# Talk:The Voices of Morebath

Curious: Why use {{sfn}} at all if not to cite specific pages? Without page numbers, why separate the full citations in Citations from those in Sources? You could convert all Sources to Citations without needing short footnotes. Alternatively, all short footnotes can add the specific pages to aid in verification, which is a boon to the reader. But in that case, the remaining full refs in Citations could move to the Sources section. czar 14:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Also New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001. xvi + 232 pp. $22.50 cloth and [untitled] need not be part of the review titles. A common convention is to name reviews Rev. of The Voices of Morebath given that they're often listings in review sections. (I.e., they're just as much that as "[untitled]".) czar 14:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Voices of Morebath/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 11:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Image review

File:Eamon Duffy (4548480973) (cropped).jpg: what reliable source confirms that it depicts Duffy?
File:Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie par Claude Truong-Ngoc octobre 2014.jpg: what reliable source confirms that it depicts Le Roy? Borsoka (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
If there's an RS requirement on determining that an image is of a person, please let me know (I was not previously aware), but the photo of Duffy looks like this one and the photo of Ladurie looks like this one.
I am in trouble. :) My instinct suggests that we need a verification, otherwise anybody could add pictures depicting old alcoholics or prostitutes presenting them as someone else. @Nikkimaria: may I ask you to comment on this issue? Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Image_description_pages, "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. If such sources are available, it is helpful to provide them." (Of course if there is a reason to disbelieve the identification that is a problem!). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Now, I understand the logic. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Source review

Scholarly works of high standards (including several reviews) are cited.
Why are Binski, French, Little, Loades, and Tittler untitled?
Title added for Binski per this. I'm following JSTOR for the others, as no title is given for these particular reviews. I once received guidance in favor of doing the "[Untitled]" approach (though from who and where eludes me at present). I am willing to use the formatted citations of the book that precede the reviews as their titles if that is preferred.
.doi is missing at Tittler.
Done
Do you have information how the work was received among historians of the Continent? Borsoka (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I've looked across the Wikipedia Library's resources with one French author, Jean-Pierre Moreau, discussing it a few times. Added from him.
References 2 (except 2g), 15, 37 checked.
Inman (2019) is a dead link.
Duffy would describe The Stripping of the Altars as "a runaway success". According to the cited source, Duffy describes the Reformation as "a runaway success". Borsoka (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Comments

In the first sentence of the main text I would clarify that Morebath was a village in England.
Performed some tweaks to that whole sentences.
..."remote and poor"..."church ales" Name the author in the text, alternatively, delete the quotation marks.
Done. I adjusted the church ales bit but feel like there is punctuation missing there. Should I italicize?
I like it now, but I am obviously not an authority in English ortography. :)
Introduce and link Duffy when he is first mentioned in the main text.
Done.
...historian of British religion... Is he? I think he is a scholar of church history in Britain.
Done.
...traditional religious practices... Is the adjective "traditional" necessary?
Done. I wavered on this at first. A crucial element of Duffy's work–beyond just Morebath–is the notion of a traditional English Christianity with roots in the Middle Ages. If you've read the book and came away comfortable dropping "traditional", then I think the amnesia test suggests I ought to remove it.
Do we know why Bruegel's painting was selected for the front page?
French posits that, alongside the other illustrations, the painting "invoke[s] a sense of community and nostalgia for 'bygone' England". I've added that.
I would link "impression" to Impression (publishing).
Done
...their medieval context... Medieval?
Rephrased. Or is the issue that I'm using the adjectival form?
Can we refer to the period of the English Reformation as medieval?
Since the RS does so (and the portion of the book in question is largely concerned with Morebath in the decades preceding the English Reformation), I'd say so. In some contexts, particularly architecture, you can even see references to even the 17th century in Virginia as "medieval".
Chapters four and five... Not five and six?
Heckuva a mistake on my end. Fixed.
My problem is that chapter four/the fourth chapter is mentioned twice, but any reference to chapter six/the sixth chapter is missing (although the article writes of the seventh chapter).
I doubled up on typos there. The source is saying that the content previously attributed as the fourth and fifth chapters was in the fifth and sixth. Thanks for spotting that something was funny there.
Introduce MacCulloch with one or two words.
Did it in three.
Thank you for this article. I decided to read the book. Borsoka (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Thank you for the review! I'm glad you decided to read the book. My first exposure to The Stripping of the Altars helped guide my interest in Anglican liturgy, though I think I now disagree with some of Duffy's appraisal of that history. Either way, I'm glad to have someone as intrigued by it all as I was! Please let me know if there is anything outstanding; I've tried my best to respond to each issue you raised. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
(Lead:) I would introduce Duffy as a church historian.
Done
(Lead:) ...the English Reformation and Tudor period... Do we need both?
Probably not, removed Tudor period.
(Lead:) ...in a small conservative Catholic community... I would delete "Catholic".
I'm keeping it, as their retention of Catholic practices (rather than embrace of Protestantism) was a driver of conflicts described
(Lead:) ...pre-Reformation English traditional religion... I would delete "traditional".
Done.
(Lead:) Lucy Wooding, a historian of the Tudor period, called the work "invaluable" as "a contribution to debate on the English Reformation" and suggested that Duffy's own views had developed during his time writing the book. Robert M. Kingdon, a historian of the Reformation, acknowledged that the number of wider conclusions that could be drawn from the book was limited but lauded Duffy's "remarkable empathy and impressive technical research skills". Consider deleting the two sentences.
You're right. Done.
Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Rephrase note 3. Borsoka (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
@Borsoka: I'm traveling this weekend and away from the device I use for most of my editing (as well as my copy of the book). I'll respond more sometime late Sunday/early Monday UTC. My apologies for the delay. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
No problem. Have a nice weekend. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
A swell weekend it was, Borsoka, and I hope it was likewise for you. I think I'm caught up on your comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti is probably inadvertently coming close to breaking Wp:3RR and I'd like to discuss here first before getting there. Why this allergy to citing facts? Citations are good. JASpencer (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I was somewhat wondering that myself.  I suspect for the Scarisbrick work, it is because the author, yesr, and title is given in the text explicitly and the source list has the full reference, there is no need for a superscript cite unless a specific subsection is being referenced [page number, chapter]]).   The question then is the necessity of the Gwyn cite.  I assume you want to include it as a secondary source indicating what Scarisbrick's work does.  @Pbritti reverted with a statement of "Again, these sources are not necessary, especially since they long predate the subject of this article" which I'm having trouble understanding unless he thinks much of the background section should be removed. Erp (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
@JASpencer: Please don't make spurious claims about edit warring when the onus is on you to open a talk page discussion upon first reversion—see WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. The added sources are irrelevant to the section as the material already sufficiently verified in a preexisting source. @Erp: I'm currently working on taking the article through FAC, and I have trouble parsing what you could mean. The both of you have not presented a compelling case for including two unnecessary sources that don't contribute substantively to the article. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@JASpencer: This is a peculiar insertion. Considering a citation is provided at the end of that very paragraph that verifies the content, I think you ought to provide a clear justification for its insertion that indicates a constructive rationale. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
So where are the publication details in Collinson's article?  Citations are good and this paragraph is nowhere near overcited. Paragraph WP:OWNership is as real as article ownership. JASpencer (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
"The both of you have not presented a compelling case for including two unnecessary sources".   Sources or cites? We may be using different terminology and so not communicating properly.  Are you stating that the Scarisbrick source be removed from the source list in this entry? (Note I do and did agree that a second cite via a footnote to it is not needed in this paragraph since the in text info is sufficient to point to the source in the source list at the end of the article.)  I am trying to figure out the why (or why not) for the Gwyn cite.  Gwyn's review does support Collinson's (2002) thesis about the back and forth up to the time (1984) it was written.  Neither review can be considered a peer reviewed work (and neither has a bibliography) though given the writers and publication (London Review of Books) they can be considered good sources (an ideal source of a nearer to the current time, peer reviewed article on the history of the back and forth might not exist).  Collinson's is the more recent and covers more and in great detail but might not be sufficient.   On whether Gwyn's would help this article, I haven't made up my mind yet. Erp (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
@JASpencer: So where are the publication details in Collinson's article? What does this mean? Why are you accusing another editor of some sort of civility issue when you have not provided any evidence that there is one. Again, @Erp: your concern is a bit baffling. The sources that are attempted to be inserted have no mention of the subject of this article. Since Collinson verifies every detail already present in the article, we don't need to be inserting anything. Editors adding unneeded/irrelevant citations references in the middle of an FAC—especially without commenting in that FAC—makes this especially unusual. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)