Talk:John and William Merfold/GA1

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 01:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this over the week to come. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I've lightly copyedited the article, please check and see the changes are acceptable to you
 * "The Merfold statements" strikes me as an odd way of phrasing things-- perhaps "The actions of the Merfolds" or something?
 * "This phenomenon reached its apex" perhaps "The decline peaked" or something a little more concise
 * I've changed to, "The decline was most acute between..."
 * I have tagged several areas as needing citations with citation needed
 * I'm working on this.
 * "his situation was aggravated by the final conflicts of the Hundred Years' War," add some years to when the 'final conflicts' were, perhaps?
 * Great suggestion - I've added the calendar year of the war's end, to help clarify. Does this work?
 * "and led some" some referring to who here?
 * Michael Hicks refers to "medieval people" and "subjects:" I think it's fair to say that Hicks means that some merchants, craftsmen, and agriculturalists who suffered from the economic downturn are included in this but he's not explicit. He does mention Kentish discontent several times. I've elaborated a little, hope this is helpful.
 * "for their economic hardship" it's unclear why the final conflicts would have led them to this? Could you make the connection a little more explicit? ✅ Amitchell125 (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "systematic abuse of power in the king's name" what's being quoted here? ✅
 * "In June, " 1449 or 1450? ✅ May 1450. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "complained the House of Commons," how can the HoC speak as a person? Are you subsequently quoting a specific person? ✅ Amitchell125 (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "to his principal rival Richard Duke of York during the Wars of the Roses" I'm not convinced this adds much? Would you consider cutting it? ✅ Amitchell125 (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "and received pardons " pardons from who, if the royal forces hunted them? ✅
 * "was a natural fool " what does 'natural fool' mean? I'm unfamiliar with that phrasing ✅
 * "The King, Henry VI, lapsed into madness three years later" maybe put this in a note template? See efn. ✅
 * "lapsed into madness " maybe "began to have a series of mental breakdowns"? ✅
 * ""armed for war"" -> "prepared for war"? ✅
 * standardise between using the serial (oxford) comma and not ✅
 * So were the Merfolds involved as rebels at all?
 * As far as i can tell, all the available information about the Merfolds themselves—and there's very little—is already in the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * might add a sentence about their 1451 indictment after 'spring 1451 defeat'
 * Apologies for the delay. Having tried to find more information about the Merfolds, I have failed spectacularly—for instance there's nothing available to show conclusively that the merfolds were indicted. ❌ Amitchell125 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "incited by the Merfolds" I think you could be more explicit that they incited the revolts-- If they did
 * ❌ As above Amitchell125 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Is David Rollinson supposed to refer to David Rollason?
 * ❌ Different person. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "following the Magna Carta" -> "following the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215"? ✅
 * this book calls the rebellions "The Merfold Rebellion", is that something widely used to be included in this article. this news article may or may not be useful.
 * Thanks (sources not used in the end) Amitchell125 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That's my first impressions of the article. Seems to be in decent shape, just needs some work. These comments are, of course suggestions and should be treated as such. I'm happy to discuss any in more detail. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear thank you so much for these detailed and very helpful comments. At a first pass, it seems every one is quite helpful, and I will try to implement all or nearly all your suggestions. This is really excellent peer review: thank you! It will be two weeks before I'll be able to implement these changes: I hope you don't mind that I won't be using your review to improve the article before then. Sincerely, Darouet (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Per discussion here, this article isn't at GA status yet, and I will be failing it. That's not to say that this article isn't good, just that it's not at GA level yet. Thanks for your patience and best wishes going forward, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Status query
Eddie891, Darouet, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, it's been nearly two months, not two weeks, and Darouet has not yet edited the article to address the issues raised, even though they have been editing elsewhere in the interim. Can progress be made in the near future? If not, perhaps it's time to end the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the poke, . I've placed onhold, pending a response. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the pings - I think the onhold status is great, and I'll try to get back to this ASAP. My editing has been somewhat minimal sadly as the semester has been busy. I really appreciate the feedback: it's helpful and I think I can go through the recommendations with one good afternoon. -Darouet (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, no worries! If you can't get around to it soon, let us know and i can close the nomination so that you can renominate it when time allows. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)