Talk:A Short English Chronicle/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 02:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Hi, congratulations on the new article! I'd say it's in a pretty good state for a newborn, but it could definitely use another pass of copy editing (I tried to correct some obvious spelling/formatting errors as I went, but I'm sure I didn't get them all). I think it would also be useful to do an audit of wikilinks. I found one redlink that I was able to turn blue by changing the wording, a bluelink that went to the wrong person, and a few bluelinks that went to not-very-relevant articles (and I wasn't checking links very carefully). Some more prose comments below:

Prose

its creation has been ascribed to 1464 Awkward wording. Maybe "It is thought to have been created in 1464"?

Also, I gather it covers events up to 1464, but it might be good to make that more explicit in the introduction.

Also also: in saying it was created in 1464, we're implying that it's a 'dead chronicle' in the nomenclature of chronicle, right? Might be worth making that explicit.

It was first published in 1880 by James Gairdner and has remained a source for historians into the 20th-century, as much for what it tells them regarding the creation and use of chronicles generally than its historiographical value. Some kind of grammar issue here in the structure 'as much for... than'.

The link to language change on the word 'bastardised' doesn't seem very helpful in context.

I think the 'mayors' redlink should point to List of lord mayors of London.

I'm assuming 'preovenance' is a typo rather than a technical/archaic term? Similarly, 'pruducts'?

The oldest portion still extant in the 20th century covers the years 1417–1420. Could you clarify that? Does that mean the portions of the book covering earlier periods have been lost?

Gairdner suggested that portion - missing word?

'The chronicle' doesn't seem like a great section title. The section is talking about a specific manuscript of the chronicle (the one held in the Lambeth Palace Library), right?

Broad coverage

In addition to the prose, this is the other criterion I think is not there yet. Some questions I'm left wondering after reading the article:

• A footnote mentions the author "is presumed to have been a citizen of London". So the chronicle is written from a London-centric perspective? It covers local events in London? Does it also cover events from further afield? Has the manuscript always been kept in London? I feel like this is very important information to cover.
• I have questions about the composition of the text. It's divided into three sections, 1) ancient history, 2) verse, 3) chronicle narrative proper. How long are these relative to one another? Coverage is apparently 'thin' until 1422 - could you elaborate? Is it possible to give some sense of how long the chronicle is as a whole (i.e. a page count)?
• Is anything known about how/when it came to be in the Lambeth Palace Library, and what happened to it between when John Stow had possession of it and then?
• Maybe not strictly necessary, but the lead mentions 'the details Short Chronicle provided on the reigns of Henry and Edward made it useful'. I think it would be nice if the article mentioned just one or two specific examples of such details. Or any specific pieces of information given in the chronicle that have furthered our understanding of some historical topic.

(To be fair, part of my issue may be that chronicle currently doesn't do a great job of giving context about chronicles in general. So I'm also left asking some very basic questions that aren't necessarily specific to this text: For what purpose was the chronicle written? Who was the 'target reader'? How many copies would have been made? What sort of person would have written it? Why would there be receipts for medical products? Not saying I want all this to be covered in this article, I just wish it were covered in an article. Not your fault though.) Colin M (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Colin M: Many thanks for taking this on! Right: I was going to address your points in the "Prose" section (here) singularly, but subsequent events have complicated the position a little. I started addressing your slightly more thematic queries ("Broad coverage"), but that lead to a slight expansion of the article itself. On the one hand, I think it makes headway in addressing some of your (especially contextual) points—but might raise others! :) —would you mind having another butchers? Have a good weekend, in any case. ——SerialNumber54129 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Second round of comments

Wow, these additions are fantastic. You really went above and beyond in addressing my concerns about broadness - I can now say that criterion is definitely satisfied. Some new comments below, mostly related to prose.

It covers the years from then until 1464 in most depth. As a result, it is thought to have been created around that year due to the last events it discusses being the marriage of the Yorkist King Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and the capture of the deposed Lancastrian King, Henry VI that year.

I find that second sentence is just a little awkward. There's a bit of repetition with "As a result"/"due to", and the repetition of "that year". What do you think about something like...

It covers the years from then until 1464 (the year in which it's thought to have been created) in greater depth, ending with the marriage of the Yorkist King Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and the capture of the deposed Lancastrian King, Henry VI.

First image caption: The first page of A Short Chronicle of England, Lambeth Palace Library MS306.. Minor inconsistency in the title. Not sure if that's an error, or another form of the title that's in currency. I see that the footnote mentions Cronycullys of Englonde as the original title. Maybe that should be mentioned in the body of the article somewhere?

You removed the link to language change that I grumbled about on the phrase "bastardised verse". But I'm still curious exactly what that phrase refers to. Funnily enough, a google search for "bastardised verse" brings up this Wikipedia article as the first result! I guess it's not a specific term of art, but just using the word "bastardised" in the sense of definition 2 at wikt:bastardize? i.e. it contains some verse from John Lydgate which has been changed for the worse? Not sure if there might be a clearer way to phrase it (that doesn't give the impression that it's some kind of technical term). Maybe 'mangled verse'?

McLaren has posited that... Who? Would be good to provide some context the first time this name is invoked. e.g. "Historian [[Mary-Rose McLaren has posited that..."

The original authorship of the Lambeth manuscript is unknown, but, based on the fact that all three sections are written in the same scribal hand, McLaren has posited that it was composed by either a single individual or possibly a workshop. It was probably the result of a specific commission; less likely, she says, is that it was created by the author for his own personal use.

Would this information perhaps be better suited to the 'Origins' section rather than the 'Manuscript' section?

Beginning with Diocletian—described as King of Syria—the first 17 leaves cover English history up to the Norman Conquest. Leaves 17 through to 31 list... This additional detail you've added is great! But would it maybe be a better fit for the 'Content' section rather than the 'Manuscript' section?

Leaves 17 through to 31 list successive English monarchs from William the Conqueror to Henry VI. I think "Henry VI" should be wikilinked. I tried doing it myself, but Henry VI is a disambiguation page, and I don't have the domain knowledge to confidently choose the right one.

This section is not deemed historiographically useful It's not clear from context which section is being referred to (I think this just fell victim to some shuffling around of text)

I see that 'preovenance' is now a piped link to provenance. But that article doesn't contain the term 'preovenance' anywhere, so I'm still left scratching my head. Is it just an alternative spelling? Or does it have some special meaning? Or is it just a typo?

Can we add a wikilink for 'Albina'? Maybe to Albion#Anglo-Norman_Albina_story? (I considered adding it, but again, my domain knowledge is weak here, so not sure if that's actually the correct disambiguation)

It could be useful to have a section dedicated to relationships with other chronicles. But just an idea - definitely don't mean to impose it as a GA requirement.

As a result, many—like the Short Chronicle—had a London-centric perspective. Many chronicles? Many texts? Many works of popular literature?

Speaking of the London thing, could we mention that in the intro? i.e. the fact that it was written in the City of London (assuming that's known to be true) and/or that it covered events in London? Colin M (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Colin M: Sorry, I totally forgot about this—I've a feeling I started on your second round, but not sure how far in I got now! ——SerialNumber54129 16:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: No worries, I think you actually addressed basically all my latest comments. You added a "relationship to other chronicles" section but didn't fill it in - I just removed it for now. But that was just a suggestion, definitely not a requirement for GA. I think the only other thing is clarifying the "As a result, many" sentence. Colin M (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I updated it to "many works" - feel free to replace with a more specific term, if appropriate. To GA it goes! Congrats, and thanks for being so receptive and responsive to my comments. I'm really pleased with how the article turned out (not that it was in a bad state to begin with). :) Colin M (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Colin M—It's surprising what I can do with a bit of encouragement! :D FWIW, I've made a start on the "Relationship" section (I hadn't read your comment here at that point), as I think it was a good suggestion, as was your "many works" edit. Thanks again, and hopefully see you around! ——SerialNumber54129 17:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)