Good articleEconomy of England in the Middle Ages has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 10, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 17, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1133, the English economy received a major boost when huge silver deposits were discovered near Carlisle?

Article creation...[edit]

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)[reply]

Rebellions against war taxes[edit]

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)[reply]

Definitely - I'll fish out some references. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Bristol[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Royal Forests[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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)[reply]

Quickfail

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)[reply]

  • I'll take a first stab at a historiography section in a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria as a template for reviewing:

1. Well-written

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

Reduced! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done by another editor I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a stab at this - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think this was caught by another editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - see what you think of the wording. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the commodity bit in this section - it may have gone already. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure - the term productivity is widely used in the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk)
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by a different editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed by another editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative found! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Corrected. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

(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;

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?
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.
Bibliography, locations imprecise, supply State, Province or Nation: Woodbridge, Harlow, Walnut Creek, Westport, Harmondsworth, Aldershot, Abingdon
Bibliography, out of style period after author: Aberth 2001; Brown, R Allen 1989; Fryde and Fryde 1991; Miller 1991;
Bibliography, year not given: Hatcher, John; Kowalski, Maryanne
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Bibliography, absence of space between Penguin. and ISBN
Bibliography, ref check: you repeatedly cite Postan 1972, which doesn't exist, suggest check Postan 1982 for typo in year
Citations, Dyer / Dyers problem
Citations, Postan 1972 not given in bibliography, typo check
  • Fixed - was typo, should have been '72. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)
Citations, Brown 1989 and Brown 1989 unclear
Citations, fn44 spell out the 4m and 5m?
Citations, no page given at fn74 Bayley, 2009; also should be "Bayley 2009" for style
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)[reply]
Citations, fn143 Postan no page given, Postan no year given

(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;

Source Reliability Review—With free High Quality Reliable Source check to aid this going to FA if you choose.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sources given for: direct quotes, stats, opinion, counter-intuitive and controversial, BLP

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

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)[reply]
I've added a bit on poaching. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the language here was changed by another author. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I like it. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's not finished, but an example of what they might look like is linked here. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First one of them done and linked in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second done and linked in. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

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)[reply]

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Changed to one of Clifford's Tower; the site is still chilling. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I really like this idea, but I'm having trouble finding a free picture. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Complete: It Is A Good Article

S Marshall butts in[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • I've added a couple of bits on the tithe system; will cover the enclosures next. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom template[edit]

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)[reply]

Sources...[edit]

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)[reply]
Cheers! Will have a read through it. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this start in 1066?[edit]

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)[reply]

Proposed merge with The medieval English wool trade[edit]

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

I created The medieval English wool trade. In my view, the medieval English wool trade deserves its own entry:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree no merge needed. I've also removed the "essay" tag there, which seems unwarranted. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers John. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

F.A.[edit]

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

Imperatrix...: "F.A." as in "Featured Article"...? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hchc2009:... yes, not Fanny Adams! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Placement of historiography section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Crisis of the Knights, Jewish section of article[edit]

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)[reply]

Categories