioned in the article prose, or cut if its has no connection. I didn't see the connection between the two.
  • Aiming for NPOV you want other views, so its nice to have more sources incorporated in the article. This article has a lot of sources, but one that has a majority of citations so you should be able to adjust the ratio. Surprised this wasn't addressed at A review.
  • You should always aim for zero notes in a FA article - I don't think I should have to tell you which ones you should cut or incorporate in the prose; give it a shot and I'll review it. Kirk (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestions...
note 1: its impossible, then you give a comparison so I'd either go with sentence 1 or 2 or cut.
note 2 merge with #1 or cut
note 3 Marshalsea Court is linked so cut.
note 4 keep
note 5 keep or merge, old swords and old bows kind of leans toward historian #2's opinion.
note 6 merge into body
note 7 put a range in the body with the citations for each.
note 8 merge into body
note 9 If Law of Winchester is a thing it probably should be linked; the way that sentence is written 'It is unclear...' but the note clarifies it so I would rewrite this.
note 10 cut
note 11 cut
note 12 merge into body
note 13 cut. I don't think readers care about earlier perception and the actual note doesn't make sense to me, might want to check the paraphrasing...
note 14 merger makes more sense to me in a 2 sentence paragraph. Maybe link Magne societatis?
This gets us to 3-5 notes. Kirk (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Outside opinion) I strongly disagree with these note suggestions. I think the notes are well-written and very valuable. Why do you feel that we "should always aim for zero notes in a FA article"? I don't find this idea in the MoS, and looking through the existing FAs shows that this has not been a problem for other FAs. – Quadell (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Its basic Readability - if you have a article like this with a bunch of notes, every time you encounter one you have to stop reading, click, read, hopefully the note was worth the effort then find your way back. It would be nice if there was better MOS guidance from MilHist on when to choose a note for additional commentary vs. putting the fact in the article vs. leaving it out since we're aiming for summary style. It would also be nice if historians could agree on facts so we didn't need notes! Kirk (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tim riley and myself have objected above to many of these points, and I also don't agree that "You should always aim for zero notes in a FA article", certainly at the expense of cramming everything into the main text. If anything the reverse - most FAs have notes in some form. While it may come under the scope of Milhist, this is essentially a subject from political history, and treating it as though it were a German battleship is not proving productive. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please respect my opinions - I'm just trying to improve this article. Consider WP:SS w/note #3 - there's a perfectly good article linked, so we don't need a paragraph explaining it in note. Quadell mentioned he liked reading the notes but personally I don't find the opinions of historians make an article better and in this case some I didn't find very useful to me. Kirk (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (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/Peasants%27_Revolt/archive1&oldid=1091953747"