Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard III of England/archive1

Richard III of England
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… It was nominated for at, and then failed- rightly- a GA nomination, but, having taken the advice of the reviewer, hopefully it could pass this time- with the advice of other editors here helping it on its way perhaps? Many thanks from us to you now, and in advance...

Thanks, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  22:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
That's all from me. I enjoyed the whole article very much, and my earlier concerns about adequate citation have been thoroughly addressed. After some heavy cutting of the remains section this article should prosper at GAN, in my view. –  Tim riley  talk    15:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * General
 * Inverted commas: You need to look carefully at your use of inverted commas, for two reasons. First, you have a mixture of curly (smart-quotes) like ‘this’ and straight ones like 'this'. The Wikipedia Manual of Style requires the latter. Secondly, you are inconsistent about double -v- single quotation marks. Wikipedia's standard is double. I don't much like it, but them's the rules.
 * Wikilinks: there are far too many duplicate links from the article. I think I counted nine links to Anne Neville. The rule is a maximum of one link to any other article from the lead and another from the text; for captions of images the rule is waived and you can link any and all captions. There is a simple and useful tool here to flag up all duplicate links in an article: User:Ucucha/duplinks.
 * Lead
 * "The revolt collapsed and Stafford was executed at Salisbury near the Bull's Head Inn." – two points here: first, do historians usually call the man "Stafford" rather than "Buckingham"? (I may have had my expectation coloured by Shakespeare, who "Buckinghams" him throughout.) Secondly, is the name of the pub a bit more detail than we want in the lead?
 * "as the only one to have been killed on home soil since Harold II was killed at the Battle of Hastings in 1066" – eh? What about William II, Edward II and Richard II? If you mean "killed in battle on home soil" that's fair enough, but it won't do as it stands.
 * "Reformation" – worth a blue link, possibly?
 * Childhood
 * "a strong claimant to the throne of King Henry VI" – I think we could do with an "according to so-and-so" here, naming an authority for the statement.
 * "whilst at Warwick's estate" – "whilst" is a fusty, fussy word. "While" is shorter, more familiar, and better.
 * "older brother … elder brother" – probably best to be consistent one way or the other
 * Piping: King Henry VI but King Edward IV. The former is easier on the reader's eye, I think.
 * "his brother Edward the King" – reads rather strangely
 * "During the Earl’s life only George married Isabel" – how many husbands was she expecting? I see what you mean here, but it could be phrased better
 * "the Earl’s life … revolt against the king" – more inconsistency of capitals.
 * "In 2014 osteoarchaelogist Dr Appleby" – this is an example of an anarthrous nominal premodifier, otherwise known as a false title. It is widely admitted in AmEng, but is not used in good BrEng (though our own dear tabloid papers can't get enough of it). Adding a definite article before "osteoarchaelogist" will do the job. This, I'm glad to say, was the only instance I spotted of this construction, which you eschew elsewhere, to loud applause from me. On another point, if we know Dr Appleby's given name we should use it.
 * Marriage and family relationships
 * "pre-nuptial" – no hyphen, according to the OED
 * "The requisite Papal dispensation" – I briefly lost the will to live during this paragraph: do we really need to drag Henry VIII into it?
 * "It has been suggested that the terms" – it would be as well to say in the text who has so suggested
 * Reign of Edward IV
 * "dukedom of Gloucester … Lordships of Richmond … Constable of Gloucester … admiral of England" – inconsistency of capitalising
 * "Once Edward had regained the support of Clarence" – I don't think we have been told earlier that he had ever lost it, and so this comes rather out of the blue.
 * Council of the North
 * "an off-shoot"– another word that the OED doesn't hyphenate.
 * War with Scotland
 * "Royal Court" – capitals needed?
 * Two more "whilsts" here that I think would be cleaner as "whiles"
 * Accession
 * "Although Richard III has been accused of having Edward and his brother killed, there is debate about their actual fate." – this seems rather short measure for such a key point. I wonder if you might perhaps add a sentence or two saying that the historians x, y and z say he dunnit and a, b, and c say he didn't" – or some such. I know you return to the matter in the reputation section, but what we have at the present point seems a bit light.
 * "He was convicted of treason and beheaded in Salisbury on 2 November" – here, if anywhere, is surely the place for the name of the boozer to whose mention in the lead I took exception, above.
 * Succession
 * "created earl of Salisbury" – unexpected absence of capital for earl here
 * "Dr Ashdown-Hill suggests" – this is the first we've heard of this cove, and a first name and a word of introduction seem called for.
 * Legacy
 * "his own vice-regal appointment" – no hyphen according to the OED.
 * "Richard himself became King" – capital K wanted? See the last sentence of the para
 * In culture
 * Pipiing of knights' titles: I find it worth the trouble of piping, so that Sir Laurence Olivier is shown as Sir Laurence Olivier: more work for the editor, but easier on the reader's eye.
 * Discovery of remains
 * Given that there is a whole article (a rather fine one) on this subject I think you should take the pruning knife to this section. In particular, the third paragraph goes at great length into minute detail that for this biographical article could, and I believe should, be compressed into two or three sentences, saying that the forensic evidence was conclusive but omitting the specifics. Those who want them can go to the other article. The fifth paragraph goes on a bit too. In short, this section runs to 1,354 words, compared with 770 words on the Battle of Bosworth and 849 on the rest of Richard's entire reign: that can't be right. See GAN criterion 3b: "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail".
 * References
 * Refs 36 and 145 look to be the same, and if so should be consolidated.
 * There are some bare URL links, e.g. 194–198, which should be fleshed out with the usual details, name, title, etc.
 * You are inconsistent with order of surname/given name in the refs: see for instance refs 106 and 107 or 136 and 137.

Comments from Hchc2009
Looks like a lot of work's gone into this. Some thoughts from me:


 * "was King of England for two years, from 1483 until his death in 1485 in the Battle of Bosworth Field." - "two years" felt redundant here, given the dates that followed.
 * "symbolises the end of the Middle Ages in England. " - symbolises, or marks? (I'm not convinced it acts as a symbol)
 * "the 12-year-old King Edward V." - felt strange having "King" here, but not earlier in the paragraph.
 * "As the young king travelled to London from Ludlow" - the upper/lower case of "king" needs checking throughout; this is standing in for Edward, so needs to be capitalised
 * "and a number of accusations circulated" - could just be "and accusations circulated"
 * "his first cousin once removed." - this felt like excessive detail for the lead
 * "near the Bull's Head Inn" ditto
 * "Richard III's remains received burial without pomp" - "Richard III's remains were buried without pomp"?
 * I was surprised not to find more description of his reputation in the lead, given the controversy that often surrounds Richard.
 * I couldn't quite work out why there were three books listed in the Bibliography, given the range that were used in the citations. The further reading section seems to include works cited in the main article, which I think (?) runs counter the MOS guidance.
 * The 1840 edition of the Paston Letters didn't look like a reliable, contemporary secondary source; are there any modern historians who cite the same primary material that could be used instead?
 * Similarly, Hall 1809 didn't feel like a strong source.
 * I'd echo the comments above on the "Discovery of Remains" section - it felt very long.
 * I didn't get the significance of the picture of the bronze statue; statues aren't mentioned in the text, and it doesn't seem to be a particularly famous piece etc.
 * The Childhood section could usefully have a line or two explaining that Richard is born at the start of the Wars of the Roses, who the Lancastrians are etc.; it doesn't necessarily need to be a lot, but if a reader didn't know there was a war going on, and who the two sides were, the rest won't make much sense.
 * The section also needs to mention his date of birth.
 * Worth checking which numbers need to be as numerals as opposed to words ("seventeen" needs to be 17, for example)
 * "3D Printing" - should this be "3D printing"?
 * " battle of Barnet" - should be "Battle of Barnet"
 * "John Paston’s letter" - you'll need to explain who John Paston was.
 * "Constable of Gloucester and Corfe Castles" - if we're linking Corfe, worth linking GLoucester Castle as well.
 * There's a lack of consistency in how money is given, e.g. "£1000" or "£20,000"
 * I found the sequence of one paragraph sub-sections in the Reign of Edward IV section a bit jarring, to be honest; is there any way to structure as regular prose?
 * "Although Richard III has been accused of having Edward and his brother killed, there is debate about their actual fate." - I was expecting a bit more explanation here about this debate and what historians think Richard did - it sort of stops suddenly after this sentence.
 * It's worth making sure that you attribute the quotes used in the main text; "all that can be said is that the Royal army 'substantially' outnumbered Tudor's" for example, doesn't make it very clear who is saying the "substantially".
 * There's probably more that can be said about Richard's relationship to religion, and to the justice system; the ODBN entry (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/23500) gives an overview of this, and there's some more sources at the bottom of it on these topics.
 * There's a good range of volumes cited, but I'd also recommend Gillingham's "Richard III: A Medieval Kingship", an edited volume with some interesting pieces in it. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to the editors below above. Gillingham certainly seems an odd oversight! Also, re: the tech stuff like straight, curly, single, double quotes etc, is their any editing software available that could make the task of finding and replacing slightly less mind (and eye!) -numbing? Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  11:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you copy and paste the entire contents of the article from the editing screen into Microsoft Word you can do a global replace of single and double quotes easily. Make sure in "autoformat" and "autoformat as you type set" you have the "replace straight quotes with smart quotes" box unchecked.
 * Spotting single quotes where there should be doubles can be made easier with the Word search button: look for [space]' and then run another search for ' [space]. That usually finds most of them.
 * Once done, you can copy and paste back into Wikipedia.  Tim riley  talk    12:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for that, very helpful. Now, on another matter, any views as to the addition of substantial new material at this point? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  18:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of moving this discussion from top to bottom of page. If you have substantial new material I'd urge you to add it. You can always invite reviewers back for a second bite.  Tim riley  talk    19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Isanan
I would like to answer to Mr Riley's question on "The requisite Papal dispensation" – I briefly lost the will to live during this paragraph: do we really need to drag Henry VIII into it? Mention of HVIII's case of first degree consanguinity (now removed, supposedly after your comment) was included because it was a better known case and could help the unexperienced visitor better understand the terms why in HVIII's there was a case for first degree consanguinity and in Richard's and Anne's there was not. Medieval canon law on affinities, siblings created by carnal union in marriage (so Isabel's marriage to George made Anne sister to George and Richard brother to Isabel, but not Anne sister to Richard), etc. is no easy topic and a comparison with a similar better known case might have helped. I would personally recommend it should be reinstated somehow. As for previous direct attribution of statement to Dr Ashdown-Hill in the Succession section, I agree "Dr" could be replaced with "John", just as Hicks is called Michael and not Prof in the previous paragraph. However, by replacing the direct attribution with a generic "It is possible" in that specific context as it has been done supposedly following Mr Riley's comment, it now sounds like that assumption (John of Gloucester being fathered during Richard's first solo expedition) still belongs to Hicks and Horrox and it is simply reported in Ashdown-Hill's book, whereas it is Ashdown-Hill's original research and speculation and I do not think it is fair to have it taken for someone else's work. I would therefore personally recommend it should be reinstated as "John Ashdown-Hill has suggested", or "Historian John Ashdown-Hill has suggested" Thank you for your attention Isananni (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I say! Mr Riley (or Tim as he prefers to be known) backs down humbly in the face of that.  Tim riley  talk    19:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tim, I appreciate your understanding, am honoured to tell the truth. I will proceed reinstating the removed entries. Enjoy pedalling Isananni (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to see this whole section removed, from "First degree consanguinity applied in the case of Henry VIII ..." right down to, and including, "if any objections were raised, they were found void and rejected" (followed by a reference from The Ricardian). There is a hidden agenda here - maybe two hidden agendas. Ricardians insist there was no illegality because they want Richard to appear squeaky-clean.  Anti-Ricardians, meanwhile, obviously want to hint at him not being as pious as he is made out to be.  The sentence "if any objections were raised..." absolutely must be removed, because there's nothing to suggest that any were; that is pure speculation, but also a sly way of suggesting that the matter was discussed and objections were dismissed. Deb (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If Hicks'speculation is mentioned in the article, the corresponding counter assumption should also be presented as they are both supported by reputable sourced research. Alternatively both speculations should be removed to remain on neutral ground. It's quite the same as the previous peer reviewer suggesting all speculations on the fate of the princes should be presented, it's either all or noone, leaving the matter to a neutral "validity of their marriage has been subject of debate" Isananni (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually Deb objections to the validity of Richard's marriage to Anne were indeed raised or there would not have been need to include a "divorce clause" in the 1474 act of Parliament that settled the issue of Richard's mother-in-law's inheritance, as mentioned in the following paragraph. Clarence complained Richard had married Anne by force (ref, report in the Milanese State Papers), probably referring to when he had escorted her to sanctuary in St Martin as an abduction, when consent was essential for a marriage to be valid. It had nothing to do with problems of consanguinity that Clarence shared in the same degree with his own wife. So those objections were indeed raised and documentedly reported and must have been found void and rejected since Richard's marriage was never declared null and the "divorce clause" was never used Isananni (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to add, I think it should be "Ashdown-Hill has suggested..." as he's been previously mentioned in the article, whereas Michael Hicks hasn't. Deb (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's quite the other way round. Ashdown-Hill was not previously mentioned in the section, Hicks was, hence the necessity not to mix their work Isananni (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just double-checked. Actually, I think we are talking at cross purposes; I was referring to the paragraph on consanguinity, not the earlier paragraph about his illegitimate children. Deb (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah! JAH is not mentioned in the consanguinity issue, he hasn't done any research on that as far as I know Isananni (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is he a personal friend of yours! Anyway, instead of getting bogged down in canon law, why don't you take a look at the bibliography section? It should reflect the works we cite but it only has three items listed. Or we could delete it since most articles seem to omit it. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  12:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I will have a look at the bibliography section as well asap, it should contain all works mentioned in the citations or be deleted as you suggest, I agree with you Isananni (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Jumping in from the side... I'd argue that it either needs to contain all the works used in the article, or none. My preference (mild in this case) would be for the former, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hchc2009, my thoughts precisely. However, I agree that, as Deb suggested the sentence "if any objections were raised..." absolutely must be removed, because there's nothing to suggest that any were, and it has already been seen to Isananni (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions on current version dated 28 nov 2014


 * Succession
 * The reference to HVII’s grant of £ 20 to John of Gloucester lacks citation. I know it’s true, I read it somewhere too, but cannot trace the source (Parliament roll or whatever) to support the statement, maybe someone can help

This paragraph was included following user Hchc2009’s suggestions that in its turn followed Tim’s suggestion to add a straightforward attribution in the text to the statement that Richard’s father was a claimant to the throne. In view to improve on conciseness and reader-friendliness, avoid repetitions, etc. my suggestion is to avoid attributions in the text leaving them to the due citation (otherwise all sentences should start with “Kendall, or Hicks, or Ross says, which is not exactly engaging for the average reader) and possibly reword the paragraph with something like: "Richard was born on 2 October 1452[8] at Fotheringhay Castle, the twelfth of the thirteen children of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and Cecily Neville. As a potential claimant to the throne of King Henry VI from birth(ref Dr. Johnson) Richard’s father was the leader of the Yorkist faction that opposed the party supporting the Lancastrian king and played a major role in the first phase of the so called The Wars of the Roses, a period of "three or four decades of political instability and periodic open civil war in the second half of the fifteenth century”(ref Prof. Pollard). At the time of the death of his father and elder brother etc...." In this section, this mention shifts focus from childhood to adulthood quite strangely and lacks the link to the change in ownership of the estate. My suggestion is to move this mention to the Estates section as follows: Two months later, on 14 July, he gained the Lordships of the strongholds Sheriff Hutton and Middleham in Yorkshire and Penrith in Cumberland, which had belonged to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is possible that the grant of Middleham seconded Richard’s personal wishes(ref. Kendall, Richard III,p 125 “Richard had won his way back to Middleham Castle”). However, any personal attachment he may have felt to Middleham was likely mitigated in later adulthood, as surviving records demonstrate he spent less time there than at Barnard and Pontefract(related present ref by Pollard)
 * Childhood
 * Paragraph on “The War of the Roses”
 * Mention to change of attitude towards Middleham estate in adulthood

I cannot trace the entry right now, but I remember it speaks of £ 50. The first contract spoke of £ 50, but the actual sum disbursed by HVII to James Keyley in 1495 for Richard’s tomb was £ 10 (ref Rhoda Edwards, The Ricardian, Vol. III, No 50, September 1975, pp 8-9), quite a bargain, a discount under duress? :)
 * HVII’s expenses on Richard’s tomb

May I suggest to reinstate the referral brakets to the name Anne Neville in the first sentence? I know it’s a repetition of a referral some 2 upscrolls away, but given the relevance in this specific section it may not be redundant and would make for easier browsing for the user, since the section can be accessed separately from the index and the occasional user may not be aware the referral is in another section
 * Marriage and family relationships – referral to Anne Neville’s article

The Bibliography section mentions 3 books, while the Further reading section mentions 19. I will crossmatch the different citations to check if any further books (not articles) have missed inclusion in this section, but in the meantime, would it not be the case to merge the 2 sections in 1 single Bibliography section? Should the articles be included or not? Should books that are not mentioned in the citations be included e.g. Josephine Wilkinson's "Richard the young king to be"? The bibliography section lists works by author/title/publisher/isbn id, the Further reading section lists works by title/by author/publisher in brakets/isbn id in brakets - which criteria should we choose to keep consistency? Furthermore, I do not have the ability to work on sections that impact on the index, so I hope someone can help there.
 * Bibliography and Further Reading

Looking forward to your opinion Isananni (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The bibliography usually contains the books and articles cited in the article, so Wilkinson's work (see fn 160) would usually be in there. Format wise, the bibliography and the further reading section are usually in the same format, but there's no official rule that they have to be. I'd perhaps advise asking a quick question on the talk page seeing if anyone minded you using a common format, e.g. surname first, for both sections. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Same issues are reported in the talk page too. I listed quite a few books that are mentioned in the article (references section) but are neither in the bibliography nor in the further reading (Wilkinson, Markham, Ashdown-Hill, Cheetham, etc.), and some more books are not mentioned in the article but could be interesting to add like e.g. Annette Carson's Richard the Maligned King, or Peter A Hancock's Richard III and the Murder in the Tower. Some books used for references in the article are not strictly on Richard e.g. we have 3 books on the Wars of the Roses, 2 on Anne Neville, 2 on Edward IV (including Ross' one in the Bibliography section). My personal opinion is that these books should only be listed in the references but not in the bibliography/further reading section (for which I suggest a merger in 1 single section) and that articles should not be listed other than in the references Isananni (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My initial thought is that this sounds a sensible solution to achieve consistency. Deb (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank
I looked at just the lead section.
 * "Richard was struck down in this conflict, making him the last English king to die in battle on home soil since Harold II was killed at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.": I'm not getting a hit on this in the text below the lead. I think you might be trying to say two things at once here, that he was the last English king to die in battle on home soil, and the only English king to die in battle on home soil since 1066, when Harold was killed.
 * If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)