Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC).

Exhumation of Richard III of England

 * Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article in advance of the reburial of Richard III on 26 March 2015, an event which is certain to attract huge interest around the world. It has recently been through a GA review which it passed without any particular difficulties, so I'm confident that it's in good shape and is ready for consideration as a featured article candidate. Prioryman (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Note - Please check for dead or broken links; Refs 88, 91 and 102 for example. Graham Beards (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh. I missed that in my GA review. Sorry.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Review by 3family6
- Lead


 * The opening paragraph is a single sentence. That might be acceptable, I'm not that well versed in the MOS, but I think it should be expanded or merged into the following paragraph.
 * Agreed, I've done this. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a citation in the lead for the injuries to the skull. Per WP:LEADCITE, I think this is something that could be better explained in the article, and thus a citation is not needed. The second citation in the lead I think is okay, considering it is supporting a direct quote.
 * I've taken out both citations. The first isn't really needed as the injuries are already covered in sufficient (sourced) detail in the article. As for the second, the direct quote doesn't really need to be a quote at all - it's already attributed. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

- Looking for Richard


 * "...which she envisaged as 'a proposed landmark TV special'." - this should have a citation, since it's a direct quote.
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * " Its premise was a search for Richard's grave 'while at the same time telling his real story'.[28][18] Its objective was stated as being 'to search for, recover and rebury his mortal remains with the honour, dignity and respect so conspicuously denied following his death at the battle of Bosworth.'[29] - the prose seemed slightly repetitive here. Perhaps re-write as "Its premise was a search for Richard's grave 'while at the same time telling his real story',[28][18] with an objective 'to search for, recover and rebury his mortal remains with the honour, dignity and respect so conspicuously denied following his death at the battle of Bosworth.'[29]"
 * Yes, good idea. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * University of Leicester Archaeological Services is given as a redlink in the lead, but is not linked in its first appearance in the article body.
 * I was under the impression that links in the lead shouldn't be repeated in the body? I'll create a separate spin-off article to cover ULAS. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar enough with the consensus on wikilinks, in this case a redlink, in the lead, so I don't know. I'll leave that to your discretion (if another editor knows this consensus better, I invite them to speak up).-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

- Citations


 * Just the issue of deadlinks, which was noted above by Graham Beards.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've resolved this by taking out two of the deadlinks as unnecessary duplication, and updating the third. Prioryman (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, now that changes have been carried out.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Richard was killed fighting Henry Tudor in 1485, at the Battle of Bosworth Field, the last major battle of the Wars of the Roses. The Welsh poet Guto'r Glyn gave the credit for Richard's death to Sir Rhys ap Thomas.": I don't know how to weigh the credibility of the second claim here, and I can't tell if it contradicts the first claim or not.
 * No contradiction, Thomas was a soldier in Henry's army. I've added "a Welsh member of Henry's army who was said to have struck the fatal blow" to clarify this point. Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "contemptously": Typo? If it's accurate, you don't need a sic, I think.
 * No typo, but I'm not seeing a sic. Did I miss something? Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Should it be "contemptuously"? Graham Beards (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I see it now. Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Dissolution": use consistent capitalization
 * It's correct as it is. "Dissolution" with a capital D refers to the overarching event of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, while "dissolution" with a lower-case d refers to individual dissolutions of individual institutions. Thus "the friary's dissolution" is correct as this was an individual event while "the Dissolution" is also correct as this was the overarching event. Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "geneticist Turi King continues to pursue a link": Whether this is okay depends on how you interpret the exception in WP:DATED for "current events". In general, it's better if you can give some kind of date, for instance "In 2015, geneticist Turi King was still pursuing a link ...", if that's true (but if it's not true, then the present tense is wrong, too).
 * I don't know if it's still true, so I've changed "continues" to "continued". Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "The reburial will take place": In-text attribution would be a little better ... that is, "X has scheduled reburial ..."
 * I'm not sure about this - I don't have an attribution for X. Presumably some committee or other, but that isn't stated. I think it works OK as it is, to be honest. Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Support by Karanacs. This is an excellently written article, and very informative. I've watched some of the documentaries and read many of the newspaper articles, and you've done an excellent job of distilling the information down to an understandable level. Note that I did not check images. A few minor quibbles:
 * several instances of quotes without a citation at the end of that sentence
 * OK, I think I've found them all, but please take a look to see if that's the case. Prioryman (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Two different names are given for the journal of the Richard III Society - The Ricardian and the Ricardian Bulletin
 * There are two journals - The Ricardian appears to be the major one for the big articles, while the Ricardian Bulletin is a smaller one for news and updates, published at more frequent intervals. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * " A table tomb was both the choice of the Richard III society in polls of Leicester people" - is that supposed to be "and" instead of "in?
 * That was pretty badly worded (not one of mine), so I've rewritten that line. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

 Close to a support. As others have said, lots of really good work here. A few minor comments on the prose from me:
 * "The dig was led by the..." would it be better to put this as "The archaeological dig..." in the first instance of its use? (or "The archaeological excavation...") (it felt a bit informal to me)
 * Good point - I've gone for the latter. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * " show that £50 and £10.1s were paid to two men " - I couldn't quite work out if this was supposed to be two payments to both men (i.e. both got £50, and then £10), or if one got £50 and the other £10. Might just be me, but I'd have expected "£10 1s" or "£10/1s"rather than "£10.1s".
 * I've reworded and reformatted this a bit, see what you think of it now. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Although Richard's monument had evidently disappeared by this time, it was still known where his grave was." - I wasn't sure who this was referenced to. It seems to be Halsted, writing in 1844, in which case the best we can say now would presumably be that they believed they knew where the grave was; we don't actually know if they'd placed the monument on the same location where we've now found the grave.
 * I've added an additional source to make the attribution a bit clearer. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Around when Herrick's pillar was erected, the cartographer and antiquarian John Speed wrote in his Historie of Great Britaine (1611) that local tradition held..." unclear if the "around when" is the date of Speed's book (i.e. 1611) - or if this bit refers to "local tradition held" and is an earlier date that Speed is commenting about. The article doesn't give the date of the pillar being erected, so its hard to tell from reading this paragraph.
 * We probably don't really need that first clause, so I've taken it out to make the meaning clearer. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "The coffin certainly seems to have existed" - as written, this gives the impression that the coffin in question was Richard's, which turns out not to be the case later in the paragraph. I'd suggest "A coffin..."
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "the possible location of the king's grave" - the MOS would have this as "the King's grave"
 * That seems inconsistent - there are plenty of other lower-case references to "the king". Which part of the MOS? Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MOS:JOBTITLE I think covers the capitalisation of king. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it should be lower case. I can't see where in the MoS you are refering to. Graham Beards (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I presume this bit: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases: [...] When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II." Is that what you were referring to, Hchc2009? Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep - in this case "the king" is a substitute for Richard's name, rather than a generic reference to a king or kings, and so should be capitalised. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "only the remains of men in their 30s, " - you'll want consistency of how you phrase "30s" as numbers (as here) or words, e.g. "thirties" (as in the lead) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed 30s to "thirties". Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Support
 * This is very good. I had only a few hiccups over some of the weak tenses (were given, etc.) but these don't impede my support.  If you want me to address these I will do so.  auntieruth (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note -- Anyone prepared to sign of on sources for formatting and reliability? If no-one puts their hand up, Prioryman, pls list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll do so on Sunday, if nobody's volunteered before then. Prioryman (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I will do the source review. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review

Capped resolved issues above. Just one more thing: the 2010 and 2013 Ashdown-Hill books don't seem to be used anymore, but are still in the bibliography. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  08:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Leaning to support : A very interesting and well-prepared article. The prose probably needs a final light ce, as I noticed a few instances of clumsy phrasing, but nothing serious is amiss. I have a few relatively minor points:
 * Burial site


 * Para 2: A few more dates would be welcome. When did Herrick acquire the site? When did he erect the monument recorded by Wren?
 * Unfortunately the date of Herrick's purchase isn't recorded (late 16th century seems to be all that's known), nor is the history of the monument. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by the description an "independent" historian? And we don't use prenominals as in "Dr. John Ashdown-Hill"
 * Independent as opposed to affiliated with a university. It's pretty standard terminology. I've taken out the prenomial. Prioryman (talk)
 * Greyfriars project and excavations


 * I'm a bit puzzled by the final sentence. It reads as though they restored the car park before the identity of the discovered bones was known. That seems extraordinary – is it the case?
 * Yes, it is. It was a working car park and a condition of the dig was that the car park was to be restored when the excavation work finished - which as you say was before the skeleton was identified. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * DNA evidence


 * I don't see the point of the quote marks in the first line. It's a statement of mere fact, not opinion or interpretation.
 * Good point, I've taken these out. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You have "matrilineal line" and "matriline" in the same paragraph. Do they mean the same thing? If so, the latter is less cumbersome.
 * "Matriline" is jargon, so I've simplified that instance to "line". Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Four living descendants of Gaunt have been located.." Only four? The entire British royal family is descended from John of Gaunt, for starters.
 * Yes, but none of them agreed to provide any DNA samples. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bones


 * "exposing the brain" – I'd say "which would have exposed the brain" as the organ has long since rotted away.
 * Good point, I've made that change. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Identification of Richard III and other findings


 * You describe Michael Ibsen here as "a direct descendant of Richard's sister, Anne of York". In the earlier DNA section you rather obscure the issue by describing Ibsen's mother as "a 16th-generation great-niece of Richard's". The latter explanation is much clearer.
 * I've reworded the former explanation, which hopefully should be clearer now. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Richard III is thus the first ancient person..." I'm not too keen on the description "ancient person", which might easily be misunderstood
 * I know what you mean, but it's how the experts describe him (see ). I presume its meaning is appropriate to the context - I'd prefer to go with the experts on this one. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I would place the paragraph dealing with the TV programme at the end, rather than in the middle, of the section.
 * Chronological order, as the TV programme was broadcast a few months before the second excavation covered in the last paragraph. The programme only dealt with the 2012 dig. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ...but on the other hand, I'm not sure of the relevance of the last paragraph to this article.
 * It's essential archaeological context. The 2013 excavation was a direct continuation of the 2012 dig and was treated as such by the archaeological press (note the source - number 86). Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Plans for reinterment


 * "...Leicester beating York by some 3,100 votes". What was the nature of the poll that produced this result?
 * An online petition on the UK government e-petitions website. See for the results I quoted. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reactions


 * I'd keep the Buckley bit in, but I don't think I'd kick the section off with it. Perhaps at the end, as a wry conclusion.
 * Good idea, I've done this. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I look foward to supporting and seeing the article on the main page next month. Brianboulton (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I said earlier I thought the prose probably needed a little titivation. Now I see that Eric Corbett has been copyediting, and I'm inclined to trust his judgement over prose, so I've moved to full support. A worthy FA. Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 Close to support  A good article which I would like to see as TFA if the following can be addressed:


 * The copyright of the main image is in dispute and its use under UK law would clearly be a breach of the photographer's copyright. How does its use here fit the Non-free content criteria?
 * I think that's a dubious premise - as long as the image is regarded as OK under Commons (and more importantly Wikimedia Foundation) policy then we shouldn't be second-guessing its status as individual editors. The question of NFCC doesn't arise since it's not treated by Commons or WMF as non-free content and as far as I know there is no requirement to utilize NFCC criteria for such images. If you can point to such a requirement then I'll be happy to run up an NFCC statement. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand my point - I'm not second guessing. It says on the image page "As such, use of this image in the jurisdiction of the claimant or other countries may be regarded as copyright infringement." Does this make it free content or not? - I don't know. It may be that displaying this on the main page will precipitate a court case. One way to reduce that possibility would be to use a cropped image just showing his face as the do here.
 * I've been looking at this and the situation seems clear enough. The dispute was 6-7 years ago; there doesn't seem to have been any developments since then. Erik Moeller of the WMF has clearly stated the Foundation's position regarding such images here and Mike Godwin has done so here. The WMF position is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes." This particular image is a scan from a book. Commons policy is that the use of the PD-Art template is OK for a "Photograph of an Old Master scanned in from a recently published book", as in this case: "The WMF takes the view that as long as the reproduction is a faithful reproduction of the original it falls into the public domain." This all seems to be quite clear and explicit - the position of the WMF and Commons is that it is free content and there is no suggestion anywhere that I can find that it should not be treated otherwise for licensing purposes. I'm really not inclined to attempt to change policy on the fly, especially as I'm not a lawyer (and nor, I would guess, are any of us on this page). Prioryman (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Richerman    (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In the lead it says As a condition of being allowed to disinter the skeleton, the excavators agreed that, if Richard was found, his remains would be reburied in Leicester Cathedral but it says nothing about this in the article - where does it come from?
 * See the first sentence of "Plans for reinterment". It was part of the excavation plan which had to be approved by the Ministry of Justice, as it involved the disinterment of human remains. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it says there it would be "normal archaeological practice" to do so, not that it was a condition they agreed to which sounds like something more out of the ordinary.
 * OK, I see what you're saying now. I've added an extra ref to clarify this. Actually it's not out of the ordinary at all, it's a standard condition of archaeological licences for exhuming human remains. Prioryman (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In Looking for Richard second to last paragraph In February 2009, Langley, Carson and Ashdown-Hill teamed up with two Richard III Society members – Dr. David Johnson and his wife Wendy – to launch a project with the working title Looking for Richard: In Search of a King, which she envisaged as "a proposed landmark TV special" There are five people mentioned who does 'she refer to? Also it doesn't sound right to envisage a proposed landmark TV special - you would envisage it as a landmark TV special or possibly you may envisage producing a proposal for a landmark TV special.
 * I've trimmed this to "envisaged as a "landmark TV special"." Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (added) Sorry, I missed your first point here. "She" refers to Langley - I've clarified this in the article. Prioryman (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the Analysis of the discovery section seems to have the citations in the wrong place as citation 46 doesn't support the sentences before it although 47 and 48 support a lot of it. Where it says there was severe scoliosis of the spine, possibly making one shoulder higher than the other (to what extent would depend on the severity of the condition). I can't find any support for the bit in brackets, and surely the pathologist could tell from the extent of the scoliosis how severe the condition was?
 * You're right, someone seems to have added the bit in brackets. I've removed it. Prioryman (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In the second paragraph of Bones it says The wounds were made from behind on the back and buttocks while they were exposed to the elements, consistent with the contemporary descriptions of Richard's naked body being tied across a horse with the legs and arms dangling down on either side. This appears to be synthesis as I can't find anything about it in the citations - only that they were possibly humiliation wounds inflicted post mortem.
 * I've added another reference (the Royal Armouries from citation 71) to clarify this. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's fixed it. Ironically the Royal Armouries’ curator says "My narrative that follows is a synthesis, based upon various elements from the historical accounts. Well, they can synthesise all they want :-) Richerman    (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Citation 71 is a dead link
 * Fixed, it seems they've just redesigned their website. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Under Plans for reinterment it says the litigation cost the defendants £245,000. Who were the defendants exactly?
 * From personal knowledge, the University of Leicester and the Ministry of Justice; unfortunately the source doesn't say that explicitly so I can't state that in the article without straying into OR. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be great to have this on the front page around the time of the reburial as proposed. I wonder if anyone have raised this possibility at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. I know it can't be proposed properly until it's an FA but time is short as they are looking at proposals for that time period now. If they were made aware on the talk page that this one is going to be proposed, they may be willing to leave a tentative slot open for it. Richerman   (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Thanks for addressing those points - happy to move to support. Richerman   (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Richerman. - I think that's all the reviews completed now. Prioryman (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite. One last point outstanding in the source review. Sorry! ;) —  Cliftonian   (talk)  10:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , sorry, you're right - I missed that. The 2010 book isn't referenced any more but the 2013 one is, so I've retained that. Prioryman (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that concludes the source review. Cheers and well done on this great article. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  15:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.