Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reculver/archive1

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 not promoted by Graham Colm (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2014 (diff).

---

Reculver

Nominator(s): Nortonius (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The site of Reculver has been occupied since the Bronze Age. The Romans built a fort there, and in Anglo-Saxon times there was a monastery founded by a king of Kent. The settlement was a "thriving township" in the Middle Ages, with a weekly market and an annual fair, until coastal erosion and the silting up of the Wantsum Channel caused the settlement's decline. The monastic church was a parish church by 1066, at the head of a large and wealthy parish, and the church itself was much enlarged by the 15th century. It was demolished using gunpowder in 1809: the church is now regarded as having been an exemplar of Anglo-Saxon church architecture and sculpture, and its destruction has caused anguish to pretty much everyone who has written about it, including me. Reculver today is a fairly remote spot consisting mainly of the Roman and church ruins, a pub, a country park and caravan sites, the settlement having been all but swept away by the sea by about the end of the 18th century. Nortonius (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments - taking a look now - will jot queries below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The 20th century saw a revival as a tourism industry developed - eww, sounds odd to mine ears...maybe "The 20th century saw a revival as a/the local tourism industry developed" or just "local tourism" or something

and a Mesolithic tranchet axe was found at Reculver in 1960 - it'd be great if we could somehow avoid using the town's name twice in the one sentence....

but this was probably a casual loss - a what? link or explanation plz...

"unique and cleverly engineered" - what was unique about it?

I'd fold the Twin Sisters and crying baby sections into that on the church - looks funny with them coming before discussion on the church itself

I'd remove the culture section and place the communities subsegment into economy

Given the length of the article overall, I wonder if the Ruined church of St Mary segment can be abbreviated a little given that it does have a daughter article.

Watch where "reculver" appears in two consecutive sentences, or twice in the one sentence. I saw a few more -if we can remove a few recurrences it'd help the prose.

Thanks for the comments, all very helpful. I've now made changes reflecting the first four, which I hope meet with your approval. I've also removed some occurrences of Reculver, and will get on with removing more Reculvers and working towards the rest of your suggestions. Nortonius (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I've got rid of all excess Reculvers now, though I note you've already struck that, thank you. I wonder if the "crying baby" might not fit better with the Roman information, as the focus is on Roman archaeology, and mention of the church can probably be lost: I'll try that in the morning and see what you think, if I don't hear otherwise before then. Nortonius (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that - try it each way and see where it flows better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've now addressed your three remaining comments, about moving the content of the "Twin Sisters", "Crying baby" and "Community facilities" subsections, removing the section on culture and abbreviating the "Ruined church of St Mary" subsection: I hope you find these changes to your liking. I've moved the crying baby into the discussion of Roman Reculver as I think it fits there best. Nortonius (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any outstanding prose issues but it is a big article. I'll keep an eye on what others say as this goes on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood and much appreciated, yes it's early days yet. Nortonius (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just made further abbreviations to the Ruined church of St Mary section. Nortonius (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks kneaded into better shape. all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support, Cas Liber! Nortonius (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles

• What does it mean to be a member of a Cinque port? Presumably a Cinque port was really a collection of ports but worth clarifying.

I've expanded what was a very slight explanation of this, in the Economy section: I realise that this membership is mentioned earlier, but I think this is the best place for an explanation, unless you have other ideas? Nortonius (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• "The walls were originally faced with ragstone, but only very small areas of this remain: otherwise only the cores of the walls are visible". Repetition of 'only' - perhaps delete the first one.

I've changed the wording so the first "only" is gone. Nortonius (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• "it is reported that the sound of a crying baby is often heard in the grounds of the fort." I don't think a newspaper report of supposed supernatural goings on is encyclopedic. (However, I see Cas Liber thinks it is OK.)

See my and Cas Liber's comments at the end of yours: I won't insist on retaining the crying baby, but would rather unless consensus says it must go. Nortonius (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Towards the end of the 3rd century a Roman naval commander named Carausius was given the task of clearing pirates from the sea between the Roman provinces in Britain, or Britannia, and on the European mainland." This is sourced to a newspaper report, which is not generally considered WP:RS for history. "the Roman provinces in Britain, or Britannia, and on the European mainland" is a bit clumsy. Why not "between Britain and the continent (or the mainland)"? (Perhaps worth mentioning that Carausius was not just any old commander, but a usurping emperor of Britain.)

I wasn't aware of that about newspaper reports, to be honest; I've substituted a reference to a US university's website. I've also changed the wording and hope you find it less clumsy, and added mention of Carausius declaring himself emperor. Nortonius (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• "After the Roman occupation of Britain ended in about 410, Reculver became a landed estate of the Anglo-Saxon kings of Kent," Is there any evidence how long after?

Not as such: just coins and other finds plus of course the king's gift of Reculver for a church in 669: I've changed the wording slightly so it doesn't beg this question, any good? Nortonius (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• "King Æthelberht of Kent was traditionally said to have moved his royal court there from Canterbury in about 597, for example by John Duncombe in 1784,[42] and to have built a palace on the site of the Roman ruins;[43] but, while archaeological excavation has shown no evidence of this, Æthelberht's household would have been peripatetic, and the story has been described as probably a "pious legend"." This is a bit confusing. I would suggest something like "Antiquarians such as the eighteenth century clergyman John Duncombe said that King Æthelberht of Kent moved his royal court there from Canterbury in about 597, and built a palace on the site of the Roman ruins.[43] However, archaeological excavation has shown no evidence of this; Æthelberht's household would have been peripatetic, and the story has been described as probably a "pious legend".

I've changed the wording to almost exactly yours. Nortonius (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Decline from 829 residents in 1931 census to about 20 in 2005. I think it is worth explaining in the main text, not just a note, that the apparent decline is (partly?) due to holidaymakers being included in the census.

Yes, not so much a decline as an artefact of the census: I've made this and the holidaymakers explicit. Nortonius (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• A very good comprehensive article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for the equally helpful comments. I'll have a proper look at them in the morning. Nortonius (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess I think of the ghost bit as a sprinkling of engaging folklore to make the article more engaging - and assume most readers understand that (i.e. not hard science or medicine). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, my thoughts exactly: the crying baby was in the article when I first got involved with it,[1] and I've kept it in for the reason you give, though I've got no huge objection to losing it, if such a consensus develops here. A problem is that, while there clearly is some folklore involved (I mean that in a positive sense), it's not mentioned by any "proper" source I've been able to find; only in passing by books such as Folklore of Kent, which is more a collection of tales than an anthropological study. I could add that, but I don't have access to a physical copy and the online preview has no page numbers. Nortonius (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There are different views on the place of light relief. I reluctantly removed a quote from Æthelstan's biographer saying that any man whose father had given him 8 or 9 sisters deserves our sympathy (because an editor objected to it as irrelevant). The problem with this folklore is that while most readers will not take it seriously, some will. I have reverted a number of edits by believers, and I don't think we should be encouraging them. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's a tricky area: I've done a bit to try to keep Wild Hunt under some control, but Folk memory, while in a very sad state IMHO, has what looks like a smattering of decent sources. If any of the WP:RS sources I've used had made any of mention of it in that sort of context, then I'd be inclined to defend its corner a little more firmly, as then it would be anthropology rather than ghost story; but they haven't, so, as I say, I don't intend to, if consensus goes that way. The insight re Æthelstan's sisters is helpful in that regard, thanks, I'll bear it in mind. Nortonius (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that "the Mermaid of Padstow" merits mention in the lead and an entire section in the FA for Doom Bar, promoted in April last year: apparently she created the Doom Bar! And "a wailing cry is sometimes heard on the Doombar after a fearful gale". The sources are "tales", and this wasn't seriously questioned at the FAC, only the details of the story; the fact that John Betjeman wrote about it 60 years after the first cited publication probably helped. A single mention of a crying baby here seems completely harmless to me, not to mention more encyclopedic by comparison. On the other hand, I've looked quite hard (online) for a good source for the crying baby, and so far have only turned up further tales; I should be getting sight of something published by English Heritage soon. Nortonius (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I just got sight of said EH publication, and added it as a ref. The relevant passage in the book says: "Many hauntings have been reported [at Reculver], notably the cries of a baby, reputed to have been buried alive as a sacrifice by the Romans when they built [the fort]. Excavations some years ago discovered the skeletons of 11 babies within the ruins." This is probably my last throw in this direction, any thoughts? Anyone? Nortonius (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, your homework probably qualifies it for retention :-) I think the wording makes it sound more jarring than need be. Can I suggest changing the latter part of the para to something like: "The babies were probably buried in the buildings as ritual sacrifices, but it is unknown whether they were selected for burial because they were already dead, perhaps stillborn, or if they were buried alive or killed for the purpose;[36][Fn 7] a local tale subsequently developed that the grounds of the fort were haunted by the sound of a crying baby." hamiltonstone (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, hamiltonstone! Jarring noted and paragraph tweaked, using almost exactly your version. Of course I'll have to wait and see what the final word is on this: I very much appreciate the feedback either way. Nortonius (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I truly don't want to labour this point, but I just remembered something that was in the back of my mind when I mentioned "folk memory" previously, and would've indicated then if I'd thought of it: there's a perfectly well sourced mention of folk memory at Walkington Wold burials (IMHO – be warned, I added the quotation & ref![2]), in reference to a local name for a burial mound as "Hell's Gate", if you feel inclined to look. It isn't in a FA, but the sourcing and inclusion are thoroughly sound in my view, and parallel what I have in mind here – would that there were such a source for Reculver! I totally agree that we don't want to encourage "believers", they make me shudder; but folk memory, as opposed to superstition, is taken seriously in other circles. Make of that what you will. Nortonius (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:OldMapKent.jpg: what is the author's date of death? What was the publication date of the atlas?
• File:1685mapRoachS.jpg needs US PD tag
• File:Reculver1800.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
• File:Reculver_from_the_sea.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you – I'm sorry, I thought I'd looked at all that – all fixed now, as all are (I sincerely believe) PD-Art-100: [3] [4] [5] [6] Nortonius (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

SupportComment from Hamiltonstone A long article, so don't know how much of it I will get to. For now, just history and governance:

• "The plaque effectively records the establishment of the fort, since it records the construction..." - needs a copyedit to avoid repetition of "records".

I've changed the second "records" in that sentence to "commemorates". Nortonius (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced the inclusion of the Richmond quote is entirely helpful. it tells us two things. First, "this [was] the first time the inscribed phrase aedes principiorum [could] be ... identified with the official shrine of [a Roman military] headquarters building..." However, we do not know what an aedes principiorum is, it isn't linked, and we don't understand why that is important. Second, we are told that this was "the first certain ... application of the name basilica to a [Roman] military cross-hall". However, we aren't told what a cross-hall is or why it is significant. I would ditch the quote and craft a sentence that will more successfully explain to the reader why this matters.

I'm unsure about this. Per the quotation, the "aedes principiorum [could] be ... identified with the official shrine": the word "shrine" occurs and is linked in the preceding sentence, as is the related word "sacellum"; for "basilica" I agree it's less clear, although the word is also linked in the preceding sentence: perhaps the quotation might be changed to read "the first certain ... application of the name basilica to [this principal feature of such a building]", or something similar? The "cross-hall" is the basilica, so can be lost here. I've included the quotation to explain the use of the words "uniquely detailed" in relation to the plaque, which is clearly an important find; but I'm willing to integrate the information into the text if you'd still prefer it. Nortonius (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've now changed the wording about the basilica, perhaps you find it an improvement? Nortonius (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• "aimost in our memory" - typo??

Well spotted! My eyesight isn't what it used to be... Nortonius (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• "it is reported that the sound of a crying baby is often heard in the grounds of the fort". This seems a bit ridiculous, placing such a superstition alongside all the archaeological information, as though they belonged together. And is it really of sufficient significance to be included in a summary encyclopedia article?

You are not alone in thinking this, and it may well be ditched. You might look at comments above from Cas Liber, Dudley Miles and me. Nortonius (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• "The parishes of Herne and, on the Isle of Thanet, St Nicholas-at-Wade were created from parts of Reculver parish in 1310..." missing comma after St Nicholas-at-Wade?

Imagine the sentence without "on the Isle of Thanet"...? Nortonius (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Included were Hillborough, Bishopstone and Brook (now Brook Farm), and the parish extended west almost to Beltinge, in Herne parish, and to Broomfield in the south-west – where the boundary with Herne parish ran along the centre of the main thoroughfare, now Margate Road – and it was bounded in open country on the south-east and east by the parish of Chislet." Too many clauses and "and"s. Split into at least two sentences.

I've now changed this, I hope you find it improved. Nortonius (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Given how large is the European Parliamentary constituency, and how tiny Reculver is in that context, the spelling out of the names of all the representatives is not appropriate - it gives a misleading impression that Reculver might have played a substantive role in the election of these particular people. The article should simply state "For European elections Reculver is in the South East England constituency."

Done. Nortonius (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone check the Rollason 1979 article in the biblio - there's something wrong with the journal volume number - is it just a stray space, or have volume and issue numbers become confused?

Again, well spotted: it was as you suspected a stray space. Nortonius (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Great research and writing. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, both for the comments and the kind words. Nortonius (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Geography: "These rocks are easily washed away by the sea" - a sentence shouldn't begin with "these", it needs to state the subject. Alternatively, run this para on to the previous one. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That's actually a bit I didn't write, for once! Happily changed, better now? Nortonius (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "From April 2001 to March 2002 the average gross weekly income of households in the electoral ward of Reculver... was estimated by the Office for National Statistics as £560, or £29,120 per year". Can the national average be supplied so the reader can ascribe some meaning to these figures?

I've added the average for the south-east of England excluding London: for some reason the ONS doesn't seem to have provided a national average for the period in question (2001–02), not that I've found yet anyway... I think these figures are available for the 2011 census, but as the article says the census area was different then from that for 2001 and comparable figures for Reculver, as opposed to the ward it's in, are unavailable. Or so I've found. It's possible to generate at least some comparable statistics on the ONS website, but not in a way that can be cited. I asked about this at WikiProject UK geography on 3 May, but I've had no response.[7] Nortonius (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I deleted a couple of passages that were repetitious of detail elsewhere in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me, very grateful for your further comments. Nortonius (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support hamiltonstone! Nortonius (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Initial comment after a first read-through: you have "tesselated" in two different quotations. The OED, Chambers and Collins are unanimous in admitting only "tessellated", and I wonder if the two "tesselateds" are typos. More soonest, though it may take me a little time to do justice to this substantial article. – Tim riley talk 09:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Spellings in both quotations are as per the sources; though you did help me spot a missing "l" in a piped wikilink! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

How strange! Too trivial for a (sic), so I move on to...

Support

A few minor comments, which pray ponder and accept or reject as you prefer:

• Prehistoric and Roman
  • "This was followed by a Roman "fortlet" dating to their conquest of Britain" – "their" meaning the Romans, and really it would be correct to use the noun rather than the pronoun here. On the other hand there would be three "Roman"s in one sentence. Perhaps something like, "This was followed by a "fortlet" built by the Romans during their conquest of Britain"?
    • Thanks for the suggestion, I've used your version. Nortonius (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Medieval
  • "the sea defences had proven counter-productive" – "proven" is good Scots or American, but "proved" is better English English, I'd say.
    • Interesting! I wonder why "proven" seems right to me, born in London and having lived there or to the south for all but three years spent in Yorkshire... I would happily change it if you'd really rather. Nortonius (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Not a bit! It's your prose, and à chacun son goût. Tim riley talk 14:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Decline and loss to the sea
  • "written by parish clerk John Brett" – an example of an anarthrous nominal premodifier, undesirable in formal BrEng.
    • Also interesting! To me it looks like nothing more than a way of producing a simpler sentence (fewer commas for one thing), I'm surprised to read the arguments heaped upon it in the article to which you link (I'm not saying they're wrong!); and "parish clerk" is a recognised term of long standing in parochial administration, rather than describing someone who does a bit of clerking. A grey area then, perhaps. Nortonius (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
      • It certainly isn't wrong, but personally I think it's a bit tabloidese. I don't press the point, though. Tim riley talk 14:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Thank you. Who knows, maybe I'll get an itch to re-write that sentence, stranger things have happened! Nortonius (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Governance
  • "they were won by the existing holders" – I'm sure you'll be keeping a paternal (making assumptions from your "–ius" username) eye on this article in years to come, and so my mentioning WP:DATED is just a formality, but I mention it nonetheless.
    • Your assumptions are correct – I've been keeping an eye on this article for years now. I thought it a useful piece of information; any change will see it gone, of course. Nortonius (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Economy
  • "The value to the reader of blue-linking of oysters and lobsters seems to me debatable, and surely linking coal is a link too far?
    • Fine, I've lost the link for coal! I was probably thinking of Curlews etc. when linking oysters and lobsters, and still think they can be useful links. About coal, I was probably on wikilink autopilot, maybe thinking about how rarely it is encountered in daily life now. Or something. Nortonius (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Transport
  • "In the 16th century, oysters dredged at Reculver were reported as better than any in Kent" – you've told us this before
    • Yes, I'm aware of some repetition in the article, you might spot more; somewhere along the line, interacting with other editors, I got the idea that some repetition is inevitable. I think you're right about this example though, and it's gone. Nortonius (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "home only to "fishermen and smugglers" – ditto
    • Ditto! Nortonius (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Religion
  • "by Gothic Revival architect Joseph Clarke" – another anarthrous nominal premodifier
    • Hmm, it's not that I don't see what you mean – I'll think on that one. Nortonius (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I've changed this example: I hope you think it's an improvement. Nortonius (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• General comments
  • WP:OVERLINK – "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." There are a few blue links in the article that transgress this rule: manorial, coastal erosion, Cinque Port, Sandwich, Margate, Ecgberht of Kent, Trinity House, navigational aid, groynes, Wantsum Channel, St Mary, All Saints, Shuart, Second World War, Eadberht II and Æthelberht I.
    • Yes, I've checked duplicate links and tried to be judicious in keeping them: given the length of the article, I've wanted to save readers from too much scrolling in search of a link.
      • Fair enough. We're plainly agreed that the main thing is to help the reader. Tim riley talk 14:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of places where the article seems to me to be too focused on the here and now – Education was the other one apart from Governance.
    • I see what you mean about Education. My track record seems to be that, if there were anything more historical to say about education at Reculver, I'd probably have written too much about it: I don't remember seeing anything. I'm not sure what you mean about Governance though; I was worried it focused too much on the history! If you'd care to clarify...? No problem if not, of course. Nortonius (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Only the point about WP:DATED, above. Otherwise we are clearly ad idem, as the lawyers say. Tim riley talk 14:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Ah, got you. Somehow I acquired an impression that this sort of detail is expected in a comprehensive WP article about a UK place. I don't find it too arduous to keep up with events, but you have got me wondering about how else this aspect of governance might be approached. Simply stating the ward and constituencies might be an obvious solution, but it feels lazy to me! If you think I'm just making a rod for my own back, on the other hand...?! Nortonius (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

None of these points seem to me serious enough to withhold my support for the promotion of this impressive article. The prose is admirable, the coverage full without being excessive, the treatment is neutral and the sourcing and citation are impeccable. A formidable piece of work. – Tim riley talk 12:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, those are very kind words indeed! Nortonius (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Support and a few more comments

The details about Reculver's location in the lead seem excessive, particularly as they are repeated below.

I've abbreviated them in the lead. Nortonius (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"After the Romans left Britain early in the 5th century, Reculver became a landed estate of the Anglo-Saxon kings of Kent." This implies it was soon afterwards. I would prefer something like "The Romans left Britain early in the 5th century, and by the 7th century Reculver had become a landed estate of the Anglo-Saxon kings of Kent."

Yes, I should have updated this after a recent clarification in the main text, thanks for pointing it out. I hope you think the new wording works. Nortonius (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

""extensive phased settlement" I think phased should either be explained or left out. Does it mean a settlement which came and went in phases?

I've taken "phased" out and removed quotation marks – I think the phasing is probably obvious, given that the Bronze and Iron Ages are mentioned in relation to the settlement. Nortonius (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The wording implies that the crying baby was based on infant burials, but if the tale is ancient and the burials were found by modern archaeologists, is the connection plausible? I would still prefer to leave the story out.

Preference noted! I feel I've made a case for keeping it, but it occurs to me that I really wouldn't be bothered if it were relegated to a footnote – I could do that if you'd really rather? Wouldn't the connection be more plausible if the tale predated discovery of the skeletons? In truth I have no idea of the chronological relationship, for all the fact-hunting I've done. Nortonius (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So in the evening the archaeologists went down to the pub and told the locals about their gruesome discoveries, and for a joke someone made up the story about the crying baby. It could have happened that way. I don't think the story should be in the article as you don't have a reliable source that it is a genuine ancient traditon. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand your position, and I very much appreciate your support for this FAC in spite of your dislike of this detail. Something like your pub scenario had occurred to me as a possibility too; but I don't think it makes any material difference. The scenario regarding the tales in the Doom Bar FA, to which I alluded previously, is much the same – shipwrecks occur followed by tales of wailing cries; and I have found a WP:RS for the existence of the Reculver tale. Equally, I think this tale is no less relevant than the legend that grew up around the "Twin Sisters" byname: whether we like it or not, it's out there now. On the other hand it occurs to me that I would probably have given up the crying baby by now, given your strong dislike of it; but a difficulty I have is that, while I previously indicated a willingness to lose the Reculver tale should that be the consensus here, as things stand the consensus (discounting myself, obviously) seems to be otherwise. As I say, I'm perfectly willing to relegate this detail to a footnote, where in fact I'm utterly convinced it would be valid...? Ultimately, of course, should this article be promoted, it'll include the tale or it won't. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"when the local hundred was named after Bleangate in a detached part of Chislet parish" This does not seem clear to me. Was the hundred re-named or had Reculver become part of a larger hundred?

I've tried to clarify this and hope you find it improved. Nortonius (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"won by the existing holders" I think existing councillors would be better.

Ok, done. Nortonius (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Geography. The first paragraph repeats what has been said above - I would cut it down either here or previously.

At GA time I gained an impression that this sort of repetition is unavoidable, but I agree and have deleted almost the whole of the first paragraph. Nortonius (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

" It rests unconformably on the Chalk Group" Unconformably could be linked to unconformity.

I could've sworn I looked for a suitable link there, thank you for that! Nortonius (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"There is no formal access to Reculver by sea," I am not sure what this means - is there informal access and if so what?

Informal access would be running a dinghy ashore or running aground in anything bigger! I've changed this to make it clearer, any good? Nortonius (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

A very good article. Reculver Country Park next? It really should have a decent article of its own. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That's very kind of you Dudley Miles! I'll be busy for a bit this afternoon but I'll get to your further comments asap. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It honestly hadn't occurred to me that the country park might have an article of its own – I think that's a good point! Though, I've been stalling for ages on an improvement to Regulbium, which sorely needs updating. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll think on it further... Nortonius (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Notes -- Hi Nortonius, am I right in gathering that this is your first FAC? If so, a belated welcome! A couple of things:

• You have several duplinks in the article. In an article of this size, some may be justified by the space between them but pls review and lose what's not necessary. This script will highlight the duplicates.

Hello, and thank you, yes it's my first time here. Duplinks were raised previously, and my response was that I'd tried to be judicious with them and reflect the length of the article. Thanks for the tip but I used that script then. I've had another look though, and a few more have gone: the remaining ones are for pretty obscure people and places, I think, and are quite far apart in the article, so I'd like to keep them if possible. Nortonius (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• We need a source review for formatting and reliability and, if this is your first FAC, a source spotcheck for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If any of the reviewers above would like to undertake one or both of those, pls respond here in the next day or so, otherwise I'll list requests at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reference checking of this one is a big task, though they look to be in very good shape. I'm just going to make start.

• A couple of footnotes refer to Sawyer in the following way: "Sawyer 1968, S 1264; "S 1264". The Electronic Sawyer. King's College London. 2014. Archived from the original on 21 April 2014. Retrieved 22 May 2014" Can I just confirm that the Sawyer 1968 and the linked 'electronic Sawyer' are different works? If these are actually two different ways of citing the same work, then i would suggest including just the Harvard style reference in the footnote, then link the Electronic Sawyer edition in the bibliographic reference. Though I suppose that means you lose the electronic reference to the specific page... hmm, not sure.

They are two different sources, one printed and one online: I suppose I'm trying to give the reader a choice of sources, but I'd lose the book over the website at a push...? The punctuation in the example you give is partly an artefact of the harvnb and cite web templates, which I think I've handled consistently. Nortonius (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Footnote 77 - is a cite to Access to Archives. Apart from being unsure about this citation (is A2A really the author?), this looks like it may be original research, in part since the source document itself is a primary historical source of unclear provenance (ie.. in itself I'm not sure it would meet WP:RS). My view is that this snippet, interesting though it is, probably can't stay unless you have a published source that cites it.

I'm not quite sure I follow you here, perhaps I need to clarify the citation, forgive me if this is a bit lengthy or is telling you stuff you already know: it's to a description of a primary source on the website of The National Archives (UK), the provenance being the archive of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury Cathedral. The text on the website is a précis, as are other items listed on the same web page; this is standard practice for The National Archives, and, while that text is headed "Contents" and includes the statement "[s]ignificant [historical] alterations to original text", you might compare reference 128, also citing an item on The National Archive's website, where only the briefest details are given of the actual document concerned.[8] Beyond that, there is zero chance that the text being cited is verbatim: if the 15th-century original is in English, this is a cleaned-up version for modern readers. (If you're not familiar with 15th-century English there's a brief example here.) On the other hand the original may well be in Latin, though this is not stated and an endorsement in that language is specified: the web page lists "charters", which in the 15th century would generally have been in Latin. So obviously I'm seeing The National Archive's website as the published source. If I've understood the source of your doubt correctly, is that really any different to citing a published edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for example? If that's wrong too then I've got a lot of work to do, and not just here! But this citation is only for an explanatory footnote, so the whole thing can be lost if you're certain. "A2A" is a hangover from when I wasn't sure how to handle the cite web template: I've fixed it now, I'll have a look to see if there are any more like that, thanks for spotting it. Nortonius (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I've now had a go at fixing ad hoc authors in cite web templates such as "Access to Archives", hopefully those that remain are acceptable. Nortonius (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, there's an issue for discussion here, that may require other editors to get involved, and I'll leave a note at the talk page for the FAC project. Current footnotes 77, 128, 129, 130, 136, 173, all make reference to notes in the National Archives database that summarise and/or translate historical documents. These are then used in this WP article as evidence for facts stated in the article. For example, footnote 77 is to the Archives' translation / transcription (we can't tell which) of a fifteenth century document. The WP article then quotes that document to illustrate a point made in the text about the history of the site. (In this case, the point made in the text does have a contemporary secondary source also cited, so loss of the 15th century source would not require removal of the text in the article). In the case of footnotes 128-130, an Archives summary is used to support this: "By 1540 Bleangate hundred no longer included land on Thanet, its members being listed then as Sturry, Chislet, Reculver and Herne...". My question is: do we regard the transcriptions and descriptive text of the National Archives site as being both a reliable source and a secondary source or, since they are simply transcriptions and descriptions of documents held in the archives, are they either unreliable sources and/or primary sources? My view is that they are primary sources and, if the historical documents they represent are things such as letters, also not reliable sources. In the case where the Archives site is a transcription or description of certain types of source document, such as a Manor Roll, then these would meet the criterion of being a reliable source (as they were authoritative legal reference works of their period) but would still fail for WP because of being primary sources. Other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I'd just like to clarify exactly what is being cited in the references kindly listed by hamiltonstone (for some items you may wish to cross-refer to the article's Bibliography):
  • 77: the origin of hamiltonstone's query. I've described this in some detail above, and I would only emphasise that, whether or not it involves translation (from Latin), it is clearly a précis with description rather than being a verbatim copy: in this respect I would suggest it is analogous to what we find in references to Sawyer, 1968, and to The Electronic Sawyer, which you may also wish to consider! Does this not also apply to the question of provenance, since many items listed in Sawyer, 1968, are notes, précis or even outright forgeries...?
  • 128: 2 items cited here, the first is a database entry describing a certified communal assessment for the tax of four 15ths and 10ths granted to Henry VIII in 1540 – a document of central government – which is germane to hamiltonstone's query; the second is a National Archives guide to researching this type of tax, and is a secondary source.
  • 129: 2 items, the first is another database entry as in reference 128, again for a document of central government; the second is information from the same document published in Lambarde, 1596, a secondary source.
  • 130: 3 items, the first two are secondary sources, i.e. Jones, 2007, a transcription and translation of the Kent Hundred Rolls 1274–75, published by the Hundred Rolls Project (or would that still be a primary source? You might compare references to Fenwick, 1998), and Hasted, 1800; the third is another database entry as in reference 128, again for a document of central government.
  • 136: 2 items, both secondary sources(?), i.e. Jones, 2007, again and a National Archives description of the Hearth Tax.
  • 137: 1 item, another database entry as in 128.
  • 138: 1 item, another database entry as in 128.
  • 173: 3 items, the first and third are secondary sources, being Bagshaw, 1847, and Clarke, 2010; the second is another database entry as in reference 128, again for a document of central government. Nortonius (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts from me... I've concerns about using some of the primary sources in this way, as the article text implies that they are authoritative and accurate, which is, in itself, an historical judgement. Were this an historical dissertation at a university, I'd be encouraging their use but the rules on primary sources on the Wiki are reasonably tight, and with good reason. I'm content, btw, that we can trust the National Archive for the translation though. I am on the more cautious wing of the wiki when it comes to primary sources and OR though, so I won't be offended if you disagree with me! :)

In detail:

• 77: This seems to be only supporting the quote in Footnote 15, rather than any broader statement. As such, it doesn't feel like OR, although I'd be nervous about using it as evidence that the river actually had silted up as described, which would require interpretation of the primary source (as a draft bill, it is arguing a specific case, and like any plaintive motion, may well be biased or exaggerated). I'd suggest that we should call it a "draft bill" though, rather than a "note", as per the National Archive description.

Thank you, I've changed the text as you suggest for now Actually I think "note" is better, since all it does is describe the provisions of a bill which has already become an Act of Parliament...? Nortonius (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The title of the document is given by the National Archive as "Bill (draft)", and its desscribed "Endorsed 'Billa de Thaneto' ", so I'm pretty sure it's a draft bill rather than just a note. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's what I was missing, thank you! I see what you mean; but the only reference to a bill is in the (medieval) archivist's endorsement "Billa de Thaneto" ("endorsement" here means simply "something written on the back"), whereas in the text itself only an Act of Parliament is mentioned, in line 4. And R.E. Latham's (1965) Revised Medieval Latin Word-List translates billa as "bill" or "schedule", so it's ambiguous, too (remember e.g. "bill of sale", "playbill", i.e. "statement" or "notice"). It would be shame to lose this through sloppy archiving! In the meantime I've changed the wording to clarify the nature of the document. Nortonius (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• 128: I'm cautious about the interpretation of the tax listing. It is described as an "assessment of the lathes of Scray and St. Augustine for the first of the four fifteenths and tenths granted in 1540. Undated and with no return date endorsed, but presumably drawn up before payment was due in February 1541", and I think that assuming that this is a final version of the assessment (and that subsequent versions weren't produced, which might have included Thanet, for example) is an historical judgement than might push this into OR territory.

Assessments submitted to the Exchequer were final – the commissioners collected tax according to the assessment. I can assure you (ahem, first-hand, personal, OR-style knowledge alert!) that the description you quote is merely to assist research, rather than qualifying the document's validity. On this point, I believe I have a copy somewhere of M Jurkowski, C Smith and D Crook, Lay Taxes in England and Wales, 1188-1688 (Public Record Office, 1998), which was written in connection with the creation of the E 179 Database, there might be something helpful in that to cover it; or you might look through all the similar records on the E 179 Database to see what I'm getting at. ;o) See also my comment here for 137. Nortonius (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that underlines my concern - we're having to apply our own professional/private knowledge as historians to assess the reliability of the document, rather than relying on expert secondary sources' judgement about the tax assessments. That's not suggesting your judgement is necessarily wrong... rather that I don't believe we shouldn't be using primary sources in this way on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've commented on this below. Nortonius (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• 129: Again, I'd apply some caution, since we don't know if this was a final version or not. It's used to support the claim that "All the members of Bleangate hundred were assessed..." which again implies a judgement and interpretation of whether this was a final or interim assessment.

See my comments here for 128 and 137; in this reference Lambarde gives the same information, so the citation of the E 179 database is simply to give the reader an alternative source, and can be lost if that's the consensus. Nortonius (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• 130: Similarly, we're treating the primary source as authoritative, which feels like an interpretative judgement.

See my comments here for 128 and 137; obviously, if it is accepted that the source is authoritative, then the statement it supports is no more OR than reading a map. Nortonius (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• 136. Seems to be a secondary source, no problem that I can see.

So you accept Jones, 2007, as a secondary source...? Nortonius (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The first page of text is a secondary source, if I'm remembering right, then you've got some primary statistics making up the second half? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You're remembering the right thing! But there's an introduction just over a page long, followed by an alphabetical index, and then a transcription and translation of the Kent Hundred Rolls for 1274–75, which is the bulk of it. That's why I asked – it wasn't a trick question, I was just wondering what you thought about me using it. See also my response below. Nortonius (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• 137. Again, I'd be cautious. The covering description notes that it "is unusual for a hearth tax assessment, since it is not only clearly dated (rather than simply annotated with the collection for which it was drawn up), but was prepared well in advance of the payment date", and - particularly given its unusual status - I think it requires interpretation to conclude that this was an authoritative final document, implied in the way it is used in the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

See my comment for 128; this document is in fact a very good example of what I mean by assessments being final and used in collection of tax, i.e. it is "annotated with the collection for which it was drawn up", which the word "simply" indicates was not unusual. Commissioners would submit their assessments to the Exchequer as indentures, and use their own copies for tax collections. All comments gratefully received; I may be questioning and testing, but I just want everything weighed in the scales! Thanks very much. Nortonius (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Silly me – of course, the nature of all but the first of these documents is explained here (for all 15ths & 10ths) and here (for the Hearth Tax). I hope that clarifies the documents' reliability, though obviously it doesn't touch on the question of whether their representation on the National Archives website should be seen as a primary or secondary source. Nortonius (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• The rest of the notes look good. I haven't looked at the bibliography at all.hamiltonstone (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

...and thank you, by the way – I should've said that earlier, sorry I've been a bit distracted. Nortonius (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Statement by Nortonius regarding the reliability of the sources discussed above, and whether they are primary or secondary:

While I'm very grateful for the attention – this kind of discussion is meat to my drink, and obviously I would like this article to become a FA – I'm finding the FAC process far slower than I'd hoped, though I had seen that FACs can take a couple of months or so. Also, I think things are looking really good apart from the issues raised in the source review. I'd like to make a couple of points about that, with which of course you may agree or disagree, and then make a suggestion. Really, I'm writing this in the hope that it might move things along a bit.

Firstly, I do believe the question of the reliability of these documents is a bit of a red herring, although obviously it was raised and has been discussed in good faith. While I've already explained my view of the 15th-century document in reference 77, concerned with the bridge at Sarre, at some length above, I've also offered links giving background information on the nature of all the other documents – again, they are here and here. Then, I've stated my view that the sources I've used are secondary: i.e. that they all involve a description of a document, on the website of The National Archives. Regarding the first document, again I've already gone into that in some detail, but I'd like to expand a little on the documents in the E 179 Database. The background, function and aim of the database are explained on its "About" page:

The E 179 database has been developed since 1995 by the University of Cambridge (Department of Geography and Faculty of History) and the National Archives, with more recent input from the University of Wales: Bangor (Department of History and Welsh History) and the University of York. ... Each piece or item within the E 179 series has a database record which not only gives a description of the physical appearance of the document, but also explains the administrative purpose for which the document was created, the date on which it was produced, the tax or taxes to which it relates and a list of the place-name headings contained within it. ... The database provides a major step forward in searching and using this important and diverse series of records, for historians and genealogists alike.

— The National Archives, E 179 Database[9]

So the database's credentials are surely impeccable, and it "explains" documents, as well as describing and listing them. To me, that's a secondary source. Of course, you can agree or disagree.

If the consensus is that these are in fact primary sources, then we come to my suggestion. I've looked at the references highlighted here, and found that in fact it would be very easy for me to make only slight changes in the article itself and substitute published books for all but one of the sources in doubt. That's it. You might then ask, if it's so easy to fix, why am I holding out? The answer is that I think this is an important point of principle both for me personally and for WP: while I think these sources are secondary, they – and particularly the E 179 Database – were made available precisely for the use of the public, by the Public Record Office, something that I think is sadly obscured by its sexy re-naming as "The National Archives". So this availability is for you, me, and why not WP? This is potentially a huge resource for articles dealing with English and Welsh places and their history, and I think it would be a great shame for WP to lose it.

Lastly, I trust that my suggested alternative approach demonstrates that I'm arguing in good faith, and am neither clutching at straws nor indulging in special pleading. Thanks for reading. Nortonius (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm very indeed happy to accept that you're arguing in good faith - and IMHO you've a perfectly valid argument! :) I'd agree that the distinction between an original primary text and a precis of a primary text is a subtle one, and my historical theory isn't good enough for me to be truly lucid on this... I guess I would still see a precis of a primary text as being different from the sort of secondary source I'd want to see used in a wiki article. Rather like the distinction between a primary source, a translation of that source, and a scholarly analysis of it, I suppose - the latter isn't exactly a secondary source, even if a historian was involved in the translation.

What the National Archives is not saying, though, as far as I can tell, is that these documents have been assessed by a professional historian as necessarily accurate or truthful, or that they support a particular historical claim; they are simply being put forward as historical source material - with a helpful contextual description/precis - for historians (of all backgrounds!) to use in their work.

If we are simply stating that a particular document exists, and that it says something (as in the way you've used the draft bill/note), I think we'd be on the right side of the WP:PRIMARY line, provided there isn't reason to suspect that we're inadvertently misleading the reader in our choice of quote or document, and there was some secondary sources on the topic. But where we make the analytical leap from that to saying that something was true/ accurate/ actually happened (as we do when we state that a particular tax assessment occurred, or that a particular location was ultimately included/not included), I personally think we're going over that WP:PRIMARY line. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the response! :o) Actually, would it help if I pointed out (as perhaps I should have done before) that the E 179 Database is itself the published result of a research project undertaken by historians...? So it is precisely the case that "that these documents have been assessed by a professional historian as necessarily accurate or truthful, [and] that they support a particular historical claim". You can check this out via the reports linked on the Economic and Social Research Council's website here. Just a thought, I know you might still not be convinced! As regards using these sources for historical analysis, I'm quite sure I've not done this, instead just stating what's there, comparable I'd have thought to reading a map? I've just checked this in the article to be certain. It might be why it genuinely didn't occur to me that these sources would be problematical...! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through a couple of the .pdfs on the web link, and I'm not seeing where the accuracy or truthfulness of the content of the documents is being assessed by the project, or their support for particular historical claims is covered - it seems to be about how they are recording the physical description of each of the documents (e.g. are they a parchment roll etc.), the likely dates of their creation etc. - but I may not be looking in the right place. Is there a specific page which covers it? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

An example of what I have in mind is this: "The project [that produced the E 179 Database] has achieved its aim in carrying out a comprehensive and detailed examination and re-appraisal of the records for the six counties in respect of which [this particular research] grant was awarded. New descriptions of the documents, based on a rigorous evaluation of the records themselves and their context have been produced" (from the downloadable .pdf on this page, listed in the link I gave earlier – sorry, I didn't mean to make it hard!). I don't think we'll find it stated any more clearly than that, to be honest, maybe because the documents are what they are – certified, signed and (wax) sealed records of medieval and early modern central government taxation, for which "[n]ew descriptions ... based on a rigorous evaluation of the records themselves and their context have been produced." I'm not sure anyone at the Public Record Office/The National Archives would've thought their validity would be questioned in this way, if they had they might've made a more explicit statement. They didn't, darn it, so maybe I'll have to leave it there. But can we really get any more reliable than that? Nortonius (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite the same as saying that the content of the records is accurate or true though. To take the example of the "(draft) bill" talking about the river silting up, it is one thing for the National Archives to say that it appears to be within a particular date range, is a particular type of paper etc., and contains particular text - they're saying it is an authentic item, not a modern forgery. That's not the same, however, as saying that the content is correct (e.g. did the river really silt up then, or had it happened earlier? did the writer know what they were talking about?) or is even truthful (e.g. was the writer exaggerating to make their case?) Similarly, confirmation that a note was a genuine part of a tax archive, and that it was produced within a particular date range, doesn't equate to it being the final version of an assessment. Those are historical judgements, rather than the facts being put forward by the Archives. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Do I detect some confusion here, or is it just me...? The note about silting is nothing to do with the tax records, there just happens to be a description of it online at The National Archives – as far as that goes, the note and the tax records are separate issues. About the note, I've said that it'd be a shame to lose it through sloppy archiving, and ultimately I don't have a problem with it; but obviously that's an issue. Quite why the note is at The National Archives, when it's from the Canterbury Cathedral archive, which has its own online presence, I've really no idea! Whereas the tax records aren't notes, they're official records, like the modern census, for example; and I've tried to indicate why the database is a secondary source, as per the quotation from the .pdf. :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Are there any secondary sources which explicitly say that these particular documents are accurate, final records of the tax assessments? The individual records on the Archives don't say so, and it doesn't seem to be a statement that's in the covering research document. The two of us may happen to think so, but that's because we're applying our interpretative skills etc., which I personally think goes beyond the WP:PRIMARY guidelines. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is – I'll clamber into my hot, dusty loft to have a look – I was hoping to avoid that, more than you might guess...! It's not that I don't see what you're saying; but the government and Exchequer at the time accepted that they were accurate, final records of the tax assessments because that's how they collected the taxes. I'll see what I can find – after a fortifying cup of tea! Nortonius (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, here's some reading for you, from Jurkowski, M., Smith, C. & Crook, D. (1998), Lay Taxes in England and Wales 1188–1688, Public Record Office, ISBN 1-873162-64-2. I'm not sure that there's anything here that I haven't already said, apart from a specific reference to the Cinque Ports, which will have applied to Reculver until about the end of the 15th century. Some of what I'm including here is for context, but on the whole I take it as definitive for all the sources in question apart from the note about silting, and it's from a published source. Whether you find it of any use remains to be seen! :o)

About the E 179 Database: The aim of [the 'E 179 Database' is] to provide the first reliable and detailed guide to the surviving records of central government taxation in England and Wales [between the late 12th and the late 17th centuries]. ... The information to be found in these taxation records ranges from extraordinarily detailed lists of taxpayers ... to the briefest records of minor receipts at the Exchequer. (p. v)

About 15ths and 10ths: [There are] large county assessments [surviving for taxes levied between 1294 and 1297] ... They list the names of the taxpayers in each town, village or hamlet and the sums that they paid ... From 1294 an innovation appeared, whereby those living in urban areas and ancient demesne paid at a higher rate than those in rural communities ... Experimentation with the levels [of taxation] continued, but the differentiation was to remain a standard feature of fractional taxes until the levy of the last such [tax. After] 1332 the rates [for fractional taxes] settled permanently at a level of a fifteenth on rural areas and a tenth on towns and ancient demesne ... New arrangements for a 15th and 10th granted in 1334 meant that "[a]ll that was necessary ... was to copy from the 1332 rolls lists of the townships in each county and the sums that they had paid, issue these to the chief-taxers, and wait until the money was delivered to the Exchequer. Each subsequent roll of particule compoti [i.e. "particulars of account", the documents that I have previously described as "communal assessments" and am citing from the E 179 Database in connection with 15ths and 10ths] was thereafter copied from one of the preceding ones, and if one were mislaid another would serve equally well ... In [1433 a rebate] was deducted on a pro-rata basis from the amounts due to the counties for a fifteenth and tenth, and redistributed to townships afflicted by natural disaster or economic decline. ... By about 1486 the rebates given to each township had become fixed, and this standardization came to be reflected in the particulars of account; these included the standard deductions as a matter of course and were again simply copied from roll to roll until the last levy of fifteenths and tenths in 1625 ... [M]ost [particulars of account for 15ths and 10ths] are merely word-for-word copies of their predecessors ... There are, however, some exceptions. The large numbers of individuals in Kent and Sussex who claimed exemption as 'barons' of the Cinque Ports are listed in the assessment rolls for those counties ... (pp. xxix, xxxi, xxxiv)

About the Hearth Tax: Historians may now view the hearth tax as far more trouble than it was worth, but its levy has left copious records (assessments, collection books, accounts, exemption certificates and schedules of arrears) in [the Public Record Office/The National Archives series] E 179. (p. lxiii)

[The hearth tax applied to] each 'dwelling, or other house or edifice', in England and Wales ... Empty houses were to be assessed by ... constables, who were also required to enter all inhabited houses in order to verify the returns made by the occupants. [For the first collection t]he constables were to send in their returns to the next quarter sessions [of the local justices of the peace] following 31 May 1662. The justices of the peace were then to instruct the clerk of the peace to compile these returns and make two enrolled copies of the assessment of the whole county. One of these enrolments was for the use of the sheriff, who was charged with receiving the tax, and the other was to be signed by three justices and returned to the Exchequer for use in auditing the sheriff's account. (p. 262)

— Jurkowski, Smith & Crook, Lay Taxes in England and Wales 1188–1688

Those are my bolded headings, by the way. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC) p.s. I just noticed you're fielding your own GAN at the moment, thanks ever so for the time you've put into this too!

I'm not sure of where to put this on the FA review, so I'll put it here. Upthread, there is some discussion on whether Access to Archive is a suitable source. The National Archives is where all public documentation gets dumped in the hope that someone can make head or tail of it. For researching war plans hatched from the Home Office, it is a brilliant source as you're finding out exactly who said what where and when. It's unquestionably a reliable source as, notwithstanding some high profile news cases, the information has a high expectation of being genuine transcriptions. Not all of it's a primary source, as you can get some discussions where civil servants are summarising policy documents drawn from elsewhere, but generally the facts you can cull from it can usually be trusted to be correct. Having said all of that, quite often you can get a good history book from someone who's gone through TNA and pulled out all the bits that are actually important or interesting (particularly if the original document pre-date the 19th century) - though you generally won't know that until you find the book in question and find a citation squirrelled away in the references section at the back. An afternoon at the archives is great for researchers and writers, as you don't physically have to move much, you just need to have a good idea of what files you're looking for and how much time you think it'll take to find them. However, to summarise I'm with Hchc2009 that if a fact in a TNA file is of real encyclopaedic importance, somebody will have already published it, so in general terms you should give it a miss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, very pleased to get a response, and you put it in just the right place! :o) I must admit, I wish there were more printed sources for this kind of information for this article, but Reculver being as obscure as it is there generally aren't. Maybe see what you think of my response to Hchc2009 immediately above...? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I have to tip my hat to you for attempting to get this through FAC, as I think accurately documenting anything through the middle ages that isn't upper class or royal is a hard task. I'll tell you what I do have that may help validate your claims - a copy of Mike Parker's Mapping The Roads, ([10]) which includes a copy of the Gough Map of Britain, produced around 1360 and currently residing in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. It clearly shows the Isle of Thanet as an island, and a bridge north of Canterbury at what could only realistically be Sarre. Parker's book suggest that while some parts (especially Scotland) are hopelessly wrong, the major exception is London and the south east, which he claims is startlingly accurate for the 14th century. Don't know if that helps, but it fits in with your timeframe. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie333, that's super kind of you. I'd not thought of the Gough map. The bridge you're seeing (or rather, the only bridge I'm seeing, in Kent) is actually at Rochester – search the map for that place here – but the map is a great source for the fact that Thanet was still very much an island in about 1360! I'll work that into the article somehow, I'm sure. Cheers and thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha, didn't know the map was online. From the hi-res copy it's easy to see I confused Thanet with Sheppey. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nor did I, until you mentioned it! :o) It's not the easiest map to decipher, but it's great to have it and I've just introduced it into a footnote, Cheers! Nortonius (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, as you can imagine, it was a little hard to follow everything that ensued above, once i asked a question about whether certain Archive sources were reliable and/or primary sources. The discussion I think has certainly demonstrated the nominator's credentials as a person experienced in working with these materials, which is helpful. I am pursuaded by the nom's evidence above, in respect of many of the notes i questioned, that the Archives descriptions are one step removed from the materials themselves, as well as establishing the reliability of those sources, and as such address my concerns. I remain unconvinced about the text involved at note 77. Whether one calls it a precis or a summary or a translation, it is very clear that it is representing the original text, not a historian's analysis of it. Maybe I was misunderstood: i am not questioning whether the text at A2A reliably represents the content of the original document - rather, i am questioning the use of the underlying original source as reliable. If it was not a reliable source in the first place, then its accurate sumamrisation by a reliable source/organisation doesn't help it to become reliable. However, since the relevant fact is also supported by a valid secondary source, it doesn't matter in terms of FAC.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much hamiltonstone, that's very re-assuring, as you were the OP on this question! :o) Cheers for now. Nortonius (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It occurs to me to wonder, everybody, if the appearance of the word "assessment" has played any part in this discussion – as I hope the quotations above from Jurkowski et al. make clear, the type of assessment in question isn't an "estimation that things are a bit like this", it's a technical term for part of the tax-collecting process, as per (in the UK) "self-assessment". Maybe it was that obvious all along, and with the benefit of hindsight I can see that the discussion has almost certainly been necessary. But I thought I'd mention it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up -- There's been a good deal of discussion since my note about a source review and spotcheck and I appreciate everyone's efforts, though ideally this level of discussion should occur before, not during the FAC process. Since there now seems to have been a pause for breath, can I just ask Hamiltonstone, Ritchie333 and Hchc2009 to confirm or deny that there are remaining concerns about the source usage/reliability or any spotchecks completed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. The source checking for this was very labour intensive - i didn't get past checking the footnote formatting and RS checking. I've been through a random sample of the bibliography and all the ones I checked matched to the footnotes and appeared appropriately laid out. I am now satisfied regarding source usage etc. In my view the one remaining requirement is a spot check of some sources other than the archive ones that have already been discussed. I can't do that right now. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

With apologies for the slight delay... I'm still not convinced that the article is using the primary archive material in accordance with WP:PRIMARY, and - in my opinion - is stepping over the line in terms of interpreting and evaluating the sources. There are secondary sources cited in this discussion that discuss this class of primary source material in general terms, but they do not discuss not the specific primary sources actually being used.

As an example, Footnote 29, makes a firm statement about how much the Bleangate hundred was assessed for tax at, apparently based on an undated Latin parchment roll, E179/126/415, in the National Archives. None of the secondary sources above appear to have assessed the accuracy of the contents of this specific parchment, not is any assessment given on the National Archive's page. Indeed, the National Archive's guide to researching the E179 documentary series makes no statements that all the documents were final or that their contents were accurate (although I'd certainly expect that many or most would be).

The evaluation that the content of this particular parchment is an accurate reflection of the final tax assessment for Bleangate - as opposed to it being an interim piece of administrative working-out, for example - is a personal/professional judgement, definitely drawing on specialised knowledge, and is an example of something which I still think steps over the boundary in terms of the WP:PRIMARY guidance.

My personal recommendation, particularly at the FA level, would be to remove many of these the primary sources and to rely purely on reliable, high-quality secondary sources. Alternatively, the statements could be written so as to stay within the WP:PRIMARY guidelines. I'd be relatively happy to see a statement along the lines of "A parchment roll, believed by the National Archives to have probably been written between 1571 and 1572, describes all the members of the Bleangate hundred as being assessed for tax at 1d." That would avoid us making an evaluative claims about the document, and simply describing the contents of the primary source, in line with the guideline that we should only be making "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Hchc2009 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I'm rather baffled by this. The particular example you've chosen is just one of dozens and dozens of communal assessments for a 15th and 10th, which, as Jurkowski et al. note, were simply copied on from roll to roll, except between 1433 and about 1486. The document in question here is from 1571. How can it not be a final assessment? It's not an "interim piece of administrative working-out", or else the E 179 Database would say so – it might call it an "auditor's reckoning", for example – instead, it calls it a "communal assessment". I selected this document in particular because it happens to be available in print, via the reference to Lambarde (1596). Choose any other and it would be the same. I honestly don't see the cause for doubt. There are exceptions in Kent where "barons" of the Cinque Ports are listed, but I haven't touched on them in the article at all. Regarding the Hearth Tax rolls, Jurkowski et al. are quite explicit in the quotations I gave above about the nature of all the assessments, in describing how they were arrived at and how they were submitted to the Exchequer bearing the signatures of three justices of the peace. Where's the analysis? To me, these are precisely ""straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". I think that's a wonderful description of what they are. On the other hand I'm grateful for your suggestion for how wording in the article might be subtly altered; but I can barely see the difference, it seems vanishingly small. I think I'll leave this for a bit, if only to give it some thought; but I really do feel baffled by this. Cheers for now. Nortonius (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to say I've asked Ritchie333 for a view of how things stand, as Ian Rose did previously, but it may take a while or not materialise at all because of other commitments. I hope we can all wait a bit longer. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at this specific area re the Wantsum Channel that I suggested using the Gough Map for. I'm happy with the choice of sources used now. However, the article's text says "But silting and inning had closed the channel to trading vessels by about 1460", while the source (Perkins 2007 p. 254) says "although implying some sort of traffic was possible until about the year 1460". That's subtly different, the source isn't saying that the channel was definitely closed by that timetrame, merely suggesting it probably was. That wants rewording. The 1485 date for the bridge looks okay, as its cited to an Act of Parliament. The text in the footnote looks properly cited now. Basically, we don't have exact dates for when the Wantsum dried up and changed from the wide estuary to the creek we know today - it was probably a gradual process. I haven't looked through the rest of the article but (touch wood) I'll get some time this week to do some more spot checks. Hope that's of help. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful, very much appreciated, and well spotted! I'll get onto it asap but having an unexpectedly busy day myself today! Cheers Nortonius (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading the relevant sentence in Perkins, "After [1374–75] most references to the Wantsum relate to its deterioration, although implying some sort of traffic was possible until about the year 1460", I understand it as saying in other words that "although the channel deteriorated after 1375, traffic might have continued until about 1460, but no later", so no change needed...? Or am I missing something? Thanks again! Nortonius (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

For me, if you say "until about the year 1460" that implies that there could have be fording in 1461 or 1462. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't argue with that – although in that part of the sentence I'm referring to vessels sailing along the channel, and this is the main interest of the source – how about I clarify that by changing the wording to I've changed the wording to "But silting and inning had closed the channel to trading vessels sailing along it by about 1460 or soon after, ..." in hope of clarifying that, any better? By saying that maritime traffic is implied as "possible" until about 1460, I understand Jenkins as saying it was "impossible" after about 1460... Thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing note - This has been a tricky one. I have decided that the best course of action is to archive this nomination in the hope that a renomination well give rise to a clearer consensus. I thank the nominator and the reviewers for there contributions to these discussions and urge the former to use the required two week gap before renominating to resolve the contentious issues. (Also, the prose would benefit from a little polishing; particularly the use of "being" instead of a simple past tense.) Graham Colm (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.