This review is transcluded from Talk:Edict of Expulsion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 17:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this below, really helpful. I will try to work through it over the next few days. One point I wanted to raise is the potential breadth of the topic: given it is about the "Edict of Expulsion" rather than History of the Jews in England (1066–1290) I've deliberately tried to give just as much as is needed to understand the Edict, but nothing beyond that. That's how I've understood it should work, but I entirely get that it invites a lot of questions. Jim Killock (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see the notes in the Talk page. There's a balancing act to be struck: you're right that we don't want to include information, however interesting, that is not directly relevant to the article's subject or content. On the other hand, policy tells us not to shy away from including material that is duplicated elsewhere, if it's useful here as well: [[we aren't subject to the same space pressures as a paper encyclopaedia. Similarly, we should explain and contextualise things that many readers will know, or consider obvious, because our readers come from a range of backgrounds, ages, levels of knowledge etc, and it's explicit in our MoS that users shouldn't have to leave an article's page to find the necessary information to understand what's in it. Precisely how we balance these is always going to be subjective, but the GA standards err on the side of comprehensibility and accessibility rather than efficiency, so given the choice, we should explain and contextualise more, rather than less. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're at or a bit beyond what is strictly needed to understand what the Edict of Expulsion is now; some of the things included could be left out, and it wouldn't make it harder to understand why it happened. As we add information, it becomes harder to read through, so it's not a strict advantage to include new details. Jim Killock (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the overall sense, I don't disagree: however, there are some specific points in the article that are currently underexplained and therefore cause a problem against criterion 1a ("understandable to an appropriately broad audience"). I've done my best to specify where and why this is a problem below. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these should all be addressed now. Thanks for your time on this so far. Jim Killock (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this one. First impressions: nicely written and knowledgeable, and an important area of history. 17:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

General points

• Generally speaking, material in the lead shouldn't be cited (MOS:LEADCITE), because the lead should repeat/summarise information already present (and cited) in the body.
• Not sure that synagogue is generally capitalised in HQRS (outside specific place names, e.g. "The Old Synagogue of Krakow": compare "Winchester Cathedral" but "a cathedral in Winchester").
• Antisemitism and antisemitic should not be hyphenated.
• Generally, there are a lot of short paragraphs, which often move quite lightly over the material. It would be good to develop these a little and add useful supporting and contextual detail.
• It's helpful if amounts of money can be put into context -- how much was £16,500 in practice (say, compared with the Crown's usual income, or another cost like the building of a castle, waging of a war, etc?)
• For GA, we need a citation for everything: there shouldn't be any material after the last citation in a paragraph.
• Some areas could do with greater context -- remember that we write for an audience with no real background knowledge. For instance, we need to help our readers see the connection between England and Gascony.

Specific nitpicks

• unlike the rest of the population, making them subject to the whims of the king: what did this actually mean? Firstly, was nobody else a direct subject of the king? Secondly, in what meaningful ways were Jews "subject to the whims of the king" in a way that non-Jews weren't?
  • this is how it is described, I've edited to try to make it clearer, without drive-by describing feudalism
    • who could tax or imprison them as he wished, without reference to anyone else: I still think we need a bit more context. Did the King had to receive parliamentary approval to tax everyone else? Could he really imprison Jews without habeas corpus? I gather there was a bit of a row about that a little while before our article's events... UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely, and mass arrests happened repeatedly and regularly whenever the Crown felt it wanted to squeeze Tallages. I've clarified it as best I can and can add further sources for you to check if you like. Jews were outside of English law, not English subjects, but the property of the Crown. I've cut the feudalism bit as it's not really relevant. 23:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note b: feudal is a pretty dirty word in medievalist circles, but even less popular is the idea that "feudal" societies were all basically the same. Firstly, this note needs to be cited: secondly, I'd focus it particularly on the English context, rather than drawing (potentially false) associations with other European realms.
  • This isn't something I've dealt with in a long time and I'm sure you are right. 23:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• A very small number of Jews were wealthy, as they were allowed to lend money at interest, while Christians were forbidden from doing so, as this constituted the sin of usury. Loans however were vital, as capital was in short supply and necessary for economic development.: citation needed (a lot of big claims here). I also think we could do better than to say that Christians didn't lend money, because it was a sin: adultery, lying and stealing were also sins, but plenty of Christians did them! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified that the Church did the forbidding 23:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Allegations of child sacrifice by church leaders, including one at Lincoln which had been given credence by King Henry III,: ambiguous phrasing: was the allegation or the church leader given credence by Henry?
  • the allengation was given credence, hopefully clearer now
    • We've slightly changed the emphasis now: before, we had a clear sense that other people believed it too, but it now seems like Henry came up with the idea. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • It was his credence that was important. have edited. Jim Killock (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        This is altered Jim Killock (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest linking "allegations of child sacrifice" to blood libel and perhaps giving some context on this.
  • done
    • Would still suggest contextualising per MOS:NOFORCELINK. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • What additional context do you feel is needed? Jim Killock (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        At minimum, we need to make sure readers don't go away thinking that the (fairly outlandish) accusation of child sacrifice was somehow arbitrary or unique to this situation: it makes a real difference that these rumours were part of a longstanding body of prejudice and myth. We'd do exactly the same in a modern-day article if someone used racially-charged stereotypes or imagery. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Actually they were rather unique and new. Likewise other features of antisemitism such as Jews as conspirators, association with magic, scatalogical references, start wide circulation in this period, with most force here. This was another of England's unique contributions to the development of international antisemitism. There are some thoughts Blood libels link to things written much earlier, but in practice the sources are clear that Blood Libels start in this period in England, and the most remembered allegation (Little Hugh) sticks because of Edward I's post-Expulsion propaganda (see the conclusion; we could look if more is needed on this).

        I've added: Church leaders made the first allegations of ritual child sacrifice, such as crucifixions at Easter in mockery of Christ, and began to link these with ideas of conspiracy and occult practices. Jim Killock (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        OK -- that's really interesting, and good context. Definitely an example where adding relatively few words makes a big (positive) difference to the reader's understanding and what they take away from the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Agreed Jim Killock (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The statute outlawed all lending at interest and gave Jews fifteen years to readjust: we could do with a bit of explaining as to what lending at interest had to do with Jews, or why banning it might have been a precursor to expelling them.
  • done
    • The statute outlawed all lending at interest, and allowed Jews to lease land for the following 15 years, giving Jews fifteen years to readjust.: I don't see the connection between these two things. Couldn't people lease land before, and how would doing so make the adjustment any less sudden? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • Jews were not allowed to own or lease land prior to this point. I don't think it would have made adjusting much easier, but the theory was, that Jews would be able to "work with their hands" like honest Christians, I suppose. Jim Killock (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        I've edited this to make it clearer it was provisional, and unlikely to succeed Jim Killock (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Economically, Jews had played a key role in the country, but by 1275 this had been severely restricted as the result of punitive taxation, which had eroded the community's wealth. citation needed, and I'd like some explanation as to how Jews had been key to the English economy.
  • done, but at start of Background
    • Still uncited here, and we need something on the punitive taxation (what and when?) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can add information like this, but the other side is that this information is in the main articles; and here, 30% of the article is background, 30% is the actual Edict and process; 30% the aftermath. Aren't we close to breaking WP policy on "focus"? Jim Killock (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is mainly a matter of clarity and actually delivering the information: we've asserted that taxes were punitive, and happened at some vague point before 1275, but we haven't actually shown any evidence of that. If it's important that the reader understand the taxes in order to understand the Edict (which it is), we need (under the GA criteria, WP:DUEWEIGHT, MOS:NOFORCELINK, WP:POPE and all sorts of other related norms, guidelines and policies) to give enough information for a totally uninformed reader to do so without navigating away from the page.

  I'm not talking about giving a detailed history of English taxation here, but something like "the doubling of the taxes on Jews by Edward's predecessor". It certainly matters if this happened in 1274 or 1174, most obviously. Again, remember WP:NOTPAPER: it's perfectly fine (and expected) for information to be written in two places if it's helpful to readers of both. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I will try to explain this, and add a footnote if the detail interrupts the flow. It isn't that the taxes were more in amount (they dwindled) but that Jewish capital being consistently eroded by asking for far too great amounts, their ability to pay was progressively removed; hence punitive. It was throughout, really, from about 1240. And this drives the land seizures by Queen Eleanor etc, as the Jews are forced to release their bonds for cut down prices (this is explained, around the rising semitism explanation.) Jim Killock (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a date and will add a footnote on tax amounts later

  The sentence we're looking at relates to the para above:

  Wider discontent was in part fuelled by the largest English landholders using Jewish loan defaults to purchase the land of smaller indebted gentry, a process that was exacerbated by the heavy taxation placed by the Crown on the Jewry, particularly from 1240 onwards. Debt bonds were sold to a small circle of courtiers at cut down prices, as the Crown controlled the sale of Jewish debts. - and then we read about the political violence that results.

  The "erosion of capital" from excessive ought to be fairly obvious, in that Jews have been forced to sell their debts off cheap, and then been targeted with violent reprisals as a result. Jim Killock (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Footnote added Jim Killock (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1282, John Peckham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, closed all synagogues in his diocese: do we mean his diocese (that is, the area around Canterbury) or his archdiocese/province (that is, half of England)?
  • amended to later descriptions
    • It's now rather changed in emphasis (if the seven synagogues were all the synagogues, that's worth saying), and I'm not totally sold that one action by one priest (albeit a very important one) constitutes "the Church" taking action in any consistent way: the AoC wasn't, as he is now, able to speak for all the other priests in England. Grammatically, The church also took action, for instance in 1282, needs a colon after action and a comma after instance. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could give lots of further examples of Church actions, see for instance History of the Jews in England (1066–1290)#Intervention of the Church but we have to draw a line somewhere. The background after all, isn't the actual Edict the article is nominally about. 23:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
        • Right, but the article needs to be internally consistent, and it's nowhere near the point where we're worrying about being overlength. It certainly needs to cover the major aspects of what it talks about; that isn't to say it needs to list everything, but it should certainly avoid giving the impression that the Church's actions against Jews were all in London and all done by one priest. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        I've reordered the paras here so two church interventions follow; does that work? Jim Killock (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• as debts had to be recorded in the official archae: what were archae? It's best practice to use a ((lang|la|[text])) when including text in Latin: it helps screen readers parse it correctly and the wiki software to categorise the article (this is explained later; the footnote needs moving).
  • I think the fn is referred each time
    • It is. NB that archa should be decapitalised. In that footnote, I'm not sure what "an officially Jewry" is: "an officially-registered Jewish population", or "known to the authorities to have Jewish residents", or similar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jews could only live in towns where there was an archa to record debts on behalf of the King. I'll try to clarify
        • Done --Jim Killock (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Is pogrom the right word for thirteenth century England?
  • The sources use it; like "antisemitism" it is somewhat anachronistic, but it fits. 23:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Others managed to find ways to enter alternative kinds of trading or business and it is likely that others left the country.: Citations needed on this whole paragraph, but I'd be interested to know what sort of trading/business we mean, or how we know that others left the country.
  • not sure how much we know but will check
    • I"ve edited this down to avoid the issue --Jim Killock (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Local expulsions of Jews were not new. They had happened frequently in many countries, and regularly in England. In 1275, Edward had permitted the Queen mother Eleanor, to expel Jews from her lands and towns: that's one example; I'd like a few more before I'd be happy with regularly.
  • added details
    • Better, though on They had happened frequently in many countries: countries isn't a great label for the medieval period, as we're often dealing with realms, free cities, bishoprics etc and other models of organisation that don't map nicely onto our concept of a "country" ("happened frequently throughout Europe"?). We also need some non-English examples to sell this point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • will use "parts of Europe". 23:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
        • That's done, I suppose the map of Europe was doing the context some good here. --Jim Killock (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Charles of Salerno: needs much more context: who is this guy, where/why is he in captivity, why does Edward need to free him, and how will money help him do that?
  • he's his mate, but the story isn't wholly relevant, except they both shared the same prejudices. Included what I hope is the minimum detail
    • Better, but I still think we need to know where Charles actually was (neither Gascony nor Salerno). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done 23:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC) --Jim Killock (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• some historians argue Weaselly words: which historians? Can we find them and cite them?
  • named one. Others cite him
    • We generally give people's full names on first mention, and I would generally contextualise too ("the modern historian...", "in the nineteenth century...", "the Vogue columnist"...) with a rough sense of who and when this person is, and therefore why we should be interested in what they think. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Hopefully done Jim Killock (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• At the same time, his experiment to convert the Jews to Christianity: we haven't really heard anything about this.
  • added detail in background
    • I don't see anything about conversion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is at "Steps towards" Edward also attempted to convert the Jews through compelling them to listen to Christian preachers. --Jim Killock (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• he summoned Knights of the shires: who are these people? Capitalisation looks wonky here: to my eyes, either both or neither of knights and shires should be capped.
  • hopefully this is better explained now
    • What does entitled to representation mean? It sounds as though they normally had, well, representatives: did Edward insist that all of them turned up in Westminster? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • • yes, so this is Parliamentarians, I'll try to explain it. Jim Killock (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          Hopefully clearer Jim Killock (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "sheriffs" is almost always lower case, per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
  • sheriffs
• "Middle Ages" should be capitalised (and when exactly do we mean here?)
  • I assume, any time before Henry VIII When England Became Modern.
    • Can we be more precise, and say "the highest until the fifteenth century", "until 1485", or similar? Perhaps another source will help. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'd love to but I don't have anything for this. The sources simply say "the highest in the middle ages". Jim Killock (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chronciles: typo.
  • done
    • Should be lower case unless part of the title of a work. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  done Jim Killock (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• the Church later voluntarily agreed to pay tax of a tenth: a tenth of what?
  • I assume, of their annual income, but the books don't explain, they assume we know.
    • Is this likely to be a tithe? Perhaps some more sources would help; it's definitely a known fact, and so we should be able to report it in a way that's understandable to an audience unfamiliar with the discipline. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's a tithe, because it is paid by the church, rather than to the Church. Unfortunately the four or five sources I have give no further information. Jim Killock (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I found a source from a prestigious journal which explains it, from about 1890. I hope nobody reads it beyond the page cited though because it's a prime example of what we talk about at the end. Jim Killock (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bonami of York: who was that?
  • One of the survivors of the expulsion who is documented as he was very well known and wealthy. Have added a little on him in a footnote.
    • It's always best to introduce new characters: "the wealthy merchant, Bonamy of York, who...". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Jim Killock (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Interest on their debts was to be cancelled: this means interest that the Jews owed, but presumably we mean the opposite: interest owed by their creditors was to be cancelled?
• "scrolls of the law" could link to Hebrew Bible
  • done
    • Make sure you attribute the quotation, if it's indeed necessary to have it as a quotation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Jim Killock (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• around 1300 poorer Jewish passengers crossed the Channel to Wissant near Calais for 4d.: that's a pretty good price for 1300 tickets. Do we mean 4d each?
  • done
    • Good to have a sense of how much this was (not all readers will understand d as pence, or know what the latter means). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  done Jim Killock (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "obviously brought there by an English refugee": who's being quoted here? Under the MoS, we should always give the name for a quoted opinion in the article text.
  • done --Jim Killock (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems like a very pedestrian statement: when the precise wording isn't important (and I can't see that it is here), we should always paraphrase per WP:NONFREE and for general readability. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done --Jim Killock (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Roth believes was: deeds are plural, so were.
  • Done --Jim Killock (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• concerns over war with Scotland: did this actually happen? It's a bit ambiguously phrased here: suggest "concerns about a possible war with Scotland" or similar.
  • Ok, good, yes. --Jim Killock (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent about the italics on Domus Conversorum (lang template does it for you)
  • done
    • There's a rogue space after it at the moment. Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, we should explain briefly what this was.
      • Good point, done. --Jim Killock (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Edward I sought to position himself as the defender of Christians against the criminality of Jews: we need to rephrase this to be clear that this is rhetoric/ideology: at the moment, "the criminality of Jews" is being presented in Wikivoice, which is not great.
  • done
    • Better, but this paragraph needs a citation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• foreshadowing later events in Spain: which events, and when?
  • done, linked
    • Should also be explained (at minimum, with a date) per MOS:NOFORCELINK. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, I think just a date is OK. --Jim Killock (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The expulsion had a lasting impact on English identity. Rather than making anti-Semitic narratives less prominent, they became embedded in the idea of England as unique precisely because it had no Jews. Jews became an easy target within literature and plays, and tropes such as child sacrifice and host desecration persisted: this is pretty bleak, especially because the next step in our narrative is 2022. Did nothing change until then?
  • This is difficult. Clearly there is more to it, especially after 1656. But there's also plenty of evidence that English antisemitism was thriving in the 1930s to 50s, rooted in this, to the extent that English history really blanks the whole thing out and even now is struggling to address it (IMHO). And how much of this should we include? Probably not more than a sentence or two.
    • No, we don't need a full history of antisemitism in England; equally, we can't write a potted history that anyone who knows the full story would consider wrong. We certainly need a lot more chronological granularity and nuance here -- I worry, for instance, that we're drawing a straight line between e.g. The Merchant of Venice, The Jew of Malta and Oliver Twist. There also needs to be some room for the fact that Britain elected a Jewish prime minister during this time. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources quoted kind of make that sort of case. But I won't go into that! I've tried to use the bits most relevant to this story that link to the modern day. Jim Killock (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Historically, the Synod predated the Church of England's split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534, but the Archbishopric of Canterbury dates to before 600 CE.: I'm not sure this is really relevant here, especially as we've previously talked about the Archbishop of Canterbury as a key figure in this whole thing.
  • done
    • Should those laws not be mentioned back up in the Background section? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably the most important one is the Fourth Lateran Council, everything else is a local or Papal echo of that. I'll add a link. Jim Killock (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I think I have made the changes and added as many citations as seemed to be needed, including hopefully the ones you asked for. Would you like to make another check and see if I've caused any new errors ;0 ?

  It does feel hard to make sure this isn't a full but shorter history of the Jews in medieval England, and it is a bit longer now, so if any of the details seem like they might be better cut, let me know. Jim Killock (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Included both, done. Jim Killock (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• Suggest adding alt text.
• File:Drawing of the Shrine of Little St Hugh, Lincoln Cathedral, William Dugdale, 1641 crop.png needs a US PD tag
• File:Expulsion judios-en.svg looks pretty but has some issues: Lithuania is in the wrong place, some of the arrows seem to be rather arbitrary (that is, they don't go to resettlement areas, and sometimes run into each other, the Ottoman Empire is anachronistic for about half of this period. Would be worth seeing if a suitable alternative exists.
• File:BritLibCottonNeroDiiFol183vPersecutedJews.jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • Above all done, except removing the map. I'm not mad keen on it mind you, and agree it's probably not wholly correct (it's certainly incomplete).

Notes and sources

• Cite 15 (given as "Mundill 200") has an error.
• Citing things passim is not particularly useful: it's fine to cite a page range, but try to pin down at least one or two specific examples.
  • True, the antisemtism article is pretty much wholly on point tho. Will check for specifics
• Lots of sources are named in the References but not cited. They should be moved to Further Reading, or (better) read, digested, incorporated into the article and then cited.
  • I will work through these and missing refs next
    • I've separated out the unused sources, some of these could be deleted, as they are very general. I think I've caught all the missing refs; one or two lack a page ref. There's nothing there that's really desparate for consultation thankfully --Jim Killock (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources generally go in chronological order, so Mundill 2003 should go after Mundill 2002.
  • done
• I'm not sure the multiple levels of hierarchy in the bibliography really help. It's unusually to see even the biggest FA bibliography with more than two divisions. A lot of these subsections only have two or three works in them.
  • OK, have consolidated except the web links, which are there because there's nothing better yet, IMO.
• The prominence of Jacobs 1903 caught my eye; has no more recent source said any of this stuff?
  • Just two left I think. I think a chunk of this article started as one of his verbatim, several others on the topic have also.
• Capitalisation of work titles is inconsistent.
  • Will check
    • Currently, the capitalisation is as found in the titles as printed, I think. Is this wrong?
      • MOS:CONFORM advises us to put them into a consistent style, as long as doing so doesn't change anything substantial (that is, as long as you wouldn't notice the changes if someone read the article aloud). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've had a go at this but I think I am missing what you are after. Jim Killock (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  MOS:CONFORM says, in essence, that if one book was published as The history of Spain, and another as The History of France, we should simply reformat the first as The History of Spain without worrying too much about the original capitalisation: it's more important to be consistent within the article than to follow fairly unimportant features of the original. Similarly, if there's a typo in a quote from that book and the meaning is obvious, we just fix the typo. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I've had another go at this. I think the next step is for you to have another look at the changes you asked for - I've had a go at each of them now, so they need your feedback when you have time. Jim Killock (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed; there's quite a bit, but I imagine most of it will be sorted. Will get to it when I can: good job so far. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've given a copyedit throughout, especially in the bibliography: feel free to keep or quibble as you see fit, as nothing there is GA critical. All sources I've been able to review check out, and I see no concerns with plagiarism or anything else that would delay passing. Promoting the article now -- good job and thank you for your time and work with the review. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]