Talk:Richard III of England/GA2

Original reviewer has been blocked indefinitely. As this review had issues, the best thing seems to be to close this review as unfinished, and let the nomination be picked up fresh by a more experienced GA reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk · contribs) 14:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wll start the review and post any comments here. The most reliable way of getting my attention is always posting on my talk page. Dysklyver 14:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review This review is based on the article as of Revision 807666847.

First GA review

Link: Talk:Richard III of England/GA1

Criteria compliance

Assessment against immediate failures criteria.

1. Plausibly good.

2. No copyright infringements.

earwig (Note. This high visibility article has been copied by other sites extensively.)

3. No unresolved cleanup banners.

4. No significant edit warring on the page.

(Note: Minor edit warring and perpetual vandalism is to be expected on an article which receives over 100,000 pageviews a month.)

6 criteria test.

1. Y - Some of the language used is slightly technical in places, this is not a serious issue and the article is overall well written and concise with no manual of style violations.

2. Y - One or two places could use a reference, but overall the article is well referenced from reliable sources. This article benefits from an extensive bibliography and contains no original research.

3. Y - The article is broad without being over-detailed, several sections correctly link to spin-off articles which contain (or can contain) more intricate detail. Extensive checking of reputable works about Richard shows that all the relevant facts are included in this article.

4. Y - no evident POV, the article is written in a neutral and encyclopedic style.

5. Y - No serious issues, (Note: Minor edit warring and perpetual vandalism is to be expected on an article which receives over 100,000 pageviews a month.)

6. - Y all images appear to be correctly labeled for copyright status and are hosted on commons.

Image assessment

Reviewer comments and queries by section

Infobox -

The image is hardcoded to 230. This could cause problems for some users, consider setting it to default or using upright factors instead. (see: Wikipedia:Picture tutorial).

Lead -

"There were two major rebellions against Richard" - This was during his reign? Because he fought against a rebellion in 1470 which was lead by Warwick. Although not a king at the time.

"buried without pomp" - I think this should probably be "buried without ceremony" or "buried without a state funeral"; what is pomp actually referring to here?

"last English king to die in battle" - king --> monarch. (has a queen died in battle since? no need to be gender specific).

"contemporary reports" - words with two possible opposing meanings should not be used when either is possible.

Childhood -

unsure about the title of this section. (could be 'early life')

Marriage and family relationships -

"In order to win his brother George’s final consent to the marriage, Richard renounced most of Warwick’s land and property including the earldoms of Warwick (which the Kingmaker had held in his wife’s right) and Salisbury and surrendered to Clarence the office of Great Chamberlain of England, while he retained Neville’s forfeit estates he had already been granted in the summer of 1471: Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, where he later established his marital household." - this is a single sentence, and way too long at 76 words.

break 1

Reign of Edward IV/Estates and titles -

Move the image MiddlehamCJW.jpg to the section Childhood above.

Reign of Edward IV/Exile and return -

"Hanseatic merchants" - who are these merchants, and what are they doing? at the very least link to something which explains what a Hanseatic is in this context.

"viz" - please replace this with something English.

Reign of Edward IV/1471 military campaign -

"Duke of Exeter" - who? nb. probably Henry Holland, 3rd Duke of Exeter, worth linking.

Reign of Edward IV/1475 invasion of France -

In this section and the sections around it, 'Gloucester' is used interchangeably in places where 'Richard' may be more appropriate, at least from a consistency viewpoint.

Reign of Edward IV/Council of the North -

"The council had a budget of 2000 marks per annum (approximately £1320)" - great, but what is that in today’s money?

Reign of Edward IV/War with Scotland -

"By 1480, war with Scotland was looming; on 12 May that year he was appointed Lieutenant-General of the North (a position created for the occasion) as fears of a Scottish invasion grew. Louis XI of France had attempted to negotiate a military alliance with Scotland (in the tradition of the "Auld Alliance"), with the aim of attacking England, according to a contemporary French chronicler." - I am not sure about the grammar of tacking "according to a contemporary French chronicler." to the end of this sentence, it seems of little relevance, everything written here is 'according to someone', is this specific fact dubious? If not I see no reason to qualify it like this.

break 2

King of England -

I can't find anything wrong with this section, I could make lots of minor alterations but they would be essentially cosmetic changes related to my personal interpretation of grammar.

Rebellion of 1483 -

" The French government, recalling Richard's effective disowning of the Treaty of Picquigny and refusal to accept the accompanying French pension, would not have welcomed the accession of one known to be unfriendly to France. " - I don't know what the pension is in this context because it isn't explained (well obviously I know, but an average reader wound not.) this sentence is also unreferenced.

Death at the Battle of Bosworth Field -

"until archaeological investigations in 2012 (see the Discovery of remains section) revealed the site of the garden and Greyfriars church. There was a memorial ledger stone in the choir of the cathedral, since replaced by the tomb of the king, and a stone plaque on Bow Bridge where tradition had falsely suggested that his remains had been thrown into the river." - needs reference

Succession -

no issues

Legacy -

Full of oversimplifications and minor ambiguity related to his work on the English legal system and the legacy of his reforms. This is not serious enough to be a problem at GA though.

Reputation -

Seems to strike a good balance between, "crooked and twisted" and "a bit short and thin" with all the relevant viewpoints discussed.

Reputation/In culture -

seems fine, not bloated with irrelevances, also not bloated with Shakespeare's play, that is restricted to its own article, which seems sensible.

Discovery of remains -

Very interesting. no obvious issues.

Reburial and tomb -

No issues, good picture of the tomb, overall an interesting section.

break 3

Titles, styles and honours -

somewhat lacking in references.

"Following the death of King Edward IV, he was made Lord Protector of England. Richard held this office from 30 April to 26 June 1483, when he made himself king of the realm. " - ref needed.

"As King of England, Richard was styled Dei Gratia Rex Angliae et Franciae et Dominus Hiberniae (by the Grace of God, King of England and France and Lord of Ireland). " - ref needed.

Note: this is hardly controversial stuff, but some citations would be good.

Arms -

Merge the text of this section with Titles, styles and honours directly above without a subheading. Move the image Arms of Thomas of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Clarence.svg to the section Reign of Edward IV/Estates and titles.

Add

 {{anchor|Arms}}

to the Titles, styles and honours section to avoid breaking section specific links.

Ancestry -

add a {{clear}} tag directly above this header.

See also -

Remove this section, consider adding an external link to the External links section.

 * [http://richardiiiexperience.com/ Official website] - [[Richard III Museum]], York.

Add

 {{anchor|See also}}

to the External links section to avoid breaking section specific links.

References -

No citation errors.

Bibliography -

I am not going to review all these, but I can at least say they look reliable and well chosen.

Further reading -

As above. And this is all stuff I would happily read next.

External links -

no comment. (no issue).

break 4

Navbars -

I find it curious there isn't a Richard III Navbar given the number of article about him. Perhaps we should make one.

Authority Control and Wikidata -

9 Authority control links and a full wikidata page wikidata:Q133028.

Categories -

Categories:

Richard III of England
1452 births
1485 deaths
15th-century monarchs in Europe
15th-century English monarchs
15th-century English Navy personnel
Dukes of Gloucester
English military personnel killed in action
English monarchs
Roman Catholic monarchs
English people of French descent
English people with disabilities - was he disabled, surely a hunchback is not that extreme?
English pretenders to the French throne
English Roman Catholics
High Sheriffs of Cornwall - are we sure? it isn't in the article.
High Sheriffs of Cumberland
House of York
Knights of the Bath
Knights of the Garter
Lord High Admirals of England
Monarchs killed in action
People from East Northamptonshire (district)
People of the Wars of the Roses
Royalty and nobility with disabilities
Lords Warden of the Marches
Historical people who were forensically reconstructed
Retrospective diagnosis
Lords Protector of England

Hidden categories:

Reviewer comments - general

The language is quite technical in places, but is overall well written and in keeping. A rather significant part of the article is focused on events that happened after his death, to do with his body, medical examinations and the like, but this has not overtaken the article, which remains well balanced. All the main sections of the article have additional pages which are linked with hatnotes. The overall look of the article is good. Dysklyver 14:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific system to the headers? I find it curious that 'childhood' is used rather than 'early life' which is more common, 'Rebellion of 1483' rather than 'Buckingham's rebellion' (the title of the main article on the rebellion). 'Reputation' should probably be a subheading of 'legacy' equal to 'in culture'. 'Discovery of remains' is not entirely representative of its section, which is also about the exhumation of the remains, maybe 'Discovery and exhumation' would be better. 'Titles, styles and honours' seems to me to be the same section as 'Arms'. Dysklyver 15:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final reviewer comment

I am satisfied that there are no serious issues with the article, certainly nothing which would cause me to fail it for GA. I have reviewed the entire article in detail, and commented on the main points which I feel could be improved upon. It is not required to follow my suggestions, but they are all things which could cause issues at FA stage. Furthermore I am satisfied the issues identified in the Peer review and GA1 have been dealt with. I am going to approve it to GA status now. Dysklyver 15:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the review after community concerns at: UT:Ealdgyth and WT:GAN. Dysklyver 12:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comments

Ritchie333

@Ritchie333: - comments please.

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: - comments please.

Ealdgyth

@Ealdgyth: - comments please.

Nominator comments

Comments on initial peer reviewer's comments on the Lead section

I specified the time frame of the two major rebellions RIII faced during his reign, acting on the reviewer's suggestion

"buried without pomp" should closely refer to the original Latin text of Vergil's early 16th century "sine ullo funere honere", describing how RIII was buried without the honors usually granted for a royal funeral, but not necessarily without the friars performing the customary religious rites. Archeological evidence suggests RIII's body was buried without coffin, possibly without even a shroud, with hands still tied and the dig was too small to accommodate his body in its full length. I am open to synonyms, but I do not see the need to change this specific part

"contemporary reports" is how historians refer to the documents of the time they are speaking of, it's not an oxymoron, it's a very specific term

"last English king to die in battle" - king --> monarch. I personally do not see the need to use a less frequent synonym for the more common word for King in the lead, which is the part of the article that is usually read by the less experienced user, but I am open to other opinions Isananni (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC) In this respect the issue of gender never crossed my mind. I simply think the most common word is the better choice, especially for the lead. How many times do we hear the term "monarch" used outside formal contexts? Isananni (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now acted on most of the reviewer's suggestions. Some I lack the competence to act on (e.g. the present currency equivalent value of 15th century money). As for the issues raised on the reviewer's own talk page, some I understand (e.g. the reference to Higginbotham's blog, even if she can hardly be called "Ricardian" and her status as member, or at least former member of the RIII Society is definitely misleading), but they are not my edits and I would need to track them down in the article and find alternative sources. Some of the concerns about the supposedly excessive length of some sessions I find contradictory: on one hand one says the figure of RIII is polarizing and needs to be addressed in more detail, on the other hand one complains about the length of a session like "Reputation" which is now apparently undisputed in terms of WP:NEUTRAL and is perfectly referenced and is the product of a careful balance in presenting the different points of view on RIII. The same can be said of the Discovery of Remains section, which some find too long, while others may find hardly fit for what is probably the greatest multidisciplinary archeological find in this century so far, so much so that a separate article has been set up to cover it. I have worked on reorganizing entire sections of articles that had already been nominated GA and presented far more serious problems in terms of accuracy and referencing than Richard III, e.g. Alexander Hamilton's section on the Reynolds affair, and related articles. Anyway, all contributions are welcome if we can improve the article further without detriment to the overall information and neutrality policy. Isananni (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other nonreviewer comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.