Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John/Eleanor Rykener/archive2

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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2018 [1].

---

John/Eleanor Rykener

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 09:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Of John "also known as Eleanor" Rykener almost nothing is known; yet, in some ways, they are a relevant, if not modern, figure. Arrested by the City Watch for doing some curious business (in their eyes) with another man in a London backstreet on a Sunday evening in Winter 1394, Rykener's case is an important source for modern-day historians and sociologists studying late the medieval English understanding of, and approach to, sex and gender. I think they would be a worthy—if somewhat niche!—addition to the FA stable, and to that end I am very grateful for the support it has already received. Big shouts, particularly, must go out to the one like Usernameunique, for an extremely thorough GA review, and also to those stalwarts at Peer Review: picking up Brianboulton, Ceoil, J Milburn, Tim riley, et SchroCat. Looking forward also to hearing from others: all input and suggestions welcome. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 09:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this article's previous doomed candidacy, having been advised that it was ready to go, it subsequently turned out that about as ready as Æthelred. Still, that was then, this is now, and I think my closing remark then is still relevant also: 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. ——SerialNumber54129 09:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Usernameunique

Support: I had my say at GA, and this article has only gotten better since then. It's well researched, well written, and comprehensive. The article was already in good shape when nominated the first time. It's failure, I think, was due primarily to minor errors (e.g., typos, and commas that should have been periods) that jumped out at a reader, but that were cosmetic rather than substantive. These are happily corrected this time around, meaning there is nothing to detract from the core of the article, which remains extremely strong. Can't wait to see this with a gold star and at TFA. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Usernameunique and also for your excellent GA review! ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure, Serial Number 54129. Minor note: footnotes 31 and 37 don't work, and did you intend for footnotes 20 and 65 to be without page numbers? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Yes, I was seeing who's awake Excellent, many thanks for catching those!  :) I've attended to them, a series of typoos and skintags from that earlier reorg under Iridescent I think. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 19:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cursory look from JC

• I was surprised that the article title has not been the topic of any significant discussion in the past. It seems to me that "John Rykener" is the WP:COMMONNAME by all measures, including incoming searches, usage in scholarly sources, and Google hits, which produce about twice as many results for "John Rykener" as "Eleanor Rykener." The naming criteria, specially as they relate to conciseness, dictate that a title should be no longer or more convoluted than is absolutely necessary to clearly distinguish the subject, so do you think we really need both names in the title? I'll note that the slash is quite indistinct to my eyes on the Monobook skin, and nearly disappears unless I focus with somewhat unreasonable effort.

Just to say, I have no actual preference: this seemed a valid compromise. I believe it was discussed (at some point!) on the talk page.

• Though historians have tentatively linked Rykener to a prisoner - "tentatively" connotes that confirmation is forthcoming, which seems unlikely given how long it's been since this all transpired. Do you anticipate that historians will have a more conclusive answer in the future?

Well; I wouldn't really bet against it—it's only been around 20 years, so plenty of time for more stuff to be (re-)found (as this was!). But happy to discuss, as it's not fundamental to either the sentence or the point, I know.

• Rykener told his interrogators that he was introduced to sexual contact with men by Elizabeth Brouderer - this uses a lot of words to say relatively little. There must be a way to state Brouderer's role more clearly and concisely. Was she really the first to break the news to Rykener that sex with a man was possible? Did she arrange his first such encounters?

I'll look at tweaking the wording. As to your specific questions, the first of course can't be known, but, yes, according to his later statement, she did—in her house.

• "Slept with" seems at odds with the MoS's attitude toward euphemisms, but it isn't an issue I've had to contend with, so I'm not sure whether it's customary in biographies.

That's an absolutely fair point: I'm not particularly keen on it myself, but of course one both wants to avoid repetition and unnecessary mentions of anal sex. Or even sex in general; after all (one of the scholars points out later), we don't know what the encounters meant to Rykener, so I suppose we needn't limit ourselves to considering it solely sexual behaviour. Thoughts? Basically, if I could've thought of a better wording, I would have used it!

• where he both prostituted himself and worked as an embroideress - no need for "both."
• Three consecutive sentences use the same construction "...<city>, where he..." – it becomes jarring.
  • How about "Rykener spent some time in summer 1394 in Oxford, continuing to prostitute himself and working as an embroideress; he also stayed in Beaconsfield for a while. He later told how he had had a sexual relationship with a woman there. Rykener returned to London via Burford, where he worked as a barmaid

"—completely rejigged the structure.

• He was also in Beaconsfield for a while, where he said he had a sexual relationship with a woman. - dangling modifier. Also, was it in Beaconsfield where he had the relationship or where he said he had it?

Ah!—see above

• However, no charges were ever brought against him. - this is somewhat more definitive than the "no evidence" statement in the opening paragraph. Which is more precise?

Ah, point. The latter is too strong. I've adjusted it to "However, it appears that no charges were ever brought against him; or at least, no records have been found suggesting so", which is more accurate.

• because of what it tells us about medieval preconceptions of sex and gender issues. - avoid breaking the fourth wall.

I always think of Billy Ray Valentine! How about, "Historians of social, sexual and gender history...tells them"?

• Numerous positions have been taken on Rykener. - Double entendre aside, you could probably eliminate that segue and simply delve into the contrasting views. At the very least, it's an example (one of several I've noticed) of uncomfortable passive voice.

Ah, the Iri-tps!  :) It's an accidental DE, to be sure; but I've got rid of it. Although, how about adding something to the previous sentence, so it reads along the lines of "...preconceptions of sex and gender issues, and have identified various themes in the case"?

• In its portrayal of medieval sexuality, one historian, J. A. Schultz - surely "his" instead of "its"? You could also tighten this slightly by simply saying "historian J. A. Shultz", and then removing "Another," from the following sentence.

Ah, right: "its" was referring to the case itself, rather than to the man himself? But have tightened Schulz and lost the another.

• viewed the affair as of - this is one of the rare cases where I'd advocate for adding a word ("as being of").

Done

• sees it as illustrating the difficulties the law has in addressing things it cannot describe. - this is really nebulous and somewhat tangential, especially for the lead. "Addressing," "things," "describe" are all imprecise, almost meaningless word choices.

I'm certainly happy to reword if you can suggest a means to strengthen it; the problem is, I think, that the entire case is vague, and almost nothing is known. Even that which is believed to be known is mostly extrapolated!

My impression from the lead is that the prose flows poorly and suffers from ambiguity. That said, I've always found the lead to be the most difficult section to write, so it may not be representative of the article's substantial and apparently well-researched body. I'll take a closer look as time allows. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Just so. Thanks very much for your review, Juliancolton, it's certainly provided food for thought, and I expect I'll be able to address most of the points you raise (on top of those already dealt with here). Hope all's well—cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 17:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. Fascinating article on a fascinating subject. I made a few edits to tidy up a little, mostly around formatting. The important ones of these are:

• You may want to see if you can find a replacement link for "Corpus Christi plays", which was linked to Corpus Christi (play), a 1998 work that depicts Jesus and the Apostles as gay men living in modern-day Texas;
• I've taken out the curly quotes around the boxed quotes: these should only ever be used for pull-quotes, and you'll face nothing but grief from the MoS people for having them as such. You may face some future opposition from them anyway for having five such boxed quotes in there (trust me, I've been there and still bear the scars), so you should look at each of the five boxed quotes and see whether it needs to be outside the run of text, or whether it can be smoothly incorporated as a quote or blockquote instead. If you think it's better as a box, keep it as such, but make sure you have good reasons for doing so;
• I've also de-italicised the source names on the boxed quotes. We don't tend to italicise names, except under certain conditions, and using any pre-formatted template should mean that you should be able to use it without additional formatting.

That's it - very minor formatting aside, this is another very interesting piece. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your tweaks, SchroCat, and for your notes at PR! ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Carabinieri

I've only skimmed the article, but I have one question. The article consistently uses male pronouns to refer to Rykener. However, it also uses female versions of gender-specific nouns such as barmaid or embroideress. Isn't that a little confusing or is there something I'm missing?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Cheers, Carabinieri! ——SerialNumber54129 17:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• What I mean is that those should probably be changed to embroiderer and bartender. Don't you think?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, apologies, Carabinieri, I thought you were making a passing comment. It's a good point, though, and it did cross my mind while writing it; the reason I stuck with it was primarily that the sources gender the work themselves. Now, this is only my interpretation, of course, but I suspect they do so in order to emphasise that—in their assessment—Rykener was not just "doing X job dressed as a woman", but "living as a woman while doing a woman's work"; the footnote, I think, points out that both jobs were predominantly women's' jobs (if that's the way to put it). Do you see what I mean? ——SerialNumber54129 08:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead: 1a

• "all that is known about his life comes from his interrogation by the Mayor and aldermen of London"—consider "all that is known of his life", but either way is OK. "Mayor" would be more comfortable as "mayor", especially in the vicinity of "aldermen". Smirk: those men are among the first you'd suspect of buying sex from Rykener ... they'd certainly have the cash. The irony.

Indeed! And verging on tragic that no RS makes the connection. I've pre-emptively gone through the article changing Mayor to mayor, except in cases where it's prefixed by Lord; and as for Mayoral; tsk.

• The scan is horribly small and indecipherable. Did you experiment with a larger size?

Point. So I have, for examples, doubled it in size, and also just by 50%. I think the first is rather massive; the 50% increase is better, no?

• "thus" could be ditched—the causality is obvious.

Lost.

• "He had sex with various men in Brouderer's house and is also known to have slept with women, priests and nuns." What does "various" do here? There's no various for the women et al. "Men" already means two or more.

True; gone.

• "some time in summer"—unfortunate jingle.

Changed to "Rykener spent part of summer 1394"?

• "continuing to prostitute himself"—hmmm ... in that grammatical form it's become very pejorative (and broadly scoped, far beyond the original meaning).

I agree, Tony; it's a reflection of my trying to avoid euphemisms while avoiding repetition. How bout "...working both as a prostitute and as an embroideress"?

• "However, it appears that"—Much simpler and more engaging is "But it appears that". Forget what you were told in front of a blackboard.

Ah, WP:MISSSNODGRASS, of course! Cheers, changed.

• "Nothing definite is known of Rykener after his interrogation, although he has been tentatively identified as a John Rykener imprisoned by and escaping from the Bishop of London in 1399."—Isn't this contradictory? 1395 ... 1399 ... after?

Ah—this is trying to say that, since we cannot be sure that the later JR is the same as the 1394 JR, we, therefore, cannot be definitive as to the latter's later life. Does that make sense?

It's unclear. You could remove "although" and replace by a semicolon. Tony (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense; done.

• "because of what it reveals about medieval preconceptions of sex and gender issues"—"issues" is a very recent expression and concept. Do we need it? How does "preconceptions" differ from "conceptions" here? Why not "medieval attitudes/views"?

OK—going with views.

• "J. A. Schultz has viewed the affair as being of greater significance to historians than other, more famous medieval love stories"—oh, was this a love story? Why "other"?

That makes a lot of sense, and as such, I've removed both other and love, which tightens the sentence a bit too.

• "Modern interest in John/Eleanor Rykener has not been confined to academia. Rykener has appeared as a character in at least one best-selling work of popular historical fiction, and his story has been adapted for the stage."—I'm wondering whether ditching the first sentence will lose anything useful. Up to you.

Well: I don't particularly mind, but its (intended, if not achieved!) purpose was to act as a bridge between the heavy, academic works and a more popular use in puppetry and detective stories. Without it, I thought it would sound as though we were suggesting they were all comparable.

Needs work. I hope this rises to FA standard. Tony (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: as of course I do, and as long as your assistance doesn't waste your own time, I 'm sure it will...this edit addressed your points above; the question as to how well—is up to you! Either way, I really appreciate you looking in and putting some meat on the bone. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• How come in both maps the red dot is labelled on the map itself as well as the caption, when none of the others are? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Heh—well spotted, NM, I've removed them. They look much simpler now, I have to say. ——SerialNumber54129 12:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Support; I had my say at the prior FAC and the PR. I think this is a great article, and a fantastic topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for popping in, JM, and thank you very much for your help in getting this back here. ——SerialNumber54129 16:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent

This is the version being reviewed; as usual, I'm nitpicking hard. No image/source reviews conducted. I've included as suggestions the minor rewordings and tweakings which I'd normally make directly, in case there's a reason you don't want them thus tweaked.

Lead

Warning in advance that this is going to be very nitpicky, but as I know you're (wearily) aware the WMF's have conducted some research concluding that many readers only read the lead before skipping ahead, so I'll be pulling up things that appear confusing even if they're explained in the body text.

1. Since we know what the act was, we should say so, even if it means frightening the children by saying "sodomy" in the first sentence; performing a sex act reads like a tabloid euphemism, and it is of major significance to readers whether the act was sodomy (and consequently an offence against Catholic teaching) or some kind of exposure (a civil but not a religious offence). We use the word "sodomy" later on, so it's not as if we're intentionally withholding it to avoid tripping abuse filters.

   I agree: it originally said "...arrested in December 1394 for putatively having anal sex with another man, John Britby", but was opposed at the PR. Prefer the original? (I haven't actually changed it yet, awaiting your Considered Opinion)

   Just say sodomy already. "Sex act" is very coy, and I was thinking, did they have gerbils back then? Ceoil (talk)

2. Sodomy was … usually prosecuted in ecclesiastical courts—in this period, wasn't sodomy only prosecuted in ecclesiastical courts? As I understand it the Buggery Act was a 16th century creation of Thomas Cromwell during the Submission of the Clergy, and before that buggery and sodomy were illegal under canon, not civil law.

   Yes, agreed.

3. "Procurer" should probably be explained, or at least wikilinked, on its first appearance. For someone unfamiliar with English legal terminology, it's not obvious that it's a synonym for "pimp", and if one only knows the word "procure" as a synonym for "obtain" Brouderer … may have acted as his procurer could just as well mean that she did his shopping for him.

   An over-rigid adherance to MOS:LWQ on my part, I think. Notwithstanding that she may also have done his shopping for him  :)

4. He had sex with men …and is also known to have slept with women, priests and nuns seems a bit clumsy to me—were these priests and nuns not men and women? Suggest something along the lines of "He is known to have had sex with both men and women, including priests and nuns".

   Thanks—I've nicked that.

5. Rykener spent part of summer 1394 in Oxford, working both as a prostitute and as an embroideress—why "embroideress"? Since we're using "he" throughout it's not a Bradley/Chelsea Manning case where we need to include both names but defer to the subject's preferred pronouns wherever possible, so why not say "embroiderer"? It's hardly as if tailoring were an exclusively female profession, then or now.

   Carbonarie also raises this above: can I point you to my reply for details. As I say, I'm not particularly wedded to either fashion; it is as it is at the moment because of the sources—100% of which use the gendered pronoun (probably, as I say, for emphasis). Even so, I'm certainly open to change. Or a footnote—but I think there might be enough of those already...

6. He later told how he had had a sexual relationship with a woman there; is "there" Oxford or Beaconsfield, and is that where he had the sexual relationship or where he talked about it? Assuming you mean the former, I'd suggest something like "He later mentioned that while in Oxford )or Beaconsfield) he had a sexual relationship with a woman".

   Right: I've nicked your phrasing too, but dropped the "while" since this is now the first mention of Beaconsfield.

7. Where the hell is Burford? I doubt one person in a hundred in England is aware, let alone Wikipedia's global audience; say "Oxfordshire" or "nearby" to make it clear to the readers that he wasn't touring the country.

   Done.

8. where he worked as a barmaid—likewise, did he do this in character as Eleanor? If not, he was a barman. (IMO in this article we should use gender-neutral terms wherever possible, as the constant flipping between male and female terms makes it a little hard to follow; "he worked in a bar" would suffice just as well and avoid the issue.)

   Yes, it seems to be believed very specifically that he is in character (again, they are probably emphasising). Is "he" gender neutral? It's been a bloody tricky balancing act from the start, tbh.

9. On his return to London, he had paid encounters around the Tower of London; this is an extreme nitpick, but in this period the Tower wasn't in London (it guarded the approach to London, rather than actually being in London; it wasn't actually annexed to Greater London until 1889 and to this day isn't in the City of London). That's an extreme bit of pedantry, but because the City had (and has) a separate legal system to the surrounding area, and Old Tower Without (the area surrounding the Tower but not actually within its walls) was a part of the Liberties of the Tower of London which also had its own courts and legal system, it does actually make a difference on an article which is ultimately about old court reports.

   That is of course brilliant. Fantastic! Yet: I'm not quite sure how to introduce the notion without going into a microcosmic level of detail. I'm only really using it as a geographic marker, just so readers get the idea as to where he was working...any thoughts?

   During his return to the city, he paid encounters around the Tower of London? Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

   "he had paid encounters near the Tower of London, just outside the City"? ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

   Nicked that text, Iridescent, thakns again; It might be worth incorporating the detail into a footnote (another!), to explain why: general readers are, after all, surely going to assume that the *ahem* Tower of London is in London  :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

10. Rykener was finally arrested with Britby on the evening of Sunday, 11 December—the 'finally' implies either like there was some kind of manhunt going on, or that he'd never been arrested before, rather than that this was a routine arrest. Do we know he'd never been arrested before?

    No we don't and you're right, it doesn't follow from any one earlier event.

11. Assuming at least one best-selling work of popular historical fiction is a reference to A Burnable Book, "best-selling" is stretching hype to the limit (it's ranked #1,115,640 on Amazon, and a quick Google search on "a burnable book" best-selling doesn't appear to find a single review or other RS using the term to describe it).

    Ah! My paid editing by Holsinger for his book is revealed! Sorry about that: a subconscious reflection of the fact that I thought it was a jolly caper. Removed: "work of popular historical fiction" is probably neutral?

Background

1. Is there any way we could find another map? File:England south location map.svg shows the European Union's NUTS regions, not the historic (or even the modern) county boundaries or anything else which any normal reader would understand. Aside from anything else, in five months and 27 days those boundaries will have no meaning at all; they're also actively misleading, as the one thing which readers might recognise—the boundaries of Greater London—show the vastly expanded boundaries of 1965, not the old City of London or even the Middlesex boundary, and consequently make Beaconsfield and Bishops Stortford appear far closer to London than they actually were.

   I'll be honest: this map (actually, maps here generally) consistently give me a headache—especially these things that need to be custom made. Would File:Southern England.png this be OK? I've done that myself, but it still needs *attempts to talk a foreign language* to be turned into a lua module or something?

   Paging Maproom ‑ Iridescent 19:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

   The map currently in the article seems to me to serve its purpose well enough, despite the anachronsitic (and soon-to-be-obsolete) boundaries. Maybe there's something in Commons that would be a better background for the coloured dots, by showing the roads of the time; but I've failed to find one in a brief search. (I'm glad I've been pinged – the article itself is fascinating.) Maproom (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

   Shame, Maproom, I went to lot of trouble doing that plain version  :) thanks for popping over though, and I'm glad you like the article! ——SerialNumber54129 10:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

2. Definite {{citation needed}} for Prostitution was illegal in fourteenth-century London. Brothel keeping was banned in the City of London by Edward II, but that's not the same thing at all, while brothel-keeping was still not only legal but encouraged and licenced by the authorities in Bankside, a two-minute walk over the Bridge from the City; the area of the Bankside brothels was under the direct administration of the Bishop of Winchester and in the grounds of Winchester Palace, so the Church presumably wasn't too bothered by it. The distinction between brothel-keeping and prostitution (the former illegal, the latter legal) still exists in England, so this is something you can assume readers will pick up on.

   Yes, I was a little sloppy there: changed to "Prostitution was tightly regulated in fourteenth-century England, and brothels—although not prostitution itself—were illegal in the City of London", wit a source; the accopanying footnote Southwark and elsewhere.

3. Ditto for Prostitution was the most frequently prosecuted sexual offence in medieval England, being perceived as most dangerous to the moral fabric of society; it might technically be true that prostitution was the most frequently prosecuted sexual offence in medieval England, but it's extremely misleading as the prosecutions were for prostitution without a licence or in areas where it wasn't permitted. (Approx 1.5 million people are arrested each year in the US for drunk driving; it doesn't mean the authorities consider either cars or beer a threat to society.) If you're repeating something a source says, at the very least cite the source and preferably have an "according to…" in the body text.

   ...yes; on reflection, I don't think "the most frequently prosecuted sexual offence in medieval England, being" adds anything: I've removed it, so it now reads, more tightly, "Prostitution was perceived as most dangerous to the moral fabric of society", which I think is the imporant element.

4. The thirteenth-century jurist Bracton described [hermaphroditism] as being a third category of people in his Laws and Customs of England is a bit misleading; what he actually said was "Hermaphroditus comparatur masculo tantum vel feminæ tantum secundum prævalescentiam sexus incalescentis" A hermaphrodite is classed with male or female according to the predominance of the sexual organs—i.e., if someone is born with both genitalia go with whichever's bigger, rather than in the sense of "biologically male but choosing to identify as a woman". Unless we're saying that Rykener had both male and female genitalia and that's how he was having sex with men, it's not really relevant here; and I assume we're not saying that, since presumably vaginal intercourse wouldn't have been prosecuted as sodomy.

   Right. In that (corrected) light, it now has even less relevance than it did before  :) so I've tweaked the sentence to read "Hermaphroditism too had a legally recognised status; the thirteenth-century jurist Bracton, for example, had discussed it in his Laws and Customs of England"

Life

1. Pet peeve and not something I'd oppose over, but try to avoid "Black death" when at all possible. It's a relatively modern phrase (the people of the time called it the Great Mortality), and meaningless to anyone who's not already familiar with the term; "a bubonic plague pandemic which killed between 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 of the English population in 1348–1349" is wordier but unambiguous, and makes it clear that this was A Big Deal.

   Tricky, as it means tying in with the apprentice stuff. How about "Following the 1348–1349 bubonic plague—which killed between ​1⁄4 and ​1⁄2 of the English population—female apprenticeships had become as common as those for boys, particularly in London"?

   1348–1349 outbreak of bubonic plague Ceoil (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

2. I don't really understand the whole blackmail plot thing. Was the plan that the customers who thought they were having sex with Alice would wake up next to John, see the beard, and realise they'd been doing a dude, or did John remain in character as Eleanor and convince them that they'd had sex with a woman, just not the woman they'd paid for? Rykener told Philip that Rykener was the wife of an important man in the city implies the latter, but in that case I can't see what the deal was; given that these men were sleeping with prostitutes, if they continued to believe Rykener was female surely "I thought I was having sex with one female prostitute but actually had sex with another female prostitute" isn't much when it comes to blackmail material compared to the Rector of Theydon Garnon being in a brothel behind a mental hospital in the first place?

   Sigh. This whole blackmail thing has been another pain in the aris since it started; the sources don't spell it out. In fact, looking over them, it's only one that actually mentions blackmail. Since we can't explain it precisely, and as you've shown it raises more questions than it answers, how about removing the mention of blackmail? I've done so; in fact, now I'm wondering what that detail involving Alice is actually worth. How about cutting that too?

   It probably ought to stay—of the 714 words of the sole source He further said that a certain Elizabeth Bronderer first dressed him in women's clothing; she also brought her daughter Alice to diverse men for the sake of lust, placing her with those men in their beds at night without light, making her leave early in the morning and showing them the said John Rykener dressed up in women's clothing, calling him Eleanor and saying that they had misbehaved with her. He further said that certain Phillip, rector of Theydon Garnon, had sex with him as with a woman in Elizabeth Bronderer's house outside Bishopsgate, at which time Rykener took away two gowns of Phillip', and when Phillip requested them from Rykener he said that he was the wife of a certain man and that if Phillip wished to ask for them back he would make his husband bring suit against him. comes to 141 words—i.e., this is 20% of all we know and all we will ever know about Rykener. This is ultimately an article about how how the writers of secondary sources project their own prejudices onto a figure about which very little is known rather than a biography of Rykener per se, so it really needs to cover everything that's been written about him and if a source calls it a blackmail plot, we need to mention that. I still don't understand how this plot was going to work, since if they weren't disclosing that Eleanor was a man, "priest caught in bed with prostitute called Eleanor" is no more scandalous than "priest caught in bed with prostitute called Alice". ‑ Iridescent 07:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

   @Iridescent: Okay; well, it's sourced to Roxeth, and I can't get to the library for a bit, so I've asked at WP:RX; hopefully he goes into more detail as to the mechanics of the so-called blackmail. But I agree that it's hard to see how it was worked. Standing by. ——SerialNumber54129 10:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

   On doing some overthinking, I can see a way that it could have worked would be that Alice posed as a poor street urchin and "Eleanor" posed as a wealthy noblewoman; given the conventions of a time a priest caught having sex with a penniless prostitute would have only led to minor admonition from the Bishop, but a priest caught having sex with the wife of a wealthy and powerful man could have faced serious consequences. It still doesn't explain why Elizabeth would have chosen a man to play the part of the noblewoman, since presumably getting an actual woman to do the business would have had far less chance of the punter realising that the substitution had taken place. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

   Iridescent, I think the only one overthinking things here is probably Roxeth—! ——SerialNumber54129 17:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

   To be fair, "here's a 714-word document, go and expand it into a book" must have been the commission from hell. ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

   Eh, it's a full-length thing on medieval deviance generally, so he's got plenty of material. The Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells springs to mind  :) anyway, to business: the good people of WP:RX (Pajz particularly) very kindly came through with the source page.

   Roxeth's suggestion is that (in my interpretation) sodomy is worse than infidelity, so good blackmail material:

   "...and one Elizabeth Brouderer, who dressed him in women’s clothes and probably used him in order to blackmail a number of men. Elizabeth had prostituted her own daughter Alicia and made sure she left the men alone in bed early in the morning. Then Elizabeth had shown the customers John/Eleonora, and claimed that they had really slept with him. Although this portion of the report breaks off here, it is not difficult to imagine the purpose of this deceit: the punters were meant to believe that they had unwittingly committed sodomy, thus leaving them open to blackmail."

   So that's the blackmail suggestion—and he makes it clear, I think, that it's his suggestion, rather than in the original source. I suppose if I replaced my unclear comments about blackmail with this quote, it would then become self-explanatory; or, at least, if readers still didn't understand, then they would know who to blame...thoughts? ——SerialNumber54129 18:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

   Retroactivate Iridescent :) ——SerialNumber54129 04:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

   But "the punters were meant to believe that they had unwittingly committed sodomy" doesn't tally with calling him Eleanor and saying that they had misbehaved with her … he said that he was the wife of a certain man, which implies that the clients never discovered 'Eleanor' was actually a man. The more I think about it, the more I think the only way to approach this section is to actually put down the 141 words verbatim, and then offer Rexroth and Goldberg's suggestions for what they respectively think was going on here. ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

   Iridescent, I've done something along those lines; what d'you think? In the course of doing so, looking at other writer's opinions on the whole blackmail thing just made it even clearer how little they (probably) agree with the theory—the silence, as it were, was deafening! ——SerialNumber54129 14:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

3. Another "embroideress"; again, same issue I raised regarding the lead section; was he posing as a woman while working, and if so why given that a male embroiderer would probably have earned more than a female doing the same job and would certainly have been treated with more respect? We've already established that the plague had broken down gender boundaries in the workplace so it wouldn't have been a case of "only women can do that job".

   Indeed, the same answer as above: it's kinda consequential to the nature of the article, I suspect.

4. Just before Michaelmas 1394; I fear you're being over-optimistic that Wikipedia's readers will be familiar with the medieval liturgical calendar. How about "In September 1394"?

   Done.

5. Again per my comments in the lead, does employed him as a barmaid mean that he was now in character as Eleanor full-time? Just because bar work was traditionally female, that doesn't mean it was an exclusively female profession; the literature of England is filled with (male) innkeepers and waiters. If he was living as Eleanor full-time by this point, it should be spelled out as much as the sources allow, as that changes the narrative entirely from that of a huckster and con-artist with a scam involving dressing as a woman, to that of a transgender individual in the modern sense trying to live as a female in a male-dominated society. (Rykener said, he had a sexual relationship, as a man, with a woman called Joan Matthew implies that he wasn't living as a female, so was he actually working as a female in his day jobs as a barkeeper and embroiderer?)

   Well, as said earlier, the sources do consider him as living as a woman (at times—I suppose they can't be too definitive) on occasions, but also when he wanted, as a man. Actually, it wasn't my intention to portray him as being a full-time con-artist, and the sources certainly don't. I think the only time anything like that occurred was at Brouderer's house—and that was at her instigation rather than Rykener's. Now I've removed the mention of blackmail (your point above)

6. Probably dressed heavily against London winter weather—is this actually from a source? Having the dubious privilege of living in a notorious red light district, I can testify that the ladies of the night stick to their uniform of thigh-high boots, barely-a-belt miniskirts and black bra under a fishnet top in even the foulest of weather.

   I don't think he'd be wearing that  :) but yes, it is sourced Carolyn Dinshaw, who says, "it was no doubt cold that night, and Eleanor was no doubt bundled up". Having said that: I agree the reality is more ambiguous. Although it (probably) was cold, being London in December, as you say, the latter doesn't necessarily flow automatically from the former. Since Dinshaw is guessing, I'll remove it—it's not particularly important (I put it in originally as a human element).

7. Eleanor was an uncommon name by the fourteenth century—is that really the case? It was still common enough for the king to give it to his daughter.

   I've clarified that it was specifically uncommon for ordinary people.

8. The "unmentionable" act they were accused of committing has been assumed to be anal sex—is it Goldberg 2014 who's assuming this, or Wikipedia? Given that Britby was unaware of Rykener's true sex, isn't it more likely that Rykener was performing oral sex on him (also classed as sodomy under Catholic law)?

   It's Goldberg's voice; oddly, in fact, although IIRC a couple of others also mention anal sex, none of them mention oral: which—now you've pointed it out—is actually *WP:OR alert* more likely, I would have thought: much easier (and warmer!) for everyone, and also making it much more likely that, as he claimed, Britby wouldn't ever get to discover Rykener's true gender. All that considered, it's a shame we don't have a source for it.

Political context and later events

1. The name itself is sufficiently unusual, to have allowed researchers to speculate—is this from a source? It's not that unusual a name when you take into account that medieval England tended to spell names phonetically and that London was a Hanseatic port, so there would have been a steady stream of Reichners, Reicheners and Rikners passing through from Germany and Scandanavia.

   Eh, it's from Goldberg again; his precise wording is "If Britby is a very unusual name, then Rykener is no less. I have discovered only three other

Rykeners...". It's an excellent point about European versions of the name though, someone should tell him...

Historical significance and scholarship

1. This perceived importance may account for the survival of the record doesn't tally with The Rykener documents were filed with the more usual, and more prosaic, fare of debt and property offences in the previous sentence; if it was just filed with the routine paperwork, it obviously didn't have perceived significance.

   Point. I've struck the entire sentence: I can't find a way of tallying the to positions; and the suggestion of a precedent is in any case vague, and is frankly pointless when of course it's already been said that this is the only case of its kind (so even if it could have set a precedent, it's completely unknown whether it is or not!)

2. I don't get John Rykener's story is of more importance to historians than, for example, that of Tristan and Isolde. Tristan and Isolde is a work of fiction; why is it surprising that historians consider fiction as less important than the historical record?

   Also struck: I have no idea what J. A. Schulz is talking about, and, when you put it like that, it's a bit of a BS remark—at least, our readers could rightfully think so! Since you're the second reviewer to question it, it's gone.

Well, you asked. Don't take the wall of text above as any kind of oppose; this is the kind of line-by-line nitpick I'd normally conduct on the talkpage, not a ransom-note list of demands which if not met will be grounds for opposition. ‑ Iridescent 18:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(adding) Meta-point, which you may want to ask one of the techie types about; because of the way MediaWiki works, this isn't actually a page called John/Eleanor Rykener, but a subpage of John called Eleanor Rykener. It won't affect en-wiki as they display and link the same, but may screw up interwiki links, Wikidata, search engines and reusers. ‑ Iridescent 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Iridescent: I'll have to ask about that, if it comes to it: but actually—at least two (I think) reviewers have queried the /slashed/ title now, so I (or anyone, of course) will probably just move it back to JR after this FAC is promoted/archived. Incidentally—do you have an opinion yourself on the best title? Just as part of a straw poll, you might say—nothing binding.
  Thanks very much for your detailed review, Iridescent, I always appreciate them. I've answered (not yet necessarily addressed, though!) all your points, but there's a number where you might be able to advise me further, having seen my explanation. Cheers! Incidentally—you'll see I haven't coloured my text, but you have; I was under the impression that formatting was a no-no, because of page bugs or something? Or have I got it arse over head?! Just curiosity: a bit of colour makes it easer to read, I think.
  Even more incidentally, it occurs to me that nitpicking is a form of delousing; just what my articles need :D ——SerialNumber54129 16:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much Iridescent, I sure did. I'll get back to this tomorrow; there's a few things I can see that we might want to discuss. In the meantime, stories of dissolute (if one is lucky, I suppose!) living in red light districts would liven things up a bit  :) Thanks again! ——SerialNumber54129 19:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

With coloured text boxes, the issue as I understand it is that is screws things up when people print the pages out on a black-and-white printer; the generic quote box template uses a shade of nonprint blue that shows as white or very pale grey when printed. Regarding the title, I'd be inclined to John Rykener, since as I understand it that's what every source calls him, and also the name anyone searching for him will be searching under. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. The 'blackmail plot' problems are an issue arising from the fact that a secondary source significant enough that it can't be disregarded appears to conflict with the primary source on which it's reporting; as such, the issue is with the source not with the sourcing, so it's not something over which I'd oppose. Everything else is "I wouldn't have written it that way" issues rather than actual policy-based grounds for opposition, and I'm not among those who treat "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" as synonymous with "its prose is written exactly the way I'd have written it". ‑ Iridescent 15:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Many apologies for not getting back to you sooner, but thanks very much for all your help with the article. I'm glad we kind of got there in the end: although the situation is still irritatingly unsatisfactory, but I suppose that's a problem of having to rely on secondary sources whose authors don't know what we want them to say! Thanks again, ——SerialNumber54129 17:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

I dont like (fl. 1394) three words in, why not just born; just because you can doesnt mean you have to. Reading though again (was a peer reviewer, I think). Know this is up to 54129's usual interest level standards, so colour me as wearily hoping to see this promoted, if the prose are sorted out. Ceoil (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I would seriously trim the notes. Whatever nuggets you hoped to convey for the especially interested are buried in extraneous detail and verbosity. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The (fl. 1394) is part of Wikipedia's house style for when we're unsure of someone's year of birth but we know they were alive at that time; one can't really blame SN54129 for it as if he removed it, someone would just re-insert it citing MOS:APPROXDATE. ‑ Iridescent 10:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

SN54129, your off the hook on this one, although I might have to have a chat with MOS:APPROXDATE. Ceoil (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Update; half ways through and this is much improved since the last time I read it. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ceoil, and apologies for ignoring you  :) unintentional! ——SerialNumber54129 06:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyhow, Supporting on prose. Nice work indeed. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments

How very different from the homelife of our own dear Queen! An interesting read. I fixed a typo, just a couple of quibbles

• I'm not totally clear whether the Mayoral court could prosecute prostitution, but chose not to do so, or whether it was beyond the court's jurisdiction. I assume the former, just checking.
• Medieval scholar J. A. Schulz is perhaps slightly ambiguous? At first glance he could be a 14th-century writer.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice one, Jimfbleak thanks for finding time, and also supporting. Just FYI your points: firstly, no the latter (Iridescent picked up on that too, so I think it's been clarified?). Second, yes, just "historian" will do. Hope that's all OK! Take care, and thanks again. ——SerialNumber54129 16:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comments

Was there a source review anywhere that I'm not seeing? If not, please request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I'll pick up on the sources for this one. Will do it in pieces over the next few days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Many thanks for this! I've dealt with (most of) your suggestions. For now, anyway... ——SerialNumber54129 16:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Formatting

• I made a couple of tweaks to page numbers, from the format 123–45 to the MoS compliant 123–145 – both in the footnotes and in the sources. I think I've caught them all, but best go through to make sure I've not missed any.

I think that's the lot then.

• Check on capitalisation within the sources: we have both "Gender and femininity in medieval England" and "England: Women and Gender" – these should be consistently done

Yes; that was the only one, so I changed it. There's also a newspaper headline.

• You need to be consistent with publishing locations (We have The Early Humiliati. Cambridge University Press and Study of European Scholarship. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Both OUP and CUP publish in more than one location, so it's probably best to include which one.

Done.

• Make sure you include states alongside the US cities too (Philadelphia needs PA after it)

Ah ha; done.

• Check you've included as many links to sources as possible – I see The Victoria History of the County of Hertford is found here – check to see if others are also on the Internet Archive or Google Books

See intervention below...

More to come - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Just quickly butting in re check to see if others are also on the Internet Archive or Google Books, linking to Google Books is very controversial on en-wiki. As well as the ethical reason that we shouldn't be directing our readers towards a notoriously unethical company whose business model is based on data-mining the browsers of people who land on their website (Google aren't digitizing all those books out of the goodness of their hearts! If you ever want to feel really paranoid, visit their disclosure page and see just how much data Google is holding on you), there's also the practical reason that GBooks links function differently for readers in different countries, with different browser configurations, and different cookies active, so the links can cause serious confusion when readers click on them, are greeted with a "this item does not exist" message, and assume the author has fabricated the source. Including them isn't, never has been and never will be a FA requirement; indeed, I revert on sight when I see anyone adding a GBooks link to a citation which I've added as I don't want other readers to think that I endorse adding links to them. If the work being cited has an ISBN, we already have Special:BookSources, which neutrally gives readers checking the reference the full range of options for checking the item online or borrowing/purchasing a copy, without the issues linking to Google causes. ‑ Iridescent 14:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Iri, Yes, I should have said that the links are not a necessity for FAC, and that is the nominator's choice on whether to add them or not. I also wholeheartedly agree that Google are less than ethical in their use of personal data etc and—like most other companies—are intent on chasing profits to become even more bloated than they are, but while Google Books is still a free-to-access source, I think adding the links is a beneficial step. Adding them is not, of course, mandatory for any article, but I think users find them useful to click onto pieces of greater depth and breadth than we can provide, particularly on specialist areas like this. I've never realised that the adding of such links is considered very controversial, but there again I don't tend to read many of the backwater debates on any page that begins WP: or WT:! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Scope and reliability

• As far as I can tell from examining the background of the sources/publishers, all sources used are reliable and high quality.
• Searches (through Google Books, Internet Archive and JSTOR) show no additional sources of weight that have not been used.

Spot checks

• Spot checks done on FNs 3, 15 (ab & c), 37, 47, 52 (a & b) and 99. These cover the information that they have been cited for, with no close paraphrasing.

Formatting, scope and reliability, and spot checks now all good: source review passed on that basis. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point That's much appreciated, SchroCat! ;) ——SerialNumber54129 09:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: FYI I'm intending to promote this but I'm doing a few checks to see if the sub-page issue is likely to cause any chaos with bots and so forth. --Laser brain (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Many thanks; just FYI, but I'm absolutely not invested in the title at all—it's served it's purpose for me, but you know there's a requested move on the talk page?! Sorry to have complicated things a bit  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@::Did you find any problems, Laser brain? ——SerialNumber54129 13:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. --Laser brain (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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