Wikipedia:Peer review/Carucage/archive1

Carucage

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm branching out from bishops and horses to ... Taxes! Yes, medieval taxes, so fun! On a more serious note, I'd like to make sure this article is comprehenisble by the non-specialist, that the prose is engaging, and that there isn't anything left out for context or similar stuff. All in an effort to get to FAC with this. (It just might be the first tax FA!)

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I know the perfect day for it too:Tax Day. They turn to wikipedia for the IRS and find medival taxes on the front page. Oh what jolly good fun ^^! ResMar 04:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and was a replacement for the older danegeld, which was last collected in 1162. What was the danegeld based on, then?
- I've clarified this a bit in the lead. They were both land taxes, but the geld had become difficult to collect due to the great number of folks withe expemptions (medieval tax loopholes!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was only collected six times in the years between 1194 and 1224, and never raised sums as large as other taxes collected. Is "as large as those other taxes collected" more fitting?
- Reworded a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 1194, the assessment was based upon the Domesday Survey, completed in 1087. Not particuarly important but I perfer "The 1194 assesment" because the tax isn't a singular event. Also, you should say breifly what the Domesday Book is: ae. "...the Domesday Book, a census of England completed in 1087."
- Reworded to "The first assessment was based upon the Domesday Survey, completed in 1087 which investigated land holdings in England." because Domesday isn't a census, it was a landholding survey, not a counting of people. (People are totally incidental to it.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 1198 the carucage was again collected and was based on the carucate, figured at 100 acres (40 ha) or 120 acres (49 ha). I'de say "figured at either 100 acres (40 ha) or 120 (49 ha) acres.
- Template issue here, it sets the order on that... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revenues from this taxation do not appear in the 1200 Pipe Roll, which may mean that it was paid into a special commission in the Exchequer. Further evidence of this is the fact that William de Wrotham is designated as receptores carucagii, or receivers of the carucage, in official records. Who is this William de Wrotham and why is his being the receptor signifigant?
- It's not that significant that it was W in particular, but it is significant that someone was appointed to that position. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1217 carucage was only paid by laymen; the clergy made a donation in lieu of being taxed. Linking laymen and clergy would be nice.
- Linked Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1220 carucage was definitely collected by... Rm definitly. I know what you mean but that's a bit of an interpetation.
- Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No space in FitzBenedict?
- Nope. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1220 carucage was for the defense of Poitou. Link Poitou.
- Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Records indicate that the bulk of the revenues raised were paid into the Wardrobe. What's the Wardrobe oO? Is it their war commitee?
- Sorta. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your issues: the article is comprehendible to me (lol tax expert) however there are multiple spots that would benefit from a wikilink, or in the absense of such a link a short description. I don't know how feasible that is, but is it possible to give the values of the money gathered in modern terms? That would make the exact amount of money gathered much clearer. Sincerely, ResMar 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The normal {{inflation}} template that is used only goes to 1254 or so, so there isn't really a good way to give equivalent figures. Most history works for this period don't really give equivalents, since it's so hard to gage. (the wage economy is just getting started about 1200 or so, so comparing daily wages isn't good... ) I'll try to work on the others in a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]