Talk:Gregory's Chronicle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 08:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I read through this article when it was first nominated a few weeks ago, but went away shortly after. It looked interesting, though, so as it hasn't been picked up since I will take a look at it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "became Sheriff of London from 1436-7, and eventually Mayor from 1450-1" – after "became" I would expect a single date, not a date range. Use either "became Sheriff in 1436" or "was Sheriff from 1436 to 1437". (And, to nitpick, I would say "from 1436 to 1437", not "from 1436–7"; if you want to use a dashed date then you don't need "from". MOS:DATERANGE agrees.)
 * "it also contains[...] (it also contains[...]": jarring repetition. Perhaps "(such as poems and health advice)" instead of the second "also contains"?
 * MOS:DOUBLE says that quotes should be in double-quotation marks, and I was surprised to see single-quotes in this article. (Although technically you don't have to comply with this part of the MOS for good article status if you are really tied to single quotes...)
 * "By the same token, however, it has been pointed out that the very mention of Gregory's mayoralty, which gave this chronicle its name, has also been of specific interest to other contemporary writers." this doesn't seem to follow from the previous sentence.
 * "Its attribution to Gregory has its roots in a 1452/3 entry, in which the author namechecks Gregory as mayor: thus, it has been suggested, he drew attention to himself." I'm an ancient historian, not a medievalist, but it doesn't strike me as unusual that a London chronicle might name the mayor of London. Is this notable because other mayors are not named?  If so, it would be good to make this clear.  If not, why attribute to Gregory rather than any other mayor named in the chronicle?
 * "Even so, out of the numerous medieval chronicles of this period, it is the one which has caused most debate among historians about its authorship, mostly because, although it continues after Gregory's death, it also appears to have been written in the same neat hand throughout, albeit with the last three years being stylistically different from the preceding ones." When you need six commas in a sentence to separate your clauses, it's often a clue that they really want to be more than one sentence.  In this case, I might split after "authorship".
 * What does Kingsford mean by "superfluous"?
 * Has anyone been interested in the authorship debate in the last century? Kingsford died in 1926, the other historians cited as having proposed authors died before him!

Just a few points to think about for now. Must go; more later. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this . I have settled your first three points; for the fourth, I moved the sentence to where it actually does discuss mayors (although I might be able to be more expansive / explanatory upon this in the near future); point five does indeed need more discussion- 'to be done'; point six- yes- a sentence longer than the Krays'! Split at your suggestion; point seven- expanded upon; last but not least- yes, most of the modern sources I have actually cited! -but as far as the historiography goes, the Victorians are discussed in RS in their own right, whereas the modernists less so- that is, they speak for themselves (WP:PRIMARY?) rather than others speaking for / of them. Do you see my concern there? Thanks again for this, and give us a ping when you're next around! &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  19:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, coming back to this.
 * Firstly, I absolutely see your concern re. difficulties of finding sources discussing modern historiographical trends and the need to avoid original research. Scholarly book reviews are often a useful source for that sort of contextualisation, but I can't find anything obvious which can help in this case.
 * Secondly, re. Kingsford's "superfluous", I still think that it provides more confusion than it dispels. I tried to track down Kingsford's original to see if that cleared anything up, but I can't find it.  To be honest, I would personally just cut the quote and say something like "Kriehn's suggestion was rejected by C.S.L. Kingsford, and Gregory's authorship of the first part of the Chronicle has been generally accepted ever since."
 * "Other fifteenth-century authors have been proposed, ranging from a fellow poet to an Ecclesiast": "fellow poet" to whom? Was William Gregory a poet as well as being a skinner and alderman?
 * I'd still like to see a little bit more on why Gregory was considered such a good candidate for the authorship, especially having read in McLaren 2002 that a) Gregory is not the only mayor named in the chronicle and b) the chronicle is not the only one to name Gregory as the mayor of London. WP:GA? criterion 3a is much less stringent than WP:FA? 1b, but this is such an obviously unexplained point, in an article which spends fully half of its length discussing the authorship question, that I really would like to see more. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that apart from those last few points, the article is in pretty decent shape though, and with a little bit of work to address the authorship thing especially I will be happy to pass it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again- very sorry about the delay- for some reason the talk page hasn't transcluded your second set of comments, so I thought I was still waiting for you. Ooops. Right, if you're happy to give me a little more time, I'll prioritize this. Thanks for your suggestions- meaty. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  16:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * no problem. If you ping me when you are happy I'll have another look at the article.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - could you take another look? I think I've addressed that issue- and, indeed, shamelessly ripped off your own suggestions in a couple of cases. Hope that's OK. Cheers, &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  18:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, looking at this again now: prose and MOS-compliance are fine. Sources are fine, and the ones I have spot-checked all check out.  The topic appears to be adequately covered, and there are no obvious important sources missing.  There are no images, but I wouldn't expect there to necessarily be either images of Gregory or of the manuscript, and I couldn't find any on Commons when I checked. I think this passes the Good Article criteria at this point. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)