# Talk:Richard of Dover

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

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.


### 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.
 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)
 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).
 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)

I daresay it is too trivial for inclusion in the main text, but this glimpse of Richard and his rival archbishop, from Holinshed's Chronicles, 1176, p. 98 is enjoyable and sufficiently ad rem for mention on this talk page, perhaps:

About midlent, the king with his sonne and the legat came to London, where at Westminster a conuocation of the cleargie was called, but when the legat was set, and the archbishop of Canturburie on his right hand as primat of the realme, the archbishop of Yorke comming in, and disdaining to sit on the left, where he might séeme to giue preheminence vnto the archbishop of Canturburie (vnmanerlie inough indeed) swasht him downe, meaning to thrust himselfe in betwixt the legat, and the archbishop of Canturburie. And where belike the said archbishop of Canturburie was loth to remooue, he set his buttocks iust in his lap, but he scarslie touched the archbishops skirt with his bum, when the bishops and other chapleins with their seruants stept to him, pulled him away, and threw him to the ground, and beginning to lay on him with bats and fists, the archbishop of Canturburie yeelding good for euill, sought to saue him from their hands. Thus was verified in him that sage sentence, Nunquam periculum sine periculo vincitur. The archbishop of Yorke with his rent rochet got vp,  and awaie he went to the king with a great complaint against the archbishop of Canturburie: but when vpon examination of the matter the truth was knowne, he was well laught at for his labour, and that was all the remedie he got.
In passing, there is a perilously dangling participle in the "Archbishop" section: "After hearing the charges, they were dismissed ...". A very good read otherwise and full of top-notch information.