Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Order of Brothelyngham/archive1

Order of Brothelyngham

 * Nominator(s):  SN54129  18:52, 22 March 2023‎ (UTC)

A bunch of men pretending to be actors? Check. A bunch of men actually indulging in "games, madness [and] obscene debauchery"? Check. Men beaten, goods stolen, a town terrorised? Check. A hapless bishop writing letters but achieving little else? Check.Welcome to 14th-century England—again! Another curious gem displaying the past through an alternative lens, this reached GA-level some years ago and then got forgotten about, which is a shame. Having undergone an expansion, polish and update in scholarship, I thought it was worth presenting here. Thanks in advance, all. SN54129 18:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

 * For the Exeter map, I'd actually suggest the alt text is better suited to be the caption than the current caption
 * Right, swapped em out.


 * File:Miniature_Fête_des_Fous.jpg: what's the original source of this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 14th-century guy, dead famous in the illustrated manuscripts world (although probably not to anyone else!), so have added some provenance to the commons page.  SN54129  14:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Chris

 * "The Order of Brothelyngham was a group of men, who" - don't think that comma is needed
 * Agree.


 * "The group appears [singular] to have named themselves [plural]" - any way to avoid this apparent conflict?
 * Can never remember whether this is an AmBritEng thing ior just my crappy brain, but singularized the latter.


 * "The Church had waged a campaign against theatrical ludi" - could we explain what "ludi" are/were?
 * Made a short intra-dashes explanation and a slightly fuller background in a new footnote.


 * "the medievalist Lawrence M. Clopper, suggests" - no reason for that comma either
 * Done.


 * "such practices by the laity, in this case, expressed by the Brothelynham Order" - there's a G missing here
 * Fixed.


 * "This group comprised, as were English monasteries during the period, solely of men" => "This group was comprised, as were English monasteries during the period, solely of men"
 * Done, although I wonder Tim riley hasn't raised an eyebrow at that yet!


 * "in lieu of the sacrifices emphasized" - UK subject so UK spelling should be used
 * I know—i'm there! But my bloody auto-refill-whatever, thinks it's in South bloody Dakota or somewhere! I try and catch it where I can, but.


 * "that group should be stigmatized by Christians" - same again, also I believe the word "the" is missing before "group" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree again.


 * Thanks,, very much for looking in,; all your points, for now, both appreciated and addressed-even the most embarrassing! Cheers,  SN54129  16:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris, have you had a chance to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I forgot all about this one. I'll give it another sweep later today..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Smalljim
Thanks for this great piece of research. A few suggestions:
 * Would the second sentence "...which by now was commonly perceived as corrupt." be better as "...which by then was..."?
 * Probably-done.


 * I think I'm right in that the entry in Bishop Grandisson's Register is the only contemporary (or near contemporary) source - that important fact should be mentioned prominently.
 * I think I can dig out a source which backs this this specifiv=c claim)-I'd certainly like too, and it shouldn't be too difficult.


 * Why "Grandison" rather than the far more commonly used "Grandisson" (even in our own article John Grandisson)? I note it's how ODNB spells it, but it's unclear why Audrey Erskine went against the trend.
 * It was a 50/50; I was going to wait and see who had complained the loudest by the close of play!


 * To aim a possible spanner in the heart of your work (sorry!), I'm not sure if all of your sources rely on Hingeston-Randolph's 19th-century transcription and Chope's translation of 1921, but there is another source: Records of Early English Drama – Devon, Ed. John M. Wasson. University of Toronto Press (1986), that provides more recent versions of both. The book is downloadable as a pdf from the Internet Archive here, but there's no preview (not here anyway). It appears to be a fine piece of scholarship which, on pp. 9–10, contains a newer transcription of the Latin in the Grandisson Register, and there is a new translation by Abigail Young (per p. [vii]) on pp. 323–4. Both differ in a number of points from Hingeston-Randolph's and Chope's work. For instance H-R's quin pocius erroris, translated by Chope as "or rather the Error" becomes quin pocius orroris, translated as "– nay, rather, the horror –". I think we should always prefer later translations over older ones, unless they are clearly inferior. There are a number of places where use of this more modern translation may be preferable, e.g. in the quote box aside "Historiography".
 * No, it's an excellent source, and I'll certainly mine the secondary aspects of it deeply! There just aren't enough of them, unfortunately. The new translation, I will make the primary use of in quotes and put Chope etc, in a footnote etc., again, for the reader to GoCompare if they so wish.


 * Boy Bishop probably shouldn't be capitalised.
 * Done.


 * Under "Activities in Exeter" - "Name", last sentence, Mortimer doesn't say that Sempringham was the only abbey in the country to house both monks and nuns under the same roof. Mortimer doesn't seem to be too reliable here either: he says Sempringham was Premonstratensian, but it was clearly in the Gilbertine Order at the time.
 * To square the circle, I've omitted his Order error and replaced part of the claim with a similar source. I think he's reliable for small claims such as these.


 * Under "Riotousness", first sentence of second para, Wasson has quendam, not quemdam.
 * My eyes. Done.


 * Under "Later events", H-R and Wasson both show the ludum noxium register entry as being in 1352, not '53.
 * Added a secondary source confirming what you say.


 * In the bibliography, Frodsham, Henisch and Salisbury are out of alphabetical order.
 * Rejigged.


 * The bibliography entry for Grandisson. J. suggests that he was writing in 1897 - that needs amending, and Hingeston-Randolph is available online at https://archive.org/details/05089497.1331.emory.edu/page/1055/mode/2up (inter alia).
 * This is an old problem to which I haven't found a satisfactory result. The obvious example is Shakespeare of course: imagine having a cite to ! So the way around it is to let  .That way, we can quote the recent(ish) translation than the original primary source. It's a pain, but IO rely on others' template knowledge in matters of these!
 * Hmm. I'm certainly not an expert, but I don't see this as a problem: look at the FA Hamlet for instance - there are a number of editions of the play listed there and none of them shows Shakespeare as the author. Couldn't you just omit  from the cite book template?  —Smalljim  21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope some of this is helpful. I rarely comment at FACs, but this grabbed my attention! —Smalljim 16:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks for this-if you check my latest edits I've addressed all your points, except of course, the New Source. I've started on that but will get stuck in further tomorrow. I'm creating a table of that historiography quote box so the reader can compare between Chope etc and Wasson, which should be interesting. As I said above, I'll make Wasson and his 1986 commentary the primary source, shunting H-R etc, into the background, somewhat.Thanks for looking in, these are all great points!   SN54129  19:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy I can help a little. I've commented further under the last bullet point above, and may have a few more after another read through (if you can bear that!). In your next editing session you'll spot the wonderful invented word 'Grandissonam' that's crept in :))) —Smalljim  21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help,, and the technical know-how for  rather than author-so easy I can't believe it! Instead of all that messing about with templates etc. Anyway, I've done that throughout, so we know just have H-R in 1897, bibliographically. The other main thing-the newer source is also appreciated. I've used it on all major quotes, comparing them to Chopes' trans, letting the reader find out for themselves that Grandisson was even more of a hardnut than he has probably been given credit for! By the way, you're right about emphasising the limited and so biased, nature of the source, so I merged most of the discussion into its own source-hopefully that clarifies things for further along. Thanks for Grandissonam; that must be the accusative of To Grandisson...? ;)
 * Also, let me know if you do have further thoughts, of course.  SN54129  17:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley
First few after a quick canter through looking for typos etc. More on actual content later. You might like to revisit: More anon.  Tim riley  talk   18:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "They also practiced extortion" – unless they were American I suggest they practised it.
 * "gladitorial shows" – "gladiatorial"?
 * "a termination which in devon everyone would understand" – capitalise?
 * Thanks for catching these, !  SN54129  15:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First lot of general comments
 * "Bearing their 'Abbot' aloft" – double quotes, please (MoS).
 * Done.


 * "Martha Bayless has calculate that" – past tense seems wanted
 * Done.


 * "only 10%" – the MoS suggests "per cent" rather than "%" in prose.
 * Done.


 * "of poplar theatrical satires were not attacking the Church" – "popular"?
 * Done.


 * in re the above two points, "only ten per cent were not"" – seems an odd way of saying "ninety per cent were"
 * Indeed! Reversed.


 * "The Order of Brothelyngham is … They were treated" – confusion of singular and plural
 * Done.


 * "dressed in the robes of a Bishop" – capital letter necessary?
 * Done.


 * "was a European phenomenon" – meaning Continental Europe?
 * So "was a continental phenomenon..."?
 * Fine with me. But note that the OED capitalises Continental when used in this context.  Tim riley  talk   14:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "while wearing masque" – I can find nothing in the OED to suggest that "masque" is a costume. Perhaps "wearing masque costume" or some such?
 * Good catch. Done.


 * "and hiding one's identity" – "one's"?
 * Their.


 * "their tormentors receive rewards" – past tense wanted here?
 * Done.


 * "was commissioned by his Bishop" – not sure the job title needs a capital letter here or elsewhere when used generically
 * Of course!


 * "letters of the Bishop to his staff, the Order's avowed opponent" – his staff was the avowed opponent?
 * Corrected, courtesy of em-dashes :).


 * "comments that that methodology, however, "limited the historical value of his scheme" – we could advantageously lose the "however"
 * Done.


 * "often due to translation or interpretative differences" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
 * Thanks, done.

More to come.  Tim riley  talk   22:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Concluding
 * "This group was comprised" – the group comprised (i.e. consisted of) and was not comprised of.
 * Done. Schoolboy error. Never fall for it.Err...Be aware there's a chap here who runs a script changing instances of comprising to -ised of, because they prefer it that way.
 * Evidently not a speaker of the King's English or a reader of Fowler. If I have time I'll seek out his/her solecisms in other articles and correct them.  Tim riley  talk   14:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "per Wasson" – per? Prefer good English to bad Latin.
 * According to?
 * Me. And the chap whose name I forget who insisted that the Tube should have signs saying Way Out rather than Exit.


 * Oh, on rereading I see what you meant. Yes "according to" looks fine to me.  Tim riley  talk   14:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  SN54129  14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "preversion" – what?
 * Ah, that bloke in Dr Strangelove? (Meant 'perversions', but social ills describes it better.)


 * "as medievalist John Tydeman argues … scholar J. Kestell Young describes it" – two clunky false titles.
 * The's done.


 * "The leader of the Order" – you need to make up your mind whether or not to capitalise "the order". At the moment you sometimes do and sometimes don't.
 * Well spotted!


 * "approbrium" – should this be "opprobrium"?
 * Done.


 * "they suspected the religeuse" – a word unknown to the Oxford English Dictionary. Perhaps you mean "religieuse", though that applies only to nuns and other pious females. (Not quite true: it also applies to a pastry consisting of a small profiterole placed on top of a larger profiterole and decorated with cream and icing, but I doubt if that is relevant here.)
 * Sounds gorgeous! The profiteroles on top each other, not the nuns on top of each other ;)


 * The nun on top would presumably be the mother superior.  Tim riley  talk   14:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ho ho ho !  SN54129  13:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Those are my few queries. On a purely stylistic point I found your use of the construction "So-and-so and such and such, says Fred Smith" rather than the more usual "Fred Smith says So-and-so and such and such" rather tiresome on repetition, but others may disagree with me.  Tim riley  talk   09:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Have gone through and adjust a couple of quotes; see what you think.


 * Thanks again,, I appreciate the detailed review! Cheers,  SN54129  13:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll have a further rereading and come back here to sign off my comments.  Tim riley  talk   14:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Righto, in your own time; I forgot to explain about 'preversions', amusingly, but have done so now ;)   SN54129  14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support. Meets the FA criteria in my view. A most interesting read – I had no idea there were such goings-on. Should be a box-office hit on the front page. –  Tim riley  talk   13:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your input and support, it's appreciated. Yes, look out next year for the... Brothelyngham Tapes, or some such :)    SN54129  13:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Further comments from Smalljim
Thanks for dealing with my first batch so promptly and efficiently. I've had another read through this evening, and come up with some more red ink, I'm afraid :(
 * In the lead: the caption to the lead image states that Grandisson launched his attack from here. OK, the cathedral was the seat of his power, but he wrote from Chudleigh, as the adjacent sentence confirms. And perhaps "verbal attack" might be clearer.
 * Clarified that it was his officials who were at the cathedral.


 * 1st para "courtesy of a grand theatrical stage" - no! Even Chope (1921) doubted this.
 * Or a throne of course. Clarified.


 * Who first used the term "Brothelynghamites"?
 * I've removed it now, but as far as I can tell, in reliable secondary independent sources, it was Daniel Frankforter.


 * In "Background": 'They were also known as an "abbeys of misrule"' Omit 'an'?
 * Done.


 * 2nd para "debacchationes obscoenas". In both H-R and Wasson it's debacaciones obscenas.
 * Done.


 * Young quote - no need for the two identical references
 * Done.


 * In "Source material": this still sounds as if more than one of the Bishop's letters mentions the Order - I believe that it is only mentioned in the letter of 11 July 1348.
 * Clarified.


 * I don't get "Furthermore, he would only record events that in his eyes breached canon law." That restriction may be worth mentioning, but what is it furthermore to?
 * Tweaked, th\t there was more than one available offence open to prosecution.


 * H-R didn't restrict himself to indexing the registers in calendar form, as you state. Although North, writing in the ODNB, says "He restricted himself largely to indexing the contents of the registers" - that's clearly not what he did with Grandisson - he provided (sparsely) annotated transcriptions.
 * Clarified.


 * Chope published his translation in 1921 in D&C N&Q, not in Transactions of the Devon Assoc (it's correct in the bibliography).
 * Done. Good spot!


 * In "Activities in Exeter": "understood the word to have meant...", might perhaps be better as "to include the element...", and omit "just" before "a bawdy house" (the point is that the word 'brothel' has dramatically changed its meaning since that time.
 * Done, absolutely agree.


 * You're missing an "n" from "Gradisson's Registrum", and why suddenly use the Latin word for Register?
 * Changed.


 * You have that H-R suggested that Grandisson himself invented the name for the group, followed by 'In his indignation that people so worthless "guiltily laughs at Holy Religion", as he put it[29]'. Yes H-R's footnote does make that suggestion, but he doesn't use your quote (guiltily laughs...) - that is in Chope's translation (not comment), though it's garbled: Chope has "...guiltily laughs Holy Religion to scorn...". Whatever - it needs tidying!
 * Reworked. Hopefully ungarbled and tidied :)


 * You state that Sempringham ... was known humorously as Simplingham, cited to Chope. Chope doesn't say humorously.
 * Removed; not sure where that came from (even Mortimer doesn't use it...)


 * In "Riotousness": you have several times provided two (or more) different translations (Chope and Wasson). I don't think that giving multiple translations that only vary slightly actually helps the reader's understanding of the topic. Maybe such examples should be restricted to the Historiography section? As I said earlier, I think we should prefer a later translation unless it's clearly inferior. Also, the translations in the REED volume, edited by Wasson, were provided by Abigail Young (see comment in my first batch above) - is it important to note that? I don't know.
 * Removed superfluous translations. Used later translations now and throughout. Acknowledged and sourced Young as translator in the Sources section.


 * The phrase "...with strong Sabbatarian tendencies.[25]" should be attributed so it doesn't appear that it's what Erskine says (she doesn't).
 * Done.


 * In the next paragraph we have Latin (Quendam lunaticum...) and four translations. Surely not necessary here.
 * Quite. Redux.


 * In the last para you refer to "a contemporary record" - what is it? It seems to be cited to H-R, 1897 p. 1684. but there's no such page in this book.
 * It was an odd way of phrasing "...his letter". Tweaked.


 * "They were certainly disobedient, and either of which would be sufficient to ensure the Bishop's ire.[44]" I don't understand this sentence.
 * Clarified.


 * "He subsequently excommunicated the Order". Can you confirm this? Is there another contemporary record?
 * Dunno, but the relevant, reliable independent secondary source is Julian M. Luxford.


 * In "Historiography": The Chope translation appears twice, and the one in Wasson is missing many spaces between words.
 * Yes a shame, but got rid of the quote box and spaced some of the letters out. Bizarre!  SN54129  16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "...celebrate the investiture of their abbot with horns". May be better as "by sounding horns" or similar, in case there's confusion over something to do with Viking helmets :)
 * Done.


 * In "Notes: 4. Chope only provides one or two examples.
 * Tweaked.


 * The word "lieu" has a superfluous "e" on the end ...
 * Done.


 * ... as does Hingeston in Note 8.
 * Ditto.


 * In "Bibliography": Davis is out of alpha order.
 * Done.

Sorry! —Smalljim 23:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries,, it's what you're here for :)  see what you think as to the changes I've made in response; I think I've addressed nearly everything you raised. Cheers!   SN54129  16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, SN54129. I do have a further query about the excommunication. Your text: 'They appear not to have heeded the Bishop's edicts, for he subsequently excommunicated the Order, calling the men "a threat to religion, the King and the Church"' is cited to Luxford 2005, p. 146. I managed to find Luxford's book on Google Books and I think it's telling me that the word 'Brothelyngham' is only mentioned once, on page 143. Fortunately that page was available to me, and Luxford writes there, about the Order: "In fulminating an excommunication against them, Grandisson called them 'a threat to religion, the king and the church'...", citing that to H-R pp. 1055-6 and Chope, pp 62-4 (which is the original letter in Latin and in translation). There's obviously a discrepancy here: there's no mention of a subsequent excommunication in the original letter, but maybe Luxford knows of a later contemporary document and refers to it on p. 146 (which I can't see). Can you clarify, please? —Smalljim  14:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, relying on google books—page one error! Christ, I've found that sometimes it turns out to be a different book! Talk about fool me once... *facepalm*No,, there's nothing on the following page of Luxford wrt Brothelyngham (note he starts a new chapter section before the end of the page). However, I think I know what he's getting at, and if I were allowed to fill the thing full of my own WP:OR, I'd say so. I suspect that the men involved in the 1352 riots, who tended towards similar activities, were probably the same individuals he encountered here. If that's the case, then, of course, they were subsequently excommunicated in G's condemnatory letter of 1352. But such time passes between the events, and Luxford draws no direct parallel, that it is stretching it to say they were probably the same men who we know were later excomm'd. So I've tweaked to clarify this.    SN54129  16:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestion! They might have all been dead, though - I've just found, in Radford (1935), p. 363, the very interesting fact that the Brothelyngham incident occurred just a couple of months before the Black Death reached Devon (and one month after it reached England's shores). Might be worth mentioning as part of the historical framework. In H-R (p. 1069) there's a letter from Grandisson dated 19 Oct 1348 that's apparently about its arrival, but my 'O' level Latin isn't up to reading it (it mentions "pestilencias" several times, and as expected there's quite a lot of "peccata"s too)... Maybe that's why he preferred to stay in Chudleigh! I guess there'll be a translation floating around somewhere. —Smalljim  17:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Found a translation, : Rosemary Horrox, v. respectable, original in H-R. Can't draw any overt conclusions (or go into too much more detail; per FAC requirement #4), but it's interesting that he actually encourages processions etc as a way of deterring the plague...it's almost certain that the Brothelyngham people were a direct response to this plea, but of course, I doubt we'll ever find a source that directly links them. I focussed on the unspoken connection re: processions rather than the exhortations about sin and penance.  SN54129  18:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought you might be able to find one! I think that's a good addition. I'm still finding problems, however...
 * It's Terribilis
 * Done.


 * In "Source material", Robbins (1901) p. 506 doesn't verify the full date. Actually I think this source is superfluous as the content is verified by e.g. Wasson.
 * Robbins verifies the letter name; added Chope ref for date.


 * In "Historiography" the sentence beginning "Luxford has described the effect..." is cited to Heale, and I can't find the quote about "abbatial greed" in either.
 * Replaced Luxford for Heale; see p.260.


 * In the references, the relevant Luxford page is 143 not 146, according to Google Books
 * Typo adjusted.


 * I can't make the refs to Heale 2016, p. 143 and p. 260 match up with what Google Books tells me is in the book (but that might be me).
 * Heale p.260, Luxford p.143?

I'm going to take a break, and encourage others to have a look. But based on what I've seen I think it might be worth doing a general check on source-content integrity: the evidence does hint that there may be problems with the sources that I haven't checked. —Smalljim 21:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these catches Smalljim. Luckily, rumours of source/text integrity issues have been much exaggerated. Enjoy your break.  SN54129  12:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Source details

 * Done. All of it, I think - if I've missed any, please let me know and I'll go over that one too. Around forty refs checked with only one very minor quibble. I'm going to AGF if there are any others that I haven't seen from the article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for all that,, much appreciated, and I think I've attended to all your adjacent comments, although my choice of the massive table was perhaps not the best for clarity! Cheers,  SN54129  11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

More comments from Smalljim
Only a short break! Thanks for the work on the references in that huge table. I've been looking through it and have spotted a few issues that it hasn't picked up on:
 * In "Source material" you write that H-R was "commissioned" by his bishop, whereas North (ODNB) states that he began work "at the bishop's suggestion". In none of H-R's three Grandisson volumes does he mention a commission, so I suggest the wording should be changed.
 * Welcome back. Gone with 'suggestion' per yours.


 * You cite "They were published two years later" [than 1885] to North. North doesn't say that, and the three volumes were published in 1894, 1897 and 1899.
 * No that was me misreading '85 for 95', unluckily. However North doesn't provide those three dates either, so 'several years' should suffice.


 * Again citing North, you note that H-R restricted himself to "indexing their contents ... although the letter itself was fully transcribed". This gives the wrong impression. Some of H-Rs work on other bishops' registers was indeed restricted to calendaring, but he fully transcribed all of Grandisson's extant registers. What he did with other registers isn't relevant here and I suggest that whole sentence should be removed.
 * The problem here is that we have a reliable secondary source that so says something, but doesn't say, for example, "he fully transcribed all of Grandisson's extant registers", merely that he indexed them in totalis., and she doesn't make exception. On second thoughts, Chope can be read to imply the letter was transcribed completely.


 * Also, in renumbering the Luxford page from 146 to 143, you have apparently missed four citations because there are now references for both pages (refs 6 and 7 as I write).
 * Good ole Luxford!


 * Hi again, are you satisfied with SN's responses to your source review comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A few others I've noticed in the lead:
 * In the first sentence, shouldn't it be in the mid 14th century?
 * Indeed.


 * In the first para, Brothelyngham is missing its "n".
 * A calamitous failuser of ctrl+f...

Best —Smalljim  21:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC) (Sorry, I edited some s etc in the table because I use the syntax highlighter gadget, and everything was pink. I forgot to take the edits out after - hope that's OK.  —Smalljim )
 * In the caption "...officials wherefrom he ordered..." could be better worded.
 * Yes, it was slightly convoluted... tweaked.

Thanks for today's timely prompts, Gog. I have no problem at all with SN's speedy and good-natured responses to the many points I have raised. However I do still have a problem: I keep finding more issues with the text. I've been taking copies of the whole article and scribbling on them with a red pen. Although I admit that on this fifth review, some of the red ink is getting paler, I'm still finding enough inaccuracies to prevent me from supporting. Here are a few (this version):
 * Refs 70, 71 and 74 should all be to ref 42. There is no note 2 on p 1055 as claimed by ref 71 and the other two refer to note 1.
 * Strictly I needn't reference footnotes at all, per WP:V! But I agree that consistency is best. Sorted.


 * In the short "Later events" section, (a) the date in the 4th sentence should be 1352 (9 August), not 1353.
 * Quite!

(b) There's no evidence (unless it's in ref 41) that the performance was actually "called Ludum Noxium" - in Wasson that's a Latin phrase (in lower case) translated as "an objectionable diversion".
 * Removed two words to avoid obfuscation, keeping the ref to Brewer.

And (c) in the last sentence you have that the group was excommunicated almost immediately: "which we in this writing impose upon them" (cited to Wasson), but read around that and what Wasson actually says is "...under pain of greater excommunication which we in this writing impose upon them and any one of them thenceforward if they do not effectively obey these warnings and prohibitions henceforward." (my italics)
 * I beg to disagree as an over-contextualisation. What you have added does indeed state that anyone (recidivists, et al.) will suffer excommunication if they rejoin the group in the future, but one cannot avoid the operative phrase "which we in this writing". This clearly indicates the present, i.e. that he is doing it as he writes. However, I have added a few words noting the implications for the future also.
 * Two experienced editors arguing over the interpretation of a primary source? Surely not! It's a minor and peripheral point and unless you can find an RS that clarifies what the bishop meant, I think the last sentence of "Later events" should just be removed. —Smalljim  09:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Stone me. First you want it changed, now removed completely! Particularly ironic since the first half of your review was spent arguing about primary sources! Stone me! But I agree that what happens in 1352 can be glossed, so in the interest of continued collegiality have moved the reference to excommunication and deleted that last sentence. But if you were giving out financial advice, who'd need a recession?! :p  SN54129  12:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of "Historiography" states that H-R first published G's registers in 1897 - no, he published the first volume in 1894.
 * Well; maybe. But it took him 13 years to get to this, the relevant volume, so have recast the emphasis onto this one (after all, when the other volumes were published does not seem particularly pertinent to the reader?)

There's plenty more red ink on my latest copy, but I really don't have the time at present to devote to explaining it clearly, and there are still chunks of text that I haven't examined yet and sources that I haven't seen - I had intended that this should be a short process for both of us!

Please take into account my regretful decision opinion that this article in its current state is not suitable for promotion to FA. —Smalljim 22:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Small. Could you help me out by letting me know which FAC criterion or criteria it fails. And, if possible, some brief details of why? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm sorry for the upset: it was a hard decision to make and a tough opinion to express. To avoid any misunderstanding I've amended the word "decision" to "opinion" above.
 * Regarding the FA criteria, it would have to be the second clause of 1(c). Had I not come along to look closely at the sources I wonder whether the article would have been promoted with many of its inaccuracies intact - each one minor in itself, but together certainly not amounting to our "very best work". The accurate representation of what reliable sources say is surely the single most important aspect of Wikipedia. Best, —Smalljim  21:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And I thank you, as the ability to turn an occasional typo into the greatest hoax since Hitler Diaries is a joy to watch. Joke, naturally. No hard feelings. These five points addressed with pleasure, although I seem to have ballsed up your formatting in answering you above; apologies. Albeit references to red pens are mildly patronising, I feel. Cheers! All the best,   SN54129  19:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my red pen, but it's really how I work, either on paper or on screen with the aid of a Wacom tablet. Would purple ink be better? :) —Smalljim  09:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Further investigation has thrown up another error. It's under "Riotousness", in the 4th para. Ever since SN54129 posted the first version of the article in July 2019 one sentence has stated:


 * To the Church, though, they were a criminal gang who–expanding their operations from the city–invaded local towns and villages, where, says Chambers, they "beset in a great company the streets and places",[7] many of them on horse.[11]

Where is the evidence for this expansion and these invasions outside Exeter? I can't find any. It's certainly not in Grandisson's letter or its translations (the only primary source that describes the events), nor can I see that any scholars have even suggested it. And significantly the quote from Chambers (reference 7, see Internet Archive), is missing three important words from the end, viz. "beset in a great company the streets and places of the city" (my italics).

Wow. —Smalljim 20:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks SN for dealing with this. I would have appreciated it if you'd given me some credit for spotting your long-standing error instead of silently embedding the fix in this extensive edit attributed to Lingzhi's comments, but I do understand why you chose not to. The important thing is that the article is slightly more accurate now :) —Smalljim  18:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I note, around 13 May, an Ip/anon was edit warring on your behalf at one point—what gives?! In any case, please cast your gimlet eye over Bonville–Courtenay feud; you'll remember it from back in the day, but the troublemaker has been long removed from theatre since then.  SN54129  19:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that it might be beneficial if I checked over your extensive edits to that article as well? —Smalljim  22:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Extensive edits", you mean like how I rewrote the thing to stop an edit war?!  SN54129  13:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is off-topic, but you must be referring to William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, not Bonville–Courtenay feud. Your WP:3O and later rewrite were helpful in breaking the deadlock there – see Talk:William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville/Archive 1, etc. Note also that the intransigent editor was not the one you referred to in your deleted post of 16 April on this page. You really must take more care to ensure that your content matches the sources! —Smalljim  23:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but wasn't NFart or whatever a sock of Architect123, like the other guy Lobsta  SN54129  13:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Even more comments from Smalljim

 * I've made a few edits to the article today: I hope they are uncontroversial. However, I've ended with the addition of a failed verification template to the "Socio-religious" sub-section. —Smalljim  22:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again I have to descend into the Mire. I make you a free present of your changes. But WHAT THE ACTUAL? Failed Ver? It's at the top of the page! Don't they teach French down there? Ou est-ce que vous discutez toujours de la confiture sur la crème?!  SN54129  13:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * And it appears that I have to pull you out again. Here's your sentence and what I assume is the relevant extract from Chambers:
 * Such "fool societies",[7] while relatively common in France, were rare in England, argues the scholar E. K. Chambers,[7] and that of Brothelyngham is one of the few known to modern historians.[8][note 2]


 * "Wireker was an Englishman, and the 'Order' founded in the Speculum by Brunellus, the Ass, was clearly suggested by the sociétés joyeuses. Traces of such sociétés in England are, however, rare." (Chambers, p. 383)


 * Throughout the article you have, as required, scrupulously followed WP:V by adding a citation immediately after a quotation. Here, then, a reader would expect to see the words "fool societies" in the source. They aren't there. It's not a matter of whether I can read French, but a matter of compliance with MOS:PMC.


 * However... Is it possible that you intended to cite Busby (ref 8, at the end of the sentence) here instead of Chambers? I note that Chambers doesn't verify that the societies were relatively common in France either, but Busby does, sort of, and mentions "Fool Societies" several times. If so, then change that and you're back on dry land (for a while). Thanks for accepting my other changes. —Smalljim  00:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * And thanks for fixing this too. —Smalljim  12:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've tidied up the second part of the section "Later events". There was confusion over the participants – probably compounded by Chambers' mis-translation of "allutarii" as "cloth-dressers" (in The Medieval Stage vol II 1903, p.190), as recognised by Coulton (and see also Wasson's Latin glossary, p.535). Wasson, in his endnotes on pp 439-440, is helpful here about the timing of G's letter too. Incidentally I don't think you've made use of Wasson's notes about Brothelyngham on p.439 – he makes some interesting comments (what's a "hocking game"?). —Smalljim  13:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant to ask, in view of Lingzhi's comments below about the use of language, whether it is really worthwhile quoting Coulton's "contumely and opprobrium", or whether making use of simpler words would be better. —Smalljim  13:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I make you a present of this Smorgasbord or Brothelyngham! Do you deny the richness of Latin, AKA if we had to learn it why should any other sod get away with it?! Personally, I think it's catnip for sics and spelling wars, resulting in a new addition to WP:LAME! So yeah, would get rid, but sometimes a direct quote is handy, esp for Latin, which can often be transcribed with various emphases. In any case, apologies re. delays in commenting here, not this time silently making changes, but rather, making changes quickly but then meaning to comment here at same as finishing a small project which took longer than expected, vís a vís, was it Crystal Gayle who sang, 'Don't it make your redlinks Blue'?   SN54129  13:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: episcopal register, I noted your thanks just four days ago. You certainly work fast! I was looking into this too and had got as far as collecting eight sources, but hadn't written a word yet – I suppose I'll just check yours instead :)) Oddly, I don't think any of my sources are the same as yours: I'll list them on the new article's talk. —Smalljim  14:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I assure you, I had no desire to steal your thunder if you were preparing to write it—I am afraid I interpreted you to be just making passing comment, whimsical, on why we *should* have an article, rather than expressing the intention of doing so yourself. I wrote it in the spirit of the collegiality that has otherwise marked our relations during these proceedings, i.e. you wanted an article, and you got it. However, this not being a Burger Kings, you don't necessarily get it your way :p but, seriously, it's only a short article that turned into a list, so undoubtedly there are unused and underused sources. WP:NOTFINISHED is the order of the day!  SN54129  18:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I'm glad you've written it. The world would have been waiting for weeks or months if it was left to me. —Smalljim  21:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And those two new sources you added, yeah, I reckon we can mine them pretty thoroughly for good material.  SN54129  16:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, is this mining still ongoing, or has it concluded, one way or another? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , the 'mining' there refers to a completely different article, that came out of discussion here at Smalljim's suggestion a few weeks ago now. Cheers!  SN54129  10:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * D'oh! That will teach me to read all of the comments and not just cherry pick. I was trying to put that off, but I think that the time has come. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

SC
Putting down a marker. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Having spent a number of years living in Devon, I'm always delighted to see an Exeter-centred article appearing at FAC, particularly the non-symmetrical frontage of its cathedral.
 * Overall
 * There is some overcapitalisation of "order" when you are not referring to the Order of Brothelyngham. These include, but are not limited to: "fake religious Order" (lead); "a pseudo-religious Order" and "the social Order" (Socio-religious); and "Grandisson issued an Order" (Later events). These uses of "order" are not shorthand for the "Brothelyngham Order" and should be lower case
 * Lead
 * "city of Exeter": maybe " city of Exeter, Devon?
 * "the faux religious dressed "...?????
 * "The Bishop clearly": lower case B, per CAPS
 * "The Bishop clearly": lower case B, per CAPS

I'm going to stop here and work through some of the queries on the sources (no point in doing the prose review if this fails the source review), but hope to be able to return afterwards. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've addressed these points (I think!) ; thanks for them, and thanks for looking over the sourcing. That's ball-breaking, I know, so don't feel it's incumbent on you to do them all! Cheers,  SN54129  11:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Only a few more from me:
 * Name
 * "he scholar Ian Mortimer": "he scholar"? is that like "He Man"?
 * :) well caught!


 * Riotousness
 * "Hemisch surmises": Henisch?
 * Done.


 * "On 11 July that year Grandisson, writing from Chudleigh[33]—his main headquarters outside of his Cathedral[48]—instructed his chief agents in Exeter—the dean, the archdeacon,[7] and the rector[49] of Exeter Cathedral—to investigate the Order and its members,[7] whom Grandisson referred to as "evil persons".[43]" This sentence tries to do a bit too much, I think, with the two dashed-off clauses. Additionally, "the dean, the archdeacon,[7] and the rector": I'm not sure you use the serial comma elsewhere (although I haven't checked fully, so my error if you do)
 * Yes, I couldn't see any other serial commas with, but my eyes are a bit manky and there are, of course, hundreds of the buggers!I divided that one massive sentence into three smaller ones, and cut out some repetition. Much better?


 * "the creation of much new in his diocese": I think this is too open to misinterpretation. He probably didn't complain about a new house being built, or new crops planted in a field, but to religious change instead.
 * Absolutely true. How about "He also seems to have had an antipathy to religious innovation in the diocese, opposing, for example, popular religion to the building of new chapels." By the way, I got an edit-conflict there-thanks for reverting the numbnuts.


 * "his letter of the 11th": probably best to go with "letter of 11 July"
 * Done.


 * Historiography
 * "nay, rather,the horror": space needed before "the"
 * Done.

That's the lot, I think. An interesting piece. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for the review and also for taking on the spot checks as you did. Hopefully, I've dealt with your attendant points also. Cheers!  SN54129  11:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support All good from me. I'm happy with the changes and with the state of the sources, given the extended review I've done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

 * did well to reveal a number of problems with the sourcing, and the article is the better for having those issues resolved. Ideally this sort of thing should be sorted prior to FAC nomination, but I for one am in no position to cast stones. SchroCat's exhaustive and detailed check of a large sample of the sources suggests that the issue has been resolved as part of this FAC. As such, I am minded to promote. However, as coordinators should only promote when there is a consensus to do so, and given that Smalljim is entirely reasonably opposing, I wish to check that the "supports" indicated prior to Smalljim and SchroCat completing their look at the sourcing still stand. So, and, do you wish to withdraw your indications of support? Apologies for dragging you back to this nomination, and thank you for your time. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If consensus is to promote despite my (admittedly vague) warnings of further unresolved problems that I have identified but don't have the time to deal with properly at present, I'll continue to improve the article as time permits after promotion. However, the five points I identified in my post of 16 April (diff), should, I think, be resolved first at least. It appears that my "very best work" bar must be set higher than that of other editors :) —Smalljim  22:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Clocked this and then forgot to reply: apols for delay. I am really not expert enough in the subject to comment either way on the sourcing. It looked, and looks, all right to my layman's eye, and SchroCat's review offers reassurance. I am not inclined to withdraw my support, but will quite understand if the upshot is to make any necessary changes before promoting – whether on the current FAC or on a second attempt.  Tim riley  talk   13:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As a coordinator, I would like to see at a minimum Smalljim's five concerns addressed before I would promote. Hog Farm Talk 03:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did the same as Tim - registered this, thought "I'll look at that properly later" and then forgot. My apologies.  I feel the same as Tim, but will quite understand if the co-ords feel that issues need addressing before any possible promotion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Revisiting this after a break I am in agreement with Hog Farm., any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yo good break I hope. For the record, I addressed Sj's five points on 24 April, which he addressed the following day to which I made my addressment. It's a bonus that him and I get on so well, that's all I say. I should've stuck with something easy, like the Duke of Norfolk. Or Lancaster, maybe.   SN54129  16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * - are you comfortable with the changes made to address your concerns? Hog Farm Talk 17:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're asking whether I'm now content to support, then no - my opinion of 16 April stands. As I noted, those last five concerns were just a sample. —Smalljim  12:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * An opinion which you described as based on "admittedly vague" warnings yourself, to be fair to others' hardwork :)  SN54129  17:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I've found some time for a quick look at a few references. Baker D. (1968) The Later Middle Ages 1216–1485, pp. 204–5 is cited several times in the text. The text of the first instance (3rd para of "Riotousness") reads 'the linguist Derek Baker translated this as "a certain crazy lunatic".[56]'. Baker's book is available for short term loan from the Internet Archive, and the two cited pages are merely a copy of G. G. Coulton's translation from the Latin of a section of Grandisson's Register, as published in Coulton, G. G. (2004) [1918], Social Life In Britain (repr. ed.). So the translation is Coulton's, not Baker's, and Baker provides no commentary of his own here. The second reference to Baker is in the same paragraph, supposedly verifying "The horn was intended to unfavourably contrast with holy bells.[56]" - again this is just Coulton's translation which reads "Then at the sound of a horn, which they have chosen instead of a bell, they led him...". There's no mention of an unfavourable contrast.

Incidentally the OCLC, 9316696, for Marshall doesn't look right, pointing to a Symposium of the Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

I'm sorry, but just this little extra investigation reinforces my opinion that this is not FA material. —Smalljim 11:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We have to use and cite the secondary source when required, as you should know. Further above in the morass of minutiae you have "highlighted", you complain that I didn't use the latest translation. Now you are complaining because I am using a later source. All this means is that one academic approves of and supports the translation of a previous one. Now, since we rely on secondary sources, we should highlight any tensions between them; but there is no need to do so when a secondary source is citing—and more to the point, agreeing with—a primary one. Otherwise, you would have us double-check the sourcing of every academic text we use. In which case one should probably work for the OUP et alia. In any case, it's good that a later RS confirms an earlier one, and you should rejoice.  As for Marshall, it's the Syracuse Symposium, nothing to do anatomy. Cheers!  SN54129  12:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting the OCLC for Marshall (incidentally is she really M. H. M. Marshall? She's credited as Mary H. Marshall in her paper.) I'm pleased that you silently corrected the mistake with the second Baker reference too. However, I don't see why you have not corrected the simple error where you attribute Coulton's translation to Baker. Is this not clear? —Smalljim  11:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

====Suggest withdrawal==== SN54129 - with your flair for writing (which I really envy) and my nit-picking abilities we should be able, given time, to work this up into the best FA ever. What do you say: will you withdraw this FAC for further work? —Smalljim 11:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

A fragile olive branch carelessly snapped off! So where do we go from here: shall I keep listing problems? With over 50 already reported I don't think so, despite all the red ink still on my printouts.

Coordinators, I'm sorry for the hassle that this is no doubt causing, but I'd appreciate some indication of where this might be going. —Smalljim 15:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean one or two actual problems among the typos and WP:ILIKEIT you've bludgeoned the discussion with over the last few weeks, combined with repeated patronising passive aggression, I'm surprised that you expected otherwise, frankly.  SN54129  15:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No I mean the dozen or more significant corrections and improvements that you have made to the article as a result of my comments. On top of the other 40-odd minor changes, which are of a similar nature to those raised by other reviewers - gotta keep those serial commas under control... And no, your response to my offer was not unexpected (apart from the manner of expressing it, which was novel!), but I assume you see why it was necessary to make that offer. Can I take it that you won't look at the one or two outstanding issues above, or any more that I might raise? Cleaning up the article is all that concerns me here, and that would be far easier without the FAC conventions getting in the way. —Smalljim  19:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Ling (Support, see below)

 * Placeholder... first glance, might want to simplify language a bit. But not a huge problem. [Are you gonna put Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in "See Also"? :-)]
 * The whole discussion of "theater" was dropped into a footnote ("Chope points out that..."), which seems odd to me. I'd suggest either putting the point into body text, or deleting it entirely...?
 * Two sentences by same source seem to make same point: "Grandisson noted that, although the gang called this a ludus,[note 7]—"under colour and veil of a game, or rather a farce", he says[61]—in his view, "it was sheer rapine" and "comments Grandisson, "though they seem to do this under colour and cloak of play, or rather of buffoonery, yet this is beyond doubt no other than theft and rapine, since the money is taken from the unwilling". Maybe one of these two could be deleted. Perhaps the first, I think. Or combine it with the second. In fact, two paragraphs seem to make the same point: the one beginning "Grandisson noted..." and the one beginning "They were debauched...". And then a second point, about the bishop's response, begins with "They were certainly disobedient...". Or perhaps that point actually begins with the following sentence, "It is unknown whether they heeded..." In that case, "They were certainly disobedient..." is the last sentence of a paragraph about their behavior and the mention of the bishop would be a transition to the next topic, the bishop's reaction/response...  My point here is that the dividing line between these two paragraphs seems to have been somewhat imprecisely selected, and there is a bit of repetition... Actually... there is some repetition/overlap with the paragraph before those two, the one that begins "The Brothelyngham men, dressed as monks". Maybe rethink the organization of all this text. I'm going to say something that may sound stupid, but there have been moments in my life (my dissertation was one, I confess) where I printed out stretches of text, double-spaced, then took scissors and cut each sentence into its own strip of paper. Then I organized the sentences into piles according to topic. It was helpful to me, at least.
 * Name-dropping "the Lightbringer" would be cryptic to many non-Westerners, even despite the wikilink. perhaps a few more explanatory words, including "devil"... I live in a Chinese-speaking area, and many of my students seem to be familiar with the word "Satan" (transliterated as 撒但, Sā dàn). &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 09:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * " the religious community of commonly indulging in against their Rule." What? Whose Rule? What Rule? The rule of a ruler, or the rules of a religious order, or...? Please explain a bit.
 * "One of the only known English examples.." Confusing/confounding topics here? Surely the Order of Brothelyngham did not go on to be a fundraising exercise. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 09:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking of simplifying language, I have a PhD in English/Applied linguistics, and I have never seen the Latin word "vice" used before as in the side-by-side translations. My hat's off (sincerely, not sarcastically) to your education, but perhaps that could be changed somehow. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 09:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Going back to the lede, "The group appears to have named itself after a non-existent place, Brothelyngham. Such a name would have suggested chaos, wretchedness or some similar context to contemporaries." I wonder if "Brothelyngham" should be in quotation marks here. Perhaps one or two words about "brothel" as in footnote 9. Moreover, that footnote "a termination which in Devon everyone would understand" doesn't mean that anyone in Taiwan would understand it. You're writing for an international audience. Just plainly state what "-ham" means and ditch the bit about Devon... actually, you might benefit from re-reading this article with an eye toward finding references cryptic to a foreign audience. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 09:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In the lede, would "priests and nuns not living according to their vows.. " be better as "according to their religious vows", or as the more specific "according to their vows of clerical celibacy"? &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 12:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "a lively tradition of popular entertainment ... is missing closing quotation marks. I would just stick them in myself, but I'm not 100% sure where that quote ends. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 12:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "such sport is as much folklore as drama" I'm not exactly sure what that is supposed to contrast or communicate.
 * In the lede again, "They may well have been satirising the church, which by then...". When you write "by then", are you contrasting this period with an earlier one, in which the church was not perceived as corrupt? The easy way out might be to just delete "by then". &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 12:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have read the article twice now, top-to-bottom, with a lot of looking back-and-forth... I feel very comfortable with the depth and breadth of coverage, because everything we know about this topic comes from merely one or two mentions in one primary source, and yet we have a veritable smorgasbord of RS secondary sources. This topic is nether controversial nor subject to pop-culture edit warring, etc. SN is a well-known and respected editor, and other reviewers apparently are raking/have raked this article over the coals (above). Forex, I see something about "five points" etc. I have no such points. I only hope to tweak the prose a little for clarity. If a coord is antsy to close, consider me as a Support. If not, I will try to tweak a little more. Tks. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 14:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I came, I saw, I tweaked. +S &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 15:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
This seems to have quietened down so I will have a look through with a view to closing, one way or another. There is an oppose and withdraw, on a clearly stated rationale around source to text integrity or lack thereof. There are four supports, one of which included an extensive check of the use of the secondary sources cited. All four supports have been entered or reaffirmed since the concerns started to be raised, most stating that they are happy to rely on this review of sources in respect of source to text integrity. There seem to be no explicit issues outstanding, although the suggestion to withdraw and check for any is a reasonable one.

This is a difficult one to call, but I don't think there will be more to assist me to come on the point at issue. On balance I believe that the four supports, relying on a 90% check of the secondary sources, qualifies as a consensus to promote, even using the high bar which FAC commonly employs. And even in the face of a reasoned oppose on the same issue.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)