# Talk:Economy of England in the Middle Ages

I've had a stab at putting together an article covering the economic aspects of medieval England, as I couldn't find an article really covering all of these aspects in one place elsewhere on the wiki. It'll need some more work, no doubt, but it should provide a start. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Should some of the rebellions against taxation (primarily to fund wars) be included? I'm thinking of the Cornish Rebellion of 1497 but there may be others.— Rod talk 20:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely - I'll fish out some references. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I've now added a note on the Cornish and Yorkshire rebellions under Henry VII; there's no easy link to both the Cornish rebellions, unfortunately, so I've gone for the first one of two. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In the 14th century Bristol was one of the three largest towns in England, based on shipbuilding, manufacturing & trade & yet it doesn't get a mention in this article. Any particular reason?— Rod talk 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My oversight - again, I'll check out a reference later. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added two bits on Bristol, and a reference for both. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The article, when discussing Royal Forests, says "They were mostly created in the less arable parts of the Midlands, Peak District and the North, with very few created in the South-West, South-East or the Fens" and a reference is given however I'm not sure whether that assertion is accurate - a quick scan of Royal forest#Royal forests in England shows lots in the south of England. Are there lots more in the Midlands & north which should be added to that list?— Rod talk 20:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Checked back with the reference, and I'd misread the date in Cantor's chapter when writing the sentence - your point is 100% valid. I've just removed the sentence, and will rewrite it more accurately later on. Apologies! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Economy of England in the Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


### Quickfail
Passes. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


### Initial comments
I am impressed with the completeness and comprehensiveness of this article.
Fearing copyvio due to the appearance of a complete and comprehensive article in the recent past, I investigated the origins of this article.  The article originates in a user-space sandbox and represents the long editing process expected of such a fully formed article coming to fruition.  This may be a way forward for summary and thematic historical articles in general, which are plagued by POV wars.
The article is lacking a historiography section. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a first stab at a historiography section in a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
First draft of historiography completed and added in; I can't yet view the articles below, but will try to include them once I've visited my nearest jstor enabled library! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


#### Article dump zone for historiographical section
Obviously in addition to the introduction section of books already cited, etc., as style for monograph history:

Economy and Society in Medieval England
Sylvia L. Thrupp
The Journal of British Studies
Vol. 2, No. 1 (Nov., 1962), pp. 1-13
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/175304

Adriaan Verhulst, Medieval socio-economic historiography in Western Europe: towards an integrated  approach, Journal of Medieval History, Volume 23, Issue 1, March 1997, Pages 89-101, ISSN 0304-4181,  DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4181(96)00028-0.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VC1-3SWV92V-6/2/6d9035caa36556652dd873333a143ab1)

Title: Review: The Status of Economic History: A Review Article
Author(s): Rondo E. Cameron
Source: The Business History Review, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Mar., 1954), pp. 92-99
Publisher(s): The President and Fellows of Harvard College
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3111447

Matrices of Materialist Historiography
John A. Marino
The Journal of Modern History
Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1979), pp. 99-107
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1877875

Recent Studies in the Economic History of Medieval England 
A Review Essay 
Author: Hugh M. Thomasa
Affiliation:   	a Department of History, University of Miami, USA
DOI: 10.1080/01615440.1992.9956342
Published in: journal Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History,  Volume 25, Issue 1 January 1992 , pages 42 - 47 

Fifelfoo (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria as a template for reviewing:


### 1. Well-written
Passes Fifelfoo (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


#### (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
Passes Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Progress update: Actions required.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 50% complete on copyedit read. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
General
Reconsider every use of whilst
Reduced! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Reconsider every use of however
Reduced! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Lede
"for the purposes of this article pertains to" replace "was"
Done by another editor I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"At the heart..." put subsiduary clause "Prior to the Norman invasion" first.  "...demense lands" fullstop new sentance starting "These were"
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"international trade" fullstop new sentence "A centralised monarchy oversaw"
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"Although the invasion" => "Although the Norman invasion"
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"The next two hundred years" which?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"development of the English economy" fullstop new sentence
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"enshrined in English law;" fullstop new sentence
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Lede needs to tell a little bit more of the grand story rather than summarising the points in detail.  This could be in the first paragraph.  "England's economy was fundamentally agricultural, though not subsistence.  Atop a pre Norman open fields system, Norman institutions were partly imposed.  Recurring crises in Crown extraction of wealth, combined with an agricultural crises brought on by the very success of the open fields agricultural economy, produced political and economic change, resulting in a weak early modern Crown and the development of rented farms controlled by gentry by the end of the period.  Despite economic dislocation in urban and extraction economies, these developed and intensified over the period, despite shifts in the holders of wealth and the location of urban and extraction economies.  [Something about class change]"?
I've had a stab at this - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Invasion
"recorded as "wasteland" in 1086" fullstop new sentence
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
English agriculture
"were also farmed extensively;" fullstop new sentence
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
"were kept on English farms" anachronism.  Farms here is a technical term used relating to the gentry's rented holdings.  Find a better term.  Estates?  Holdings?  Cottage gardens?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Manorial system
"landowners nobility" landowning nobility
Think this was caught by another editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
"Nonetheless, the new Norman aristocracy…alternative employment."  Too many clauses and lists for one sentence, rewrite for clarity
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Creation of the forests
"established the concept" can't establish a concept.  I think you mean established the social practice?  But that's clumsy, rewrite
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
"enclosed woods".  Anachronism?  Enclosure implies the forced deprivation of commons rights.  I doubt the Anglo-Saxons nobility deprived people of rights as such.
Done - see what you think of the wording. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Trade, manufacturing and the towns
"important towns in 1066," fullstop, new sentence, rewrite next sentence
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
"Others suffered from the way…at Lincoln" confused, rewrite
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
"a lot" different wording?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
"reinvested into Normandy" reinvested in Normandy
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Governance and Taxation
"from a mixture of" colon "customs" semicolon "coinage" semi "fines" semi "lands" semi "and" comma "the system
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Mid-medieval growth
"1.5m, 4-5m" spell out?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"secure from invasion" fullstop, new sentence
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"Anarchy" requires parenthetical def?
I'm not sure - most of the time I've seen it written it is just the Anarchy, without parentheses. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"ordines - " replace dash with comma to match list style
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
English agriculture and the landscape
"There remained…grown" Confused.  Rewrite.
Done.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"salt production was an important commodity" confused
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"commodity" anachronistic
I can't find the commodity bit in this section - it may have gone already. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"their numbers doubling by the 14th century" fullstop new sentence
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"farms" anachronism
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"scavenge for food" fullstop new sentence
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"although" unnecessary
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"productivity" anachronistic?  Bushels per acre?  Bushels per acre per labourer-year?
I'm not sure - the term productivity is widely used in the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Development of estate management
"New land was increasingly…" confused, rewrite
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
"into cultivation" replace dash with colon
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
"and were captured" bad verb
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Role of the Church in agriculture
"time of their fall" fullstop new sentence
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Growth of English towns
"By 1297 120" awkward, use text for one figure?  Rewrite so figures broken by text?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"The new towns were usually located with access to trade routes" in mind ", rather than defence" full stop new sentence
Done.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"profitable" (and later in reference to Gascony) anachronistic
Done. Hchc2009 (talk)
"By 1200s…Watling Street" confused.  The land routes across England are Ermine Street etc.  Rewrite
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Expansion of the money supply
"overseas" surely "oversee"
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Rise of the guilds
"function effectively" fullstop new sentence
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Merchants and the development of the charter fairs
"for two or three days" fullstop new sentence
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Governance and Taxation
"proved insufficient and in from the middle"
Fixed by a different editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"Combined with the lex mercatoria" surely lex mercatoria?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"provided for a reasonable" provided seems a bad verb here.
Done.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Black Death
"effected" you mean "affected"
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"In the short term…were profound" confused, rewrite, too many parenthetical clauses
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Collapse of the demesne and the creation of the farming system
"became evidence" "became evident"
Changed by another editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Rise of the cloth trade
"great depression" anachronistic
Changed to "serious depression" - the term depression is commonly used for this period, and that avoids 1930s parallels. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"The wool and cloth…South-West" confused, reword
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"balance of payments surplus" very very anachronistic!  :)
Alternative found! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Historiography
Style conflict, Maitland is Maitland whereas Power is given as Eileen.  Last names for academics is common.  Using first names for female academics is highly problematic when male academics get last names.
Completely agree. Corrected. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


#### (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Progress update: Not yet begun.  Will need to read the MOS closely, and then reread the article closely. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've decided to leave the MOS close read until all other issues are resolved.  I think a MOS close read acts as a nice way to finish of the review and put the spit-polish on. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Begun reading MOS to do the MOS read over. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Passes  (sorry, life messed me over.)  TBH, this should go to FAC, and they're fairly picky, and more advanced on prose and MOS than I am.  But the GA MOS criteria do not seem to be onerous.  This passes.  Again apologies for RSNing this. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


### 2. Factually accurate and verifiable
Passes when the citation typos and minor issues are fixed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


#### (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
Passes Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Partial review for Bibliography and Citation Quality—it is good, just fix-it problems, a couple of unclear attributions or typos.

Bibliography, Dyers is given in citations, but not bibliography, do you mean Dyer?
Yep, have now changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Bibliography & Citations, there are two Brown 1989s, different authors, specify in citations and as reference to contained works in bibliography by including given names and or initials.
Sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Bibliography, locations imprecise, supply State, Province or Nation: Woodbridge, Harlow, Walnut Creek, Westport, Harmondsworth, Aldershot, Abingdon
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Bibliography, out of style period after author: Aberth 2001; Brown, R Allen 1989; Fryde and Fryde 1991; Miller 1991;
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Bibliography, year not given: Hatcher, John; Kowalski, Maryanne
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Bibliography, probable books in series, multiple volume works with separately named volumes, check titles: Hicks 2001; Palliser 2000; Miller 1991
Hicks has been tweaked, Palliser and Miller follow the format of the "name" of the volume being the date range and volume number, so I think the biblio reflects this correctly now. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Bibliography, for works contained in other works, and for journal articles, you don't give the page ranges, are you happy with this style?
Personally, yes... but (ahem) I'd be the last to suggest that I should set the style for decent bibliographies! :) If you recommend the bibliography should include them, I'd be very happy to include them. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I have long considered my role in relation to citations to assist in consistency within Author chosen style, and only note missing elements when they reduce the quality of the article.  Page ranges aren't necessary in this Wikipedia influenced style when the chapter title / journal article title and issue number are given as the work can be adequately located. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Cheers - many, many supervisors and colleagues over the years have come to bemoan my inability to consistently type up citations! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Bibliography, absence of space between Penguin. and ISBN
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Bibliography, ref check: you repeatedly cite Postan 1972, which doesn't exist, suggest check Postan 1982 for typo in year
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Citations, Dyer / Dyers problem
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Citations, Postan 1972 not given in bibliography, typo check
Fixed - was typo, should have been '72. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Citations, occasionally you cite as "p#" or "pp#" or "p #" or "pp #" or "p. #" or "pp. #" when your style is "p.#" and "pp.#" (fns. 19 30 39 40 70 80 81 85 87 88 98 116 119 129 134 140 151 158 172 177 195 201 202)
Think I've got them all fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Citations, Brown 1989 and Brown 1989 unclear
Sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Citations, fn44 spell out the 4m and 5m?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Citations, no page given at fn74 Bayley, 2009; also should be "Bayley 2009" for style
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Citations, fn125 Hillaby gives a page as "29l" ie: "two nine letter-L", should be "291" "two nine one" probably
Removed the "l" (was too near the ";" on the keyboard, I suspect). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Citations, fn143 Postan no page given, Postan no year given
Fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


#### (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
Passes. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Source Reliability Review—With free High Quality Reliable Source check to aid this going to FA if you choose.

Passes.  In relation to HQRS for FACs there are a number of popular press works aimed at the equivalent of a University educated reader and/or primers/textbooks aimed at advanced undergraduates as a minimum.  These aren't worrysome because of their high quality, and because of supplementation by material of the highest quality (specialist presses in medieval studies, UPs, etc.)  Have you considered more journal articles?  Your source base is primarily chapters, conference proceedings published as books, and monographs.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to cover off the journals better, but I'll need to travel over to the nearest proper university for that unfortunately, so may not be for a couple of weeks. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
We can take this review as slow as you feel it needs to be, I'm chugging away at the review criteria one at a time. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sources given for: direct quotes, stats, opinion, counter-intuitive and controversial, BLP

Passes.  No worries here, excellent citation density. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


#### (c) it contains no original research.
Passes.  This assessment is based on the density of source citations, the high quality of sources used, and a basic coverage analysis.  I'll only revisit this opinion if I come across something in close reading for style / coverage / etc.  If I don't revisit, the pass stands (I expect it to). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


### 3. Broad in its coverage
Passes after issues resolved. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


#### (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Passes Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Progress update:  Actions required.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 50% complete.  A number of topics may need to be brought out better, standards of consumption and property holding between classes.  The historiography point is noted above (doesn't need to be a long one).  Will address properly when close reading is complete. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Better attention to class, standards of freedom, consumption patterns, purpose and variety of consumption.  While this might lead into domestic economy, there's no indication of the standard of living causes of the crises.
I've added a fair bit on consumption patterns and differences therein between the classes. See what you think.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Illegal settlement on forests?
I've added a bit on poaching. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The concept of "method of cultivation brought out in the picture of ploughmen isn't developed.  Is it a theoretical concept?
I think the language here was changed by another author. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Manorial system "These villages had adopted an open field system" what was the previous system?
I've added "new villages" for clarity - before then the settlements were isolated dwellings, rather than proper villages, so you couldn't really have an open field system at all. And before then, Roman estate agriculture. See how it reads. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Manorial system "A number of watermills" small, large?  Generally you don't bring out the theoretical implication of the use of mechanised power and its increasing use over the period.
I've added some stats to give an impression of growth over the period. England seems to have had slightly less than the continent at this time, but I can't work out where I actually read it. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Trade, manufacturing and the towns No mention of English reliance on foreign trade for luxury goods?
£ figures.  Consider using measuring worth.  But... sigh... old data like this only has deeply flawed CPI / labour cost figures.  What about a per annum earning comparator (equivalent to the yearly income generated for [noble] by [commonly known agricultural region]?)
£50000 in 1066, £1m in 1311... urgh.  mw has no money supply or GDP factor to 1066.  I have no idea how you can give accurate comparitors, particularly when cash money wasn't as relevant to economic behaviour then as now.  Good luck contextualising this!
I'm usually really cautious about comparisons with modern prices any earlier than Tudor times... We've had a similar problem with many of the articles on castles! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree entirely with your caution.  Perhaps you could compare these figures to the yearly revenue in pounds of a well known contemporary aristocrat at worst.  They're total economy figures, so the cash economy access of a major land, rent, tithe and duty holder might be the comparison?  If this it too hard, it doesn't matter.  TBH, cash figures in this period are something to add colour to the text for most readers, and specialists have an ability to grasp the economic impact in other ways. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Governance and Taxation capacity of King to collect not really brought forward
"Pipe rolls" such a significant primary source ought to be noted as significant in inline text!
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Great Famine the lost of cattle and sheep and increase in prices requires a contextualising meaning statement, "This meant ..."]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Rise of the cloth trade what exactly is "a cloth" for the lay person.  This is a great technical term to give someone an idea that a cloth is a single unit of woven fabric of dimensions x by y, not a massive roll of machine woven.  :)  Give the something to _feel_ and hold.  Also a great potential image of a medieval style English cloth.  Who is "a magnate" in trade in the medieval period, parenthesis?
I've added a note on the size of a cloth; I couldn't get it to fit well in the paragraph itself.Hchc2009 (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I like it. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


#### (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Passes Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Progress update: 50% complete.  Main Articles may need to be created for a number of thematic sub-topics (off the top of my head The Development of English Towns in the Middle Ages; The Development of English Agriculture in the Middle Ages) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Suggest Main Articles for
"Economy of English Agriculture in the Middle Ages" produced with the body of your sections for starters
"Economy of English Towns and Trade in the Middle Ages" again produced with the body of your sections
"Economy of English Mining in the Middle Ages" again
"Economy of the English Crown in the Middle Ages" again
In all these three areas there's scope for a topical article with expanded technical depth
"English Class in the Middle Ages" can probably be created as a topical article if it doesn't exist already.  It would be great to bring together the Crown, Nobility, Manor, Slaves, Free and Enserfed Peasants, Towns, Magnates, Merchants, Guilds, Gentry.
These are, of course, not related to the article's GA status, but provide useful places for further details you may have come across.  I think the article stays focused without going into unnecessary detail, but the encyclopaedia requires articles to carry the detail that would be unnecessary here! :)
Happy to do this, but where in the article do you think they should link from? (e.g. where should the "Main article: Economy of English Agriculture in the Middle Ages" bit go?) I'm thinking just at the top of the first Agriculture section? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't replied earlier, top of the first section sounds good to me.  I've still got to read the MOS criteria before the polish.  If that says something different I'm sure either I'll find it, or we'll both find out when this goes to Featured Article Candidates as it should! Fifelfoo (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not finished, but an example of what they might look like is linked here. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
First one of them done and linked in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Second done and linked in. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Third done and linked in. I've linked to the Taxation in Medieval England page for the fourth - it doesn't include all the aspects of Crown income, but should provide a good starting point. When I get a chance I'll have a stab at rounding that out a little. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


### 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
Passes depending on the consideration of the potential for better integration of some class issues
The article accurately represents the focus in the historiography on towns, agriculture and demographic development, the role of the crown.  There are a few points where the analysis needs to be drawn out better, "This meant that...[theoretical claim in the RS]" "Meaning that...[claim in RS]" "Of scholarly interest as..." which is a contextualising issue.  Class is a hobby-horse for me and I'm avoiding riding it here: I'm not asking for a rewrite of stuff, so much as the main editor reconsidering this at a few points (say, the economic crisis proceeding the starvation and plague for example).  I've placed this as "passes" because the reconsideration won't affect my judgement if the reconsideration returns, "nope, it is good" :) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I've expanded a bit on the class relationships in the governance and taxation system - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


### 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Passes. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


### 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images
Passes the general criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


#### (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
Passes. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


#### (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Passes Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Progress update: 100% complete via close reading process for copyedit issues.  Haven't looked at ALTs yet. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)  ALTs needed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
"Part of the medieval Jewish financial district in Lincoln" dubious value due to modern changes to land occupation (the next house is red brick, the windows are post-early modern), the street scape itself is post-Victorian with gutters, gaslight.
Changed to one of Clifford's Tower; the site is still chilling. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Damn you Europeans and your habits of atrocity.  The very picture of the site evokes images of things that shouldn't ever happen happening.  Good choice.  I also noticed the stone and half-timber restoration, a great illustrative example. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Possibility of illustrating "What a Cloth was" with a recreated or historical cloth.
I really like this idea, but I'm having trouble finding a free picture. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Damn.  Have you considered contacting museums of design or poking one of the image request crews.  The quality of the article might inspire them.  Obviously this is an added extra rather than a GA-hold-up issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The images need alts, see Wikipedia:ALT.  The first image could be |alt=Illuminated manuscript of cleric, knight and peasant. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


### GA Review Complete: It Is A Good Article
Allow me to congratulate the primary article contributor on their immense and wonderful work in producing this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent article and I hope to see it reach FA status one day.  I do think there should be some mention of tithes in the "Role of the Church in Agriculture" section, and I think it would be ideal if the article mentioned the beginnings of enclosure in the Statute of Merton 1235.  But other than that, I'd like to congratulate you on an excellent treatment of the subject.—S Marshall T/C 14:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I agree about the tithes, and the enclosure point would echo some of Fifelfoo's points on class and economics nicely. I'll sort that out this week. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I've added a couple of bits on the tithe system; will cover the enclosures next. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the United Kingdom template. I doubt that it existed as early as 1509. Also, the article is about England.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ananiujitha - you've noted a concern that some sources (nfi) disagree with Jordan and Hodgett on a sentence in the article. Could you describe what the other sources are, and what they say? 18:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be Stephen Broadberry, Bruce Campbell, and Bas van Leeuwen, here: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/pdf/Broadberry/Medievalpopulation.pdf they find that the population on the eve of the plague was greater than the population on the eve of the great famine. Given the disagreement among the sources, with some suggesting increase in the interval, it seems premature to say that "the Great Famine of 1315–17 shook the English economy severely and population growth ceased" or that "The Great Famine firmly reversed the population growth of the 12th and 13th centuries". Ananiujitha (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Cheers! Will have a read through it. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Although there isn't as much info on early/mid medieval England, why not begin with early medieval England? Ananiujitha (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible some salvageable content, but this article reads like an essay and is not very encyclopedic. ~~JHUbal27 22:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I created The medieval English wool trade. In my view, the medieval English wool trade deserves its own entry:
it was a major and, moreover, distinctive part of the English economy, with long-term importance for the development of English capitalism
it has been the subject of extensive, dedicated scholarly research
the article Economy of England in the Middle Ages, with which JHUbal27 proposes a merger, is already very long (indeed, it already has a long sub-article Economics of English Agriculture in the Middle Ages)
While I would happily agree that my article is a first run, and would bear revision and improvement, I do consider it encyclopedic. It cites a range of academic sources, but takes its key points and structure from the major recent scholarly surveys on the topic, pre-eminently John H. Munro's contributions to The Cambridge History of Western Textiles, Volume 1, ed. by D. T. Jenkins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 181-227. Alarichall (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
No doubt the wool trade article could be improved, but I'd agree with Alarichall - it is a huge subject and should probably have its own article. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Would it be okay with you guys if I remove the 'merge' tag from the article then? Thanks for the input either way! Alarichall (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree no merge needed. I've also removed the "essay" tag there, which seems unwarranted. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Cheers John. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Removing merge tag now. Would have been like merging the Japanese car industry with ? as just another bit of their postwar economic resurgence. Eddaido (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

How are we getting on with this then? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Imperatrix...: "F.A." as in "Featured Article"...? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@Hchc2009:... yes, not Fanny Adams!  Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... Interesting question. It's not in bad shape, although there would almost certainly be some copyediting, tidying up etc. required. I've learnt a bit more about medieval history since I wrote this, and I think it could certainly be improved in various places. It would probably also need a decent check-over by someone with a formal background on this period (e.g. Ealdgyth or similar); I'm self-taught, and I'm conscious that the current text could contain errors / misinterpretations that someone with a specialist background might spot. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's great that this article has a historiography section: more should! I wonder if the historiography section might go at the beginning of the article (after the header), since I'd see it as an important way into understanding the consensus represented by the rest of the article, rather than a footnote or afterthought. Alarichall (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad you like it! I'd be inclined to keep it at the end, though. Most readers will want to get on with reading about "what happened" (loosely characterised!) rather than how historians came to those conclusions, and I think we'd lose some readers by moving it up to form the first thing they encounter. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, first off thank you for what seems like a well rounded article in general, and thank you for including a section on the Jewish contribution to the economy. I came here to see if there was information on the "crisis of the Knights" which seems to have been a driving factor in the civil wars of the 1200s, such as the Second Barons' War and also relates to the financial problems that this middling landed group had, which caused indebtedness and land transfers to the Crown. See also Eleanor of Castile#Land acquisition and unpopularity. You may also be interested in some of the financial information I've found on the Jewish community at History of the Jews in England (1066–1290)#Exploitation of Jewish debts by the Crown which might better explain a couple of the points in your section. Jim Killock (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)