Talk:Richard of Dover

message: 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)
thread_title: Rating

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

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

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

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