Talk:Richard of Dover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

	Richard of Dover has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Catholicism (Rated GA-Class) Catholicism Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale. WikiProject Biography     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated GA-Class) Middle Ages Portal Richard of Dover is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Middle Ages To do: WikiProject Anglicanism     (Rated GA-Class) Anglicanism Portal Richard of Dover is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Anglicanism To-do: WikiProject Christianity      (Rated GA-Class) Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Rating

I decided to rate the article for the WikiProject: Catholicism because I didn't see anywhere that only an administrator was supposed to. If I'm mistaken, please fix it! JelloSheriffBob 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)JelloSheriffBob

[edit] GA on hold

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. Although I have not seen any specific problems preventing promotion, there are a number of issues (listed below) on which I would like some assurance from the regular contributors. Once these have been addressed in the article or here to my satisfaction, I would be happy to pass.

I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.

[edit] Issues

(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)

• Is there no information whatsoever concerning his birth, parentage, childhood or youthful adulthood? The article seems to imply that he just sprang out of the ground middle aged. If there really is nothing (and this may well be the case), then a sentance in the article indicating this would give a reader a better understanding of the man than simply beginning in 1857.
  • Y Done I'm assuming you mean 1157, and yes, there is nothing known about Richard beyond those facts. He was educated, but where or when is unknown. I've clarifed that a bit in the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• The lead is not well written. The main body of the article is in a good state, but the lead has numerous short and clunky sentances. if the main contributors do not feel able to deal with this themselves then I would be happy to run through the lead and smooth it out myself.
  • I'll try to smooth it out a bit later tonight. Feel free to go in after that and smooth my smoothing. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done I've reworked it some, feel free to tweak it more. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Link people when they appear in the main body of the article even if they are already linked in the lead (thinking of Roger of York).
  • Y Done Done.

Otherwise this article seems to fit all the other criteria. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much it on the "regular contributors" here abouts, so... Ealdgyth | Talk 23:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a pass through, let me know what you think. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, I am very happy with all your changes and have no problem with passing this. I did notice one minor problem, where you mention Thanet without explaining why he had authority over the town. I presume it was part of the abbey's land but perhaps this could be made clearer. Great work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I expanded that a bit. Comes from being too close to the subject.. you assume too much. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)