Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John/Eleanor Rykener/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2018 [1].

John/Eleanor Rykener

[edit]
Here again, this time nominating John Rykener, "calling himself Eleanor, having been detected in woman's clothing" committing a "detestable act" in December 1394: I won't say anymore so as not to spoil the surprise :) The irony that medieval London appears more sympathetic to transvestite sex-workers than Britain throughout most of the twentieth-century will not, I imagine, be lost on anyone.
User:Nick-D earlier suggested this be brought here, and I do so; he is, of course, in no way responsible for what you see. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the read, and I welcome all questions, comments, criticisms and witticisms. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil

[edit]

Prose need work, but overall, from a quick scan, a very strong article, I'm drawn in, and this candidacy is doable. Suggest you ask for help on wording; its such a colourful subject I'm sure you will get attention. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't like the block quote in the lead. I see what you are getting at, but its too much too soon (first thing readers eyes are drawn to, but isolated quotes lack context) Ceoil (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to move it, and I understand the point about context—I was thinking it could act in place of a lead image? —none of those I have used really seemed suitable for the lead. In fact, I will admit now that I think the article's especially week on images. That's why, btw, why I deliberately made the font bigger...in fact I was even looking for a way to colour and bold the font, but the parameters don't exist to do so, which is something to be grateful for eh! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree 54129 and would prefer to see it gone. Overall the article is quite well illustrated, given the lack of historical record. Ceoil (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that—I've stuck it the very end where it can act as a "And Finally" —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John B123

[edit]

This article was an unremarkable stub a few months ago. user:Serial Number 54129 has worked hard to bring this article up to where it is now. I think it's deserving of FA status. John B123 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Usernameunique

[edit]

Lead

  • "continued to sex work" — suggest rephrasing
    • "continued with sex work"?
  • Perhaps add brief descriptions of who the historians are, e.g., "[name of University] historian [name of person]"
    • No problem; even the ones that are wikilinked?

Background

  • "public order notice" — anything that can be linked?
  • "the church in their own courts" — "the church in its own courts"?
    • Done.
  • "fill the palace with foulness." — an in-line Citation should follow this, since there's a quotation
  • hermaphroditism — link?
  • Linked.

John Rykener, Londoner

  • "His responses have been described as one of the very few glimpses the modern era has into medieval sexual identities." — does this belong here?
    • Good point; moved to "Recent scholarship" section.
  • where does the info that there were three Rykeners come from?
    • The whole note is from Goldberg, who says there's three, but two of which "may" be the same? Does this need making clearer perhaps?
  • In this gaol "most prisoners were convicted clerks. — missing close quotation mark
    • Removed—it had previously been a quote, but I rephrased it and only deleted one q.m.
  • There were, notes Goldberg, a number of prisoner escapes from the gaol under Bishop Robert Braybrooke’s tenure." — missing open quotation mark
    • Ditto!
  • "just as the records do." ... "probably a bisexual." ... "they say." — inline citations needed
    • D'oh. Cited.
  • "Ruth Evans, on London specifically, describes it as being "a place of unrivalled sexual and economic opportunities" beneath the surface." — I’m not sure what this is saying. So society was repressed, but below the surface London had unrivaled opportunities?
    • I think they mean that on the surface it was formal and rigidly moralistic, but, underneath, etc. If I say that though, would it be WP:OR? (That's the main reason it—and many others—are quotes, so I didn't have to place my own interpretation on them for the reader.

Historical significance

  • "London Metropolitan Archives." — linked in lead, so another here would be appropriate
    • Ha! Annoyingly, this is one of those duplicate links I removed an hour or two ago with this edit! Added back though.
  • "that mayor's court" — mayor's court, or the mayor's court?
  • "The", done.
  • "These manuscripts are, according to one commentator, "apparently the only legal process document" — manuscripts is plural, but document is singular
Only one MS, of course.

Life

  • "Brouderer could give her daughter, Alice, to men at night (in the dark so they could not see Alice). Alice then left her client before daybreak, and Brouderer would tell the man that they had slept with Rykener." — what was the point of this deception? If blackmail, wouldn’t the point be to try to convince the client that he’d just committed sodomy, but if so why would Rykener be called Eleanor by Brouderer?
    • I guess the blackmail would be stronger? Not just sodomy, but transvestitism too.
  • "under the pretext of lighting his way home." — what does this mean?
    • She would hold the torch for him on his way home (from Brouderer's?) and would then go in with the priest.
  • "Britby certainly claimed" — this is the first time Britby is mentioned in the body of the article, so an introduction may be in order
    • Mentioned (a couple of times) in the lead.

Arrest

  • "When Rykener was asked where he had got the idea for such work," — this and the following quotation are a bit repetitive
    • I've greatly condensed it; an improvement?
  • "even the one thing he could have been charged with, fornication. This was also beyond the mayoral court's jurisdiction." — so he could have been charged with fornication but he couldn’t have been charged with fornication?
    • Indeed  :) Meaning to say, that he could have been charged with fornication, but only in an ecclesiastical court, not the mayor's court. Clarified.

Aftermath

  • Whatever lollardism is is left unexplained. Why was there a crisis?
  • "Hence, says Goldberg, the "staged and dramatic way" with the case is presented." — this is an unclear fragment
  • "Two years earlier Richard II had stripped the city of its liberties" — why?
  • "dealt by those courts." — the Church’s courts?

Recent scholarship

  • "Tristan and Isolde. While their story" — there should be a brief summary of the story and its implications
  • "we still know very little...about the "sexuality of courtly lovers like Tristan and Isold." — extra quotation mark
  • "even if we do not know anything about Rykener's self-identification, her life as a male-bodied woman was “transgender-like.” — three quotation marks
  • "the law report enrolled in the Memoranda Pleas." — what is this?
  • "mayor and corporation" — what’s the corporation?

In culture

  • I’d add the 2011 debut of the puppet show
  • "John–Eleanor" — should the name of the show be in quotation marks, or italicized?


Thanks for these pointers, Usernameunique—I hope I've resolved most of your queries, but there's a couple I'd appreciate a little clarification of first. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-ping Usernameunique. One above failed. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room
Serial Number 54129, that’s pretty much it. Great article, enjoyed reading it. Made a bunch of copy edits along the way; as my comments were made piecemeal, I'll let you respond to the last ones above before looking at the responses you’ve already made. —Usernameunique (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Usernameunique, I think I've addressed your points—by the addition of exlanatory footnotes as far as the quarrel with London, Lollardy and Tristan; the other little bits I've either clarified or removed—e.g. the Mem Pleas which is a level of detail of such arcanery it's frankly a distracting irrelevancy. Sorry I can't give you a fuller reply, but I'm a bit dispirited atm. Thanks very much for all your suggestions though! Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Brianbouton

[edit]

Sorry to rain on the parade, but what this article is getting here is a peer review, and this isn't the place for that. What's the rush? Why don't you transfer the whole thing over to WP:PR and allow it a proper preparation before it's brought back here? That might actually save you time in the long run. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Its a very interesting article, there is a lot of goodwill towards 54129, and I'm sure will get a lot of attention at PR. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Mapping needs some work. The London one is difficult to see at that size, "travels" I don't think is the right word for the England map, and formatting on both legends is a mite inconsistent. I'm wondering about the source for coordinates for the London map. Also the source of the London map (File:Plan_of_London_in_1300.jpg) needs a US PD tag, and I'm skeptical that the derivative work would garner new copyright under US law, which is based on originality rather than effort
Thanks for this NM. Re the London map, I've made some temporary adjustments. The map itself is embedded in a Lua module, and is thus a foreign langwidge to me. However, I have requested some techno-help in swapping it for this one, which I knocked up earlier, and should address the question of originality / derivation, etc. I will also look much easier on the eye with less clutter. I have standardised the legends so they both use pogs, and changed the caption to "Locations Rykener stayed in 1394" which isn't particularly easy on the tongue but more accurate than "travels."
The St Kath's image is from early eighteenth-century, and it would be a PITA to hunt out the original source, s I swapped it for a more modern image, even though it's been moved. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map has been updated. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So that looks better, but we've still got inconsistencies in the legend formatting, and File:Plan of London in 1300.jpg still needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Could you clarify re. legend formatting? They look the same to me—or should the colours be the identical? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, don't care about the colours. As above, it's a minor issue: spacing of dashes and use/nonuse of periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Got it, very subtle. I've standardised the /space/dash/space for the pogs, and removed the full stops/periods from them. I have however left them on the image titles—not because I think that "Rykener's London" is a sentence—it's clearly not—but the other title, I think, is—which would then be inconsistent. What do yo think? Incidentally, I'm using a different file for the London map now—a basic vector image: no us-pd now required? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say neither caption is a sentence. As to the US-PD issue, I would disagree - although the map has been modified, it's still derived from the earlier image, so we need to make sure that the licensing of that image meets our standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​ Ok, that's understood. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Whether this stays here or moves to PR, I'm very happy to offer some thoughts on an article about such an interesting topic.

  • How attached are you to the article's title? In your experience, is this the name by which the subject is normally known in the literature? My thought would be that the best title would probably be one or the other, with the one not used serving as a redirect.
  • I'm saddened that a biographical article doesn't include birth and death (or at least flourishing) dates in the opening lines. This is made more confusing by reference to both the 14th and 15th centuries in the first paragraph!
  • You may want to consider an infobox, but I appreciate that this is sometimes a rather controversial issue.
  • I wonder whether intersex might be a better link for what you call hermaphroditism; the article on Hermaphroditism is not focussed on humans.
  • "who imprisoned in the" was imprisoned?
  • It's bizarre to me that we're talking about the possibility that he was the same Rykener who did xyz in 1399 when we haven't even gone through the events of 1394 yet.
  • Generally, be aware of MOS:LQ. I've made a few tweaks, but perhaps more are needed.
  • "meant that male-to-female transvestism was effectively non-existent in broader society.[24] Ruth Evans, on London specifically, describes it as being "a place of unrivalled sexual and economic opportunities" beneath the surface.[25]" Mixed messages!
  • Again, the historical significance section feels it should be coming after discussion of Rykener's life.
  • Phillip or Philip for the rector?
  • Claims about "Rykener's true gender" may be a little provocative! Perhaps sex would be less problematic?
  • You refer to Rykener as an "embroideress"; does this mean that he presented himself as female in that line of work?
  • "the Swan inn." Why italics?
  • "officers" did you mean to use ffi rather than ffi?
  • It seems odd to have all the discussion of Anna in footnote 16, before she's discussed in the article proper.
  • Is continence the best word to describe abstinence?
  • "aliens or foreigners in modern English." Is that a word-for-word direct quote?
  • Could you check the quote in footnote 20? And 21?
  • "As noted above" Avoid self references.
  • Paragraph one of "recent scholarship" is a bit listy. Interesting stuff, though.
  • "Karras has argued that Rykener is a medieval example of a transgender person, rather than merely a transvestite or cross-dresser. Karras says that "even if we do not know anything about Rykener's self-identification, her life as a male-bodied woman was "transgender-like"." Could you check the quote?
  • The Blud blockquote in "Recent scholarship" apparently has "double quotes" within "double quotes".
  • "Goldberg has also suggested that historians may have misread what was happening in the law report enrolled in the Memoranda Pleas. It is possible, he says, that the whole case was a fabrication by the scribes, who wanted to officially lodge an unofficial allegory against the King." Ok, interesting. Is this what was talked about in the lead? I didn't get the impression that the whole thing could have been made up!
  • "Phillips, K. M; Reay, B. (2002). "Introduction". Sexualities in History: A Reader. Barry. London: Routledge. pp. 1–26. ISBN 978-1-13530-476-8." Could you check the formatting of this citation?
  • "V. C. H. (1912). Page, W., ed. The Victoria History of the County of Hertford. The Victoria County History. III. Westminster: Constable &co. OCLC 927018962." This one too?

What a great topic. An article on a crossdressing (or perhaps transgender?) medieval prostitute that ends with a discussion of the World Puppetry Competition? I hope this is part of a series :) In all seriousness: This feels a little short of where it needs to be for FA status, but the impression I get is that it's well on its way. In addition to PR, you might want to think about sending it through good article candidates, which can be very useful for helping an article on its journey. It's sometimes slow, but I can't see a topic like this waiting long for a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these J Milburn; left a message on your talk. Sorry about that! I'll deal with this tomorrow, if that's OK. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: I think this edit addresses most of your suggestions, including moving sections and notes. There's a couple of things I'll query though if you don't mind. Firstly, the title—which I'm surprised has taken this long to raise its head! I was intending to start a discussion on it here, or possibly on the talk afterwards. I'll say from the start though that yes—I think John/Eleanor is a pretty common way of addressing the individual within the literature. But it should be noted that it's not a particularly broad literature, so we are really only talking perhaps five scholars. And it is also a rather young school of historiography—gendering the master narrative—so perhaps this is a more modern approach to the traditional questions. Incidentally, in at least one peer-reviewed piece, Karras uses the z/he construct, compared with which, I'm not sure that John/Eleanor is that radical!
I wasn't sure what you meant when you say "check quote/citation"—I'm very slow and need what you want to be looked at spelt out I'm afraid.
Thanks for all these pointers though, JM, much apreciated as ever. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A quick reply (I've not looked at your edits): By "check quote", I meant "could you check the original source to ensure that your quote is correct", presumably because I thought the grammar was off. By "check citation", I just meant "could you have a look at the formatting here and make sure all information is included correctly?" As for the "John/Eleanor" thing, I defer entirely to the existing literature; large or small, we should be lead by that, I feel. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two more suggestions: First, I wonder whether the information about the John Rykener who escaped from a prison belongs in the "life" section. I moved it (probably too clumsily) here and self-reverted. Secondly, from a quick glance, there seem to be some images of a document with the original Latin floating around online. Something like that would be a fantastic lead image for this article! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I'm going to archive this now as it seems better suited for a PR process given the feedback so far. Serial Number 54129, I would encourage you to copy the feedback you've gotten into a PR page and engage with reviewers from there. --Laser brain (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John/Eleanor_Rykener/archive1&oldid=863043844"