Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard II of England/archive1

Richard II of England[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to try and get this article to FA status; I don't think it should be too far off. Most of all I would appreciate if someone could check the language - I know I can be sloppy and inaccurate sometimes. I'd also like comments on the clarity of the article, and if there are places where the meaning doesn't come through as well as it should.

Thanks, Lampman (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the semi-automated stuff, I've implemented the useful bits. I'd still like a human being to have a look at the article though. Lampman (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JMiall comments

'On the death of his elder brother, Richard became second in line – after his father Edward, the Black Prince – to succeed King Edward III' - this is a really clausy sentence. How about 'Richard became second in line to the throne when his older brother Edward of Angoulême died and heir apparent when their father Edward, the Black Prince died in 1376. When King Edward died the following year, Richard succeeded to the throne at the age of ten.'
Personally I'd like the 1st paragraph to
'was back in charge' -> 'had regained control'
'During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of councils' - because this was how the previous king had left it, because he was only young, or because that's what John of Gaunt wanted?
'caused discontent' - with whom?
The 1st paragraph of the Early Life section starts with his birth and then jumps all over the place in time before and after his birth.
'By 1381 there was a deep-felt resentment against the governing classes in the lower levels of English society.' - can we have a reference for this
'from which John of Gaunt was excluded.[1] John of Gaunt, together' - 2 John of Gaunts very close together
'The rebellion started in Kent and Essex in late May, and on 12 June, bands of rebellious peasants' - is it not obvious that they are rebellious?
'Savoy Palace had been burnt down' 'Robert Hales, had been killed' - when? on that day?
'Their demands' - whose?
'It was agreed upon' - who agreed?
'it proved impossible to land, and the barge had to return' - why? and was the king on the barge when it returned
'though it has been suggested that he was among the proponents of negotiations.' - by whom? at the time or recently?
'At any rate' - is this necessary?
'Though the poll tax' - taxes? or was it one in particular?
'but the rebel leader was not placated.' - why?
Note b - who has speculated? Is this a widely held view or the view of the author of one book? This applies elsewhere too.
'starts to emerge clearly as a historical figure' - what does this mean? he was a historical figure. was nothing much written about him before?
'The union' 'the alliance' - are these refering to the marriage or the political union?
'gave any results' - ?
'The marriage was also childless by the time that Anne died in 1394.' - but after she died the marriage had lots of children? Why not just say that Anne did not have any children before she died?
'upstart merchant family' - which is?
'the king's absolute favourite' - favourite what? or if this is a common term then explain what this meant.
'De Vere's family, while ancient, was relatively modest in the peerage of England' - so they were all really old and didn't show off much then?
should 'duke of Ireland' be capitalized?
'It was indeed suggested' - is the indeed needed?
'the situation in France' - which situation? did something happen in the 100 years war?
'led an expedition to the north' - to do what?
'the leadership of the dissent' - was it an organized campaign, with the campaign getting new leaders, or were lots of people just unhappy and those 2 were the most prominent?

That's enough specific points from the 1st sections. More generally I think that the article reads too much like an essay, try to remove the conversational or speculative bits. Also the early life section has almost no details about his early life - we have where he was born and the age he was when his relations died. Is nothing else known? I also get the feeling that it is written from a 'history whilst Richard II was King' perspective rather than being an article about Richard II but I'm having difficulty finding concrete examples. Hopefully this is enough to start off with. JMiall ₰ 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a thorough review, I've tried to implement the changes. If you would like to make comments on the remainder of the text, please do. What exactly do you mean by "Personally I'd like the 1st paragraph to", this seems like an incomplete sentence. Also, what exactly is the issue with the 'upstart merchant family'?

Upstart - what I meant by this is that calling something an upstart is potentially POV and it is not clear from this why they were regarded as such. Were they rich merchants who had recently gained political power through their wealth or just merchants who had recently gained a lot of wealth. Presumably it was the established nobility who thought they were upstarts or was this a widely held view at the time?

The de la Pole family's rise from merchants to the highest levels of the nobility is unique in medieval England, so this is more than a matter of perception. Perhaps a better word than 'upstart' could be found though.

I think what I was going to say in the incomplete sentence is that the 1st paragraph of the article is quite weak. I'd prefer to sum up his life in 1 paragraph 1st and then expand a little in the next 2. Part of the job of the intro is to grab the attention and I don't think a paragraph stating when he became xth in line to the throne to start with quite does it. JMiall ₰ 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm not quite sure how to do this. It seems what you're suggesting would mean summing up the article twice in the lead section. In any case, I'm gonna close this peer review now and take my chances with FAC. Many thanks! Lampman (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid very little is known about the first ten years of Richard's life. Saul spends something like 17 pages on this in a book of over 500 pages, and even this bit mostly deals with his parents. It is probably true that the article reads like a "history of England under Richard II", or at least a "political history of England under Richard II", but I believe this is a natural consequence of the difficulty in distinguishing between a medieval king as a person and the political actions of his government, or even the nation as a political entity. Lampman (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]