Talk:Richard III of England/GA4

GA Reassessment

Fails point 3b of WP:GA?: the article does not address the main aspects of the topic. Specifically, although the article is about Riii—King of England—the King of England section primarily discusses the events of April-June 1483 (i.e., mostly the "reign" of Edward V), then addresses the Duke of Buckingham's rebellion of November the same year, and then leaps straight to the battle of Bosworth in 1485. Thus the article omits discussion of, effectively, almost the whole of his reign; and this is not something that cannot be discussed because of a lack of scholarship. Although the level of comprehensive coverage is not as demanding for a GA as an FA, there is still a requirement that we do not omit important aspects of the topic: and two-thirds of the reign of a king in the article on said King is, I'm afraid, too much to escape coverage. ——SerialNumber54129 15:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a very good suggestion. Even though we are speaking of someone who was only king for 2 years, so he could not accomplish very much, some interesting things can be said about his achievements, like perfecting the system of bail, starting to issue laws in English instead of Latin to make sure the common people could understand them, lowering taxes on imported books, which ultimately led to a wider distribution of knowledge, etc. I will add this topic as suggestion on the article talk page. Isananni (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with your findings. Deb (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The first picture from the Rous Roll is clearly not contemporary (see the original of the same image used later in the article) and should either be removed or relabled as a later copy. Monstrelet (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes. ——SerialNumber54129 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Serial Number 54129, this makes sense to me as a problem with the GA listing. Have you pinged the involved WikiProjects, plus the significant contributors to the article, the nominator, and the original reviewer? While I'd imagine it will take significant effort to create the new content about the bulk of his reign, the reassessment should not be concluded (even after nearly three months) without the notifications and the opportunity to upgrade the article accordingly. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC) @BlueMoonset: Ah! Apologies, I thought this was one of those things that a bot did—you know, like GAs themselves. I'll get to it. Thanks for the heads-up, I'd forgotten about it! ——SerialNumber54129 17:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC) @BlueMoonset: is there a neutral template available for these notifications? ——SerialNumber54129 15:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Serial Number 54129, there's the GARmessage template; see WP:GAR, step number 5 in the left column, for further instructions. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Left messages for the relevant Wikiprojects, the top five editors by number of edits and text contributed (not including myself of course), the GA nomnator and the GA reviewer. ——SerialNumber54129 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: What is the status of this reassessment? Let me know if you need a hand closing things up. AIRcorn (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: thanks, it'll be closed on 4 April? ——SerialNumber54129 08:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)