Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard II of England


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 17:33, 13 October 2008.

Richard II of England

 * Nominator(s): Lampman (talk)

This is a complete rewrite of a B-level article. GA-nomination has been skipped, but it has undergone at least a partial peer review. All major issues of the man and the reign have been addressed, and the article is sourced with reliable sources throughout. The heavy reliance on one source (Saul, 1997 - c. 50%) I believe is a natural consequence of that work's standing as the only up-to-date, academic, full-scale monograph on the king (the last such dates to 1941, and must be considered outdated). Lampman (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment All the links to the Oxford website are subscription-only. Also, is there any reason ref #5 isn't split up into separate references by page? Otherwise sources look good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a recent discussion about this on the talk page, and the consensus seems to be to use doi on subscription required sites, so I did that. As for ref #5, that's same thing - Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - so since it's a webpage there's no page numbers. Lampman (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, misread, I thought ref #5 was a published work. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Wilton diptych2.jpg has been nominated for deletion, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wilton diptych2.jpg. The others seem fine to me. Giggy (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. The nomination doesn't seem to have any merit. The image won't be deleted, worst case it'll have to be cropped. Input on the nomination would be appreciated. Lampman (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Image was kept, for the record. Giggy (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite a few dablinks need fixing. Giggy (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's only three, and one is the link at the top of the page. The other two are now fixed. Lampman (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Overlinked: why "deposed", "tyrannous", "courtiers", "retinue", and for god's sake "personality disorders" (which will give us a very 21st-century skew on the concept). This article is not for the nine-year-old grade-school student, and we can assume that the reader speaks good English (if not, there's a radical thing called a dictionary, or even Wiktionary, but that's over to children and non-native speakers). The more lexical definitions you link, but more you dilute the considerable number of high-value links: we don't want to do that. Tony   (talk)  16:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. Though I agree with you in principle about overlinking, I'm not sure I agree with the examples you've given. The history of the indentured retainer in medieval England is a complex one. It is probably not well understood by most non-experts, much less so by nine-year-olds, and I don't know of any dictionary that would fully explain it. As for "personality disorders", this is deliberately a 20th/21st-century expression, because - as you will see from the relevant section - it relates to modern historians' assessment of the king, from a psychoanalytical perspective. I did remove a handful of other links though. Lampman (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with that, although the courtier article is pretty poor. Favourite might be better. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the link on courtier. Favourite is linked elsewhere in the article. Lampman (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * "Richard became second in line to the throne when ..." here or below it should be mentioned he was 4 at the time, to save us doing the maths.
 * Done


 * "This was preferred over a regency led by the king's uncle, John of Gaunt, ..." "to", not "over"? Preferred by whom?
 * Changed


 * "was later used as a Messianic analogy, as can be seen in the Wilton Diptych." perhaps rather overphrased?
 * Changed


 * the silent sitting on the throne was "on solemn festivals" according to the source.
 * Added


 * capital D for Duke of Ireland, no? This was exceptional & unique & a new creation, one of which is worth saying.
 * Added


 * "The duke of York, who was acting as keeper of the realm, had little choice but to ..." has he been linked before? I think not. Again sb Duke.
 * No, only in a footnote. Linked


 * "– were revealed to plan the murder of the new king, " - grammar
 * Changed


 * "wherefrom Richard's two wives came" - ?!
 * Changed


 * "and gave them @ badges with his White Hart @ ." add livery at either @
 * Done


 * " most recent academic biographical book " "biography" then?
 * That would be a bit inaccurate, as he has been the subject of an extensive biographical article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography since that (see Tuck, 2004)
 * "full-length academic biography" would be better then. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Richard's exclusive reliance on the county of Cheshire " not previously mentioned & worth expanding on.
 * It's mentioned in the sentence that begins "By installing de Vere..", but I didn't make the connection between Chester and Cheshire clear enough. Fixed


 * The tomb already contained Anne
 * Added


 * Court culture and patronage. International Gothic, which I have just revamped, is worth a link. There was a general increase in royal grandeur across Europe at the time, and royal pretensions. The over life-size Westminster portrait appears to be unprecedented in England, if not Europe, and again fits in with international trends.  Chaucer was not just a civil servant who wrote; he read aloud to the court, & seems to have been rewarded for his writing. "Geoffrey Chaucer, served the king as a diplomat and a clerk of The King's Works before devoting himself fully to literature" is wrong - his two careers apparently peaked over the same years. In this context his relationship to Gaunt might be worth a mention.  Did not Gower's change of heart follow Richard's death, and include some canny backdating of his works?
 * I've added IG as a "See also" link, and I've rewritten the sentence on Chaucer. As for Gower, it's hard to say. He might have been in the service of Bolingbroke as early as 1393, though he could of course not openly criticise Richard while he was still king. While these are all interesting issues in and of themselves, I think it would be undue weight to get too far into it in an article about Richard II. In Saul's words: "there is little or no evidence directly to connect the poetry of the court with Richard's patronage." (Saul (1997), p. 361.)


 * Generally there are not many pictures - the miniature of Chaucer reading could go in. The Liber regalis coronation miniature is here, and there are more from the Gruuthuse Froissart around.
 * I've added another couple of images


 * Aren't we going to have the handkerchiefs?
 * This I considered trivia, though I wrote a note about it on the talk page

Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments! Lampman (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Changed to Oppose, see below. - although the article slightly lacks excitement, which is a pity given the subject. I would still like to see more on the court & its culture culture, since Richard was one of the few medieval English monarchs interested in the arts - perhaps rather more so than in politics. There should also be a concluding passage explaining Henry's treatment of his memory and how his overthrow eventually led on to the Wars of the Roses. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Several sources state 6 January as his death date, not 14 February. Which is right? -- how do you turn this on  20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to know which sources those are. Most reliable, academic sources operate with a date on or around the 14th (Pollard (2004): "Most chroniclers believed that he died on 14 February, but how he died will never be known for sure."), but, as the article says, he was starved to death in secrecy, so we'll never know with certainty when exactly he died. Lampman (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jan 6 was his birth date of course - is there perhaps confusion? Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are books I own that mention it as an alternate date. Here is an online source I'd consider reliable. -- how do you turn this on  22:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly an RS when there are so many other better ones. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just one, and it happens to be sourced to a book. I have a few kings and queens books at home. I'm certain they say 6 January as an alternative date. I'll check them when I get back. -- how do you turn this on  22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Saul's Richard II seems to feel that the death happened in February, and discusses the contemporary sources that give dates between the middle of Feb to the last day of Feb. Tuck's ODNB article agrees. It's going to take more than the peerage site (which uses Wikipedia as a source for some of the other information!) to make this other than a probable transcription error (Which seems likely given that the day and month given for his death is the same as his birthdate) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support It was an enjoyable read, and I tweaked up the text a bit. Though some things, like the arts are lacking, as Johnbod notes. Wasn't he the first English king to have his portrait painted? Surely that's something interesting that should be mentioned? -- how do you turn this on  22:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * first surviving panel portraits (as opposed to ones in manuscripts, coins or tomb effigies), yes. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both for the support. I think you're right about the portrait, I'll see if I can find sourcing for it. Lampman (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support with a couple of quibbles.
 * I may have missed it, but you mention in "Coming of Age" the third paragraph, Gaunt and Buckingham, but I don't know where you introduced Buckingham before? Flogging my brain, isn't Thomas of Woodstock meant here? I seem to recall that one of his earlier titles before Gloucester was earl of Buckingham...
 * Good catch! Gloucester, Buckingham and Thomas of Woodstock are indeed one and the same person, but it's inaccurate to call him Gloucester before he received this dukedom in 1385. I've amended this, and put in a brief explanation.


 * When was de Burley executed?
 * Added


 * Second crisis... third paragraph, the sentence "The house of Lancaster..." is really awkward. Perhaps "The house of Lancaster not only possessed greater wealth than any other family .,..."
 * Done
 * Overall, an excellent article and one that doesn't neglect anything on the recent scholarship I'm familiar with, although it should be noted that I'm much more an Anglo-Norman person than a Plantagenet person. One book I can recommend is Prestwich's Plantagenet England 1225-1360 part of the new Oxford History of England series. Excellent overview of recent scholarship. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and kind comments. Prestwich's Plantagenet England is indeed a useful reference, but for this period the next volume in the series - Harriss's Shaping the Nation: England, 1360-1461 - is more relevant. Lampman (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. To us Anglo-Norman people, all that stuff past Henry II is just ... modern history (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Problems could arise from the "Ancestors of Richard II of England" being in the closed position. The "see also" should be integrated. Also, the "English Royalty House of Plantagenet" seems to be very bulky and possibly causing problems. The "Titles and style" in the info box seems a little off ("The King" as a title, when there is already a "King" title, for instance). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I moved "Ancestors" down, and removed the "Plantagenet" box and "The King". Lampman (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose by karanacs. I thought the article was interesting and informative, but the prose really didn't seem to be up to FA standards everywhere. I've listed some examples below. Karanacs (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Joan of Kent had been involved in a marriage dispute between Thomas Holland and William Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, from which Holland emerged victorious" - this is a very interesting way to phrase this concept. I assume you meant that two men were fighting over her hand, but "involved in a marriage dispute" could mean a lot of other thins.  Is it really important to know this information, anyway?
 * "In addition to discontent with the royal council came an increasingly heavy and more wide-ranging burden of taxation,." - this is very awkward to me.
 * The article needs a comma edit. There should be no comma in instances like this "he did this, and did that" unless both halves are complete sentences by themselves ("he did this, and he did that")
 * "Richard had, in spite of his young age, shown great personal qualities in his handling of the rebellion. " - this sentence seems like someone's opinion. Should it be attributed directly in the text to whoever wrote the sentiment?
 * The prose need to be tightened. For example, "It is only with the Peasants' Revolt that Richard starts to emerge clearly in the annals" should be, "After the Peasants' Revolt, Richard began to emerge clearly in the annals" - except in this particular case what does this mean?
 * second example: "set about on the task of negotiating a permanent peace with France" - why not just "began negotiating a permanent peace with France"?
 * "In spite of great sums of money awarded to the Empire, the political alliance never gave any military results" - does this mean that the Empire did not attempt to do anything militarily, or that they lost every time?
 * Watch for passive voice. Most of the time sentences in passive voice can be rewritten.  This helps flow and can tighten the prose quite a bit
 * "Awkward phrasing: "De la Pole came from an upstart merchant family, and when Richard made him chancellor in 1383, and created him Earl of Suffolk two years later, this provoked the hostility of the more established nobility"
 * "and obviously never did, as Richard would be dead within four years" - this might work better as a footnote; it seems a bit jarring where it is.
 * A template should not be used as article text (with its own section). The template on ancestors should go at the bottom of the article.
 * Thanks for your comments, I've implemented some of your suggestions. Lampman (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * "denied these charges, that would have amounted to treason" which is treason, the charges, or the denial?
 * Changed
 * "where the Duke of Ireland was routed" I had to do CTRL-F to discover that this refers to de Vere. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 05:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed, thanks. Lampman (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Moral Dilemma Support I'm on board with Karanacs in thinking that the writing is just a teeny bit uneven in places, like a skating rink with a slightly warped wooden floor. My heart says weak oppose (Don't count that, Sandy!), but I'm afraid if I do that then I'll cross the nom over some intangible No Consensus tipping point and make it have to wait (if the wise and sensible waiting rule is accepted) another 28 days.. so Support. But please don't dump this article like bad news and move on to another one; please find a couple folks to smooth the writing. See forex "According to Hereford Norfolk"... Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, and I'd be happy to work with anyone who wants to tweak the article further. I wasn't quite sure about the example you mention, but I guess it must be considered a participial phrase, and requires a comma. Lampman (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Good job and much improved. Just one thing, the 5th reference "Tuck (2004)" should be broke down into specific page references. This will be a pain in the arse to do no doubt, but all the others show specific pages. - True as Blue (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. As I mentioned above, "Tuck (2004)" refers to a website - the online version of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. That's why there are no page numbers. Lampman (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Placeholder-oppose  - the writing is awkward in places with some redundant wording, I will try to fix this as I go, but revert me if I change the meaning inadvertently. This oppose is a placeholder really as it does need a bit of a tweak before being up to scratch. Nearly there, though and this FAC should be successful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Abbey of St. Andrew - someone should make a stub really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never wikified this; someone else did but I've removed. A Google search on "Abbey of St. Andrew" and Bordeaux returns very few results, most of them relating to the birth of Richard II. I honestly don't think this is a very notable institution, apart for being the birthplace of a king. Lampman (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It was certainly how the elite thought at the time, maybe adding "" would do it, if the reference uses it. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Lampman (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to sleep now but will chip in tomorrow. It still needs some massaging. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the seealso section is a problem - I don't understand why International Gothic is there - if important, there should be some elaboration in Court culture and patronage section, or somewhere, if it is too tenuous, then the link should be just dropped. As well, the Cultural depictions of Richard II of England should be a short paragraph rather than just a link. Shakespeare's plays have been crucial in their representations - as he is a playwright and not a historian, I'd take the para on shakespeare out of Character and assessment proper, and make a subsection cultural depictions at the bottom - with some mention about appearing in numerous films and their treatment of him, did any deal with the homosexuality, were they faithful to shakespeare or have some attempted to use more direct historical records? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions. I try to satisfy everybody, but when one person says International Gothic should be included and someone else says it should be taken out that becomes impossible. In or out, I don't really care much. As for the cultural depictions, to the best of my knowledge Shakespeare's play is the only culturally significant fictional portrayal of the king, and as such doesn't seem enough to warrant a separate section. Of course the play has a long performance history, but in my opinion that belongs in Richard II (play), and not here. Lampman (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, you now have three reviewers saying the cultural section needs expansion - please don't try and play us off against each other, we are clearly all saying the same thing! Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I was talking about the International Gothic link - there seem to be opposing views as to whether or not it should be included. You're saying that it should be removed if it's "too tenuous", and I'm leaning towards this opinion. As for culture, it has been suggested above that more be added e.g. on the biographies on Chaucer and Gower. I have expressed my views on this; that this would constitute undue weight since there is little evidence to connect either of these men to the king. However, we have to distinguish between court culture in Richard II's own time, and posthumous depictions of the king. If I understand you correctly the latter was your main concern, and as I said above, I believe a performance history of Shakespeare's play belongs in that article, not here. Lampman (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems I was misreading your comments above, where you said adding more on the poetry would constitute "undue weight". I don't agree on this, but it is an acceptable point of view. However it now seems you meant this to apply to any expansion of the whole culture section, which three reviewers have clearly asked for. This swings me back to an oppose. Let's be clear no one asked for International Gothic to be a See also - the request was for some of the easily available and significant additional material to be added to the section to justify the link, which I might add you are very well qualified to do, but it seems you have dug your heels in over this. Given the level of detail accorded to the political history of the reign, this goes against the comprehensiveness of the article.  Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I misread the comments above and got you and Casliber a bit confused. I wasn't principally opposed to expanding the culture section if there was a consensus on this; I've expanded it somewhat now, hope this helps. Lampman (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, I don't know enough about international gothic to know whether it is significant or not, just that it shouldn't just be a seealso link. You already have a paragraph on the shakespeare, and it wouldn't be a section, but a subsection of the last section. Also, there have been many films, and any major motion picture release can be argued to be culturally significant - given he is a controversial figure, its is important to note whether subsequent protrayals dipcti him in a negative or positive light. Like it or not, this is how 99.9% of people who read teh article are gonig to come in contact with the subject. It doesn't have to be much. No-one would oppose on a succinct paragraph (already half doen with the shakespeare material already there, and a brief summary of some of the film versions. I may have some material accessible at my mothers' but it may take a day or two to add). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was talking about what you called "elaboration in Court culture and patronage" - ie the cultural aspect of Richard's own court (a centre of International Gothic). I'm not aware of other significant later depictions of Richard, though there may well be some. The cultural aspects of Richard's court seem more relevant to me - frankly too many "history" biographies are let off the hook on this here, just as too many political historians underplay the cultural aspects of the subjects of their biographies. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Well, I don't mean to be difficult; so since the consensus is that there should be more on the culture, I've added a bit more than 1k on this. As for movies, as far as I've been able to find there hasn't been a single one made (though there have of course been some adaptations by the BBC and other TV stations). Lampman (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised there were no films of this play at all! Wow. The stuff on Giledgud performing it and then a different play of Richard are interesting, but neither are unequivocally important. On reading it, I can see how the shakespeare material blends in to the natural flow of where it is currently placed, thus moving it creates as many problems as it solves. OK, not a deal-breaker and over the line. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and support! Lampman (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Notes: mixture of citation methods. See CITE; do not mix the citation template with the cite xxx family of templates as they provide different styles.  Pick one or the other, not both.  There were numerous inconsistencies thoughout the citations in dashes and plural page nos; I think I got them all.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your fixes, it seems I was too sloppy with my "p"s. I've converted all the citations into cite xxx. Even though I generally prefer these, I used the citation template in places because the cite xxx template is sometimes too restrictive, but I found a way to make it work. Lampman (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed to Oppose - see below & above on culture section, plus various other points not dealt with - there really should be a concluding section linking Richard's deposition to the War of the Roses. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The culture section is expanded. As for the Wars of the Roses, that's already commented on in the introduction. Lampman (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed: "...Shakespeare, whose narrative held Richard's misrule and Bolingbroke's deposition responsible for the fifteenth-century Wars of the Roses.[1] This is an interpretation no longer accepted today." - this does not exactly cover my point, and actually is rather confusing. What is no longer accepted today? If it is that Henry's deposition led to the WoR then this should be expanded on, as it would seem rather a necessary precondition to get a good civil war going.
 * When editing, I noticed some American spellings which of course should not be there. Has the article been checked for ENGVAR? Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added material to the section myself, and I think it now covers the ground ok. I note that a book by Jenny Stratford], "Richard II's Treasure" is to be published next March by Boydell, and will no doubt contain additional material worth adding. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

PS and Lampman, are you going to do a little reviewing yourself? We'd love a bit of help from skilled people. Tony  (talk)  04:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - changed back as the article meets FA standards, though some points made by various reviewers should still be dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support—Damn good read. The overlinking seems to have been addressed. Does MoS allow single quotes for words as words? ('gyration'). Not sure I understand it, anyway—is it in quotes because the source (ref 38) used it? That's unclear, so the word as word versus the quote from source functions are confused. I'd use a different word without quotes. Tony   (talk)  04:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. MoS seems to prefer double quotes, so I changed that throughout. I used "gyration" because this is the word that is most often used about this event in the literature (not just ref 38; do a Google Book search for "Richard II" and "gyration"). It's a rather obscure word, and today mostly used in geometry, so I put in the more contemporary "circuit" in parenthesis. I appreciate all the comments here, and you're right I should probably give some back. I'll be on the lookout for a subject where I feel I can contribute. Lampman (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Weak oppose In general, I think this is an excellent article. I read it through twice and learned quite a bit - that is my favorite kind of FAC reviewing. There are just a few places that are a little vague or poorly explained:


 * The first major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, during which the young king comported himself well, and played a major part in suppressing the rebellion. - "comported himself well" seems like a strange choice of words to me
 * Changed


 * By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony - harmony with whom?
 * Expanded


 * For the next two years Richard's rule was seen by many as tyrannous - by many chroniclers?
 * Expanded


 * In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. - It seems like these two events are connected - could we show that more explicitly?
 * Expanded


 * This is an interpretation no longer accepted today - "today" will go out of date - perhaps "twentieth-century historians"?
 * That wouldn't really work, as you can see I've based this on late-twentieth/early-twenty-first sources. I changed it to "Contemporary" - surely if historic consensus should change radically, the whole article would need to be rewritten anyway?


 * though this does not exonerate Richard from responsibility for his own destiny - fluffy
 * I've changed it a bit, but I'm not quite sure how else to word it. It must be seen in conjunction with the next sentence, which is explanatory.
 * I think it is the word "destiny" that is bothering me - I don't think someone can be responsible for their own destiny, considering the word has the ring of "fate" about it. Perhaps replacing that word would solve the problem? Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Deposition?


 * Historians agree that, even though his policies were not unprecedented or entirely unrealistic, the way in which he carried them out was too extreme, and this led to his downfall. - "too extreme" is a bit vague
 * Changed


 * Shortly after Holland's death in 1360, Joan married Prince Edward. - It is unclear whether they were married in 1360 as well.
 * Added


 * This anecdote, and the fact that his birth fell on the feast of Epiphany, was later used in religious imagery, as can be seen in the Wilton Diptych. - Could this imagery be explained, rather than just referred to?
 * Expanded
 * and redone Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed an inconsistency in the capitalization of "Commons" - I wasn't sure whether it should be capitalized or not.
 * I like to use uppercase when speaking of the lower house of parliament, and lowercase about the social category of non-nobles


 * Although that year's poll tax was the immediate cause of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, the root of the conflict lay in deeper tensions between peasants and landowners, which were in turn caused by the demographic consequences of the Black Death and subsequent outbreaks of the plague - a bit convoluted
 * Split up


 * On 28 June at Billericay he effectively ended the Peasants' Revolt. - How?
 * Expanded
 * Was this a battle? Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * More of a skirmish


 * Despite his young age, Richard had shown great personal qualities in his handling of the rebellion. - "personal qualities" is a vague phrase
 * Changed


 * It is only with the Peasants' Revolt that Richard starts to emerge clearly in the annals. - It might be worth explaining to the reader what "the annals" are.
 * Wikilinked


 * De la Pole came from an upstart merchant family,[25] and when Richard made him chancellor in 1383, and created him Earl of Suffolk two years later, this antagonised the more established nobility. - awkward wording
 * Split up


 * Richard's close friendship to de Vere also caused displeasure, exacerbated by the earl's elevation to new title of Duke of Ireland in 1386. - caused displeasure to whom?
 * Expanded


 * Furthermore, he assured legal backing from Chief Justice Robert Tresilian that parliament's conduct had been both unlawful and treasonable. - slightly awkward wording
 * Changed


 * Towards the end of the 1390s began the period that is often referred to as the "tyranny" of Richard II. - could be worded more strongly
 * Removed "often"
 * The passive voice is what is causing the weakness. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Activated


 * The fines levied on these men brought great revenues to the crown, but the legalities of the proceedings were questioned. - Who did the questioning?
 * Added


 * He was then free to develop a courtly atmosphere in which the king was a distant, venerated figure, and art and culture, rather than warfare, were at the centre. - The article claims that art and culture were at the center of Richard's court, yet the reader has no idea of this until the very end of the article. I'm wondering if some hints of this can be added to the biography section?
 * I've deliberately kept the political and cultural history apart for clarity. I'm not sure how to make this change without re-writing the whole article, but I'd be happy to hear concrete suggestions
 * Perhaps this material could be mentioned in the lead? That way it would not be such a surprise to the reader. Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - per WP:LEAD and the "no surprises" principle, it should be. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is also a really good song by Radiohead. I've added a sentence in the lead.


 * Chroniclers, even those less sympathetic to the king, agreed that Richard was a beautiful man, possibly in a somewhat feminine way - This is a strange statement - perhaps we could just quote the chroniclers?
 * Changed to quote form


 * Another major historiographical question concerns Richard's political agenda and reasons for its failure. - "another" is a weak transition
 * Changed


 * Image:Richard II of England.jpg - Could we try and find the source link for this image again?
 * Or upload a better one - it is very washed out. The best full length I can find is this (at zoom), or the BBC has this head and shoulders. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea - new image uploaded. Awadewit (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing and images look good to me. I am not enough of an expert to judge whether or not the artistic patronage section should be expanded. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - I expanded it somewhat myself last night, after my comments above, & would not now oppose on this. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it is good to know that - I feel reassured! :) Awadewit (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and copyediting. Please let me know if the changes are satisfactory, or if there is more. Lampman (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a few remaining ones which should not be difficult to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hope that takes care of it. I've also added more on the perceived connection between Richard and the Wars of the Roses. Lampman (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am most happy to support this article - thanks for working on such an important biography! Awadewit (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.