Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hoodening/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2018 [1].

Hoodening edit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Kentish folk custom performed at Christmas time during the nineteenth century. It involved a troupe of young men dressing up, one of them as the "hooden horse" in a hobby horse costume, and knocking at people's doors, prancing around and requesting payment. The original custom died out in the early twentieth century, although hooden horses have since been incorporated into newly devised forms of Kentish folk culture, such as various Kentish May Day parades and Morris dances. It has been GA rated for some time now and I believe meets the FA criteria; it would be nice if it could join the Dorset Ooser article as an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are in complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:Flag_of_Kent.svg should include a tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flag is a traditional design; it isn't possible to attribute it to an original author. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

All sources evidently meet the criteria for quality, reliability and verifiability. The citation method is consistent. Satisfactory on all counts. (Some ISBNs are hyphenated and some are not, which would drive me potty if it were my FAC, but consistency in this respect is not an MoS requirement.) – Tim riley talk 10:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • But it is still, of course, a good idea! I've gone through and ensured that the ISBNs are now all consistently formatted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Blue links
  • Regional restrictions
    • Cawte pops up unannounced and unexplained in the first paragraph. You tell us in the following para who he is: it would be better if you did so at first mention.
      • Oops, that's a result of one of my recent rearrangements. Fixed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etymology and origins
    • "However, Maylam … Maylam, however" in close proximity
  • Possible Early Medieval origins
    • "to the putative Anglo-Saxon god Woden" – in what way is Woden more putative than any other religious deity?
      • There's a lack of very clear evidence of Woden being a deity that was worshipped in Anglo-Saxon England, and his existence as a deity in this period has been questioned. Nonetheless, I can see that "putative" is perhaps not really helpful here. I'll remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You tell us in the first and third paras of this section that Geoff Doel is a folklorist. Saying so once will suffice.
      • The first instance is in the image caption, rather than in a paragraph of text. I think it still works fine to have this fact mentioned twice, once in the infobox caption and once in the main text, but if you disagree I shall remove it from the former. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latter nineteenth-century
    • Is the double t in the header deliberate?
      • It was, but actually "Later" might work better than "Latter". Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "at a house named Updown that was near to Margate" – perhaps trim to "at a house named Updown, near Margate"?
    • the Kentish Gazette – but later The Bromley Record and The Church Times have their definite articles duly capitalised.
      • I've double checked and it seems that the correct thing to do here is to remove the capitalisation of the lede from the latter two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good God! How perfectly frightful. I admit to being a Guardian reader, but I abominate its naff policy on capitalisation (or italicising). Of course definite articles at the start of titles should be capitalised. I do not wish to read a review of the Mikado in the Times, as The Guardian would have it. It's The Mikado and The Times. But if you wish to sell your soul to The Grauniad I can hardly make that a pretext for withholding my support. Tim riley talk 18:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Percy Maylam's investigations
    • "working as a professional solicitor at Canterbury" – they had amateur ones?
  • Twentieth-century revival
    • "modeled" – surprising AmE spelling in such a BrE article.
      • Next you know we'll be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in Parliament Square and celebrating the Fourth of July... Changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I look forward to adding my support when I look in again. – Tim riley talk 10:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for giving this article a read through, Tim! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy to support promotion to FA, notwithstanding apoplectic comments on capitalisation, above. Tim riley talk 18:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

Really interesting stuff. I was talking about this tradition just last weekend with some friends...

  • "while chasing any girls present" Children, or young women? If the latter, I fear "girls" is a little informal.
    • I'll need to check Cawte on this, but if I put down "girls" I was probably following the source; it's not really a term that I use for young women. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Cawte uses the term "girls" here. I would want to avoid "women" here because the term "girls" could imply children, but how about "females"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I don't like females; let's stick with girls, then, and I'll just bite my tongue! young women is another possibility, but that might be too limited. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether there could be a little more talk of the wider "hooded animal" tradition, perhaps with some links to other, similar customs?
  • You introduce "The folklorist Percy Maylam" after he's already been mentioned a couple of times.
    • Ah, that's an error caused by me moving around of several sections recently. I've corrected it now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably, the Frederic Madden you mention is this Frederic Madden? A wikilink would be useful.
  • "The anonymously authored work was repeated" Work seems an odd way to describe a letter; why not simply letter? Or, "description from the letter"?
  • "ringing of Handbells," Why caps?
  • "to chase any girls" As above
  • "Ramsgate, St. Lawrence, Minster, St. Nicholas, Acol, Monkton, and Birchington." ... "Deal and Walmer". Could we have wikilinks to any of these settlements not previously mentioned?
  • Done, and I've also linked some of the names in this list which were otherwise only linked at a later mention in the article (and removed the duplinks that resulted from this course of action). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contradicting this was a number of letters" were?
Walking into a linguistic minefield here, I think, Josh. Like you, I'd write "a number of thingummies were", but logically a singular number takes a singular verb. And where does one draw the line? A collection of thingummies was or were? With the utmost pusillanimity I always pass over "a number were/was" when I'm reviewing. The current edition of Fowler has this to say:
number, as a noun of multitude in the structure 'a number of' + pl. noun, normally governs a plural verb in both BrE and AmE because the plural noun is regarded as the 'head' of the noun phrase and therefore as the real subject.
This supports your practice (and mine) but note that Fowler says "normally" and is not prescriptive about it; I wouldn't censure the singular verb here. Tim riley talk 16:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this; very useful! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Supreme Court" Wikilink?
  • "Percy Maylam was born into a farming family in 1865 at Pivington Farm in Pluckley, and in 1890 became a solicitor of the Supreme Court before working as a professional solicitor at Canterbury.[49] Married to Kate Pearch, who had been born in Hastings, together they had two sons, Robert and James.[49] Outside of his professional life, Maylam was a keen cricketer, coin collector, and amateur historian, and in 1892 joined the Kent Archaeological Society.[49]" I'm not sure this belongs in the article. You could put together an article on Maylem, but I don't think his background is actually necessary. You could open the next paragraph with something like "During the 1880s, Henry Maylam [dash] a solicitor and amateur historian who was a member of the Kent Archaeological Society [dash] came". A long footnote is another possibility.
    • I doubt that Maylam is significant enough for an article all of his own. For notability purposes, he is significant for writing the book on hoodening, and that's about it. I could push the information into a long note, but I'm not convinced if this is the best way to deal with it. Do any other editors have a view on this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've trimmed down this paragraph quite considerably and merged it with some sentences from the following paragraph. I feel that that probably deals with the situation, but do let me know what you think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "St Nicholas-at-Wade, Walmer, and Deal" Some of these have already been linked (or not linked!)
  • "of which Percy was a member" Why first name? I'm not sure this is necessary.
  • "and Fran and Geoff Doel as "a very enlightened piece of Edwardian folk research"." Are you missing some words, here?
  • Reading it back through, I thought that the wording was okay, but I've amended the sentence in question anyway. The new variant is probably cleaner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In later life, Maylam focused his attentions on exploring his family history, privately publishing Maylam Family Records in 1932, before dying in 1939.[49]" Probably not needed- again, this isn't an article about Maylam, though you could surely write one.
  • It's not essential information, certainly. But given how central Maylam is to the preservation and promotion of knowledge about hoodening, I think that some readers might find it to be of passing interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Handbell Ringers" a proper noun? I am not keen on the rather cryptic link, not least because handbell has already been linked in the article.
    • In this case it is a proper noun as it is the name of a specific group; however, there could also be "handbell ringers" in the broader sense of the term who are not members of the group. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok; if you're referring to a particular group's name, though, there probably shouldn't be any links other than a link to the article on the group (if any). Consider: "Manchester United" would be an odd way to refer to the football team! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The descriptions of Field and Rigby are a little lengthy; again, a footnote would be a possibility.
  • Rigby? I see what you mean about Field, but I'm still unsure about what to do about it. A note is a possibility, but would that hamper the text in some way? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I meant Ridley. I'll not force it if you want the descriptions there, but it'll be interesting to see if anyone else picks up on it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridley only receives a very passing mention and I think it helps to set the scene in which the hoodening revival has taken place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether a better picture or two could be found to illustrate the final section. A picture of one of the pubs named after the tradition or or one of the currently used horses would be great. There are some pictures of a Morris troupe with a "Mollie" in Commons:Category:Broadstairs Folk Week, but I don't think any of them have a horse. File:Hooden Horses at the Clock Tower (geograph 5502334).jpg, though, does have some contemporary hooden horses in the festival! Maybe that would be preferable to the church image.
    • That's great. I couldn't find any free images of the contemporary horses when I did a search of Wikimedia Commons. I'll use the horses image in place of the church. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what jumps out from a first read-through. Very interesting article. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for offering your thoughts, Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If I was being critical, I might say that we could do with more about the contemporary use of hooden horses, but I've no doubt that your approach mirrors that of the academic literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that it would be great to have more on the contemporary uses, but unfortunately that research just doesn't seem to have been carried out thus far. In part, that may be part due to the rather sorry state of British folkloristics, which lacks the institutionalised framework that we see in both the United States and parts of continental Europe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon edit

I love unusual topics, so thanks for bringing it here. A few comments so far:

  • This approach, however, -> is idea not a better choice of word than approach? I assume you don't want to use theory as the suggestion does not come from academics?
  • "a well populated area" -> why the quotes?
  • The idea of what is well populated and what is not is perhaps subjective; sociologists and human geographers may have specific criteria. Thus, I thought the safe bet was to make clear that this is a term that Cawte has used rather than putting it in 'Wikipedia voice'. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the areas in which the tradition were found -> was found
  • late medieval -> inconsistent with capitalisation of Early Medieval used before (not that I know what is better, but consistency is required)
  • Both the upper case and lower case are acceptable, but you're right, consistency is required. I've gone with lower case throughout the article, but won't object is someone wishes to convert them all to upper case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • some Medieval Morris -> medieval?
  • The first printed reference -> when was this?
  • I've checked, and the year was 1859, mention of which I have now added into the article at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • but which been discontinued in the 1860s -> is this grammatically correct? Looks odd to me as non-native speaker
  • Ah, I've missed a word here. Changed to "but which had been discontinued in the 1860s". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • at least the least -> ?

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Not much more to add actually. Just this:[reply]

  • Married to Kate Pearch, who had been born in Hastings, together they had two sons, Robert and James-> not sure if we need this extra detail, I'm not convinced it is relevant. It's a different story for Barnett Field, because his wife is part of the revival story.

Much to my surprise did I bump into a hooden horse today at the May Day festivities in Whitstable. I took a photo and have included it on my talk page: User_talk:Edwininlondon#Hooden_horse Edwininlondon (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a great photo! I don't think that it could be counted as a hooden horse per se, but it's definitely interesting to see. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thoughts, Edwininlondon. I'm glad that you found the article to be of some interest and I hope that you enjoyed your time in Whitstable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Midnightblueowl. I support on prose. I think this would make a great article on the home page. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: We're a few days away from this having been open for a month. There are three statements of support and none of opposition. All issues raised appear to have been taken care of. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Brianboulton edit

A fascinating article which I ought to have picked up sooner. I read it with great interest, and picked up a few minor prose issue on the way. Don't feel you have to adopt all of them, but take a look:

  • The phrase "modern Kentish folk traditions" is a little odd, as traditions are by definition long-standing, so there's a hint of an oxymoron. Perhaps replace "traditions" with "customs"?
  • I disagree to some extent here. The first issue I would raise is that traditions can be comparatively recent (hence Eric Hobsbawm's idea of the "invented tradition") while presenting themselves as being connected to the past. The other is that the folk traditions in question get repeated every year (May Day Morris dances and such like), while still having "modern" (i.e. 20th or 21st century origins). For those reasons, I think the present wording is best, although would be happy to discuss further if you like. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Surviving sources testify to the fact that while there was clear variation in the hoodening tradition as it was practiced by different individuals in different parts of East Kent, it was nevertheless "on the whole remarkably uniform". The sentence seems to be contradicting itself; can there be "clear variations" in a tradition that is at the same time "remarkably uniform"? I'd consider replacing "clear" with "some".
  • "As part of the hoodening custom, a team of "hoodeners", consisting of between four and eight men, would carry the horse through the streets. This team included the horse with a "hoodener"..." There's quite a bit of repetition here (hoodening, hoodeners, hoodener). Suggest amend the start of the second sentence to "This team included the horse operater, the Groom..." etc.
  • "They performed...": paragraphs should not begin with pronouns, thus "The team performed..."
  • "the Mollie swept the floor with their broom..." – I'd make that "a broom" to avoid the awkward gender-inspecific pronoun
  • "at this point" seems to be a redundant phrase.
  • I'm not sure that "Regional restrictions" is the most appropriate section heading, as the section is mainly concerned with variations of the tradition rather than restrictions
  • I've changed it to "Regional distribution", which I think works much more nicely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any reason for encircling the word "ignored" with quotes.
  • I wanted to reflect that this was Maylam's own choice of words, given that the term is a little emotionally loaded, perhaps. The quote marks are probably not entirely necessary, certainly, but if we removed them then some might think the term "ignored" was too loaded for Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ultimately, he stated that..." – I'd delete "ultimately" as I'm sure he said later things. Perhaps "He concluded that..."?
  • "an anonymous individual who was describing their encounter" – for reasons stated above I'd prefer "an encounter"
  • "However, contradicting this was a number of letters..." I think that's a "were"
  • "a man named Robert Laming who lead the horse itself" – should be "led"
  • Another "ultimately" in "Ultimately, Maylam believed..."
  • "republished under the altered title of The Kent Hooden Horse in 2009 by The History Press." suggest tweak to "republished in 1909 by The History Press, under the altered title of The Kent Hooden Horse."
  • Morris' is an AmEng construction. In BritEng we'd say "Morris's"
  • Oh I didn't know that this was a BritEng/AmEng thing. Always thought that the latter was just a more archaic way of doing it. You learn something new every day. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had been born" → "was born"
  • "while the vicar bridled the horse itself" – can you clarify?
  • The source being cited simply says "The Hooden Horse is bridled by the vicar". I'll try to make it clearer by changing the article prose a little. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary quotes around "due largely".

Excellent and unusual. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: many thanks for taking the time to read through this article and for offering your thoughts. It's appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention it. Other than the changes you've made, I see no need to do anything further. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: This looks about ready but I'm finding minor MoS issues and there seems to be a mixture of inconsistent dash usage throughout, including at least one em dash incorrectly used to express a page range. Please go through the article and polish these items up. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Laser brain; I have gone through the article and think that I have dealt with every instance of inconsistency in the dashes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2018 (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/Hoodening/archive1&oldid=1138463130"