Talk:Hoodening/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 11:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. By coincidence I had just shared a photo, with a new Facebook friend, of myself in the early 1970s (dressed as the Doctor for a mumming play) alongside a hooden horse made by my grandfather (to my instructions). The photo was taken in our back garden in West Wickham near the Kent/Surrey border. By another coincidence, directly across the road from us lived one of the Ravensbourne Morris side. None of our family had any direct connections with Kent, we just happened to live there. My grandfather was an engineer by trade, and the hooden horse in question was made specifically for the Mark Lane Mummers, a very short-lived troupe in the 1970s based at the HQ of HM Customs & Excise in Mark Lane, London. That in itself was unusual in that it was outside Kent. With the demise of the short-lived MLM, I think the horse was possibly used occasionally by the Hartley Morris Men in Kent - I did dance with them, and took part in mumming plays sometimes. However, the old memory is a bit sticky.
 * Incidentally, going slightly off-topic, The making of the hooden horse referred to above happened about the time that I "discovered" a hitherto unknown ritual play. By "discovered" I mean I happened to meet an old man who had lived in Partington in Cheshire, and remembered seasonal visitors from nearby Dunham Massey, with a ritual that included a horse. This wasn't in Chris Cawte's excellent book, but it did appear in Vol.5 No.2 of 'Roomer', after I had told him about it.
 * I may try to upload the photo of "my" horse to the hooden horse page, but I'm not very good with that sort of editing. Paul Thompson (Perth) (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I always enjoy reading your articles; I'd be happy to have a look through this one. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had a play with italics in the etymology section, as per WP:WORDSASWORDS. It's possible that I got this wrong, as it's a tricky thing, so do feel free to fix it if I've made any mistakes...
 * I'm fine with those revisions, thanks Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest "Possible Early Medieval origins" as preferable to "Early Medieval origins?"- I wonder whether the use of the question in a section title is appropriate.
 * I hummed and harred in my mind over the use of the question mark, and your comment confirmed my initial concerns. I'll change it to your proposed alternative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Who's Percy Maylam? Folklorist?
 * But I already mention who Maylam is both in the lede and in his first appearance in the main body of the article ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled as to why I asked this... Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear why you've combined italics with speech marks in the paragraph beginning "In their 1888 Dictionary of the Kentish Dialect".
 * I think that it was probably my attempt to clarify that the authors of the dictionary were using hodening and hoodening differently, but I get your point and have removed the quotation marks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "or the sack in which the horse's carrier was concealed" This seems to presuppose that the people in their account wore a sack; perhaps it would be more neutral to say something like "Parish and Shaw did not mention what time of year the tradition took place on or its geographical location. They also made no reference to a the sack concealing the person carrying the horse."
 * Very good point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "because those to whom he had talked in the early 1900s included individuals who could remember it taking place in the area of St. Nicholas-at-Wade back to the 1840s" Presumably you mean "up until the 1840s"? "Back to" would imply that it happened from the 1840s until they spoke to him.
 * Actually, your interpretation was correct. Maylam noted that the tradition was still alive at St. Nicholas-at-Wade in the 1900s, with locals recalling it going back to the 1840s. I've amended the prose in the article to make that clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "However, in this he was wrong for in January 1891, letters published in The Church Times attested to the continuing practice of the hooden horse tradition at both Deal and Walmer." Is it a bit much to say he was wrong? Why not just say something like "This was contradicted by..." or something?
 * Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "The members included a Mollie in their procession, but added that this had not been done for some time and was thus reintroduced for Maylam's benefit." This is the first mention in the main body of a Mollie- an explanation would be good.
 * I've added a brief explanation at the first mention of the Mollie. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Maylam talked to the troupe about the tradition, and eventually photographed the Walmer horse and those who accompanied it in March 1907." Did we not establish that he was not the photographer?
 * What I had meant to relate was that Maylam had organised the photography session, even if he did not take the actual photograph himself. I have amended the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * " The Ravensbourne Morris' hoodening tradition is the earliest known variant of the custom to exist in West Kent,[57] although there are accounts of a hoodening horse being located at Balgowan School in the West Kentish town of Beckenham during the 1930s." Do these sentences not contradict each other? Or are you meaning to suggest that the latter accounts have not been verified?
 * The latter part of the sentence refers to the fact that a horse was known to be kept at the school, although it wasn't necessarily used as part of any particular tradition. The entire early twentieth-century is a bit of a murky area when it comes to the hoodening tradition, but I've tried my best to describe what we know with the sources available. If you'd like me to rewrite that section then just let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a fairly extensive discussion in Fran and Geoff Doel's 2003 Folklore of Kent, chapter 2, among their other books. If you're looking at FAC, chasing them down would probably be valuable. If you can't access the six pages in that book, I can copy them across to you.
 * Thanks for the reference here, Josh. I will look into including that source at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If this article is lacking something, I feel it's just a straightforward explanation of what the practice entails. There are plenty dotted throughout the history section, but I feel readers would appreciate a simple description separate from the debates about the history.
 * That's a good point and again echoes something that I had been considering. It would certainly be possible to add a single description, so I will do so, but the problem of course lies in the fact that no tradition is entirely static or uniform. As the History section notes, the different hoodening troupes did differ from one another, and did also change over time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the additional section, as you suggested Josh. I think that it definitely improves the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful. Really interesting article. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you found in interesting, and thank you for taking the time to review it. I'm going to be without reliable internet access for a few days, so if you don't hear from me till later in the week that will be why. If you feel that the additional paragraph is a must for the article to reach GA quality, hold off passing it until then. Otherwise I shall add the additional paragraph after it passes. Until then - all the best! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Two quick comments on the new paragraph before I promote: First, you may want to think about putting an image next to it; this would be helpful for readers. Second, I think it's currently written with an assumption of too much knowledge on the part of the reader: rather than "The hooden horse itself was" and "The individual carrying this horse", think about something like "The practice revolved around a so-called hooden horse, which was" and "This horse was carried by an individual". I think it's fair to assume that many readers will look to this paragraph with literally no conception of what hoodening is. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Both fair points. I'm hoping that an image of the hooden horses that are used in the contemporary period will be found, and if not one could certainly be produced. I will also have a read through of that paragraph and make some alterations to ensure that things are clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm happy to promote. A nice little article which, perhaps with some more digging through the literature, could have a shot at FA status in the future. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've placed it in the rather broad "culture and cultural studies" category, but I can see an argument for history, dance, agriculture, anthropology... I'm open to you moving it if you think there is somewhere more appropriate; I think it most clearly belongs with cultural/"folk" practices, but I'm not sure there is really a category for that. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)