Talk:WikiJournal of Humanities/Loveday, 1458
WikiJournal of Humanities
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated
This article has been through public peer review.
It was adapted from the Wikipedia page Loveday,_1458 and contains some or all of that page's content licensed under a CC BY-SA license. Post-publication review comments or direct edits can be left at the version as it appears on Wikipedia.
First submitted:
Accepted:
Article text
PDF: Download
DOI: 10.15347/WJH/2023.001
QID: Q99706473
XML: Download
Share article
Email
| 
Facebook
| 
Twitter
| 
LinkedIn
| 
Mendeley
| 
ResearchGate
Suggested citation format:
Ed (18 June 2023). "Loveday, 1458". WikiJournal of Humanities 5 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/WJH/2023.001. Wikidata Q99706473. ISSN 2639-5347. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/1/10/Loveday%2C_1458.pdf.
Citation metrics
AltMetrics
Page views on Wikipedia
Wikipedia: This work is adapted from the Wikipedia article Loveday, 1458 (CC BY-SA). Content has also subsequently been used to update that same Wikipedia article Loveday, 1458.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Sarah Vital contact
Reviewers: (comments)Michael Hicks
Gordon McKelvie 
Article information
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
Acknowledged.
4) That there were protracted negotiations before the loveday
Acknowledged.
5) That that were developments post loveday as the Yorkists as asserted their reforms
Done; failure to pay what they owed, etc.
- Thanks for this, Professor Hicks; greatly appreciated. Serial Number 54129 (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
- Thanks for the positive review Dr McKelvie, have made the relevant adjustments. Serial Number 54129 (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Comments
@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 (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. Please see this message for action on your part, thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)