Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wonderful Parliament/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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 5 February 2022 [1].

---

Wonderful Parliament

Nominator(s): ——Serial 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A return to FAC after a year away. Where does it go, etc. But here's a thing that was brought to GA by the thorough review of T. Riley, of this parish, and should be ready for the next stage. Another—if slightly later—medieval parliament—the King wanted money, both lords and commons refused until he got rid of a few scroungers, he refused, and all hell burst out. Hey, parliament was nearly invited for dinner and poisoned by the King, how's that for a healthy political relationship? All comments, criticisms welcome; around table, we'll chew the cud. ——Serial 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Check caption grammar - full sentences should end in periods, others should not
  • Done
• Suggest adding alt text
  • Added
• File:Richard_II_of_England.jpg: source link is dead; is there a reason to have both life+70 and life+100?
  • Westminster abbey changed its file name...re-sourced. Removed PD-old, left PD-US and PD-art.
• File:ThomasWoodstock.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ditto, the above, re-pointed link. Thanks Nikkimaria, hope this finds you well. ——Serial 19:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Coord note So far this FAC has not attracted much review or any supports. If it does not get more attention in the next few days it is likely to be archived. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Goodness, is it that time already? Where does the time go? Recusing to review.

• "was an English parliamentary session" → 'was a session of the English Parliament'?
• "the King's need for money, it quickly refocussed on pressing for the reform of King Richard II's administration". Perhaps the full name at first mention, and "the King's" at second?
• "with which to invade France himself." I realise this is the lead, but consider unpacking this a little. 'to fund an army with which to ...' or 'to raise an army in order to ...' or similar maybe.
• "as he would have expected". What does this mean? If 'as he expected', why not say so?
• "houses of the Lords and Commons". You know better than me on these things, but I would have expected 'houses of Lords and Commons' or 'houses of the Lords and the Commons', not a mix.
• "who had benefited—unfairly— ..." It may be me, but who had unfairly benefited' reads better to my eye.
• "unfairly—from the King's unwarranted". Does "unfairly" and "unwarranted" not restate the same thing

  Yes. Dropped unwarranted completely; technically, no patronage was unwarranted, as the distribution thereof was one of the king's primary duties (R2's real problem was the limited number of recipients of his patronage and the jealousies that inevitably raised.)

• "They demanded the earl's impeachment". "the earl" → de la Pole'.
• "sent two lords instead". In what way were these not a delegation?

  Absolutely! Clarified that the king wanted a commons delegation, hence their sending lords.

• "was restricted to appointing a royal council". I don't think "restricted" is the word you want here.
• "to receive his choice of counsel". I am unsure what this means. 'to receive counsel from those of his own choosing'? (If so, you already seem to cover it with "and appoint his own ministers".
• "as to" → 'on'.

  Good spot. This has enabled me to merge the two sentences into one shorter one.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for looking in Gog the Mild: I've actioned all your points ([2]), but have only replied to those I felt need explanation, if that's OK. Thanks again! ——Serial 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  That makes perfect sense. I shall have a look through your changes and comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  That all looks good. Onward, ever onward.

• "but had been growing in unpopularity". Maybe 'but his unpopularity had been growing'.

  Check.

• "they observed with dull eyes". Nice, but what does it mean?

Ah!

• "In spite of these setbacks, parliament faced requests from the King for increased subsidies to pay for the war despite the lack of success." "In spite of these setbacks ... despite the lack of success."?

  Right, dropped the duplication.

• "particularly de la Pole, the Chancellor". Is there a link for chancellor?

  Ineed! Linked.

• "De la Pole has been described as a "staunch loyalist," ". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.

  Named the historian, another one for WP:WIR I guess...

• "and had been elevated to the peerage as Earl of Suffolk only the previous year". Might it be of interest to give the position or station he was elevated from?

  From bugger all  :) the de la Poles were the archetypal parvenus; I've added a couple of sources noting he was the first to be so.

• "Expeditionary Force". Why the upper case initials?

  BEF I guess, but l/c now.

• "the immediate cause of the parliament as it was both exorbitantly expensive". This reads as if the parliament was ...

  Check.

• "the King urgently needed funds to defend both the border with Scotland and the kingdom itself from both Scottish border raids and a French invasion,[13] and the absence of Gaunt probably added to the sense of panic." 1. "the sense" → 'a sense' as this is its first mention. (You may wish to expand on it though.) 2. "the kingdom itself". Delete "itself". (What else would it be?) 3. "both" is used twice; maybe tweak? 4. "defend both the border with Scotland and ... from ... Scottish border raids". Are both needed? 5. In what sense is defending "the border with Scotland" different from defending "the kingdom"? (The use of "both" suggests that there is some.)

  Think I've attended to this bundle of tings Gog-utilised your phrasing suggestions, and also aded a bit about the sense of panic, with cool stuff from Wm Walsingham. Bloody Londoners!

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Gog the Mild, actioned with this edit, see what you think. ——Serial 19:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That all looks good.

• "attempted to limit him from elevating". Suggest "limit" → 'prevent'.

  Check.

• "that there was "an atmosphere of political crisis" was apparent to all." "was ... was". Maybe 'an atmosphere of political crisis was apparent to all.'?

  Check.

• "No successes had been achieved since the previous parliament"> Is this a reference to military successes?

  Yes; the source is slightly ambiguous (there hadn't been any political victories either! But we should keep it simple of course.)

• "His victory freed then gave him the time"?

  "His victory now gave him the time and resources".

• "and it was that invasion". Suggest "invasion" → 'army'.

  Check.

• "the Commons themselves came before the King in the House of Lords." I actually don't know what this means!

  It means I can't spell out that the King sat with the lords rather than the commons. In other news, it's pretty irrelevant, so I swapped it for more relevant stuff about de la Pole's speech (and ergo Richard's intended policies).

• "four fifteenths and two tenths". This needs explaining. Preferably in line, but at least in a note.

  Right: defined it as a "tax of movable goods" inline, added a footnote to explain more broadly.

• "appoint his councillors in parliament". What does this mean?

  Hopefully clarified (now under parliamentary oversight)

• "occultus rumor". A footnoted translation?

  Done.

• "The Lords spoke "eloquently, if fictitiously" to the King". I don't understand the "ficticiously" bit. Do you mean thy lied?

  Sir Humphrey looks pained. "We don't don't use language like that, Minister; rather, the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear..."

  They didn't so much lie, as make things up! Hopefully now clarified.

• "the statute by which Edward [II] had been adjudged". Background needed. (Maybe something like 'In 1347 Edward II had been forced to abdicate under threat of having his son disinherited.')
• "a masterly piece of bad timing" which was "extraordinarily ill-judged". "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Why are you quoting anyway, rather than paraphrasing into Wikipedia's voice?

  All things being equal, I'd quite like to keep the quotes, if only to show that scholars don't just think it was a bad idea, but a really bad idea; but it involves naming three people, which is... convoluted, to say the least. H'mm.

  I can't help you on that one. If you wish to keep the quotations (and I don't see why; what's wrong with 'or, as modern historians have suggested, a poorly-timed misjudgement' or similar?) I think that you are going to end with a clunky sentence.

• "PROME". "When an abbreviation will be used in an article, first introduce it using the full expression:"

  Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Gog the Mild, and also for the minor copy edits you've been quietly doing en passant, always appreciated. See what you think of the latest series of edits? Cheers, ——Serial 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The King soon overturned these judgments; not only was de la Pole soon set free". "soon ... soon".

  Removed one.

• "gather together and consolidate". Synonyms?

  "consolidate and expand"?

• "More, he wanted an explicit condemnation of those he held responsible". Held responsible for what?

  For his current predicament?! Clarified who though.

• Is there a link for "attesting"?

  Then to Attestation clause we go!

• "although Saul argues that Tresilian's subsequent loyalty to the King indicates that it was Tresilian who drafted the questions, thereby turning a political controversy into a legal dispute." I am not following how "Tresilian's subsequent loyalty to the King indicat[ing] that it was Tresilian who drafted the questions" turned "a political controversy into a legal dispute". Surely it was Richard who did that?

  I think I overly condensed that to the point where the narrative suffered; I've split the sentence into three and expanded them slightly.

• "Chaucer was probably personally affected by the goings-on of the parliament". Could we specify which one?

  Yep, this one.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this Gog! ——Serial 16:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Optional: consider running notes 7 and 8 together.

  Good iea; swapped around, they fit together neatly. ——Serial 14:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

And that's all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, I appreciate the thorough review! Interestingly, this article has renewed my interest in all things Hundred Years War-related, so I'm off to mooch around. All the best! ——Serial 14:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Personally I think I am coming to the end of my current run on the HYW. I am working to get Battle of Poitiers and its associated campaign to FA and then intend to take a break to work on other things. I may well come back to it, but 26 FAs on the Conflicts of Edward III seems sufficient for now. What you considering for your next? (Merciless Parliament? (I have Battle of Radcot Bridge under consideration.)) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It's funny you should mention Radcot Bridge; obviously, I glanced at it in the course of this article, and it's so bloody awful, my fingers got itchy there and then. Three lines on the battle and two massive quotes?! Incredible! As it happens, I have some sources, so. ——Serial 15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable and are correctly formatted. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, this section must be overtime  :) ——Serial 15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

I hadn't spotted this FAC until a kind Wiki-colleague drew it to my attention today. I'll be back with comments a.s.a.p. once I've given the article a proper re-reading. Tim riley talk 14:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tim riley, thanks for looking in; apologies for not pinging you in the blurb, but, the (great!) GA review was ages ago, of course, and you've moved on, etc. But, cheers!—and hoping this finds you well. ——Serial 18:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

First points from a quick canter through for typos etc: these four words need attention, I think:

• advisors (AmE rather than BrE advisers)
• targetted (double t not wanted)
• chronice (missing letter?)
• KIng (upper case I needs to be lower case)

More anon. Tim riley talk 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A few minor points on the prose:

• single -v- double quotes – I am no expert on the MoS, but I am fairly sure all your single quotes such as those in the epithet 'wonderful' … supposedly 'ancient law' and so on should all be double.

  Thanks, caught.

• "they observed with dull eyes" – curious choice of adjective; presumably it means they observed without pleasure, or some such.

  Yes, I know what you mean—I think it was probably watching patronage due to them (as they believed) getting wasted on parvenus.

• "The King was also unpopular due to his choice of advisors" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

  Gone for the latter, thanks!

• "to all intents and purposes" – rather to my surprise, neither Fowler nor Gowers condemns this phrase as a cliché, but I think it is best left for parliamentary draughtsmen and avoided in everyday prose. The Penguin Dictionary of Clichés says it has been a cliché since the middle of the 19th century.

  I replaced it with 'effectively'?

• "summoned the royal council … decided to summon a parliament" – better to avoid the repetition – perhaps "convened" or something of the sort the first time?

  Excellent, thanks.

• "the King was planning on having the parliamentary group arrested" – "planning on having" seems slangy to me, as well as less concise than the normal English "planning to have".

  Done.

• "Also dismissed alongside de la Pole were the Treasurer, the Bishop of Durham, and the Keeper of the Privy Seal Walter Skirlaw" – problems with the head-count here. I imagine the Treasurer and the Bishop of Durham were the same person, but it isn't quite plain. And you put a comma after Treasurer but not after Seal. For clarity, I suggest parenthetic dashes: "Also dismissed alongside de la Pole were the Treasurer – the Bishop of Durham – and the Keeper of the Privy Seal – Walter Skirlaw". Rather a blunt instrument, but it removes the ambiguity.
  • Done, but do you think, being parenthetical, the sentence should close on a single dash? (Almost, unclosed, if you know what I mean.)
    • It's fine as it is, I'd say – or will be once you have gone either for spaced en-dashes or for unspaced em-dashes as the MoS bids us. Tim riley talk 20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• "In what modern historians have suggested was a poorly-timed misjudgement" – can one have a well-timed misjudgement? Looks a bit odd, though your meaning is clear enough.

  Changed it to political misjudgement.

• "However, notes PROME" – PROME should be introduced and glossed here, at first mention, rather than later, as at present.

  Thought I'd caught that already!

• "Although the epithet 'wonderful' is often applied to this parliament … it actually applied to the later … 1388 assembly" – if that is so, one wonders why it is used for this article instead of one on the 1388 parliament to which you say it actually applies.

  Yes, quite. This is rather tricky; Perroy's exact phrase is:But this Parliament of October 1386, usually known as 'marvelous'—the epithet mirabilis in the text of a chronicler favourable to the party in fact applies to the assembly in the spring of 1388. He's slightly opaque. I think he means that contemporaries referred to the 1386 session as marvellous and that of 1388 as "mirabilis", but a misreading of a chronicle has led subsequent generations to ascribe the latter description to the former. Does this make sense? If you agree, I'll add something like this instead.

  • I can't, of course, presume to comment on the historical facts, but if I were writing the sentence in question I think I'd fudge the issue, on these sort of lines: Although the epithet 'wonderful' is widely applied to this parliament … the term was originally coined to refer to the later … 1388 assembly"
    • Thanks Tim, have used your phrasing, which has a nice inexactitude  :)

I hope these comments are useful. I have no problems with the content of the article, which seems well and widely sourced, balanced and clear. Not being familiar with the subject I cannot comment on how comprehensive the article is, but I have no reason to think it may not be. – Tim riley talk 18:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your review Tim riley—there's a couple of points I'd like your further advice on, or confirmation of, but yet again, thanks to you, I've learned more on the nuances of my mother tongue than Leyton Comp ever managed... although that might not be difficult! ;) Thanks again! ——Serial 18:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • A couple of afterthoughts from another dip into the article: first, "focused" is better spelled with one "s" (though the OED somewhat grudgingly allows the double "ss"); and secondly, capitalisation – an ever-present bugbear – might need a bit of polishing: does "Regency Council" need caps, and even if it does, then does "Council" in the next sentence do so? And I have my doubts about the capital R in Royal prerogative in the relevant section heading. Tim riley talk 20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for this also Tim—I've made those adjustments and hopefully caught all the over-caps, I think. I really appreciate you looking in (and the anonymous wiki-colleague who drew it to your attention in the first place!) ——Serial 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

OK. Willing to add my support for the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me, as far as I can judge, to meet the criteria as to content, and the prose will now suffice, I think. Tim riley talk 23:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet

Mentioned I wasn't sure whether to review this or not, but noticed it falling down the list...Will come back with comments. Vaticidalprophet 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments

General Most footnotes are placed after the ref, but a couple (note 2 in "Political background" and note 10 in "Richard's absence") are placed before. I can't on my end see a difference in kind between the ones placed before and the ones after. Is there a reason for this or was it accidental? The latter, and snow blindness! Sorted. Lead They saw de la Pole as both a favourite who had unfairly benefited from the King's largesse, and the minister responsible for the King's failures. They demanded de la Pole's impeachment. This wording stood out to me as choppy, but I'm not sure how much that reflects choppiness and how much it's just idiosyncrasy on my behalf. I have the sense nonetheless that the second sentence is overly abrupt and the repetition of "They" as first word avoidable. It might be worth experimenting with alternative phrasings (e.g. turning it into a single sentence, or alternatively expanding on the Houses' perspectives of de la Pole to make it multiple sentences with one focusing on perceived undue benefit, one on failure, and one on the impeachment demands). I didn't want to add too much extra detail to the lead, so I went with a rewording: how does Seeing de la Pole as both a favourite... parliament demanded the earl's impeachment? Looks good, no worries. Vaticidalprophet 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC) At first, the King refused to attend the parliament, instead attempting to dissolve the sitting, although without success. Could "although without success" be better omitted, cutting down on the number of sentence clauses by saying "instead attempting unsuccessfully to dissolve" etc.? The current phrasing takes a while to get to the point. Excellent, thanks. Armed conflict broke out between crown and nobility, eventually resulting in de la Pole's exile and death. Though I think generally articles could do with more rather than fewer links, I'm not sold on the "exile" link here. It's a common enough concept you'd expect readers to be familiar, especially if they're already reading a more niche article on an issue that culminated in one. Perhaps more concerningly, if a reader did happen to click through, Exile is in sorry shape and wouldn't be useful to anyone who did want to read more. Good point, unlinked. Political background One 20th-century historian, Clementine Oliver, has described la Pole as a "staunch loyalist" is missing a "de". Check. Some young nobles—such as the Earls of Arundel and Warwick—had "been kept in good humour since 1376 only by a lavish distribution of Crown perquisites and war salaries, argues the historian M. V. Clarke". Is the closing quote placed too late here? By the source, I assume it's meant to be after "salaries" rather than after Clarke's name. Well spotted. PROME's first appearance in the main body of text a section later is spelled out, but its first appearance at all is here, in note 4. It seems worthwhile to spell out its first footnoted appearance as well as its first main appearance, given the footnote is so much earlier (but keeping the main appearance given the uncertainty of whether footnotes are read or not). Done, with a hint of cynicism to the poor ole footnotes. The previous parliament had attempted to force a commission upon the King in an effort to reform the royal household and especially its expenditure;[22][21] There appears to be an accidental semicolon rather than full stop here, given the next sentence(?) starts with a capital letter. (I'm also of the opinion refs look better in numeral order.) Yeah, swapped that, and also the refs are now numerical. This commission was, effectively, a regency council for the King. Given the sentence's length, does "effectively" need to be set out with commas? No, okay. No military successes had been achieved since the previous parliament (for instance, a victory over the Scots would have diverted some negative attention from the King's finances and patronage), so by 1386, "the Commons had no good reason to overlook the excessive generosity of the King or to acquiesce in his government's arbitrary taxation" as historian John Palmer put it. This is a long sentence with a lot in it. The bracketed text is worthwhile contextualization, but might be better footnoted than taking up space in the main body of the article. (That might also allow for it to be expanded on a bit, if the source gives further examples of relevant victories or the benefits they would have had.) Also, this looks to be the only unlinked (whether red or blue) historian -- I assume not any of our John Palmers given what's on that list, but could be linked to the currently-nonexistent John Palmer (historian), or are you confident he's non-notable? (Similar note: not sure on the need for "continues Palmer" in the following sentence, given you've already noted you're quoting him.) Ah, complex. You're right about that crappy sentence, so as per your suggestion, I've added an (expanded) footnote regarding why the invasion and the king were unpopular as a result of it, and what benefits he could have expected had it gone the other way. Also redlinked Palmer (must've been an oversight). Not so sure not inline citing Palmer: attribution of a direct quote, of course, but also it just didn't read that smoothly without it... I'm certainly not arguing over it though. This is excellent now, good footnote -- and no complaints about the second quote attribution, the clunkiness is mitigated by switching up the preceding sentence as you've done now. Vaticidalprophet 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Later sections to kome. Vaticidalprophet 19:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks for looking in, Vaticidalprophet, and Wel Kome  :) sorry you had a disagreeable time of it on your last foray into FAC. @WP:FAC coordinators: this convo is what we're on about. Note: VC is kind enough to give the dog a bone :) Your points addressed in this edit, by the way. Thanks again, SN54129 18:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Attack on the royal prerogative With note 8, adult, compos mentis monarch might be better phrased as compos mentis adult monarch, but I'm stopped in my tracks a bit by the specification of "adult". The referent is Edward III, who was of course himself an adult, and as Richard II was himself a child when he ascended the throne and was still very young at the time, it seems to be an unnecessary level of specifics? although the charges themselves were neither "frivolous, trivial or paltry," argues Roskell doesn't seem like something that needs to be quoted rather than own-words phrased. The article quotes quite heavily, which I've no problems with -- great turns of phrase in sources are worth sharing -- but this is a relatively brief statement of facts. Because you're attributing each source inline when you quote it, quoting for fairly short statements as here adds sentence bulk that veers from the point a bit. Makes sense—have removed "adult", as you say, since all the parties involved were. This has led some historians to question the validity of the claims against de la Pole; for example, in 1927, N. B. Lewis suggested that they were "trivial or unfounded... merely pretexts for dismissing the chief minister of an unpopular King." -- sneaky WP:LQ there Check. This is the event described by Henry Knighton as the "occultus rumor" in which the King invited forty members of that parliament to a dinner—and then dispose of them. Great line, very intriguing to the metonymical bright fourteen-year-old, but is 'dispose of them' a bit too abstract? If he (so they say!) poisoned them, it's more attention-grabbing to make it explicit. (If you do want to keep the current wording, it should be 'disposed of', not 'dispose of'.) Well, the sources (both primary and secondary) aren't as explicit as to say exactly what the king was intending to do; Knighton uses the phrase and destroy them, while another chronicler merely suggests that they were told have been arrested (which perhaps I should add?). Tweaked slightly. The Lords spoke "eloquently, if fictitiously" to the King, on how they perceived his duty, which they supported by reference to mythological statutes and traditions. Saul describes these as "outrageous remarks". This is...interesting, but unclear. "Eloquently, if fictitiously" gets across the idea that they were, well, making stuff up, but it's not explicit in what ways they were doing so (and "mythological" is an ambiguous phrasing if someone's coming in without much background -- it could be equally interpreted as "statutes and traditions the Lords made up on the spot" and "statutes and traditions that exist in long-held myths and legends, but not reality"). Is it due to go into more detail about how they were fabulising and what about, past the given example of the supposed "Commons get to go home" law? This phrase of Saul's has probably caused the single biggest issue of discussion here! He is vague, and I suspect intentionally so; after all, he wants to interpret the actions of the long-dead, but can't... I've added a few bits, and tweaked my phrasing, which hopefully addresses your point (if, indeed, I've understood you correctly—apologies if not!) In what modern historians have suggested was a political misjudgement,[35][55] the King had promoted de Vere from Earl of Oxford to Marquess of Dublin on 13 October. This enraged people all the more. May be some pleonasm here to both suggest this was a political misjudgement and then note it enraged people even more. (They sound pretty enraged by this point, anyway!) Indeed. But as my nan used to say, 'things may be so bad that they can't get any better; they are never so bad they can't get any worse'  :) I think I'll keep it, if it's all the same to you—the fact that the king was unable to make the promotions he wanted suggests something pretty extraordinary going on. However, notes the Parliament Rolls of Medieval England (PROME) project, it appears that at least two of Richard's proposed creations—John, Lord Neville and the under chamberlain to the royal household, Simon Burley, to the earldoms of Cumberland and of Huntingdon respectively—were so unpopular that the King was forced to withdraw them. This doesn't seem to be a 'however' matter. Also, I've accidentally introduced an inconsistency on you -- sorry! In the footnote where I suggested expanding PROME, you italicized the full title after expansion, but it's not in italics here -- should probably be consistent between them, one way or another. Removed however and italicised. Aftermath and King Richard's response The Parliament is significant in the context of later events. Well, I'm not sure we'd have a 4000-word article on it if it weren't... True! The Parliament had long-ranging consequences... etc? One historian has commented that "it is generally recognised that all the constitutional and political troubles of Richard II's reign can be traced back to the Wonderful parliament". Is the inconsistent capitalization here in the source (in which case it should probably be {{sic}}'d) or is it an error in reproduction, so to speak? Sic'd, curiously. You kind of drop the thread of de la Pole here. Your last reference to him is in August 1387, at which point he was returned to being the King's closest advisor. Obviously, he didn't remain in that cushy a position forever. You get into all the details of e.g. Tresilian's death, but given de la Pole is one of the major players here and the reader is primed to hear what eventually happens to him from the very beginning of the article, you do need to pick up that thread. Great point. He survived by the skin of; have added a few lines after the preceding gory details. Nice, although now it produces (on my screen, but as noted probably also many others) a very large paragraph made larger still by the fact it's compressed by an image. Is there a good spot to split that? Maybe from Although the court party was swept from power in 1386. This should be my last nitpick -- happy with what else you've done and to allow what else you've argued to allow, so planning to support soon as we can get that a bit more accessible to the poor smaller-screen reader. Vaticidalprophet 23:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Good catch Vaticidalprophet, split at your suggestion. SN54129 12:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Chaucer's attendance and literary depictions This section is formatted as one huge paragraph. Even on my decent-sized laptop screen, it gets a bit wall-of-text blurring together. I imagine it'd not be fun to read on a phone. Is there a good spot to split it in two? Recent commentators have suggested ... seems a good spot. That should be all of it. I've fixed a couple of very minor typographical oversights that would've been more trouble to mention here than to just fix myself (e.g. in1386 missing a space). It's a good read, mostly nitpicking, although the dropped thread of de la Pole's fate needs noting. Vaticidalprophet 21:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks for picking up those typos, Vaticidalprophet and thanks very much for your detailed and insightful review, particularly your thematic points. Your suggestions (almost to a man) actioned here. SN54129 18:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

All good. Happy to support this excellent article for promotion. Vaticidalprophet 12:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks again for looking in VP! SN54129 14:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, Serial Number 54129, just one last issue (don't worry, I won't redact my support pending it, but it seems worth mentioning now rather than post-FAC). Reviewing the note 5 footnote again (the one introduced on my suggestion regarding the failed English invasion of Scotland (1385)), you've managed to accidentally omit the contemporary political perspective -- The invasion was considered a failure by both contemporaries and modern historians. Of the former, while among the latter G. L. Harriss called it "ignominious" and May McKisack, "inglorious" doesn't actually mention the former. Assuming there was some kind of accidental backspace somewhere in the footnote's writing. Vaticidalprophet 02:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Meh. In all my open tabs, windows, pdfs, etc., and the pile of books under the empties, I couldn't for the life of me find the quote (was a quote, of course!) that I was referencing. So, I have recast the sentence with what I had to hand. Hope that suffices! To b fair, I don't think it was a major point I was making anyway, but. SN54129 06:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose by Buidhe

Reading through this article I just have one query for the nominator. Is "modern historians have been more critical" supported by the cited source or is it possibly WP:OR? Could I have a quote? (t · c) buidhe 00:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate you checking in Buidhe, what with your fellow coords either holidaying or buggering off  :) a couple of quotes for you that hopefully clarify things (inline). It's pretty much the consensus as to the efficacy of the parliament. All the best! SN54129 06:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• "He advocated making peace overtures to the French; while being—as modern historians have noted—probably the most sensible strategy at the time, this was unpopular with much of the English nobility, some of whom still expected a martial career as their fathers had enjoyed, with the financial and chivalric benefits it could bring the successful" The source does not support the claim that "modern historians" note this, only that the author of the article does. The sentence is also very clunky and "noted" is a WP:WTW issue.

  tweaked to indicate that this is Tuck's view. (Which has, in turn, removed the use of 'noted', also I happen to disagree that it's a WTW when attributed.)

• "In what modern historians have suggested was a political misjudgement" Is it verifiable that "modern historians" agree, or just the three that are cited?

  Well some do; 'several' with suffice, which as you point out below != two (but, pace, per Merriam-Webster et al'. is more than two.)

• "modern historians have been more critical" You cite a few examples, but again it's not clear if it's verifiable that "modern historians" agree on this, or whether it's original research.

  The footnote immediately subsequent verifies that at least two historians have summed up the historiographical consensus wrt the efficacy of the parliament for R2's polity.

• In another place you state, "Several modern historians have been less enthusiastic" but only cite two of them.

  Recast more generally.

Sorry, I'm going to have to oppose unless the issues with original research are fixed. See WP:RS/AC (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• 17 notes is also excessive. Many of them should be axed or integrated into the text. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  With all due respect, and saving your office, this is a matter of opinion, and rather subjective. While in some cases too many footnotes may result in a breach of Wp:FA? #4, a lack of sufficiently relevant footnotes is equally liable to indicate a failure of #1b (places the subject in context). I have reduced the number from 17, per your suggestion, but the remainder, I suggest, are fully justifiable from the point of view of explaining background, the sources, the historiography, broader context or a combination of the four. If it needs to be codified (numerically, percentage of overall byteage, whatever) then I suggest a discussion at WT:FAC for codification purposes.

  Have a good week! Best, SN54129 18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Buidhe ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Striking oppose as my concerns have been addressed sufficiently, but what is "a later contemporary"? This should be recast in less obfuscating language (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you, Buidhe, all obfuscation hopefully removed also! And there was no rush back: I'm a great believer in WP:NODEADLINE, so Gog's well-meant ping was albeit unnecessary, although appreciated. It is not, after all, the first time I've seen my candidate sink slooowly to the bottom of the pile, and I guarantee it won't be the last. All the best, SN54129 18:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "perceived extravagance towards his political favourites". This sounds odd to me on two counts. Why "perceived"? It seems to imply doubt whether it is justified, but there does not seem any doubt below. Also extravagance towards is vague. How about "excessive patronage of"?

  Both sound points; done.

• "parliament demanded the earl's impeachment". I would capitalise parliament - however, as Tim riley has not queried it I am probably wrong.

  Away from Wikipedia, in private correspondence etc, Tim Riley would capitalise Parliament (and much else) but Tim riley as Wikipedia editor tries to follow the party line, capitalising only proper nouns, and as there are parliaments in several countries I don't think the one in Westminster qualifies for a capital letter. I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong, but I note that every edition of Fowler from the first, in 1926, to the most recent, in 2015, uses the lower-case parliament. Tim riley talk 19:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'll go with Tim and Fowler, if that's alright?

• "threatened Richard with deposition until the King agreed to return to Westminster and do parliament's bidding". "unless the King agreed"?

  Done.

• "by one modern biographer". I would name the biographer, especially as you name him a few lines below.

  Done, and removed subsequent duplication.

• The source details for Tuck are inadequate. You should say that it is Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

  Absolutely right. Can't believe they got through like that!

• "Popular opinion preferred he used the funds available to him for the benefit of the common weal." This is vacuous. No one would ever say the opposite.

  Fair point—have removed the vacuous Sumption!

• "they observed with dull eyes the King's distribution of extravagant". What does "with dull eyes" mean here? I would take it to refer to too many late nights.

  Yes, I see what you mean—like a hangover?!

• Yes. I would change. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "...observed with displeasure".

• "extravagant, if limited, patronage". How can patronage be both extravagant and limited?

  Have rephrased to clarify that while the patronage was extravagant, its circle of recipients was limited.

• "Either way, the war with France, such as it was, was the immediate cause of the parliament, being both exorbitantly expensive and demonstrating few military successes for the expense." This sentence is badly constructed.

  Rephrased.

• "to take more judicious counselling". I do not think that this is grammatical.

  How about The King did not approve of the commission or its advice that he listen to more judicious counsellors?

• "Most of the criticisms of the 1386 parliament had already been touched on in the previous one". I am not sure what this means.

  Perhaps Most of the criticisms raised by the 1386 parliament had already been complained of in that of 1385. is clearer?

• "Ecclesiasts". Ecclesiastics?

  Done.

• "Those that did—such as Bishop Courtenay, brother of one of Richard's most outspoken critics—were probably regarded by the King as a partisan against him." "Those" is plural, so it should be "partisans", not "a partisan".

  Check.

• "eloquently, if fictitiously". What does this mean and who said it?

  I think everyone has raised this now, and it's officially "doing my head in" (kidding!)— the long and the short of it is that it's Gloucester and the bishop who said it—which I've added, rather than the vague "The Lords"—and means (hard to second guess: it's a quote) they spoke eloquently on the subject of the king's responsibilities, but occasionally verged into made-up stuff to make their points...

• If you are not sure what it means I think it would be better to delete it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• More rewording! Right.

• "The King eventually dismissed de la Pole as Chancellor on 23 October, and appointed the Bishop of Ely the next day.[41] Also dismissed alongside de la Pole were the Treasurer—the Bishop of Durham[11]—and the Keeper of the Privy Seal, Walter Skirlaw.[57] In a further political misjudgement,[36][58] the King had promoted de Vere from Earl of Oxford to Marquess of Dublin on 13 October." I think it would be easier to follow events if you put them in chronological order, not 23 October before 13 October.

  Done—and that allowed me to use "ten days later" the second time, instead of repeating the date.

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for these points, Dudley Miles—I've actioned almost all, but there's a couple that might be worth discussing. Cheers, SN54129 13:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dudley. just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

wut SN54129 19:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "PROME notes". What is PROME?

  Redlinked in the previous para, written out in full?

• That was my computer. When I searched on it before the earlier one did not show up. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• "It has been described as "the worst political crisis of the reign to date". Who described?

  Done.

• "so much harm to the King and his reign were appointed". 'harm to his reign' sounds odd to me.

  Redux to "except for the Duke of Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel, none of the future Appellants were appointed".

• What is the logic of capitalising Crown and not parliament? And why is it capitalised in the article title?

  I've uncapped "crown" per "parliament"; the title is subject to WP:COMMONNAME (and a proper name, cf. Peasants' Revolt, First Barons' War etc).

• Archbishop Neville. You link Courtenay to Canterbury above but do not name him and you mention York above without naming or linking. You should name and link both.

  Done in their previous mentions.

• "Michael de la Pole, 2nd Earl of Suffolk's tomb in St Andrew's Church, Wingfield, Suffolk; his father was dead three years after the Wonderful Parliament." I do not think you need to repeat when de la Pole died and some readers will not remember that he was the first earl. Maybe: "Tomb of the son of Richard's favourite, also called Michael de la Pole, in St Andrew's Church, Wingfield, Suffolk."

  Thanks, rephrased.

• "turned, says McHardy" This is the first mention of him so you should give his full name.

  Her full name given.

• "This ultimately led to the Battle of Radcot Bridge on 19 December 1387. Between who and who won?

  Expanded and sourced.

• "can be traced back to the Wonderful parliament [sic]" Why sic?

  Because he's the only bugger cited here who doesn't capitalise "Parliament" in the phrase "Wonderful Parliament"!

• I do not think you need sic here. It is an alternative capitalisation, not an error. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Rm sick; thanks!

• "This includes both the subsequent military attack by the Lords Appellant on Robert de Vere[69] and those by Richard on the Appellants." The wording implies that you have already mentioned the attacks.

  Now I've expanded on Radcot Bridge, has this been addressed, d'you think?(Although to be fair, the sentence appears lightly redundant; perhaps close the para with the Palmer quote instead?)

• Yes I agree it is redundant. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• It has been removed.

• "who saw themselves as conciliar to the King". I am not clear what point you are making. OED defines conciliar as "Of or pertaining to a council or its proceedings; used esp. of ecclesiastical councils."

  Changed to "who saw themselves in an advisory role"

• "Arriving in Paris by December 1387, he died there two years later; he never returned to England even after Richard resumed his personal authority in May 1389" This implies that you have already mentioned the resumption. Maybe "Arriving in Paris by December 1387, he died there in 1389 and in the same year Richard resumed his personal authority"

  Excellent, thanks! Done.

• "McCall and Rudisli" Two more writers who should be named in full as they have not been mentioned before.

  Done.

• "had come from serving stock" This is an oddly old fashioned expression. Does it mean that his ancestors were personal servants?

  Well, he had "forebears who were gaugers of wines and king’s butlers", so perhaps; but it is old fashioned, so how about "had a lower-class background before attaining..."?

• lower-class implies to me manual labourers. I cannot think of a good way of putting it but how about "non-aristocratic"? BTW. In the ninth century King Æthelwulf married the daughter of his butler. It had a much higher status then. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, good compromise. Interesting about the status of these positions; certainly by the 15th C., offices such as a butler, king's carver, etc., were almost wholly ceremonial and held by those in favour of the king. Of course, they didn't actually decant the wine or carve a goose—there were minions for that—but it let them sit next to the king and keep him topped up  :)

• "Although his personal position regarding later events is unknown" What was his position regarding earlier events?

  Clever... "Although his personal position regarding the events he witnessed is unknown" would be more accurate.

• "Chaucer had worked with since 1376 and was probably." Eh?

  The victim of a previous round of austerity. He was probably a close friend.

• "one petition presented to the parliament demanded that customs controllers of the ports be dismissed from their posts on account of their "manifest corruption": the Duke of Gloucester was himself owed £500 from the customs of the Port of London which Chaucer was in charge of, and so may have felt targeted by the leading opposition figure." This sentence does not start with a capital letter and reads awkwardly. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Recast.

  Thanks, Dudley Miles, for this; a couple of queries, but everything actioned one way or another. No rush. Cheers, SN54129 08:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  And thanking you again, Dudley Miles. Have a good week! SN54129 12:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks again Dudley Miles, always appreciate your thoughts. All the best!

  Now, in lighter news, all we need is for Buidhe to change her section title to "Comments from Buidhe", etc, and we'll be off and running  :) SN54129 17:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thinking about it, who's running @WP:FAC coordinators: these days? Not understaffed again are you?! SN54129 14:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Ian has not been very active of late, Gog and I am recused from this FAC, so Hog Farm is probably the only person who can promote it. (t · c) buidhe 18:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Incidentally the Armenian genocide FAC and my previous FAC for Greek case were stalled for months for similar reason (all but one coord is recused), which can slow everything down a lot... (t · c) buidhe 18:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'll take a look after work. Between bad weather and a mild case of food poisioning, I haven't been able to make my normal FAC rounds as effectively this week. Hog Farm _Talk 18:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the replies @WP:FAC coordinators: ... the food poisoning sounds mildly hair-raising! (And yeah, I saw Ian say he had a busy few days. They must have some hardcore time dilation downunder...) SN54129 18:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: - I have a single concern before promoting. The lead states "eventually resulting in de la Pole's exile and murder." but the body does not indicate that he was murdered, and our article on de la Pole implies a peaceful death. Hog Farm _Talk 22:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Hog Farm: sorted, must've been a hangover from the original. Check the new text. SN54129 00:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)§

  Change looks good; promoting. Hog Farm _Talk 00:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Less chatter at the back of the class please, or there will be lines. You have too many FAs already, so we slow tracked this to give others a chance. Given who else is at the bottom of the list, you should be happy to just bask in the reflected glory. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  My small parliament is stuck between the first Holocaust of the modern age and a bloody long war! I bask, and continue to bask :) SN54129 00:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 00:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.