418:," I don't like this; Rykener has yet to be introduced in the main body of the article. Perhaps you could switch it to something like "Another sexual offence for which people were sometimes prosecuted...". I'd recommend talking about sodomy generally in a background section, rather than tying it explicitly to Rykener. Same with the "Rykener's London"; I'd just switch it to "1390s London" or something. I suppose I would have a paragraph on prostitution, a paragraph on sodomy, a paragraph on crossdressing, and a paragraph on "hermaphroditism". And I'd drop reference to Rykener altogether, as before.
1795:"Judith Bennett considers the number of times "hermaphroditism" is mentioned in contemporary texts to indicate an incurious acceptance of the state". Not grammatical at present, but also lacks some clarity. Perhaps: "...considers that the frequency with which hermaphroditism is mentioned in contemporary texts indicates an incurious acceptance of the condition". Who, by the way, is Judith Bennett? And is she "questioning whether", or is she suggesting what might be the case?
1375:"Prostitution was still the main sexual offence that courts prosecuted in medieval England—when they did—seen as it was as the most dangerous to the moral fabric of society." Very clumsy construction, again blighted by an awkward insertion (no double-entendre intended). Perhaps: "Prostitution was the most frequently prosecuted sexual offence in medieval England, perceived as most dangerous to the moral fabric of society."
1391:"Contemporary attitudes towards prostitution were very much that it was a necessary evil to be (hopefully) controlled." The parenthetical "hopefully" is non-encyclopedic. I would tighten this sentence, and place it after, rather than before, Aquinas's dictums, so that it reads less like an editorial summary: "Prostitution was thus seen as a necessary evil, that if not eliminated could be controlled".
154:
718:
first paragraph introduces "a case like
Rykener's" out of the blue. I don't think you should have any specific references to Rykener's case in a "Background" section: they belong lower down in my view. With them removed, the Background section would be an excellent and clear summary of the state of affairs prevailing at the time of the events you go on to describe.
425:—better?); I replaced "Rykener's London" with "Late-fourteenth-century London", as I thought "1390s London" may have been a little specific, and kind of implied that in the 1380s, on the other hand, a bloke could wear a ballgown for breakfast  :) All those different paras you suggest—would they be slightly short? (MOS:PARA doesn't seem too keen)
262:", so are probably guessing at this stage  :) I'm not sure about fair use either; I'm under the impression that the article needs to be specifically about the item that is claimed as fair use—but this is about the man rather than the document. In any case, I'd like to be wrong about all of the above.
1970:
There are times you introduce people ("The historian
Carolyn Dinshaw") and times you don't – ("as Katie Normington notes"; "Jeremy Goldberg has compared") I always feel it's best to add (even more so where there is no linked article) to put the area of expertise in the article, or we wonder if Jeremy
1886:
1461:
The first paragraph, after the first sentence, should be presented as a subsection under its own heading, as with the "Oxford" and "Arrest" subsections. You could call the subsection "With
Elizabeth Brouderer" or some such. That first sentence, suitably amended, could then form a brief introduction
1226:
I'm happy to link it—if only I knew how! Per MOS (somewhere) I used the {{fl}} template, but that doesn't seem to enable a link. I don't really see the point in having a swanky template for such an obscurantist term when it expressly forbids lining to it! I disagree that it can't be used for a single
717:
I'm not sure about the structure of the narrative. In my view – which I believe is generally shared – the lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article; after the lead, the main article should, as it were, start from scratch, with no referring back to the content of the lead. That being so, the
930:
Note 9: the
Chaucerian quote "In al the toun…" isn't delivered by "the main character". It is said by the narrator – the Miller – of the parish clerk, Absolon. (It is also rather a pity that you cut the quotation off, omitting the next two lines, "But soth to say, he was somdel squaymous/Of fartyng,
837:
I think you want "inquisitorial" rather than "inquisitional". The former is the usual word for the criminal justice system of France etc, whereas the OED defines the latter as "Of or pertaining to the
Inquisition; of or pertaining to inquisition or inquiry, esp. such as is harsh, strict, or prying".
275:
There's no way it would be justified as a non-free image. However, I would have thought that this is a scan of an indisputably PD source document, meaning that, from the perspective of the WMF, the image is in the public domain. I may be wrong about this, though. For more information, take a look at
1978:
There's a balance to be had. I think in the
Scholarship section, I think you can drop it (you've introduced most by then, and it's evident from the section title what's your talking about. Further above, us your judgement, but vary when possible, even if it's a quick search to show a specialism (is
1470:
At present this sentence reads: "Little is known of John
Rykener the person, and all that is comes from his answers to his interrogators", needs redrafting. The first clause is unnecessary since the second covers it, but you need to expand a little, to explain the "interrogators" of whom this is
794:
Happy to talk what we can and cannot know, but I fear I would bore people quite quickly! My worry was that I wouldn't want to indicate in the lead that all we have to talk about is the particular transcript, when, in fact, we have some possible details about his later life. A compromise position
653:
Considered comments to follow after a thorough perusal, but at a first skim-through I boggled at the caption for St
Katharine's by the Tower in Regents Park. I was, when still working for a living, librarian to the Crown Estate – which owns Regents Park – and as far as I recall, the church is an
687:
Regent's Park!) to
Limehouse or somewhere...so if it's OK with you, I'll just get rid of it. I was scrabbling around for images you see—that's the only one in the bottom half.It looks like I'll have to return to scrabbling, as there are only two on commons for St KbtT: the first one I was using
255:
we do not think that the Open
Government procedures are relevant at all to this material, as it is a scheme directed at central government records, administered on behalf of the Crown by the National Archives...The City of London Common Council, its work and its records, are of local government
1787:"The fact that Rykener's interrogators seem to have been particularly interested in his dealings with the clergy may account for the fact that they saw fit to bring him before a Mayoral court after all." I can't make head nor tail of this, quite apart from "the fact that ... the fact that".
1043:
I was tempted to offer this up for broader discussion, such as at FAC, to reach a common consensus as to how best to phrase something of admittedly some delicacy. But, Ceoil, have you any personal suggestions on how to introduce the opening sentence? If so, I'd be much obliged!
688:
before, but Nikkimaria noted licensing discrepancies, so this one was always second best. Thanks for the information though, it's much better to know now than later. If you have any ideas by the way (I might be overlooking something obvious) feel free to suggest. Thanks!
1979:
the person talking about the Medieval Tales a literature specialist, rather than historian, for example). Otherwise, vary between historian, scholar, Medieval scholar, academic, or (more specifically), "in his examination of medieval prostitution, Bloggs writes...", etc.
1126:
Yeah, this has been raised loads of times. I'm not wedded to any title in particular (and indeed, JR was my original title). But the sources refer to him as John/Eleanor, which is what led me. But it's certainly something that will need community input to resolving, I
1303:"On his return to London, he had further encounters behind the Tower of London, including with priests". Where is "behind the Tower of London"? It's a huge complex, as indeed it was then. Also, you don't need to mention the priests twice in the same paragraph.
1306:
It's a little vague, I agree; but the source used the phrase "the back streets around St Kat's", etc., and I wanted to avoid the phrase "the back streets"—slightly gossipy and probably begging for drive-by a {{where}} tag...also removed the second mention of
1899:
That concludes my read-through. I have not looked at the rather dauntingly detailed "Notes", although I see that no. 7 is uncited. That's all I have to say at this stage, other than to commend your ingenuity and industry in bringing the article thus far.
1223:"fl": I think you need to wikilink this, as not all your readers will be classically-educated geezers. Also, I'm unsure about using "floruit" for a single year – I've generally seen it in relation to a range of years or some other specified broad period.
1661:
Yees—I've lost the "most certainly"; but that is exactly the thing that Dinshaw is saying herself: "JB might not have been disabused when the two were apprehended. but by the time of his interrogation at the latest, Britby understands that Eleanor is a
1974:
Right; the thing is, in some places I refer to multiple historians in consecutive sentences. Wouldn't that lead to some repetition? The "Scholarship" section, for example, is quite heavy with...err... scholars  :) Any ideas on getting around this?
1714:
I donth think "Aftermath" is a suitable heading. "Aftermath" is the consequences of what's happened before. Here, we have essentially a series of speculations. Something like "Speculations and motives" might be appropriate, but "aftermath" is not.
765:
It's kind of you to give me an E, but I'm a bit old for that sort of thing. As to the wording, the choice is entirely yours. If you share my view that one either knows something or one doesn't then you may like to follow my suggestion. If,
1057:
The lead strikes me as written from a 21 century POV. EG; pinp is blue linked, but did it mean that at the time? (The OED indicates it was a term to indicate police informers. If not I'd just say organised or exploited by, or some such.
1487:"Here Rykener was taught how to sleep with men as a woman and get paid for it." Something not quite right with this wording. He could be taught to sleep with men while feigning womanhood, but could he be taught to "get paid for it"?
1471:
the first mention in the main text. My suggested redraft of the sentence is "All that is known of Rykener's life comes from his answers during his interrogation in the Mayor of London's court, following his arrest in December 1394".
1763:"Goldberg compares the Mayor's actions in the face of public concern over sexually-active priests with twentieth-century politicians campaigning against immigration.". I'd be interested to know on what he bases this odd comparison
1312:"J. A. Schultz has viewed the affair as more important than the medieval German courtly-love epic poem, Tristan and Iseult." That is a somewhat misleading paraphrase of what you say in the article, which is "more important
453:
Right! I've changed it baldly to "barmaid", as the sources are pretty explicit he was (acting as?) a woman through this period (cf. the note about the job being seen as promiscuous). I think I was attempting gender-neutral
1097:
Yes; because it's the lead, I removed the extraneous stuff about Brouderer's daughter and tightened it: How is "He had sex with various men in Brouderer's house, and is also known to have slept with women, priests and
908:
If possible you should be consistent with the subject's surname. At present you give it variously as "Rykener" and "Ryekener". No doubt the spelling was variable in the fourteenth century, but we need not follow suit.
1890:
1931:
May thanks for all the work you've put in here, such a thorough review is really appreciated. As always, feel free to point out if / where I haven't satisfactorily addressed your suggestions or criticisms. Cheers!
2096:
Many thanks indeed for looking in, and I've addressed some of your points immediately, but there's a couple above I'd appreciate a smidgin' of guidance on if you can. Thanks a lot! (And, yes, I'll be sure to).
1111:
I don't like the title, which seems rather a 20th century (rather than 21st c.) solution. To avoid accusations of projection, and for simplicity, my preference would be for John. As is, its a hedged headache.
1834:"The case has been described as offering a "microcosmic view of medieval English sexualities and the gulf that lies between the medieval and the modern". Sounds good, means...what? Whose description is this?
211:
Your external link has a scan of the original record; perhaps that would make a good lead image? I appreciate that it's not really readable, but it will add a little visual interest. (As you have done with
1503:
I found some of the prose in this paragraph confusing, and distinctly awkward when we get to "...when Rykener told Philip that Rykener was the wife of..." Some general rewriting, for clarity, is advised.
1213:
A very unusual and intriguing topic. I'm working through slowly, so my review will be in fits and starts, with hopefully more starts than fits. Here are some comments on the lead and background sections:
1575:"Britby claimed to have been looking for a woman..." Britby has not been mentioned since the lead, so some brief introduction is necessary: "John Britby, who was arrested with Rykenar, claimed..." etc
578:"A near-contemporary (but possibly apocryphal) European example was Ulrich von Lichtenstein, a Styrian knight who rode across Europe dressed as a woman and taking part in tourneys." Example of what?
1641:
Kind of, yes; I've expanded that point slightly, but basically, the interrogation was in English ("MedEng") but then recorded in Latin, so K&B are suggesting that something could have been
1546:
Ah! Shame. I went to a lot of trouble for that—it was a bank holiday, an ideal time for avoiding cars...except there was a bloody marathon or something instead, which is why the road closures
566:"Even as a prostitute he is a dishonest trader: he poses as a woman selling straight sex to male clients, whereas he is, in fact, a man masquerading as a woman"." If there was a period after
450:
I think you could be a bit clearer about the barmaid/bartender issue. Was he working as a woman in the bar? That's what's suggested in the lead, but it's less clear in the article body.
1718:
Agreed; although I don't really want to invite speculation that whole section is mere speculation...I've gone for "Political context and later events" which seem to cover the contents?
1159:
That Rykener was not—as far as is known—prosecuted may reflect the contemporary view that a prostitute was, by definition, not just a woman who took money for sex, but a sinful woman.
527:
That Rykener was not—as far as is known—prosecuted may reflect the contemporary view that a prostitute was, by definition, not just a woman who took money for sex, but a sinful woman.
1638:"the answers as recorded were not his own personal confession" – I'm not sure I fully understand; does this mean that the recorded answers were not in the form that he gave them?
1035:
many thanks! Apologies for the (extremely) belated response to your review—I got involved in a few other bits and pieces and this completely slipped my mind. Here's to it though.
1407:"The best-known was one from LĂĽbeck, whose story was told..." LĂĽbeck is not a person, so "whose" is inappropriate. Suggest: "The best-known was from LĂĽbeck, a story told..."
237:...you get the picture :) I looked into this when you raised it previously. Unfortunately they're not exactly the same source; the images you see on those articles are from
2050:
Later, in the "Arrest" section, you call it "the Cheapside area of London, a busy commercial district" – it may be worth moving this description up to the first mention.
1856:
I can't say much on this section as I am not a scholar in this field. I think there's an unnecessary "on the other hand", since Dinshaw is not making an opposite point.
1527:"They went with him in the marshes" – does it help us to know that? We know they were "sexual clients" so can hazard a guess what they were up to, marshes or otherwise.
934:
Thanks for the clarificaton; I've adjusted the text slightly which I think clarifies this? Also added the next two lines just for you  :) I wonder how long they'll last!
1103:
The lead is off putting long and meandering; its left to the reader to extract notability. Any trimming should be reducing to essential facts, and removing verbosity.
722:
Yeees; tricky. I think I've resolved this, by moving the pertinent aspects to the end of the "Arrest" section, which deals with the Mayor's interrogation. Any better?
174:
Following a curious FAC which tanked quickly, it was a recommendation to get further commentary from other editors. John/Eleanor has recently been thoroughly probed
460:
Only read the first few half... I was watching TV at the same time. I'll be back! (Also, please double-check my edits, but I think they should be uncontroversial.)
294:
FANTASTIC Â :) Cheers! Gone with that. And will just have to wait for the source review I guess...thanks very much for the suggestion, I'd never come across it yet.
770:, you think one can know something for a bit sure, for sure-ish or for not-very-sure then by all means ignore my suggestion. But I see you say "all that is known"
126:
1766:
He's not quite as explicit as that, so I've removed it as being not directly relevant. Although, as a piece of OR, I think it's an excellent point that a RS
841:
Indeed, I suspect the differences between the two were probably pretty fluid at this time, but if it makes more sense to modern definitions, then of course.
1274:
Right; I went with "Rykener stood to be accused of two offences""—would "Rykener stood to be accused of having committed of two offences" be even tighter?
76:
1957:
There are times you use the definite article for people and times you don't – you should make it consistent (with, would be best in my unhumble opinion!)
683:...I assumed it had been re-cladded or something. I was slightly confused by the saga of the church, as I'm sure I also had a refernce to it being moved (
442:"Sir William Foxley and a Sir John and a Sir Walter" How about "Sir William Foxley, a Sir John, and a Sir Walter" (or lose the second comma if preferred)
2017:
Absolutely (although, funnily enough, only since 1354). How about full-title-plus-link for the first mention and then shortened for the other ~25 times?
122:
1874:
As you're referring to the "World Puppetry Festival in Charleville-Mézières, France" you might mention that the Turku music festival is in Finland.
554:"Since such a definition is debatable in the twenty-first century" I don't know what this means- do you mean something like "since the definition of
1992:
Lead plus first other mention would be best (there is a degree of flexibility, and in long articles I've seen something linked usefully three times.
107:
1080:
He had sex with various men in Brouderer's house, as did women, including her daughter. He had sex with men and women, including priests and nuns.
1050:
was a 14th-century transvestite sex worker arrested in December 1394 for performing a sex act with another man, John Britby, in London's Cheapside
1005:, for your suggestions; perhpas you could let me know if there's anything if I haven't resolved (there is of course at least one thing!). Cheers!
253:
that council of london documents are not released under the OGL and are therefore held under their copyright.In an email, they replied to me that
795:
would be something like "Though historians have tentatively linked Rykener to a prisoner of the same name, all that is known about his life...".
597:
Indeed! I was sourcing the translations of individual words, which amounted to madness. But the Harvard page does it in one go, so much simpler.
654:
early 19th century Gothic Revival effort, and not by any stretch of the imagination the original mediaeval building moved, brick by brick Ă la
238:
1948:
An excellent read – much more polished than when I first read it. All good, but there are a few nit-picking quibbles and suggestions for you:
99:
1263:
I found the phrase "what is now presumed to be" a little heavy-handed, with its mdashes. The single word "putative" would suffice, perhaps?
1138:
Indeed, and I've corrected the wikilink (per WP:EASTEREGG), and put in a footnote to emphasise how drastic the demographic shift had been.
234:
423:
Another sexual offence for which people could be prosecuted for was sodomy, but this would generally be by the church in its own courts...
277:
1535:"The three knights had employed Rykener frequently" – not sure about "employed" here. Perhaps "had used Rykener's services frequently"?
1790:
Mmmm, yes, convoluted. I've added a little more to explain why they would do such a thing, as well as rewrite the problematic sentence.
2136:
1399:
I'm dubious about the "but" that begins the last sentence of the first para, and I'd end it "hear cases involving either offence".
858:
I like "circumlocation" (which I take to mean going round in circles – a familiar condition) but I think you mean circumlocution.
701:
If you're scratching round for illustrations, might an old map of the City – plenty of them online – fill a gap? Just a thought.
570:
in the original source, that creates a complete and self-contained sentence, so the period should be within the quotemarks here.
502:"such questioning would have been a particularly "heavy burden" for Rykener to bear alone"" Could you check the quotemarks here?
1320:
is not a historical work. You should avoid using words like "more important" when referring to things that are not comparable.
421:
Right; I made some tweaks, but not finished yet. I removed the mentions of Rykener re. sodomy etc, which depersonalises it (now
1383:"Of the possible two sexual offences, this was deemed the worse" → "Of these two sexual offences, sodomy was deemed the worse"
1061:
As a starter, I've unlinked the word to dispel it slightly of modern associations; but the sources do use it in that sense too.
69:
1963:
These are the ones I can see... "says historian J. B. Post", "as historian Katie Normington", "Medieval scholar J. A. Schulz"
340:"All that is known of Rykener's life comes from records of his interrogation by the mayor and aldermen of London." How about
887:
Seasons: you capitalise Summer but not winter. I favour the former style, but unfortunately, the MoS recommends the latter.
879:
why "Bishop of London" but "rector of Theydon Garnon" and "vicar of Stanton"? Are capitals reserved for the senior clergy?
430:"There was strong tradition of fictionalising the preference" What preference? Was "hermaphroditism" seen as a preference?
549:
Indeed, "at least" makes sense; of the footnote, one of the Johns is this one, which means he might also be the other one.
175:
246:
1723:"most probably being a clerk". I think I'd say "ecclesiastical clerk", since clerk alone is too general a description.
435:
he thirteenth-century jurist Bracton described it as being...and there was also a strong tradition of fictionalising it
50:
2028:
1479:
The first section should begin: "At his interrogation, Rykener described how he was first dressed as a woman..." etc
917:
Why sometimes spell "focused" with an intrusive extra "s"? (Two "focussed"s and one "focused" in the current text.)
1798:
Used your rephrasing, thanks; linked Bennett, as we have an article, and clarified that yes, it was her suggestion.
178:—many thanks to the intrepid reviewer!—now I'd appreciate a broader commentary if possible. Looking forward to all
62:
2119:
2105:
2083:
1909:
1697:
1677:
1474:
An excellent suggestion thanks—lifted and retweaked, the sentence now contains a little of the rest of the section
1443:
1425:
1359:
1335:
1286:
1252:
1239:
1200:
1183:
1121:
1091:
1075:
1013:
995:
960:
824:
804:
789:
740:
696:
673:
642:
624:
493:
469:
397:
373:
329:
302:
289:
270:
197:
44:
755:"All that is known of Rykener's life for sure…" – something is either known or it isn't: no need for "for sure".
115:
1465:
Right Brian, good idea—I suggest "At Elizabeth Brouderer's house", as in, "At the Sign of the Bells and Motley"?
2098:
1960:
H'mmm: for the life of me, I can't find this. Can you give me a couple of examples? ("Out, damn'd blindspot!")
1933:
1690:
1436:
1245:
1193:
1176:
1006:
689:
635:
486:
322:
295:
263:
190:
17:
1271:"would have been seen as having committed" is tortuous. "Rykener stood to be accused of..." might be simpler
245:, which is good ole CC-BY compatible. Now, the problem here is that the Rykener interrogation is held by the
242:
187:: I've struck that bit, as on reflection it's probably not for me to dictate what is or is not constructive.
1845:
I can't for the life of me remember where that came from now, so have removed an reworded slightly. Linked.
704:
I think the suggestion about the court record above gives us the image back, but thanks for the suggestion.
1905:
1673:
1421:
1355:
1331:
1282:
1235:
1172:
1071:
482:
2110:
No probs - answered above; if you need more input, or I've made things even more unclear, let me know! -
1818:
Out of curiosity, given the dates of his "calendar" (1413-1437), why is Thomas summarising a 1394 case?
1622:. It is still a busy commercial district; also, these words are self-explanatory and don't need a link.
594:? There are a lot of footnotes making it difficult to read, and what looks like some rogue punctuation.
2011:
759:
546:, surely? (Also, you list three in the footnote, but the subject of the article is surely a fourth!)
92:
2068:
Yep, done so: I only hadn't mentioned him by name this time because he gets namechecked in the lead.
1747:"Their third conclusion..." For clarity I'd say: "The third of the Lollards' twelve conclusions..."
1490:
Point; how bout "Here he was taught how to sleep with men as a woman, and to be paid for doing so."?
1642:
988:
953:
817:
800:
782:
733:
666:
655:
620:
465:
393:
369:
285:
2115:
2079:
1543:
I don't much like the pic. Too modern, and lacking any semblance to the historical counterpart.
969:
ISBNs: unlike the others, 9780485111309 is lacking its hyphens. It should be 978-0-485-11130-9.
850:
1926:
1901:
1686:
1669:
1432:
1417:
1351:
1327:
1278:
1231:
1067:
846:
Is there a distinction between Lollardy and Lollardism? (Question asked from pure ignorance).
522:
The sentence beginning "That Rykener was not" is quite twisty-turny; some dashes might help.
1882:
Does Timo Vantsi deserve a mention by name (playing the title role in a puppet production)?
1025:
I look forward to seeing this at FAC, and am most pleased to see Mr Serial take this route.
1161:
Very confused sentence that could be removed as we have a detailed telling of the outcome.
609:
Yes indeed; I only haven't linked to it because the GC Ln reference is inside a quote here.
182:
commentary and criticisms as how, if it is deemed possible, to further advance the article.
1512:
The sentence beginning: "Rykener also told the Mayor..." seems redundant to this article.
1117:
1087:
1590:
Right—actually this is the second mention of TG in thebody, and I aleady linked the first
161:
1597:
1584:
1002:
983:
948:
812:
796:
777:
728:
680:
661:
631:
616:
603:
478:
461:
389:
365:
318:
281:
227:
1658:"He had most certainly been disabused by the end of it" – reads as editorial comment.
2130:
2111:
2091:
2075:
2010:
Mayor? (I'm presuming it wasn't one of Siddiq's predecessors!) Either way, a link to
1771:
1556:
1435:
for these, hope my adjustments are satisfactory and akin to your intentions. Anon,
1295:"while sodomy was as an offence against morality" – word missing? ("was seen as"?)
213:
1495:
If you're writing in BritEng, you need a "that" after "so" in "were so Brouderer"
1323:
Does "has viewed the affair as of greater significance to historians" cover that?
1244:
Thanks for that. So, to clarify: the sodding template is no use at all  :) ha!
241:—and everything they release (unless specified otherwise) is done so under the
1189:
1113:
1083:
1082:
This needs a bit of clarity as its confusing and there is obvious repetition.
1030:
762:, J Milburn said the polar opposite up there I'm afraid, so—what happens now?
2047:
1842:
Link "bisexuality". In what sense is the definition of the term "debatable?
1837:
Added a bit to explain they were talking about the differences in expression
1619:
1986:
I see Goldberg is actually linked further down, so this should be moved up
1826:
I'd omit "tantalisingly", and avoid questions about who said it and where.
1810:
You can't link half of the title of a book or article or whatever it was.
583:
A near-contemporary (but possibly apocryphal) European crossdresser was...
1689:, think I've answered/addressed your points—maybe a couple of queries?
1552:
1378:
Great, thanks, I stole that—although added "being" before "perceived"?
510:"unaware of Rykener's true gender" This sounds contentious. How about
1106:
I've had a gin at it, some tightening, compression, omission. Better?
415:
1650:
I think "frequently" rather than "commonly" in third line of para 2
1625:
Agreed. I was tempted to say "then as now"—but in the end omitted it
485:), but there's room for further discussion perhaps on a couple  :)
321:
re. their BLOODY FANTASTIC idea about pd-scan  :) Thanks very much!
1821:
Because I put in the wrong volume  :) adjusted to the earlier one
414:"An alternate offence that he could have been prosecuted for was
406:
Just an aside: I think the third paragraph of the lead is great.
1731:
Paragraph break required after "on the individuals themselves".
1917:
I've sourced fn7 (now 6, btw due to some earlier reformatting)
1779:"a massive loan" – just a loan, in encyclopedis neutral-speak
148:
1052:. Thoughts? "Sex act" doesn't sound a little euphemistic, no?
1344:"herself responsible" – I'd delete the redundant "herself"
871:"the Mayor" or "the mayor"? We have both forms at present.
1755:
Probably another para break after "priestly abstinence"
1587:
and decapitalise "rector". Perhaps begin this sentence:
1530:
For our green-fingered readers  :) seriously, yes agreed
534:"nothing is known for certain as to his later life" of?
344:, given that there are other Rykeners that may be him?
141:
134:
103:
939:
Bibliography: typo in the entry for C Beattie's book.
2006:
When you say Mayor of London, I presume you mean the
1171:Thanks again Ceoil, let me know what you think of
895:"middle ages" (note 19) or Middle Ages (note 25)?
748:That point apart, I have only these few quibbles.
1739:Comma needed after "couldn't remember them all"
2074:Please ping me if/when you go to FAC. Cheers –
1457:Some reorganisation of the section is advised:
409:Thanks very much!—although I added a "that"  :)
853:, they're both derivatives ("Lollardry", too!)
615:A bit more to look at yet. Really great read.
1885:Well; I redlinked em thinking there might be
1559:– with the link you can drop Buckinghamshire
1227:date though, although it may be less common.
481:; I think I've addressed most of the points (
70:
8:
2065:"One scholar": is it possible to name them?
634:for all your pointers  :) See wot you think
382:"did embroidery" is a slightly ugly phrase.
278:Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag
1135:- you mean following a specific outbreak?
898:I think lc is probably more usual nowadays
809:That seems to me an admirable suggestion.
77:
63:
32:
1394:Right—many thanks, that does read better.
1192:, any thoughts? I hope that all is well!
1164:Combined woth above, see what you think.
1040:The lead sentence is way too aggressive
890:Have to follow the MOS then, Tim, sorry!
477:Thanks for your edits and suggestions,
35:
1567:Words like "inn" don't need wikilinks
1049:
582:
526:
434:
433:No, that was dumb writing; how about:
422:
355:
348:
254:
249:(archives for the City of London) and
1989:Linked to the first mention in lead.
207:All comments are merely suggestions!
7:
849:Certainly not that I intended: Acc.
590:Could you check your translation of
542:"There were three Rykeners in late"
1971:Goldberg is a bloke in the pub! ;)
223:as I have done with John Fresshe...
1316:". That's hardly surprising since
24:
1277:In my view, stick to the former.
385:"and worked as an embroideress"?
980:I hope these points are of use.
573:Done; carried away with the LQs.
152:
2053:Moved to "Life", opening para.
2020:Absolutely - best way to do it
1600:'s rector, also seems..." etc
912:Indeed...the latter was a typo
602:We have a (featured!) article
1:
2120:20:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
2106:12:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
2084:12:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
1462:to the whole "Life" section.
247:London Metropolitan Archives
2029:Mass in the Catholic Church
1630:"preceeding" → "preceding"
1201:13:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
931:and of speche daungerous")
164:discussion has been closed.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review
2153:
2014:or equivalent might work.
1668:Will finish up tomorrow.
1209:Comments from Brianboulton
1184:17:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
1144:here is not, says Goldberg
1066:Reading through otherwise
2137:October 2018 peer reviews
2027:Pipe a link to Mass from
1750:Thanks for the rephrasing
1507:Tweaked—I think. Say you?
1133:Following the Black Death
1122:20:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
1092:19:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
1076:07:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
1014:17:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
996:12:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
961:18:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
942:I couldn't see this Tim?
805:19:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
790:18:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
741:18:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
697:10:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
674:00:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
643:16:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
625:21:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
494:10:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
470:21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
398:17:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
374:17:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
303:16:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
290:17:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
271:10:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
198:11:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
1910:19:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
1698:13:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
1678:16:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
1444:17:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
1426:19:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
1360:17:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
1336:17:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
1326:I'd be happy with that.
1287:17:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
1253:17:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
1240:17:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
825:19:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
725:Admirable now, I think.
349:known of Rykener's life
330:14:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
317:V rudely forgot to ping
1805:Historical significance
1347:"who was responsible"?
649:Comments from Tim riley
561:Yes, rephrased per you.
558:is debated in the..."?
243:Open Government Licence
874:I've capitalised Mayor
347:Agreed and added; but
1742:Well—this is a quote?
1150:- does not read well
1048:: I've changed it to
1001:Thank you very much,
658:. Please check this.
364:I prefer the latter.
239:The National Archives
2012:Lord Mayor of London
1893:to make a stub from.
1148:That Rykener was not
713:Comments on the text
28:John/Eleanor Rykener
1643:lost in translation
258:. I note they say "
2101:—SerialNumber54129
1936:—SerialNumber54129
1852:Recent scholarship
1693:—SerialNumber54129
1439:—SerialNumber54129
1318:Tristan and Iseult
1248:—SerialNumber54129
1196:—SerialNumber54129
1179:—SerialNumber54129
1009:—SerialNumber54129
774:in the main text.
692:—SerialNumber54129
638:—SerialNumber54129
489:—SerialNumber54129
325:—SerialNumber54129
298:—SerialNumber54129
266:—SerialNumber54129
193:—SerialNumber54129
1596:"Another client,
1416:More on its way.
1230:I've fixed this.
758:Ah  :) thing is,
592:The Miller's Tale
517:Contentious? Moi?
360:of Rykener's life
235:a Duke of Norfolk
189:Many thanks all!
188:
169:
168:
142:Watch peer review
87:
86:
2144:
2103:
2095:
1938:
1930:
1705:Last instalment
1695:
1441:
1410:Done, thank you.
1250:
1198:
1181:
1034:
1011:
993:
991:
986:
958:
956:
951:
822:
820:
815:
787:
785:
780:
738:
736:
731:
694:
671:
669:
664:
640:
491:
327:
300:
268:
203:Comments from JM
195:
183:
156:
155:
149:
139:
130:
111:
79:
72:
65:
47:
33:
2152:
2151:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2127:
2126:
2099:
2089:
1946:
1934:
1924:
1774:springs to mind
1691:
1437:
1246:
1211:
1194:
1177:
1028:
1022:
1007:
989:
984:
982:
954:
949:
947:
927:Notes and refs
868:Capitalisation
818:
813:
811:
783:
778:
776:
734:
729:
727:
690:
679:Oblast. Thanks
667:
662:
660:
651:
636:
487:
323:
296:
264:
205:
191:
153:
145:
120:
97:
91:
83:
51:Manual of Style
43:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2150:
2148:
2140:
2139:
2129:
2128:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2062:
2061:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2043:
2042:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2003:
2002:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1954:
1953:
1945:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1871:
1870:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1807:
1806:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1711:
1710:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1615:
1614:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1598:Theydon Garnon
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1585:Theydon Garnon
1581:
1580:
1579:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:Lifted, thanks
1533:
1532:
1531:
1524:
1523:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1455:
1454:
1447:
1446:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1220:
1219:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1078:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1016:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
937:
936:
935:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
915:
914:
913:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
893:
892:
891:
885:
884:
883:
877:
876:
875:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
856:
855:
854:
844:
843:
842:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
746:
745:
744:
743:
715:
714:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
650:
647:
646:
645:
613:
612:
611:
610:
606:, by the way.
604:Gropecunt Lane
600:
599:
598:
588:
587:
586:
576:
575:
574:
564:
563:
562:
552:
551:
550:
540:
539:
538:
532:
531:
530:
520:
519:
518:
508:
507:
506:
499:
498:
497:
496:
458:
457:
456:
455:
448:
447:
446:
440:
439:
438:
428:
427:
426:
412:
411:
410:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
292:
228:Nicholas Exton
204:
201:
167:
166:
157:
147:
146:
144:
90:
85:
84:
82:
81:
74:
67:
59:
56:
55:
54:
53:
48:
38:
37:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2149:
2138:
2135:
2134:
2132:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2104:
2102:
2093:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2067:
2066:
2064:
2063:
2059:
2058:
2052:
2051:
2049:
2045:
2044:
2040:
2039:
2034:Done, cheers.
2033:
2032:
2030:
2026:
2019:
2018:
2016:
2015:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1999:
1991:
1990:
1988:
1987:
1985:
1977:
1976:
1973:
1972:
1969:
1962:
1961:
1959:
1958:
1956:
1955:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1943:
1939:
1937:
1928:
1923:
1922:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1883:
1881:
1876:
1875:
1873:
1872:
1868:
1867:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1851:
1850:
1844:
1843:
1841:
1836:
1835:
1833:
1828:
1827:
1825:
1820:
1819:
1817:
1812:
1811:
1809:
1808:
1804:
1803:
1797:
1796:
1794:
1789:
1788:
1786:
1781:
1780:
1778:
1773:
1772:Rudy Giuliani
1769:
1765:
1764:
1762:
1757:
1756:
1754:
1749:
1748:
1746:
1741:
1740:
1738:
1733:
1732:
1730:
1725:
1724:
1722:
1717:
1716:
1713:
1712:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1699:
1696:
1694:
1688:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1660:
1659:
1657:
1653:Agree, thanks
1652:
1651:
1649:
1644:
1640:
1639:
1637:
1632:
1631:
1629:
1624:
1623:
1621:
1617:
1616:
1612:
1611:
1606:Great, thanks
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1599:
1589:
1588:
1586:
1582:
1577:
1576:
1574:
1569:
1568:
1566:
1561:
1560:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1545:
1544:
1542:
1537:
1536:
1534:
1529:
1528:
1526:
1525:
1521:
1520:
1514:
1513:
1511:
1506:
1505:
1502:
1497:
1496:
1494:
1489:
1488:
1486:
1481:
1480:
1478:
1473:
1472:
1469:
1464:
1463:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1445:
1442:
1440:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1409:
1408:
1406:
1401:
1400:
1398:
1393:
1392:
1390:
1385:
1384:
1382:
1377:
1376:
1374:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1346:
1345:
1343:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1324:
1322:
1321:
1319:
1315:
1314:to historians
1311:
1305:
1304:
1302:
1297:
1296:
1294:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1275:
1273:
1272:
1270:
1265:
1264:
1262:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1208:
1202:
1199:
1197:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1182:
1180:
1174:
1173:these changes
1170:
1169:
1163:
1162:
1160:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1137:
1136:
1134:
1131:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1110:
1105:
1104:
1102:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1079:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1042:
1041:
1039:
1032:
1027:
1026:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1004:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
994:
992:
987:
971:
970:
968:
962:
959:
957:
952:
944:
943:
941:
940:
938:
933:
932:
929:
928:
926:
919:
918:
916:
911:
910:
907:
906:
904:
897:
896:
894:
889:
888:
886:
881:
880:
878:
873:
872:
870:
869:
867:
860:
859:
857:
852:
848:
847:
845:
840:
839:
836:
826:
823:
821:
816:
808:
807:
806:
802:
798:
793:
792:
791:
788:
786:
781:
773:
769:
764:
763:
761:
757:
756:
754:
753:
751:
750:
749:
742:
739:
737:
732:
724:
723:
721:
720:
719:
712:
711:
703:
702:
700:
699:
698:
695:
693:
686:
682:
678:
677:
676:
675:
672:
670:
665:
657:
648:
644:
641:
639:
633:
630:Thanks again
629:
628:
627:
626:
622:
618:
608:
607:
605:
601:
596:
595:
593:
589:
584:
580:
579:
577:
572:
571:
569:
565:
560:
559:
557:
553:
548:
547:
545:
541:
536:
535:
533:
528:
524:
523:
521:
516:
515:
513:
509:
504:
503:
501:
500:
495:
492:
490:
484:
480:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
467:
463:
452:
451:
449:
444:
443:
441:
436:
432:
431:
429:
424:
420:
419:
417:
413:
408:
407:
405:
399:
395:
391:
388:Yes, better!
387:
386:
384:
383:
381:
375:
371:
367:
363:
362:
361:
359:
353:
352:
346:
345:
343:
339:
338:
331:
328:
326:
320:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
304:
301:
299:
293:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
273:
272:
269:
267:
261:
257:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
233:
229:
226:
222:
218:
217:
215:
210:
209:
208:
202:
200:
199:
196:
194:
186:
181:
177:
172:
165:
163:
158:
151:
150:
143:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
89:
88:
80:
75:
73:
68:
66:
61:
60:
58:
57:
52:
49:
46:
45:Copying check
42:
41:
40:
39:
34:
29:
26:
19:
2100:
2073:
2007:
1947:
1935:
1927:Brianboulton
1902:Brianboulton
1898:
1855:
1767:
1704:
1692:
1687:Brianboulton
1670:Brianboulton
1667:
1645:, as it were
1595:
1557:Beaconsfield
1456:
1449:Continuing:
1448:
1438:
1433:Brianboulton
1431:Many thanks
1418:Brianboulton
1415:
1352:Brianboulton
1328:Brianboulton
1317:
1313:
1279:Brianboulton
1247:
1232:Brianboulton
1212:
1195:
1178:
1158:
1147:
1143:
1132:
1081:
1068:St. Caurgula
1045:
1008:
981:
979:
946:
810:
797:Josh Milburn
775:
771:
767:
747:
726:
716:
691:
684:
659:
652:
637:
617:Josh Milburn
614:
591:
567:
555:
543:
511:
488:
462:Josh Milburn
459:
390:Josh Milburn
366:Josh Milburn
357:
350:
341:
324:
297:
282:Josh Milburn
265:
259:
250:
231:
224:
220:
219:Dead right!—
214:John Fresshe
206:
192:
184:
180:constructive
179:
173:
170:
159:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
27:
2060:Scholarship
1266:Absolutely.
772:sans phrase
656:Crosby Hall
529:any better?
162:peer review
104:visual edit
2001:Background
1887:sufficient
1869:In culture
1770:make  :)
1522:Oxford etc
1370:Background
1350:And that.
1298:Of course!
768:per contra
760:Time riley
251:they claim
221:Absolutely
2048:Cheapside
1709:Aftermath
1620:Cheapside
1578:Thank you
1003:Tim riley
985:Tim riley
950:Tim riley
905:Spelling
814:Tim riley
779:Tim riley
730:Tim riley
681:Tim riley
663:Tim riley
525:H'mm; Is
479:J Milburn
319:J Milburn
2131:Category
2112:SchroCat
2092:SchroCat
2076:SchroCat
1813:Removed.
1685:Cheers,
1307:priests.
1153:Tweaked.
945:Lomdon?
752:Wording
556:bisexual
544:at least
454:there :)
358:for sure
351:for sure
342:for sure
260:we think
1952:General
1891:sources
1553:Burford
1098:nuns."?
920:BritEng
882:Capped.
851:Collins
185:On edit
127:history
108:history
94:Article
36:Toolbox
1768:should
1613:Arrest
1127:agree.
416:sodomy
356:known
256:status
2046:Link
1618:Link
1583:Link
1551:Link
1386:Ditto
1190:Ceoil
1114:Ceoil
1084:Ceoil
1046:Later
1031:Ceoil
1020:Ceoil
972:Done.
568:woman
176:at GA
160:This
136:Watch
16:<
2116:talk
2080:talk
2041:Life
2008:Lord
1906:talk
1862:Done
1829:Done
1782:True
1758:Done
1734:Done
1726:Done
1674:talk
1662:man"
1633:Done
1570:done
1562:done
1555:and
1515:Gone
1498:Done
1482:Done
1453:Life
1422:talk
1356:talk
1332:talk
1283:talk
1236:talk
1218:Lead
1118:talk
1088:talk
1072:talk
990:talk
955:talk
819:talk
801:talk
784:talk
735:talk
685:from
668:talk
621:talk
581:Try
537:done
483:here
466:talk
445:Done
437:...?
394:talk
370:talk
286:talk
123:edit
100:edit
1889:in
1877:Yes
1402:Yes
1188:Yo
1146:...
861:Ha!
512:sex
505:"/'
354:or
232:and
225:and
216:!)
2133::
2118:)
2082:)
2031:?
1944:SC
1908:)
1676:)
1424:)
1358:)
1334:)
1285:)
1238:)
1175:.
1120:)
1090:)
1074:)
803:)
632:JM
623:)
514:?
468:)
396:)
372:)
288:)
280:.
230:,
171:.
140:•
125:|
106:|
102:|
2114:(
2094::
2090:@
2078:(
1929::
1925:@
1904:(
1672:(
1420:(
1354:(
1330:(
1281:(
1234:(
1116:(
1086:(
1070:(
1033::
1029:@
799:(
619:(
585:?
464:(
392:(
368:(
284:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
78:e
71:t
64:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.