Talk:Coterel gang/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this, may take a few days! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is not really much too criticise. I put all my thoughts below, but addressing those is not strictly required for reaching GA; I'm not 100% sure about the general points, but I think that you would be interested in this feedback still:

Generally, I would argue that there is too much detail in the "background" section. This section should provide the reader with the necessary context (which it does). But it does more revolve around the possible political motives of the gang. Maybe this should separated more.

Do you think "Political context" covers both aspects of the section?

The first paragraph of the "background" becomes more and more detailed from beginning to end, and the last couple of sentences do not really contribute to the main point (on the political motivation) that was made before.

I moved the bit about Lancaster down chronologically, so it fits into their general behaviour.

Following from this: Maybe have a dedicated section that describes the actions of the gang in chronological order? That would make it easier to read, as it would be more of a narrative.

H'mmm; to start with, I've created a dedicated section for their "peak of activity", but I think I'll have to come back to that, as there's not just dates but some thematic overlay too (their support, for example?)

Not sure if the "Kidnapping of Richard Willoughby" should be moved down to appear directly before "Royal response"? So that the narrative is not interrupted?

Great idea, done.

Minor points:

The king was also politically distracted by the outbreak of war again with Scotland – "again" sounds a little bit as the earlier war has already been discussed, which is not the case. Maybe "renewed outbreak", or just remove the "again"?

Went for ((tq|it had been distracted by the renewal of war with Scotland the previous year,}} if that's OK, as that way I could link Second War of Scottish Independence.

Edward II of England – linked twice.

Done.

They utilised the indenturesystem: one half – "half" of what? Was this like a Tally stick?

Yes, ore or less—I've added a footnote (hopefully!) explaining the mechanics?

There was, commented Bellamy, "was no lack of worldly knowledge" – one "was" too much

Lost the second one.

was instrumental in the regime of Isabella and Mortimer – these two should be introduced or at least linked

Added a sentence re. their overthrow of Edward, and linked.

Bellamy notes how usual this was: "as was usual in the middle ages – "usual" reads a bit redundant here

Lost.

by for him by – again something too much

Now turned into English :)

In 1334 Sir William Aune received was appointed – word too much

Ditto! )And WP:REDYESed for later)

armata potentia – not sure with this one, use of Latin makes it unnecessarily difficult to comprehend/inaccessible. Can this be linked to an entry of a list of Latin phrases or something?

Great idea. It wasn't in List of Latin phrases (A), but I created the entry and a redirect, as well as adding an inline explanation to this article. Does that work?

Robin Hood and Gamelyn – both are linked later, but should be at first mention. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Thanks very much for these pointers, Jens Lallensack, I think I've addressed them (the chronology might be a work in progress!); what d'you think now? Apologies for the delay n getting on with this—tbh it completely slipped my mind, sorry about that. Have a good weekend! ——SerialNumber54129 17:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes, looking good! Passed now, congrats! Regarding the chronological order, that was only an idea/thought, and I'm not sure if it would really improve the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]