Talk:Battle of North Walsham/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Parrot of Doom 22:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing... Parrot of Doom 22:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead

 * "The Battle of North Walsham was a mediaeval battle fought near the town of North Walsham in the English county of Norfolk on June 25 or 26, 1381." - I reworded this slightly, but between whom?
 * "was utterly defeated by a heavily armed force led by Henry le Despenser" - "by the heavily armed forces of Henry..." would be better, but I wanted to check first that they were his forces.

Events leading to the battle

 * This might be better titled simply as Background, but I'll leave that to your better judgement.
 * "The uprising in Norfolk was part of the English Peasants' Revolt" - what uprising exactly? Remember, the lead is a bit of a mini-article, you need to start afresh here as some people might not have read it.
 * "The causes of the revolt in Norfolk are complex." - repetition of "revolt in Norfolk" - can you rephrase?
 * "In the years following the Black Death, a national shortage of workers had led to higher wages." - I know the black death caused a labour shortage, but could you mention that?
 * "The Statute of Labourers (1351)" - was this an Act of Parliament? We need to know that this is a law.
 * "Discontent increased with a deterioration in the respect held for the Church, which became generally hated by the peasants, as many priests lacked education and the bishops and abbots were themselves landowners." - who originally held respect in the Church?
 * "The revolt in England started after a succession..." - is this the Peasant's Revolt still? I'm not absolutely certain.
 * "The imposition of a third poll tax in 1381 prompted riots all over England." - this is my rewording, can I just check with you that the tax prompted the riots, or was it a coincidence?
 * "Richard's promises were retracted." - by whom, or under who's will?

I'll continue tomorrow. Parrot of Doom 22:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll continue to review the rest of the article, and then I'll re-read the points you've already addressed. Parrot of Doom 21:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The leaders

 * "After Despenser and his crusaders were decisively defeated at Ypres, they were forced to return to England and Despenser was impeached in parliament and deprived of his lands" - would "for his defeat in Ypres, Despenser was impeached in Parliament, and deprived of his lands" be correct? Shorter and simpler.  Also, was he attainted?
 * "In 1399 Henry remained true to Richard during the national crisis that resulted in the king's abdication:" - can't leave the reader hanging there - either link the "national crisis", explain it a little, or don't mention it beyond "abdication".
 * "Litster's widow Agnes was pursued by the authorities after the battle and was made to settle his debts (for the sum of 33 shillings and nine pence)" - this seems out of place here, and should perhaps be in "aftermath"?

Events in Norfolk before the battle

 * "The Essex and Kent rebellions spread quickly from London to other parts of England" - you called them riots before, are they riots or rebellions?
 * "urging insurrection throughout the local area" - urging to whom? "Trying to raise support" or similar might be better.
 * " who caused considerable damage to the property and possessions of their enemies once they managed to enter the city" - who are their enemies?
 * "On June 17 a great meeting of people" - great as in large?
 * "Shortly afterwards, the mob murdered Sir Robert Salle" - what mob? This doesn't tally with "great meeting".
 * "shortly afterwards, Sir Robert Salle, who had come out of the city to speak with the rebels, was killed." - by whom? Parrot of Doom 20:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * " (e.g. at Yarmouth)" - try and use words rather than abbreviations, it reads more easily :)

The battle and its aftermath

 * "Thomas of Walsingham relates" - not any more, he's dead! Related :)
 * " in which an attack on the rebels' entrenched position, led by the warlike Bishop" - the entrenched position was not led by the warlike Bishop.
 * "Other mediaeval chroniclers either imply that very little fighting took place" - chroniclers implied as they're dead, but chronicles imply as they exist still - subtle but important difference.
 * "The Escheators' Inquisitions for the period that name" - a link would be nice here, if one exists. If not, perhaps a redlink to encourage someone to create the article?
 * "giving strong evidence that a battle did indeed occur" - I had to go back and re-read the section here, as "The battle between the rebels and Despenser's men was fought" implies that it happened, full stop.
 * "Walter Rye quotes a local man" - quoted
 * "According to [Thomas Walsingham]" - formatting problem there.

Commemoration of the battle

 * "The site of the battle is one of only five known battlefields in Norfolk." - the above section suggests that the battle may not have occurred.

Parrot of Doom 21:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead

 * "The Battle of North Walsham was a mediaeval battle fought near the town of North Walsham in the English county of Norfolk on June 25 or 26, 1381." - I reworded this slightly, but between whom?
 * - between a large group of peasants rebels from the local area and a force of armed men led by Despenser (initally his own retinue from Burley (http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/oman/revolt.pdf Oman, p. 90) but ultimately 'All the knights and men of gentle blood who had hid themselves for fear of the commons' (Oman, p. 92), who undertook upon himself the task of 'restoring order and punishing the offenders' (http://www.archive.org/stream/risingineastangl00poweuoft#page/36/mode/2up (Edgar Powell, p. 37.))


 * "was utterly defeated by a heavily armed force raised by Henry le Despenser" - "by the heavily armed forces of Henry..." would be better, but I wanted to check first that they were his forces.
 * - they were (see above).

Events leading to the battle

 * This might be better titled simply as Background, but I'll leave that to your better judgement.
 * - change to Background, (less wordy).


 * "The uprising in Norfolk was part of the English Peasants' Revolt" - what uprising exactly? Remember, the lead is a bit of a mini-article, you need to start afresh here as some people might not have read it.
 * - expansion of 'The Uprising in Norfolk' required (use Historical Atlas of Norfolk, Powell and Omen)


 * "The causes of the revolt in Norfolk are complex." - repetition of "revolt in Norfolk" - can you rephrase?
 * - use 'insurrection', 'rebellion', 'insurgency',
 * The Norfolk insurrection was part of the English Peasants' Revolt, a major rebellion that spread throughout England during the summer of 1381. The causes of the Peasants' Revolt are complex.


 * "In the years following the Black Death, a national shortage of workers had led to higher wages." - I know the black death caused a labour shortage, but could you mention that?
 * - mention that the BD caused a labour shortage.


 * "The Statute of Labourers (1351)" - was this an Act of Parliament? We need to know that this is a law.
 * - The S of L (given in full in Dobson, pp63-68) was a law, which was enacted during the first parliament of Edward III of England and was later revised and re-issued, it made the labour laws more precise and detailed how they were to be enforced: (Dobson, p63) Statute of Labourers (1351) Whereas, to curb the malice of servants who after the pestilence were idle and unwilling to serve without securing excessive wages, it was recently ordained by our lord the king, with the assent of the prelates, nobles, and other men of his council, that such servants, both men and women, should be bound to serve in return for the salaries and wages that were customary in those places where they were obligated to serve during the twentieth year of the reign of our said lord the king, that is to say, five or six years earlier; and whereas the same servants, on refusing to serve in any manner, were to be punished by imprisonment of their bodies, as is more clearly set forth in the same ordinance ...; and whereas our lord the king has now, by the petition of the commons in this present parliament, been given to understand that the said servants have no regard for the said ordinance, but, to suit their ease and their selfish desires, refrain from serving the lords or other men unless they receive double or triple that which they were accustomed to have in the said twentieth year and earlier, to the great damage of the lords and the impoverishment of all men of the said commons, who now pray for remedy of these matters: therefore in the same parliament, by the assent of the prelates, earls, barons, and the other lords, and of the same commons there assembled, the following measures are ordained and established to curb the malice of the said servants.... (http://www.constitution.org/sech/sech_062.htm)


 * "Discontent increased with a deterioration in the respect held for the Church, which became generally hated by the peasants, as many priests lacked education and the bishops and abbots were themselves landowners." - who originally held respect in the Church?
 * - priests, particularly John Ball (Oman, p.32) criticised the Church and common people flocked to listen (Powell, p.3, 34) - however this sentence needs to be changed to avoid the implication that there was general respect for the Church prior to the Peasants' Revolt.


 * "The revolt in England started after a succession..." - is this the Peasant's Revolt still? I'm not absolutely certain.
 * - This line refers to the Peasants' Revolt (clarification needed).


 * "The imposition of a third poll tax in 1381 prompted riots all over England." - this is my rewording, can I just check with you that the tax prompted the riots, or was it a coincidence?
 * - No coincidence. According to the Anonimalle Chronicle (in Dobson, p. 123), The 'evil actions' of the commons in both Essex and Kent were 'because of the exceptionally severe tenths and fifteenths and other subsidies lightly conceded in parliaments and extortionately levied from the poor people'.


 * " Richard's promises were retracted." - by whom, or under who's will?
 * - Richard himself went back on his word before the promises he made could be ratified: On the following day he was at Waltham, and there published a curious proclamation, warning all his subjects against rumours put about by the rebels to the effect that he approved of their doings and that they were acting in obedience to his orders. Richard in no measured language declares that he has not, and never had, any sympathy for their riotous and treasonable conduct, and that he regards their rising as highly prejudicial to his kingdom and crown. All true men are to resist, arrest, and punish any bands found under arms, as rebels against their sovereign lord. This proclamation was perhaps provoked by the arrival at Waltham of a deputation sent by the Essex insurgents, with a demand for the ratification of the promises made at Mile End on June 14, and a request that they might be granted the additional privilege of freedom from the duty of attending the King’s courts, save for the view of frankpledge once a year.139 Richard spoke out roundly to this embassy; he told them that the pledges made during Tyler’s reign counted for nothing, having been extorted by force. ‘Villeins ye are still, and villeins ye shall remain.’ he added, ending with a threat that armed resistance would draw down dreadful vengeance. It is clear that the sentimental sympathy for the oppressed peasantry attributed to the young King by some modern authors had no real existence. He was incensed at the duress which he had suffered on June 14–15, and anxious to revenge himself. (Oman, p.59)


 * --Amitchell125 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * final points addressed, I hope.--Amitchell125 (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost, see ""The Essex and Kent rebellions spread quickly from London to other parts of England" - you called them riots before, are they riots or rebellions?" and ""giving strong evidence that a battle did indeed occur" - I had to go back and re-read the section here, as "The battle between the rebels and Despenser's men was fought" implies that it happened, full stop.". Parrot of Doom 12:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed any references to riots, as the commons rebelled as opposed to rioted. As far as everyone except a couple of mediaeval chroniclers were concerned, there definitely was a proper battle. I'll underplay the minority opinion that the commons at N Walsham simply collapsed when Despenser arrived.--Amitchell125 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm happy with this now, congratulations :) Parrot of Doom 19:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)