Talk:WikiJournal of Humanities/Loveday, 1458

Latest comment: 1 year ago by OhanaUnited in topic Comments

WikiJournal of Humanities
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated

WikiJournal of Humanities is an open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journal for humanities, arts and social sciences topics. WJH WikiJHum Wiki.J.Hum. WikiJHum WikiHum WikiHumanities Wikijournal of Humanities Wikiversity Journal of Humanities WikiJournal Humanities Wikipedia Humanities Wikipedia Humanities journal Free to publish Open access Open-access Non-profit online journal Public peer review

<meta name='citation_doi' value='10.15347/WJH/2023.001'>

Article information

Submitting author: Ed ​[i]
Additional contributors: Wikipedia community

See author information ▼
  1. zero.minute


Peer review 1

Review by Michael Hicks   ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

This is a well-researched and balanced assessment, albeit somewhat favourable to the Yorkists and dismissive of the reconciliation.

I would have liked to see some references to:

1) The royal force at St Albans was civilian household, not an army


Added, with a footnote wrt the nature of the the civil household

2) The Parliamentary Pardon, the rather perverse exoneration of the Yorkists for the battle of St Albans


Expanded, particularly on why it outweighed a royal pardon

3) Recognition that the deaths at St Albans removed the Yorkists grievances against Somerset



4) That there were protracted negotiations before the loveday



5) That that were developments post loveday as the Yorkists as asserted their reforms


Done; failure to pay what they owed, etc.


Peer review 2

Review by Gordon McKelvie    , Ph.D; Lecturer in medieval history, University of Winchester
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

I have read over this article and would have no objection to its publication. It provides a very useful context to the Loveday of 1458 and the wider historiography on the topic. This provides an excellent resource for non specialists to understand this highly unusual aspect of the Wars of the Roses. One thing I would suggest is that phrases like 'scholar' and 'researcher' are taken changed when referring to modern historians. Although I'm not a fan of the use of the word 'historians' in a history article, I think it gives more weight than the rather vague phrases, particularly 'researcher' (used to describe Christine Carpenter). The phrase 'medievalist' is fine. Apart from this minor quibble, I would be more than happy to recommend the publication of this.



@OhanaUnited: Just FYI, but I've now addressed the reviewers' points; Ironically I cancelled the new subsection an merged discrete sentences into the own areas. So that was a a waste of a last few days! Serial Number 54129 (discusscontribs) 16:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Please see this message for action on your part, thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Return to "WikiJournal of Humanities/Loveday, 1458" page.