Talk:John/Eleanor Rykener/GA1

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 02:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Taking this one, comments soon. —Usernameunique (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead
 * First paragraph: suggest combining, or placing next to each other, the sentences about prostitution being rarely prosecuted and sodomy being a moral crime. Then I'd say that Rykener was never prosecuted for either.
 * Done?
 * "Rykener spent some time in Summer 1395" — so while he was arrested in 1394, he told his interrogators about what he was doing in 1395?
 * D'oh!
 * "He described not just his encounter with Britby but his recent sexual history, which included relations with both men and women, including priests and nuns" — Does "recent sexual history" include what was before this sentence in the paragraph (e.g., Tower of London assignations, time in Oxford/Burford/Beaconsfield? If so, I'd put this sentence earlier.
 * Agree, have merged a little.
 * Third paragraph could perhaps use some more context: who are the scholars, what is Tristan and Iseult, what would the point of the propaganda piece be?
 * Found this slightly trick, actually; I'd appreciate if you could double check it, as I didn't want to add unnecessary detail while answering your points.
 * "a dramatic retelling of the story for the stage." — maybe a bit flowery.
 * "Scripted for the stage"? Not sure what one does to put something on the stage!
 * One adapts a story for the stage; writes a play about a person; produces a play in a particular venue; or stages a play or production (which one is a matter of emphasis). In this case you’re currently claiming that a person is being turned into a playscript, so a bigger rephrasing is needed than picking the right verb. —Xover (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Uuurgh. Cheers, that heps on both points! Many thanks. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Background
 * Note 2 — Did Southwark have a booming prostitution business, catering to Londoners? Doesn't necessarily need to be in the article, but I've wondered both times I've read the note.
 * Absolutely, and has recently been recast in the public eye, see . I think it probably is worth mentioning, as readers may wonder why, if prostitution was an offence, but there was an area near London where it was allowed, why Rykner didn't work there? I mean, I don't know either. They probably did, but for some reason didn't mention it. In fact, I'll add a pog to the map on account of it too. Just a couple of lines added to the note.
 * "but focussed on arresting pimps and procuresses who lived off them." — perhaps "the pimps and..."
 * Of course.
 * "Thomas Aquinas compared prostitution to a sewer" — perhaps bit a bit more explicit with this comparison, e.g., "Thomas Aquinas compared prostitution to a sewer controlling the flow of waste..."
 * Half-inched your wording!
 * "It has been suggested that of particular concern for the officials was not so much the act itself, but Rykener's switching of gender roles. This perceived importance may account for the survival of the record,[8] as it may have been considered to have set a precedent." — this seems like it might belong further down, with the analysis.
 * Moved to the "Hist. significance" section.
 * "Intersex was then a legally recognised status." — is it correct to use "intersex" as a noun?
 * Interesting. The word I originally used here was "Hermaphrodite" per both the source and Bracton, who used it in the 13C. J Milburn suggested changing it to "Intersex" though—see their fourth bullet point at the FAC—so I did. I'm not fussy eaither way as to the precise wording, except that t would be useful if it was something that everyone agreed on of course.
 * Interesting point. I don’t think it’s a big deal, but as you have noted yourself, I’d probably prefer using words that were understood by contemporaries when referring to contemporary understandings. Since was referring more to the linked articles than to the terms, would using the word "hermaphrodite" or "hermaphroditism" with a piped link to intersex work? If not, no big deal. —Usernameunique (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is some tricky politics at work here that I would not want to get wrong, but my feeling is that the word "hermaphrodite" refers to the topic of our article entitled "intersex", and that "hermaphrodite" is the dated term; "Intersex people were previously referred to as hermaphrodites", according to our article. A piped link works, but maybe the word "hermaphrodite" should be placed in scare-quotes. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks both; perhaps leave this to a broader PR. But if this is the only bit of politics that the article hits, I will consider myself to be doing well!

John Rykener, Londoner
 * This feels as if the third paragraph could go in "Background", and the second paragraph could be placed later, as it's analysis of Rykener that depends on the facts that are laid out in the next section. The first paragraph could be the first sentence of "Life".
 * Yes I think that does work—cheers.

Life
 * Note 4 — is "Moryng" her given name, or surname? How is this earlier information about her known?
 * Added to the footnote; info is from her 1385 arrest.
 * "The intention was presumably to blackmail them" — can you be more explicit here? It's still not exactly clear what they were being blackmailed about. They'd already slept with a prostitute (potential blackmail material), so was the added threat that they would be outed as sleeping with a prostitute that was a transvestite?
 * I'm already dangerously close to OR as it is :) but the sources tend to agree it was blackmail without necessarily elaborating. However, the article establishes earlier on that sodomy is considered (particularly for the clergy) a far more egregious an offence than whoring, so I imagine that's at the bottom of them wanting to stay out of court. Is note 5 insufficient to this purpose do you think?
 * No worries then, I think you’re fine as is. —Usernameunique (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "lighting his way home" — what does this mean?
 * It's an interesting little story, and have added an explanatory footnote.
 * Yes, very interesting. Might want to add inline citations after each quotation. Is everything from p. 59? —Usernameunique (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done the cites; yes, 59–60, on further examination.

Oxford and return to London, mid-1394
 * By August 1395 — again, are you sure 1395 is correct?
 * Heh :)
 * "Dinshaw" — this is your first mention of her, so a full name and a link should be here.
 * Done.
 * "In al the toun nas brewhous ne taverne / That he ne visited with his solas / Ther any gaylard tappestere was" — perhaps an English to English translation?
 * Done that; a little tricky avoiding OR, but an enjoyable return to something I haven't looked at for twenty years :)
 * Looks good, now I can finally understand English! There’s an extra close parenthesis there, and a bit confused by the four citations at the end. Per WP:These are not original research, I don’t think you need to be concerned about OR there. —Usernameunique (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Greaty stuff, thanks.
 * "Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire" — first use outside of the lead/map, so could link (alternatively, could link all the names on the map).
 * Yeeees...something odd here. I'm sure that they were originally linked, but I must've delinked, and I've no idea why. Still, if you think that suffices, I'll stick em back. Odd!

Arrest
 * "pepperers ... mercers, drapers, and ﬁshmongers" — links?
 * And linked.
 * "the stinking and horrible sin of lechery", practised by strumpets — is "practised by strumpets" part of the quotation? Seems like it should be, but it's not included.
 * It does, but actually that's Dinshaw's own commentary.
 * Bit confused here... Dinshaw's own commentary includes the phrase "practiced by strumpets"? If so, that should be part of the quotation, which currently ends after "sin of lechery,". —Usernameunique (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's it—a quote within a quote, of course. Double/single quotes.
 * "he labels" — "he" technically means the clerk here, but I think you mean Goldberg.
 * Yes, clarified.

Aftermath
 * "Rykener disappears from the records" — perhaps "historical records".
 * Good point; I thought "disappears from historical records"?

'''Historical significance and scholarship
 * "Although a legal process of inquisition was clearly commenced against Rykener, it is unknown whether he was charged with an offence. If he was, the outcome of the case is unknown.[50] There is not, says Goldberg, any "further record of any response or action on the part of the court nor any further notice of Rykener". There are no explicit charges, verdict or sentence.[3]" — bit repetitive with what's already said above
 * Right; I've removed the earlier mention of their not being charged (premature), and taken this section out of the "Hist. sig" section and put it at the end of the "Arrest" section, where I think it fits better. Thoughts?
 * Generally looks good. See what you think of my tinkering to the last paragraph of "Arrest", but feel free to revert. On the minor side of things, the sentence ending in "court nor any further notice of Rykener" should have an inline citation. —Usernameunique (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Added cite. Yes, I think that shift is for the better.

'''Recent scholarship
 * "While their story illustrates little of the true nature of courtly love," — Why? It's alluded to in the preceding footnote, but a brief explanation here (histrionic fiction, e.g.) might be nice
 * Done.
 * "Goldberg has also suggested that historians may have misread what was happening in the law report enrolled after the interrogation." — I'd rephrase; "after the interrogation" makes it sound like the interrogation happened and Rykener existed, but Goldberg's point is just the opposite.
 * "...historians may have misread the true significance of the original document"?
 * "Hence Rykener becomes a metaphor for Richard II following the dispute over the city's liberties, and, much like Rykener was described in the accusation, Richard is "symbolically buggered" in Cheapside." — I don't quite follow the metaphor
 * Mmmm. I think there might be a problem in expressing the metaphor in much more detail without over-exciting Randy from Boise :)  *OR alert*—basically, the clerks are suggesting that in the same way as the King buggered the city over the previous few years, they—through a fictional Rykener—were enrolling the King being buggered (at Cheapside). But that needs—careful wording, I guess.
 * Thanks very much for this, I'll be on it.  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, . I've made a few small changes to the article, in addition to the points above. It's clearly a good article. Hopefully by adressing a few of the structural issues above, next time FAC will be a smoother process. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all your points and suggestions, although in some cases further discussion might be useful before finishing off. I'm sure I'll hear back within 24-hours :p  Take care!  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And, again . Hope all is well! —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 14:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks great, . Did a final read-through and what's below is all I could come up with. Everything is a suggestion except for the last one (quotations marks), which should be fixed, so once that's done that little green circle's gonna appear. Unless you don't fix it within 24 hours, that is: straight to AFD!


 * "It was considered socially unacceptable for a man to habitually wear women's clothes." — slightly abrupt for the start of a paragraph. Could perhaps start something like "In Rykener's London, it was also considered..."
 * In that same paragraph, there are three instances of "says [name of historian]". Could perhaps add some variance.
 * "as Dinshaw phrased it" — never really sure here, but should this be "phrases", since you're generally using "says"?
 * "Britby too never seems to have been charged with anything." — perhaps "with any crime."
 * "The name itself is a sufficiently unusual name" — perhaps "a sufficiently unusual one" or just "is sufficiently unusual"
 * "Bennett has wondered whether" — wonders?
 * Karras says that "even if we do not know anything about Rykener's self-identification, her life as a male-bodied woman was "transgender-like".
 * I think you mean "transgender-like" to be in single marks ('transgender-like'), and there to be a double mark at the end of the sentence, but I'll let you fix it as I'm not sure. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What a thorough probing! :p seriously, thanks very much—attended too. Actually, I have wondered if I namedrop too much, but it's the best way of directly attributing quotes I think...note edit-summary btw   :)   Cheers!  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 04:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , well, I've got nothing to add. Looks like we've got this in shape for AFD! --Usernameunique (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Great :) now...where's my Magick Archive Button...  :)   —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 11:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)