Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coterel gang/archive1

Coterel gang

 * Nominator(s): ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Gang of ruffians, check.Hiding out in Sherwood Forest, check.Duffing up royal officials, check.Fair maids and boozy priests, history releases not their secrets.The Coterel Gang: A likely historical antecedent of the Robin Hood legend. AKA more fun and games from the early 14th-c. when the King wanted to go to Scotland but ended up in Derbyshire, and those who wanted to stay in Derbyshire went to Scotland. All please to comment! —— SerialNumber  54129  08:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to User:Jens Lallensack for the thorough GA also. apologies for the belated acknowledgement! ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Jim
I'll make obvious fixes to the text as I go, please check, and I'll add comments here as I read Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They were joined by men of lower class.[16] It was probably composed of the Coterel brothers with a small number of local men as its kernel&mdash; "It" has lost its subject
 * kidney &mdash; I'm not sure how international this usage is, perhaps wait and see?
 * Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland area&mdash; if you have linked Derbyshire at its first occurrence, you should link the others too
 * High Peak image, although pretty, doesn't today much resemble the "wild forests" of your text
 * highpoint may be correct, but looks odd as a single word
 * Inconsistent capitalisation of Peak District
 * Sir John de Legh, for example, was from Shropshire.[43] Many men—Sauvage, for example&mdash; clunky repeat of "example"
 * Lichfield is correct, but you also use Litchfield
 * link Bakewell and Mackworth
 * Thanks very much for thse pointers, and for your own edits, all appreciated. Instead of kidney (v Holmesian!), how about just "similar gangs"?  ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I like "kidney", but I suspect that it has limited currency these days. I haven't quite finished reading (grandchildren duties ): but I hope to do so soon Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Duities, literally, of your own kidney! ;)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Methinks that "Appeltree" should be "Appletree", see History of Derbyshire
 * ...intersect in detail with known historical events such as the Coterels were involved in,&mdash; missing "those"?
 * Note 1 has a red link to the "Disinherited". perhaps could be piped to something that helps us understand this?
 * All done now Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much again. Linked and added your first two suggestions; as to the last, well, it was difficult to find anything to link to without WP:EGGiness, so I cut "Disinherited" and added minor detail about de Montfort and the barons' war, whichh should be more explanatory?  ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support just one query to leave with you. Your red link is now to Appletree, Cheshire. Is that right? Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "I don't believe it". I've got Cheshire on the brain. But now fixed for Derbys. Thanks for your support here,, always appreciated. Cheers, ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Petition_SC_8-131-6544_from_Walter,_Vicar_f_Bakewell_to_the_King,_c.1331-dorse.png: under US law, reproducing a 2D work garners no new copyright - this needs info and tagging for the original work
 * Added and  : they the ones?


 * Tags are fine, but need a bit more elaboration in the source field than "own work". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean—I cocked that one right up! It was only the scanning etc that was my own work, the actual creator is about 700 years old :)  which I've clarified, hopefully. Cheers,  ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Nottingham_castle_reconstruction.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Edward_III_of_England_(Order_of_the_Garter).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Boshed on them two tags too! What say ye? Many thaksn for the review, none us could do it without you. ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review

 * The level of detail in the source locations seems a bit inconsistent; we have country in some cases, and not in others; and US states in some cases, and not in others. I'm not particular as to what format is finally used, but consistency is necessary, I think.
 * If you end up using US states, I'd suggest full names, rather than two-letter abbreviations; unlinked, these are quite opaque to most readers
 * It strikes me that since you're using sfn formatting, page ranges are unnecessary for books in the bibliography, where they are not edited volumes (I'm looking specifically at Hanna and Turville-Petre, 2010)
 * "HMC" in HMC 2011 should be written out in full, I think; perhaps even linked, if possible?
 * There's a closing parenthesis missing in the title of Maddicott 2004
 * The google books preview of Miller 1991 suggests both Miller and Thirsk are editors; would the "cite encyclopedia" option be a better one here? It would allow you to include the chapter author, too.
 * I'm unfamiliar with "cite archive"; is "page=petitioners:..." standard formatting?
 * Not critical, but you could afford to lose "edition" information where an ISBN exists.
 * Something's off with the editor name formatting in the Shippey source
 * A PhD thesis is certainly not the worst source to use, but I wonder if it could be replaced, particularly for something like the outlaws fondness for forests.
 * I have similar feelings about conference proceedings; they don't typically undergo peer review...
 * ref 48 needs "pp", and a comma, I think?
 * ditto 104.
 * No other concerns about source reliability
 * Spotchecked ref 27; checks out, though Hanawalt doesn't actually say "presumably"?
 * Also spotchecked 40abc; checks out.
 * Also spotchecked 49abcd; checks out.

That's it; it's mostly a lot of nitpicks. Please ping me when you're done, I'm not watching this. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for looking in, : I've attended to many of your suggestions / nitpicks, I absolutely agree re. consistency; any I've left as is are per my previous FACs (and I guess my own internal consistency). Good thinking about the ; it was a bit tricky but I got there. Re. the , "page" is for the relevant webpage I believe. Thanks again,  ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Most concerns resolved, certainly; It would be nice to replace the thesis and the conference proceedings, but I don't think those are grounds for failure. Nice work. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber
I read this on my phone - fascinating story. I now have to go back and find the nitpicks....


 * ... ..so it is likely, says J. R. Maddicott, that there.... - I would add a note on what he is so we understand why his opinion is important. Hence "so it is likely, says [historian] J . R. Maddicott, that there"
 * Similarly with J. G. Bellamy...
 * I did see some samples when I read this before where I thought the writing could be trimmed a bit....aaaand now I can't find them. Hang on...
 * .. although he was not arrested, and nor was he ever to be. - why not, "although he was never arrested."?
 * How about although he escaped arrest? And drop the nod to future lack of arrests?
 * Sounds fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * La urence was accused of ravishing the Derbyshire estates  - don't you mean, "ravaging"?
 * I think I probably do :)  I doubt the Lancaster estates were that coquettish!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we know anything about the murders? I guess as they were the worst crimes it might be good if any facts were added....
 * H'mm. Oddly, not as much as we'd like. I've added the names and location but that would seem about it... ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Still, I think that is helpful as otherwise it leaves the reader a bit in the dark. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I can't see any other issues prose- or comprehensiveness-wise. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Eric Corbett
I'm afraid that, unlike Casliber, I can see a few issues with the prose:
 * "... Willoughby paid the massive sum of 1,300 marks for his freedom" It would be nice to get a sense of just how "massive" that was. Would it have paid for a castle to be built for instance? How did that compare to the King's own income?
 * "... they frequently cooperated with other gangs such as the Folvilles". I think this is a common misuse of "such", when what is meant is "including".
 * "The King, Edward II, was extremely unpopular with his nobility ... In 1322 the King's cousin, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster had rebelled, been defeated, and executed for his resistance to them." That makes it seem as if the Earl of Lancaster had been executed by the nobles.
 * " The area of the Midlands they operated within was also wealthier than the national average." This seems just to be tacked on as an afterthought. What's its relevance?
 * "... with a small number of local men at the gang's kernel" That doesn't seem quite right to me. Maybe "forming the kernel of the gang"?
 * "... Bernard had himself been vicar of Bakewell in 1328 but had been forcibly ejected by his parishioners ..." I think that should be "and had been ...".
 * "... with spies keeping a look-out for the Sheriff's men" Why is "Sheriff" capitalised?
 * "Most of the gang who proceedings had been attempted against ..." That's really clumsy. What about "Most of the gang against whom proceedings had been attempted ..."?
 * The caption for the first image in the Peak of activity section should not end with a full stop.

I could go on if you wanted me to, but only if you find my criticism helpful; I know that many find criticism hard to take. Overall I like the article, and I would like to be able to support its promotion after a bit of tidying up, but at the moment I would oppose it. Eric  Corbett  17:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Have I ever complained about an in-depth prose review?! I would hope not. But I think I know what you mean.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't, but others have and are. Eric   Corbett  18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If I may, I'll make a few small individual changes that you can review and either keep or undo. Eric   Corbett  18:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your comments here and those tweaks you made yourself. I've attended to your points—and adopted your suggestions!—the line regarding the wealth of the area has been moved to the "Origins" section, as it provides some context as to how they were able to make a living. As for "Sheriff"; it's my curse. I Instinctively Seem To Capitalise Everything I Can, and then have to go through changing them all! Bonheaded. BTW, I added a (small) footnote contextualising the 1,300 marks: incomes from either side of the chronology OK? I haven't got anything for goods of an equivalent value I'm afraid. Thanks again, ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am interested as the first time I read it I thought I saw some stuff that could be tightened but I was on my phone on a plane in economy class sitting between two large people (I am not small either) and the last thing I wanted to do was try and edit anything. Unfortunately my eye for detail is lacking sometime on subsequent reads. SN54129 I think this is doable. I did actually muse on alerting Eric anyway....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Like a Sxottish omelette? "There isn't mushroom" :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think so too, and please don't think that I meant any criticism of you. I know that to some I can appear to be overly nit-picky, but I just want things to be right. Eric   Corbett  18:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "The origins of the Coterel gang were against a backdrop of political factionalism within central government." This doesn't seem right to me, that origins can be against anything. How about something like "The Coterel gang was active during a period of political factionalism with central government"? Eric   Corbett  18:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Check. I took the liberty of adjusting "with central government" to "within central government"? ——  SerialNumber  54129  07:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite right, I'd meant to write "within". Eric   Corbett  11:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "There is no firm evidence as to James Coterel's precise motives for embarking on his career in crime. Perhaps, suggests the medievalist J. G. Bellamy, having started off in a small way, they discovered both that they were good at it and that it provided an easy source of income." That's a very uneasy switch between the singular "James Coterel" and the plural "they". The "both" is obviously redundant as well. Eric   Corbett  12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's a symptom of my having been "got at" by the XXX-crew; great for virtue signalling, crap for decent prose.
 * "The offence was committed at the instigation of one Robert Bernard ..." I'm not a great fan of that "one" Robert Bernard, don't really see what it adds. Eric   Corbett  12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, lost one.
 * "... for which he had subsequently received a pardon." Likewise, I'm not sure what "subsequently" is adding here". Eric   Corbett  12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, just that it was after the event. But I suppose that's rather self-explanatory.
 * "For example, one Walter Aune delivered a quantity of food to them in the woods" Same issue with "one". Eric   Corbett  12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Just out of curiosity, but is there an occasion on which you would ever use it? I tend to use it when it's a rather common name and someone of whom we know nothing but a name, although I know that's just a personal applicaton rather than an "official" one.
 * I think that about the only time I might be tempted to say "one" would be if I was referring to a old source that had said something like "one Mr Day", i.e. where no Christian name had been given. I'm not claiming that's right, it's just what I'd tend to do. Eric   Corbett  14:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "They were supporters although not necessarily active members, a group which included at least seven local men ..." This doesn't quite work for me. How about changing "a group which" to "and"? Eric   Corbett  12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "... uniting in order to kidnap and kill the king's loyal officials" "In order to" almost always seems like two words too many to me. Why not "to"? Eric   Corbett  12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "... late-twentieth-century historian" and "... late-15th-century re-telling" I'm really not sure that there should be a hyphen after "late" in either case. Eric   Corbett  12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm always tripping myself up over that one, thanks. Also changed "twentieth" to "20th".

As I fully expect to find myself blocked in the next few hours, and on the assumption that my additional points above will be dealt with satisfactorily, I'm going to support this article's promotion. Eric  Corbett  12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I never thought I'd "oppose" a support, but I beg you not to say that :(   ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's as well to be realistic about such things. ;-) Eric   Corbett  13:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well. Changes made, all for the better. Let me just say, thanks very much for looking in here, in spite of all the other crap you're having to deal with. If, in fact, it does not come to pass, you have absolute express permission to withdraw your support in favour of more review, or any other action you deem necessary. In fact, that gives me an idea. Stand by. Thanks a lot and best of luck. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't be withdrawing my support. Good luck with the remainder of this review. Eric   Corbett  14:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild
I have made a few minor copy edits which you may want to check.


 * From the first paragraph of the lead: "which flourished in Derbyshire"; "Basing themselves in the heavily wooded areas of north Nottinghamshire". Not necessarily inconsistent, but confusing in the first paragraph.
 * "It flourished in the North Midlands"..."basing themselves in the desolate peaks of Derbyshire and the heavily wooded areas of north Nottinghamshire"?
 * "ignored their summonses and did not even attend" Is this not saying the same thing twice?
 * H'mmm.
 * "opposed to the Despensers and Edward II" The Despensers appear rather suddenly, not even blue linked. Possibly a word of explanation?
 * Added a couple of ines to the context, explaining they were, like Slater, universally hated and despised around the parish.
 * Note 1: "The same thing would occur following and would later take place to those of Despenser following his execution in 1326" This sentence seems to have suffered a mishap.
 * Indeed it has, while adding stiuff for EC above; mea culpa, adjusted now.
 * "it was a relatively wealthy area." Suggest that "it" be replaced with the area in question.
 * Yus.
 * Could we link "High Peak" to Dark Peak.
 * Stand by. I've already linked it to High Peak Estate, elsewhere in the article. Whichever one's more accurate I'l go with; but I have no personal knowledge.
 * Dark Peak would be the correct link.


 * "James Coterel committed murders in Derby in 1329 and 1330, on the latter occasion killing Sir William Knyveton and John Matkynson in Bradley" "on the latter occasion" refers to "murders in Derby", so John Matkynson can't be one of them. How about 'James Coterel committed murders in Derby in 1329 and 1330, on the latter occasion killing Sir William Knyveton; in 1330 he also murdered John Matkynson in Bradley'. Assuming that the 1330 date is correct.
 * You assume the correctness correctly Stolen that wording though, cheers.
 * Hmmf! That no doubt comes from hanging around with varlets like the Coterels.


 * "James Coterel was attached" Are you sure about that usage. I thought that only property could be attached, not people.
 * True O King, nowadays, but originally (I guess this is the origin of it, to some extent), it was the attachment of a man by his goods (though you're right, to much the same end). But Legal history blows. I've addd a footnote citing J. H. Baker and a Northants gaol delivery roll explaining tings.
 * Ah. I am now better educated.


 * £5,200 is an eye wateringly large amount of money for the time. It's about 5% of Edward III's annual peacetime income. That's a lot of cattle. Is your source sure about this?
 * John Bellamy is pretty sound. Bizarrely and outrageously still redlinked though. To be fair, he was first cousin to Edward II, effectively ruled the country in his stead for some years, and was one of the richest buggers in the kingdom—(*OR Alert*)—I suspect he would have had both a lot of cattle and the best quality, which might go some way towards explaining the vast amount.
 * OK. Hopefully you understand why I felt that I needed to flag it up.


 * "Roaming the Peak District, they sheltered in Sherwood Forest" This gives the erroneous impression that Sherwood Forest is within the Peak District.
 * How about, "Roaming between the Peak District and Sherwood Forest, where they they often sheltered, the gang was continually joined by new recruits"?
 * Works for me.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sup User:Gog the Mild. Consider my remarks. Many thanks for your points, some of which have lead to extra stuff being put in/or explained, I think all useful and definitely postive additions. Nice one. Cheers! ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad that you are finding it useful. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "Peak of activity" Don't give up the day job.
 * "joined them after getting into debt and then being outlawed when they were unable to repay what they owed" They's and them's referring to different things. Optional: delete "them".
 * On another re-read, that whole sentence is rather clunky; how bout adopting your suggestion and raising it: joined after getting into debt and being outlawed when they were unable to pay their creditors. Tighter, you thnk?
 * Yes.


 * "the majority would seem not to have been" You seem to share with me a mild tendency towards overcomplicated language :-) . Possibly delete "would"?
 * Heh :) tightened, merged and redirected into the next sentence (see your next point)
 * "or even to have had criminal records at all" Perhaps 'or even not to have had criminal records at all'?
 * Merged into above.
 * Possibly introduce Barbara Hanawalt at first mention? (If so, then, as Mr riley would point out, beware of false titles.)
 * I must be going blind, but surely she is linked at first mention? (Origins/Coterel fail-->second line). No false title, also courtesy of Sir Riley de Lancs :)
 * No, I am going blind. Apologies.


 * I have inserted a new paragraph to avoid the block quote breaking a sentence.
 * Looking good, Billy Ray.
 * "hand over 40 shillings"; "hand over 100 shillings" Any reason why these are not given as £2 and £5? (I realise that you are probably imitating the source, but it reads oddly.(Eg, why not '1,200 pennies'?))
 * Indeed, the source uses shillings and I am not from þe olden days :) would you rather use pounds?
 * It is not that important, but yes.
 * I went with shillings because I felt that it emphasised the largeness of the sum; but no worries, used £s instead.


 * "The Cathedral Chapter supported the gang even after the gang was identified" 1) Doesn't really make sense; 2) "the gang" twice.
 * Tweaked.
 * "support of these two religious houses" Two? Which is the second?
 * H'mmm. I'm sure there was another, but for the life of me, I can't find it now. Removed (possibly temporarily!).
 * "to actively forage for food" There isn't, as I have discovered to my irritation, a Wikilink to an article which covers "forage" in the sense you mean it. Sadly, this needs unlinking.
 * Blast. Yeah, all I can find is hunter gatherer, foraging and scavenger—and they're all in the context of the animal kingdom.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "... that it had cost him Willoughby was ... " I suspect that the start of this sentence has been kidnapped; I advise paying the ransom.
 * More like an expeditionary force :) repelled.
 * "the majority of accusations the presentment juries made" Was this meant to be 'the majority of guilty verdicts the presentment juries found'?
 * More medieval legalese! The presentment jury was a kind of inquest; it adjudged whether someone should be presented for their crime, in other words, sent on to trial. So I don't think they came to verdicts, as such.
 * Big apologies. I wrote this is a fit of absentmindedness. On rereading I thought that I had deleted it before clicking "Publish". I'm just time-wasting.


 * "with the King soon preoccupied with projects abroad, the status quo ante soon returned" soon twice: is it possible to replace or delete one of them?
 * Well spotted. Absolutely. I lost the first one because—as you might know :)  —the king was very much preoccupied at that point in time, rather than would "soon be preoccupied". Cheers!
 * Your closing quote: the MoS suggests "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words ... ) as a block quotation, indented on both sides."
 * Point. Done. Two consecutive block quotes from J. Maddicott. H'mmm (again).
 * Note 2: "Sauvage was an independent criminal in his own right" As opposed to being a non-individual criminal in his own right?
 * :p How about Sauvage had already established himself as a criminal in his own right? Or perhaps, Sauvage had already established a criminal career of his own...?
 * The latter reads well.


 * Note 23: "almost 900 pardons were issued". Ayton has "several thousand were issued during the course of the siege of Calais [1346-47]". Bottom of p. 194-195 of this may be worth reading.
 * Thanks for that; I don't think the figures are particularly contradictory. After all, the Crecy campaign, being bigger=more soldiers=more criminal=more pardons; Ayton's figures: "over 1,100 pardons" (but not all at Crécy), "thousands of enrolled pardons" for Eiii's entire reign, "over a thousand men" pardoned "during the march across Normandy or in the weeks immediately after Crécy", so there's clearly room for discrepancy/elasticity of parameter. Until someone goes through the entire Pardon Roll with a tooth comb anyway. Or have I—perfectly possible—misunderstood your point?I say nothing nor wonder aloud at the WP:COPYVIO of attaching to an entire book, either ;)
 * I was just wondering if you might want to go for the higher number of "thousands", rather than "almost 900". (I would :-) .) And I liked the quote from the Commons petition, although it is drifting off topic.
 * Nowt to do with me squire. Someone has been a very naughty boy/girl. I stumbled across it while researching for Battle of Crecy.
 * I've compromised by the old "somewhere between..." trick.

A fine piece of work, the text skips along and the baroque language conjures up a feeling for the period. Equally, having had a dozen successful nominations of FACs covering the English military in 1333-1348 over the past few months, the text, IMO, accurately reflects my sources' view of the place and period in both spirit and detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, much appreciated, very interesting and often amusing points. Hopefully dealt with or otherwise answered appropriately :) Cheers! ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Right. I will give that a couple of days to settle, then have a fresh read through. But it is looking very solid. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

SC
Interesting stuff and well pulled together. I made a few tweaks here and there, all fairly minor and in line with the MoS; a few comments from me, all very nit-picky:


 * Lead
 * "The Coterel Gang": the other 24 uses of the name have it as "Coterel gang"
 * Check.
 * There are five uses of "gang" in the first para and six in the second. The use of "group" or "band" could soften the impact a bit. (particularly " The Coterel Gang ... was a ... gang")
 * There are 275 (or possibly half that number) uses throughout the article. Bloody hell. Do you think using the collective would be OK? I.e., "the Coterels", like when we say "the Krays" and we mean the gang rather than just the twins. Anyway, I've reduced the number of occurances by half. Bloody hell.
 * Context
 * "on account of": anything wrong with "because of"?
 * No, changed.
 * Gaveston: I get heartburn at the mention of him. As he's only mentioned in this para, as far as I can see, all he did to annoy people was die... I appreciate there may be too much info to give a brief background as to why him being favourite made Edward disliked, but I'm struggling to see what the reason was.
 * Well; he was a bit of a tool, but that's probably "against policy" :) have removed Gavescon, as to be honest, he's over and done with nearly 30 years before the events of the film take place.
 * Blimey – they took their herring cooking seriously! Not enough cookery books round at the time, methinks
 * Plenty of crooks, not many cooks. Wouldn't do you, SC ;)
 * I like writing about both: 'crime and nourishment' seem to be my happy writing ground - and I'm managing to combine the two with my current efforts! - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Origins
 * "he discovered that they were good at it": "He" refers to James Coterel: who is "they"?
 * Now he.
 * "the three brothers Coterel" -> "the three Coterel brothers"?
 * *Sigh* for not being allowed to write like Jane Austin (the only real man at it these days, except for Dorothy Wordsworth; and she's got a beard you could lose a badger in).
 * Suggestion regarding the structure of this bit:
 * ==Background==
 * ===Political context===
 * ===The Coterel family===
 * ===Origins===


 * I'll do look at this in a separate edit, to see wot it looks like. Good idea though, a deadheaded "Background".
 * Your call, and it's not something I would necessarily push for, but it would be worth thinking about.


 * Activities
 * Folvilles, and when Eustace Folville: Folville gang link goes to Eustace's page anyway – may be worth dropping it, unless you're thinking of putting up (at least) a stub to provide a target
 * Thanks for the reminder: the literature on the Folvilles is even more extensive than that on the Coterels, and I was intending to hive off the article on the gang from that of the individual. Incidentally, it was actually that that got me doing this, and similarly, I started it off as a biography of James Coterel before realising that the gang is the primary subject, not the man. Same with Eustace I think.


 * Peak
 * "at least fifty strong." or just "at least fifty."
 * Less strong.
 * "they utilised": Arrrrrgghhhh!!!!!!! "they USED"!
 * Sorry: hate the word, which is pointless.
 * Sorry, you should have said. Have some of that Gaveston :)

Leaning support at the moment, but over to you, maestro... – SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kidnapping of Richard Willoughby
 * At the end of the "Peak of activity" section you say "One of their most notorious acts was not extortion, however, but another kidnapping—that of Sir Richard Willoughby, a royal justice, whom they captured in 1332.[29]" We then have a whole other section on Support, then this one. I think it would make it easier on the soul to have the whole support section at the bottom (i.e. after the "Royal response" section). In that way you'd deal with the gang, all its activities, and then look at the support it received. Your call, but if you keep it the way it is, you should drop the Willoughby reference from the "Peak" section.
 * Yes, that reads well. Thanks a lot, I appreciate the pointers. Apologies for my High Comedy, I've just come off nights. ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support on the basis of the changes made, I'll leave the structure point to you entirely, but my personal take is that it would help things along a bit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much indeed, much appreciated as always. I restructured it per your suggestion—here—and I think it's an improvement. Is it what you were thinking? ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is indeed. I've made one tweak, but please revert or change if I've cocked something up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919
Overall this looks good and was an interesting read.

General/multiple sections:
 * Is there any system to who gets the appellation 'one' ("one Walter Can", "one Robert Franceys", and "one John Kinnersley", but just "Robert Bernard")?
 * None whatsoever, except for my incompetence :) discussed with One Corbett above, but I didn't realise I'd used the phrase that often. Well spotted!
 * In the Activities section, the plural possessive is given as the "Coterels's". In later sections, it is "Coterels' ". In one instance under Scholarship, we have "Coterel's" (which is presumably wrong since it is in reference to the group).
 * Right. I'll go with Coterels's, if that's OK, for consistency.
 * 'King'/'king' seems to be capitalized inconsistently.
 * Check.
 * I concur with SchroCat's suggestion to move down the section about support.
 * Done!

Political context:
 * I looked at the source for the quote about "where a quarrel over a badly cooked herring could end in violent death, as happened in Lincoln in 1353", and in the version I accessed it says "happened at Lincoln". Not sure if this is a difference in editions, or a mistake in transcription of the quote into the article.
 * No, "at" is correct(ed).

Activities: Peak of activity: Royal response:
 * Note 4: "Forests were, of course, popular with outlaws as hiding places, as they were increasingly becoming beyond the reach of royal justice." The 'of course' here seems unnecessary (and perhaps a bit too confident about what the reader would know about the preferences of medieval outlaws).
 * Hasn't everyone seen Men in Tights! ;) Thanks for that though, lost the "of course".
 * Also note 4: The interior quote about "Our castle of the wind" seems to have been left unclosed.
 * Closed.
 * Note 9: "This illustrates how it was a policy of Edward III to use members of one gang against another, and to take advantage of pre-existing feuds." Since we haven't been told about this policy previously, it seems better to just state that "It was a policy...".
 * Yes, good point. Done.
 * "If anything, though, says one commentator, their outlawry "seems to have inspired them to expand the range of their criminal behaviour"." The initial words suggest a contrast, but the contrasting option isn't stated. Presumably it is that outlawry should have discouraged their criminal activities? If the contrast is going to be implicit anyway, I would drop the comparative and just state the result: "One commentator says ..."
 * Thanks for that: that was a hanging edit, where I intended to say what the effects of outlawry were expected to but then couldn't find the source. Still can't, for that matter.
 * Notes 10/11: It's odd to see note 10 inside note 11. Could the content of note 10 perhaps be merged into note 11 as a parenthetical?
 * If you don't mind, I'll get back to you on that. On principle, I agree; but I seem to remember having discussed that with whoever added the note-within-a-note, but for the life of me, I cant find where.
 * Note 12: Is this a quote? It ends with a quotation mark but doesn't have one to start.
 * No, removed.
 * "They utilised the indenture system: one half was sent to the victim with the demand, and the sum demanded was to be paid to whoever arrived at the appointed time bearing the other half of the indenture." I think this should say "one half of the indenture" or "one half of the contract". When I first read it, not yet having read the explanatory note and not being previously familiar with this system of paperwork, I found it rather confusing.
 * Ay, how about "one half of the indentured contract", to clarify?
 * "William Pymme" – is this the same person as "William Pymm" (no 'e') mentioned previously?
 * Yes it is, he of the loyal servants: the main soure uses Pymme, I think, so I've added the e.
 * Note 20: "a roll of 13 rolls" – not sure I understand how it can be both one and 13.
 * H'mmm. We don't seem to have an article on "membrane", which I've converted the first "roll" to, as a portion of enrolment, but I've redlinked it for future purpose.

Later events: Scholarship:
 * "The Coterels and their gang had received few—if any—legal penalties, and James Coterel was eventually pardoned—of all "extortions, oppressions, receivings of felons, usurpations, and ransoms"[29]—in 1351, probably at the instigation of Queen Philippa, whose patronage he seems to have enjoyed even during his days of criminality." I'm cool with dashes, but in this case none of them seem necessary. The "if any" could be set off with commas, and the detail of the pardon should just be in the main flow of the sentence.
 * Done.
 * Note 23: "thousannds" – is that spelling from the source, or a typo?
 * A typo, from last night. In other news, how the hell is that a redlink??!!
 * You don't need to use the signature field on the two block quotes that are in-paragraph. The source of each statement is already given in the text introducing them. The signature field is appropriately used in pull quotes.
 * Great! They look so ugly, anyway, but rid of the sigs will definitely help.

I did some other copy edits where it didn't seem worth a comment/discussion, but as usual please say if any of those seem off. --RL0919 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, thanks for your edits, they're all good. And I hope I've addressed your points here; I'm going to have to do some intelligence on a couple of issues, but I'm glad to have them pushed to my attention. Thank you,, for looking in here, and I hope it wasn't too painful a read :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally looking good. Regarding the possessives, User:The Huhsz appears to disagree with your choice based on this edit. I don't know if they will be commenting here – the account was just created recently, so they may not even know FAC exists – but it's something that should be resolved. Anyhow, based on the current state of the prose I'm happy to support on the assumption that this minor point will get worked out. --RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that, it was really nice to see you here. I promise I'll look into those notes-within-notes, and will try and find some consensus on the s's's! It is a new account, as you say, so they may not know we're here. Mind you, for a new account it's also rather odd that their first four edit-summaries were "copyedit", "overlinking", "format" and "Scottish English"...thanks again though for looking in! ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I just assumed it was a typo. The family name was Coterel, so in plural it would be Coterels, and plural possessive Coterels'. Am I missing something? --The Huhsz (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, all's good, some confusion on this page, merely. Thanks for your copyedits and keeping us on the straight and narrow :)  ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be keen on either. Maybe 'composed of both the Coterels and the Folvilles' or 'composed of both Coterels and Folvilles' or 'composed of Coterel's and Folville's men'.
 * I will try to do a last brush and polish tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild II
Getting into some marginal stuff now, so many of the points below you can ignore if you wish.


 * See point above re possessives.
 * Yes, that was an odd thing that! Sorted now, thanks to all :)
 * "to launch a great commission" "great" doesn't really communicate anything. Either leave out or use a different word or phrase. ('royal'?)
 * Royalled.
 * "distracted by the outbreak of war again with Scotland" Delete "again"?
 * Gone.
 * "for much of the stories later woven" "much" → 'many'.
 * Done.
 * "and the ex-king's failure to suppress it" Was he, strictly, "ex-"? And would he anyway be taking a personal interest in this suppression? Possibly "ex-king" → 'authorities'?
 * Yep, went with "authorities".
 * "motivated them to take a robust approach to law and order. This had little effect." Assuming that "them" refers to the Coterel gang (if not, you need to clarify) then "This had little effect." doesn't make sense. (Possibly delete?)
 * Ah, it was Isabella & Mortimer who wanted law and order, hopefully now clarified...
 * "in their absence judgement was handed against them" I am not well versed in legal terminology, but can a judgement be "handed"? Is there a 'down' missing? Or possibly reword?
 * "given against them".
 * "and seem not to have any criminal record at all" Very optional, insert 'previous'.
 * Done, and spelt correctly on the second attempt...
 * "it would seem that from that point forward" Optional, delete "forward"; optional, "that point" → 'then'.
 * Both good, thanks.
 * "was Pymme's own mother" "own"? As opposed to someone else's?
 * Heh :)
 * "says historian John Aberth" *cough* false title *cough*
 * Woooah! Done, with thanks for dodging me a Riley-shaped bullet.
 * "directly employed them on several times" Delete "on".
 * Done.
 * "for instance, the robbing of the vicar of Bakewell" → 'for instance, for the robbing of the vicar of Bakewell'.
 * Ditto.
 * "Another "clandestine ally"[16] was Sir Robert Ingram"; "he was also recruited by the Coterels" Is this not saying the same thing in successive sentences?
 * Right, how about "another clandestine ally, Sir Rob Ingram, whom the Coterels had personally recruited"; I think it's relevant to note that they recruited people as well as having others come to them.
 * "The Coterels and their men had received few" Would this make more sense if "had" were deleted?
 * No problem.
 * "Royal authority, too, was weakened" Optional: I am not sure that "too" adds anything.
 * Agree, also changed the tense ("had been").
 * "demonstrated by the Coterels is also "very much Gamelyn style" "also" in the previous sentence, maybe drop this one?
 * Done.
 * "with the more usual brutality of the gangs which dovetail in the ballads" Should there be a comma after "gangs"?
 * Yes, why not.
 * Note 13: "—toothed, which in Latin was "indenture")" Either fully bracketed or fully dashed please.
 * Both?—I think was originally intended...
 * Note 23: link House of Commons.
 * Linked.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks again,, interesting stuff; see what you think of my edits. But I think I went with them all, more or less. Cheers! ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You have, in my opinion, a damn fine article here, fully meeting all of the FA criteria. Excellent job. It looked like hard work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanking you,, as always it's you and the other reviewers who have actually have made the article what it is. Cheers!The section header is cool. A film, maybe; Gog the Mild II: This Time It's War (In Gascony), or The Gogfather Part II, perhaps :)  ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild Part II: Slightly Grumpy Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Only slightly grumpy?! The way things are at the moment, that doesn't sound like the spirit of today's Wikipedia !  ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of Gog the Mild Part XVII: Take no Prisoners and Bayonet the Wounded or Gog the Mild Part XIX: Kill them All, God will know His Own

-- Laser brain  (talk)  12:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)