440:"the King urgently needed funds to defend both the border with Scotland and the kingdom itself from both Scottish border raids and a French invasion, and the absence of Gaunt probably added to the sense of panic." 1. "the sense" → 'a sense' as this is its first mention. (You may wish to expand on it though.) 2. "the kingdom itself". Delete "itself". (What else would it be?) 3. "both" is used twice; maybe tweak? 4. "defend both the border with Scotland and ... from ... Scottish border raids". Are both needed? 5. In what sense is defending "the border with Scotland" different from defending "the kingdom"? (The use of "both" suggests that there is some.)
1120:"Also dismissed alongside de la Pole were the Treasurer, the Bishop of Durham, and the Keeper of the Privy Seal Walter Skirlaw" – problems with the head-count here. I imagine the Treasurer and the Bishop of Durham were the same person, but it isn't quite plain. And you put a comma after Treasurer but not after Seal. For clarity, I suggest parenthetic dashes: "Also dismissed alongside de la Pole were the Treasurer – the Bishop of Durham – and the Keeper of the Privy Seal – Walter Skirlaw". Rather a blunt instrument, but it removes the ambiguity.
2042:"He advocated making peace overtures to the French; while being—as modern historians have noted—probably the most sensible strategy at the time, this was unpopular with much of the English nobility, some of whom still expected a martial career as their fathers had enjoyed, with the financial and chivalric benefits it could bring the successful" The source does not support the claim that "modern historians" note this, only that the author of the article does. The sentence is also very clunky and "noted" is a
2474:"The King eventually dismissed de la Pole as Chancellor on 23 October, and appointed the Bishop of Ely the next day. Also dismissed alongside de la Pole were the Treasurer—the Bishop of Durham—and the Keeper of the Privy Seal, Walter Skirlaw. In a further political misjudgement, the King had promoted de Vere from Earl of Oxford to Marquess of Dublin on 13 October." I think it would be easier to follow events if you put them in chronological order, not 23 October before 13 October.
1704:, but it's not explicit in what ways they were doing so (and "mythological" is an ambiguous phrasing if someone's coming in without much background -- it could be equally interpreted as "statutes and traditions the Lords made up on the spot" and "statutes and traditions that exist in long-held myths and legends, but not reality"). Is it due to go into more detail about how they were fabulising and what about, past the given example of the supposed "Commons get to go home" law?
2827:"one petition presented to the parliament demanded that customs controllers of the ports be dismissed from their posts on account of their "manifest corruption": the Duke of Gloucester was himself owed ÂŁ500 from the customs of the Port of London which Chaucer was in charge of, and so may have felt targeted by the leading opposition figure." This sentence does not start with a capital letter and reads awkwardly.
2143:). I have reduced the number from 17, per your suggestion, but the remainder, I suggest, are fully justifiable from the point of view of explaining background, the sources, the historiography, broader context or a combination of the four. If it needs to be codified (numerically, percentage of overall byteage, whatever) then I suggest a discussion at WT:FAC for codification purposes.Have a good week! Best,
723:"although Saul argues that Tresilian's subsequent loyalty to the King indicates that it was Tresilian who drafted the questions, thereby turning a political controversy into a legal dispute." I am not following how "Tresilian's subsequent loyalty to the King indicat that it was Tresilian who drafted the questions" turned "a political controversy into a legal dispute". Surely it was Richard who did that?
2624:"Michael de la Pole, 2nd Earl of Suffolk's tomb in St Andrew's Church, Wingfield, Suffolk; his father was dead three years after the Wonderful Parliament." I do not think you need to repeat when de la Pole died and some readers will not remember that he was the first earl. Maybe: "Tomb of the son of Richard's favourite, also called Michael de la Pole, in St Andrew's Church, Wingfield, Suffolk."
2746:"Arriving in Paris by December 1387, he died there two years later; he never returned to England even after Richard resumed his personal authority in May 1389" This implies that you have already mentioned the resumption. Maybe "Arriving in Paris by December 1387, he died there in 1389 and in the same year Richard resumed his personal authority"
2216:, all obfuscation hopefully removed also! And there was no rush back: I'm a great believer in WP:NODEADLINE, so Gog's well-meant ping was albeit unnecessary, although appreciated. It is not, after all, the first time I've seen my candidate sink slooowly to the bottom of the pile, and I guarantee it won't be the last. All the best,
1781:
You kind of drop the thread of de la Pole here. Your last reference to him is in August 1387, at which point he was returned to being the King's closest advisor. Obviously, he didn't remain in that cushy a position forever. You get into all the details of e.g. Tresilian's death, but given de la Pole
1726:
However, notes the
Parliament Rolls of Medieval England (PROME) project, it appears that at least two of Richard's proposed creations—John, Lord Neville and the under chamberlain to the royal household, Simon Burley, to the earldoms of Cumberland and of Huntingdon respectively—were so unpopular that
1250:
A couple of afterthoughts from another dip into the article: first, "focused" is better spelled with one "s" (though the OED somewhat grudgingly allows the double "ss"); and secondly, capitalisation – an ever-present bugbear – might need a bit of polishing: does "Regency
Council" need caps, and even
591:
looks pained. "We don't don't use language like that, Minister; rather, the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical
105:
A return to FAC after a year away. Where does it go, etc. But here's a thing that was brought to GA by the thorough review of T. Riley, of this parish, and should be ready for the next stage. Another—if slightly later—medieval parliament—the King wanted money, both lords and commons refused until he
864:
Excellent. Personally I think I am coming to the end of my current run on the HYW. I am working to get Battle of
Poitiers and its associated campaign to FA and then intend to take a break to work on other things. I may well come back to it, but 26 FAs on the Conflicts of Edward III seems sufficient
1972:
Meh. In all my open tabs, windows, pdfs, etc., and the pile of books under the empties, I couldn't for the life of me find the quote (was a quote, of course!) that I was referencing. So, I have recast the sentence with what I had to hand. Hope that suffices! To b fair, I don't think it was a major
1526:
This is a long sentence with a lot in it. The bracketed text is worthwhile contextualization, but might be better footnoted than taking up space in the main body of the article. (That might also allow for it to be expanded on a bit, if the source gives further examples of relevant victories or the
2799:
Thanks for that, good compromise. Interesting about the status of these positions; certainly by the 15th C., offices such as a butler, king's carver, etc., were almost wholly ceremonial and held by those in favour of the king. Of course, they didn't actually decant the wine or carve a goose—there
2433:
I think everyone has raised this now, and it's officially "doing my head in" (kidding!)— the long and the short of it is that it's
Gloucester and the bishop who said it—which I've added, rather than the vague "The Lords"—and means (hard to second guess: it's a quote) they spoke eloquently on the
1729:
This doesn't seem to be a 'however' matter. Also, I've accidentally introduced an inconsistency on you -- sorry! In the footnote where I suggested expanding PROME, you italicized the full title after expansion, but it's not in italics here -- should probably be consistent between them, one way or
1719:
Indeed. But as my nan used to say, 'things may be so bad that they can't get any better; they are never so bad they can't get any worse'  :) I think I'll keep it, if it's all the same to you—the fact that the king was unable to make the promotions he wanted suggests something pretty extraordinary
1707:
This phrase of Saul's has probably caused the single biggest issue of discussion here! He is vague, and I suspect intentionally so; after all, he wants to interpret the actions of the long-dead, but can't... I've added a few bits, and tweaked my phrasing, which hopefully addresses your point (if,
1655:
to be quoted rather than own-words phrased. The article quotes quite heavily, which I've no problems with -- great turns of phrase in sources are worth sharing -- but this is a relatively brief statement of facts. Because you're attributing each source inline when you quote it, quoting for fairly
1381:
This wording stood out to me as choppy, but I'm not sure how much that reflects choppiness and how much it's just idiosyncrasy on my behalf. I have the sense nonetheless that the second sentence is overly abrupt and the repetition of "They" as first word avoidable. It might be worth experimenting
1683:
Great line, very intriguing to the metonymical bright fourteen-year-old, but is 'dispose of them' a bit too abstract? If he (so they say!) poisoned them, it's more attention-grabbing to make it explicit. (If you do want to keep the current wording, it should be 'disposed of', not 'dispose of'.)
1538:
Ah, complex. You're right about that crappy sentence, so as per your suggestion, I've added an (expanded) footnote regarding why the invasion and the king were unpopular as a result of it, and what benefits he could have expected had it gone the other way. Also redlinked Palmer (must've been an
1523:
No military successes had been achieved since the previous parliament (for instance, a victory over the Scots would have diverted some negative attention from the King's finances and patronage), so by 1386, "the
Commons had no good reason to overlook the excessive generosity of the King or to
922:
The sources used all appear to me to be reliable and are correctly formatted. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close
2259:
Away from
Knowledge (XXG), in private correspondence etc, Tim Riley would capitalise Parliament (and much else) but Tim riley as Knowledge (XXG) editor tries to follow the party line, capitalising only proper nouns, and as there are parliaments in several countries I don't think the one in
1437:
Though I think generally articles could do with more rather than fewer links, I'm not sold on the "exile" link here. It's a common enough concept you'd expect readers to be familiar, especially if they're already reading a more niche article on an issue that culminated in one. Perhaps more
1181:
he means that contemporaries referred to the 1386 session as marvellous and that of 1388 as "mirabilis", but a misreading of a chronicle has led subsequent generations to ascribe the latter description to the former. Does this make sense? If you agree, I'll add something like this instead.
1645:, but I'm stopped in my tracks a bit by the specification of "adult". The referent is Edward III, who was of course himself an adult, and as Richard II was himself a child when he ascended the throne and was still very young at the time, it seems to be an unnecessary level of specifics?
1362:
Most footnotes are placed after the ref, but a couple (note 2 in "Political background" and note 10 in "Richard's absence") are placed before. I can't on my end see a difference in kind between the ones placed before and the ones after. Is there a reason for this or was it accidental?
1201:
I hope these comments are useful. I have no problems with the content of the article, which seems well and widely sourced, balanced and clear. Not being familiar with the subject I cannot comment on how comprehensive the article is, but I have no reason to think it may not be. –
2244:"perceived extravagance towards his political favourites". This sounds odd to me on two counts. Why "perceived"? It seems to imply doubt whether it is justified, but there does not seem any doubt below. Also extravagance towards is vague. How about "excessive patronage of"?
1382:
with alternative phrasings (e.g. turning it into a single sentence, or alternatively expanding on the Houses' perspectives of de la Pole to make it multiple sentences with one focusing on perceived undue benefit, one on failure, and one on the impeachment demands).
2138:
With all due respect, and saving your office, this is a matter of opinion, and rather subjective. While in some cases too many footnotes may result in a breach of Wp:FA? #4, a lack of sufficiently relevant footnotes is equally liable to indicate a failure of #1b
1166:"Although the epithet 'wonderful' is often applied to this parliament … it actually applied to the later … 1388 assembly" – if that is so, one wonders why it is used for this article instead of one on the 1388 parliament to which you say it actually applies.
106:
got rid of a few scroungers, he refused, and all hell burst out. Hey, parliament was nearly invited for dinner and poisoned by the King, how's that for a healthy political relationship? All comments, criticisms welcome; around table, we'll chew the cud.
1491:
is here, in note 4. It seems worthwhile to spell out its first footnoted appearance as well as its first main appearance, given the footnote is so much earlier (but keeping the main appearance given the uncertainty of whether footnotes are read or not).
256:
Yes. Dropped unwarranted completely; technically, no patronage was unwarranted, as the distribution thereof was one of the king's primary duties (R2's real problem was the limited number of recipients of his patronage and the jealousies that inevitably
3092:
Less chatter at the back of the class please, or there will be lines. You have too many FAs already, so we slow tracked this to give others a chance. Given who else is at the bottom of the list, you should be happy to just bask in the reflected glory.
1229:—there's a couple of points I'd like your further advice on, or confirmation of, but yet again, thanks to you, I've learned more on the nuances of my mother tongue than Leyton Comp ever managed... although that might not be difficult! ;) Thanks again!
1665:
This has led some historians to question the validity of the claims against de la Pole; for example, in 1927, N. B. Lewis suggested that they were "trivial or unfounded... merely pretexts for dismissing the chief minister of an unpopular
616:
I can't help you on that one. If you wish to keep the quotations (and I don't see why; what's wrong with 'or, as modern historians have suggested, a poorly-timed misjudgement' or similar?) I think that you are going to end with a clunky
1076:"The King was also unpopular due to his choice of advisors" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
2780:
lower-class implies to me manual labourers. I cannot think of a good way of putting it but how about "non-aristocratic"? BTW. In the ninth century King Æthelwulf married the daughter of his butler. It had a much higher status then.
3037:- I have a single concern before promoting. The lead states "eventually resulting in de la Pole's exile and murder." but the body does not indicate that he was murdered, and our article on de la Pole implies a peaceful death.
2422:"Those that did—such as Bishop Courtenay, brother of one of Richard's most outspoken critics—were probably regarded by the King as a partisan against him." "Those" is plural, so it should be "partisans", not "a partisan".
2382:"Either way, the war with France, such as it was, was the immediate cause of the parliament, being both exorbitantly expensive and demonstrating few military successes for the expense." This sentence is badly constructed.
2027:, what with your fellow coords either holidaying or buggering off  :) a couple of quotes for you that hopefully clarify things (inline). It's pretty much the consensus as to the efficacy of the parliament. All the best!
1840:
This section is formatted as one huge paragraph. Even on my decent-sized laptop screen, it gets a bit wall-of-text blurring together. I imagine it'd not be fun to read on a phone. Is there a good spot to split it in two?
1796:. This should be my last nitpick -- happy with what else you've done and to allow what else you've argued to allow, so planning to support soon as we can get that a bit more accessible to the poor smaller-screen reader.
554:
It means I can't spell out that the King sat with the lords rather than the commons. In other news, it's pretty irrelevant, so I swapped it for more relevant stuff about de la Pole's speech (and ergo
Richard's intended
1943:
last issue (don't worry, I won't redact my support pending it, but it seems worth mentioning now rather than post-FAC). Reviewing the note 5 footnote again (the one introduced on my suggestion regarding the failed
384:"In spite of these setbacks, parliament faced requests from the King for increased subsidies to pay for the war despite the lack of success." "In spite of these setbacks ... despite the lack of success."?
2738:"who saw themselves as conciliar to the King". I am not clear what point you are making. OED defines conciliar as "Of or pertaining to a council or its proceedings; used esp. of ecclesiastical councils."
1473:
Some young nobles—such as the Earls of
Arundel and Warwick—had "been kept in good humour since 1376 only by a lavish distribution of Crown perquisites and war salaries, argues the historian M. V. Clarke".
1697:
The Lords spoke "eloquently, if fictitiously" to the King, on how they perceived his duty, which they supported by reference to mythological statutes and traditions. Saul describes these as "outrageous
883:
It's funny you should mention Radcot Bridge; obviously, I glanced at it in the course of this article, and it's so bloody awful, my fingers got itchy there and then. Three lines on the battle and two
1275:—I've made those adjustments and hopefully caught all the over-caps, I think. I really appreciate you looking in (and the anonymous wiki-colleague who drew it to your attention in the first place!)
2697:"This includes both the subsequent military attack by the Lords Appellant on Robert de Vere and those by Richard on the Appellants." The wording implies that you have already mentioned the attacks.
238:"with which to invade France himself." I realise this is the lead, but consider unpacking this a little. 'to fund an army with which to ...' or 'to raise an army in order to ...' or similar maybe.
993:, thanks for looking in; apologies for not pinging you in the blurb, but, the (great!) GA review was ages ago, of course, and you've moved on, etc. But, cheers!—and hoping this finds you well.
280:"to receive his choice of counsel". I am unsure what this means. 'to receive counsel from those of his own choosing'? (If so, you already seem to cover it with "and appoint his own ministers".
1714:
In what modern historians have suggested was a political misjudgement, the King had promoted de Vere from Earl of Oxford to
Marquess of Dublin on 13 October. This enraged people all the more.
1539:
oversight). Not so sure not inline citing Palmer: attribution of a direct quote, of course, but also it just didn't read that smoothly without it... I'm certainly not arguing over it though.
2965:
Incidentally the
Armenian genocide FAC and my previous FAC for Greek case were stalled for months for similar reason (all but one coord is recused), which can slow everything down a lot... (
1950:
The invasion was considered a failure by both contemporaries and modern historians. Of the former, while among the latter G. L. Harriss called it "ignominious" and May McKisack, "inglorious"
1503:
There appears to be an accidental semicolon rather than full stop here, given the next sentence(?) starts with a capital letter. (I'm also of the opinion refs look better in numeral order.)
2700:
Now I've expanded on Radcot Bridge, has this been addressed, d'you think?(Although to be fair, the sentence appears lightly redundant; perhaps close the para with the Palmer quote instead?)
2072:"modern historians have been more critical" You cite a few examples, but again it's not clear if it's verifiable that "modern historians" agree on this, or whether it's original research.
1303:
OK. Willing to add my support for the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me, as far as I can judge, to meet the criteria as to content, and the prose will now suffice, I think.
1379:
They saw de la Pole as both a favourite who had unfairly benefited from the King's largesse, and the minister responsible for the King's failures. They demanded de la Pole's impeachment.
599:"the statute by which Edward had been adjudged". Background needed. (Maybe something like 'In 1347 Edward II had been forced to abdicate under threat of having his son disinherited.')
244:"houses of the Lords and Commons". You know better than me on these things, but I would have expected 'houses of Lords and Commons' or 'houses of the Lords and the Commons', not a mix.
443:
Think I've attended to this bundle of tings Gog-utilised your phrasing suggestions, and also aded a bit about the sense of panic, with cool stuff from Wm Walsingham. Bloody Londoners!
1761:
One historian has commented that "it is generally recognised that all the constitutional and political troubles of Richard II's reign can be traced back to the Wonderful parliament".
235:"the King's need for money, it quickly refocussed on pressing for the reform of King Richard II's administration". Perhaps the full name at first mention, and "the King's" at second?
1542:
This is excellent now, good footnote -- and no complaints about the second quote attribution, the clunkiness is mitigated by switching up the preceding sentence as you've done now.
1112:"the King was planning on having the parliamentary group arrested" – "planning on having" seems slangy to me, as well as less concise than the normal English "planning to have".
1535:, or are you confident he's non-notable? (Similar note: not sure on the need for "continues Palmer" in the following sentence, given you've already noted you're quoting him.)
1782:
is one of the major players here and the reader is primed to hear what eventually happens to him from the very beginning of the article, you do need to pick up that thread.
2075:
The footnote immediately subsequent verifies that at least two historians have summed up the historiographical consensus wrt the efficacy of the parliament for R2's polity.
1918:
1868:
1150:"In what modern historians have suggested was a poorly-timed misjudgement" – can one have a well-timed misjudgement? Looks a bit odd, though your meaning is clear enough.
843:, I appreciate the thorough review! Interestingly, this article has renewed my interest in all things Hundred Years War-related, so I'm off to mooch around. All the best!
1716:
May be some pleonasm here to both suggest this was a political misjudgement and then note it enraged people even more. (They sound pretty enraged by this point, anyway!)
968:
I hadn't spotted this FAC until a kind Wiki-colleague drew it to my attention today. I'll be back with comments a.s.a.p. once I've given the article a proper re-reading.
923:
paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.
1681:
This is the event described by Henry Knighton as the "occultus rumor" in which the King invited forty members of that parliament to a dinner—and then dispose of them.
1997:
Reading through this article I just have one query for the nominator. Is "modern historians have been more critical" supported by the cited source or is it possibly
2616:
Archbishop Neville. You link Courtenay to Canterbury above but do not name him and you mention York above without naming or linking. You should name and link both.
1185:
I can't, of course, presume to comment on the historical facts, but if I were writing the sentence in question I think I'd fudge the issue, on these sort of lines:
1853:
That should be all of it. I've fixed a couple of very minor typographical oversights that would've been more trouble to mention here than to just fix myself (e.g.
2986:
I'll take a look after work. Between bad weather and a mild case of food poisioning, I haven't been able to make my normal FAC rounds as effectively this week.
416:"and had been elevated to the peerage as Earl of Suffolk only the previous year". Might it be of interest to give the position or station he was elevated from?
2331:"they observed with dull eyes the King's distribution of extravagant". What does "with dull eyes" mean here? I would take it to refer to too many late nights.
40:
1418:
Could "although without success" be better omitted, cutting down on the number of sentence clauses by saying "instead attempting unsuccessfully to dissolve"
1104:"summoned the royal council … decided to summon a parliament" – better to avoid the repetition – perhaps "convened" or something of the sort the first time?
2054:"In what modern historians have suggested was a political misjudgement" Is it verifiable that "modern historians" agree, or just the three that are cited?
1251:
if it does, then does "Council" in the next sentence do so? And I have my doubts about the capital R in Royal prerogative in the relevant section heading.
2049:
tweaked to indicate that this is Tuck's view. (Which has, in turn, removed the use of 'noted', also I happen to disagree that it's a WTW when attributed.)
2187:
Striking oppose as my concerns have been addressed sufficiently, but what is "a later contemporary"? This should be recast in less obfuscating language (
514:"that there was "an atmosphere of political crisis" was apparent to all." "was ... was". Maybe 'an atmosphere of political crisis was apparent to all.'?
2323:"Popular opinion preferred he used the funds available to him for the benefit of the common weal." This is vacuous. No one would ever say the opposite.
1276:
1230:
994:
939:
888:
844:
797:
764:
661:
477:
317:
176:
107:
82:
1501:
The previous parliament had attempted to force a commission upon the King in an effort to reform the royal household and especially its expenditure;
201:
So far this FAC has not attracted much review or any supports. If it does not get more attention in the next few days it is likely to be archived. (
3140:
3003:
2917:
1591:
30:
17:
1807:
1687:
Well, the sources (both primary and secondary) aren't as explicit as to say exactly what the king was intending to do; Knighton uses the phrase
2611:
I've uncapped "crown" per "parliament"; the title is subject to WP:COMMONNAME (and a proper name, cf. Peasants' Revolt, First Barons' War etc).
1880:
and thanks very much for your detailed and insightful review, particularly your thematic points. Your suggestions (almost to a man) actioned
1187:
Although the epithet 'wonderful' is widely applied to this parliament … the term was originally coined to refer to the later … 1388 assembly"
3151:
726:
I think I overly condensed that to the point where the narrative suffered; I've split the sentence into three and expanded them slightly.
1945:
3172:
3115:
3102:
3083:
3066:
3048:
3025:
2997:
2981:
2960:
2935:
2909:
2890:
2869:
2854:
2836:
2790:
2720:
2679:
2581:
2544:
2532:
2506:
2491:
2454:
2354:
2283:
2222:
2203:
2178:
2149:
2131:
2109:
2033:
2017:
1979:
1967:
1930:
1890:
1822:
1616:
1578:
1553:
1406:
1339:
1318:
1291:
1266:
1245:
1217:
1141:
1047:
1009:
983:
954:
932:
903:
878:
859:
829:
812:
779:
749:
676:
642:
492:
458:
346:
332:
301:
217:
191:
166:
122:
97:
1475:
Is the closing quote placed too late here? By the source, I assume it's meant to be after "salaries" rather than after Clarke's name.
1126:
It's fine as it is, I'd say – or will be once you have gone either for spaced en-dashes or for unspaced em-dashes as the MoS bids us.
1123:
Done, but do you think, being parenthetical, the sentence should close on a single dash? (Almost, unclosed, if you know what I mean.)
3109:
My small parliament is stuck between the first Holocaust of the modern age and a bloody long war! I bask, and continue to bask :)
1527:
benefits they would have had.) Also, this looks to be the only unlinked (whether red or blue) historian -- I assume not any of our
609:
All things being equal, I'd quite like to keep the quotes, if only to show that scholars don't just think it was a bad idea, but a
1691:, while another chronicler merely suggests that they were told have been arrested (which perhaps I should add?). Tweaked slightly.
419:
From bugger all  :) the de la Poles were the archetypal parvenus; I've added a couple of sources noting he was the first to be so.
3015:... the food poisoning sounds mildly hair-raising! (And yeah, I saw Ian say he had a busy few days. They must have some hardcore
2762:"had come from serving stock" This is an oddly old fashioned expression. Does it mean that his ancestors were personal servants?
530:
Yes; the source is slightly ambiguous (there hadn't been any political victories either! But we should keep it simple of course.)
2402:"Most of the criticisms of the 1386 parliament had already been touched on in the previous one". I am not sure what this means.
1068:"they observed with dull eyes" – curious choice of adjective; presumably it means they observed without pleasure, or some such.
1071:
Yes, I know what you mean—I think it was probably watching patronage due to them (as they believed) getting wasted on parvenus.
584:"The Lords spoke "eloquently, if fictitiously" to the King". I don't understand the "ficticiously" bit. Do you mean thy lied?
1328:
Mentioned I wasn't sure whether to review this or not, but noticed it falling down the list...Will come back with comments.
1092:
condemns this phrase as a cliché, but I think it is best left for parliamentary draughtsmen and avoided in everyday prose.
3110:
3061:
3020:
2930:
2904:
2864:
2849:
2539:
2501:
2217:
2144:
2028:
1974:
1925:
1885:
1817:
1792:
large paragraph made larger still by the fact it's compressed by an image. Is there a good spot to split that? Maybe from
1611:
1603:
1416:
At first, the King refused to attend the parliament, instead attempting to dissolve the sitting, although without success.
1283:
1237:
1158:"However, notes PROME" – PROME should be introduced and glossed here, at first mention, rather than later, as at present.
1001:
946:
895:
851:
804:
771:
668:
484:
324:
183:
114:
89:
2970:
2949:
2192:
2120:
2098:
2006:
206:
2260:
Westminster qualifies for a capital letter. I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong, but I note that every edition of
432:"the immediate cause of the parliament as it was both exorbitantly expensive". This reads as if the parliament was ...
1857:
missing a space). It's a good read, mostly nitpicking, although the dropped thread of de la Pole's fate needs noting.
606:
if the quotation is an opinion". Why are you quoting anyway, rather than paraphrasing into Knowledge (XXG)'s voice?
2811:"Although his personal position regarding later events is unknown" What was his position regarding earlier events?
2603:
Redux to "except for the Duke of Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel, none of the future Appellants were appointed".
1962:
1913:
1863:
1802:
1573:
1548:
1401:
1334:
1056:
single -v- double quotes – I am no expert on the MoS, but I am fairly sure all your single quotes such as those in
2295:"threatened Richard with deposition until the King agreed to return to Westminster and do parliament's bidding". "
592:
and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear..."
3032:
2814:
Clever... "Although his personal position regarding the events he witnessed is unknown" would be more accurate.
2315:
The source details for Tuck are inadequate. You should say that it is Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
2080:
In another place you state, "Several modern historians have been less enthusiastic" but only cite two of them.
1936:
1700:
This is...interesting, but unclear. "Eloquently, if fictitiously" gets across the idea that they were, well,
1532:
2608:
What is the logic of capitalising Crown and not parliament? And why is it capitalised in the article title?
1607:
866:
551:"the Commons themselves came before the King in the House of Lords." I actually don't know what this means!
731:"Chaucer was probably personally affected by the goings-on of the parliament". Could we specify which one?
3098:
2886:
2832:
2786:
2754:"McCall and Rudisli" Two more writers who should be named in full as they have not been mentioned before.
2716:
2675:
2577:
2528:
2487:
2450:
2434:
subject of the king's responsibilities, but occasionally verged into made-up stuff to make their points...
2350:
2174:
928:
874:
825:
745:
638:
624:"PROME". "When an abbreviation will be used in an article, first introduce it using the full expression:"
454:
400:"De la Pole has been described as a "staunch loyalist,"". The MoS on quotations: "he source must be named
342:
297:
149:
File:Richard_II_of_England.jpg: source link is dead; is there a reason to have both life+70 and life+100?
2377:
Have rephrased to clarify that while the patronage was extravagant, its circle of recipients was limited.
1175:
in the text of a chronicler favourable to the party in fact applies to the assembly in the spring of 1388
1957:
1908:
1877:
1858:
1813:
1797:
1587:
1568:
1543:
1396:
1329:
2307:"by one modern biographer". I would name the biographer, especially as you name him a few lines below.
1956:
the former. Assuming there was some kind of accidental backspace somewhere in the footnote's writing.
2395:
The King did not approve of the commission or its advice that he listen to more judicious counsellors
2261:
1085:
588:
560:"four fifteenths and two tenths". This needs explaining. Preferably in line, but at least in a note.
277:"was restricted to appointing a royal council". I don't think "restricted" is the word you want here.
253:"unfairly—from the King's unwarranted". Does "unfairly" and "unwarranted" not restate the same thing
162:
72:
2407:
Most of the criticisms raised by the 1386 parliament had already been complained of in that of 1385.
703:"More, he wanted an explicit condemnation of those he held responsible". Held responsible for what?
687:"The King soon overturned these judgments; not only was de la Pole soon set free". "soon ... soon".
2276:
1311:
1259:
1210:
1134:
1040:
976:
3144:
2640:"This ultimately led to the Battle of Radcot Bridge on 19 December 1387. Between who and who won?
1785:
Great point. He survived by the skin of; have added a few lines after the preceding gory details.
1606:
is what we're on about. Note: VC is kind enough to give the dog a bone :)Your points addressed in
1015:
First points from a quick canter through for typos etc: these four words need attention, I think:
602:"a masterly piece of bad timing" which was "extraordinarily ill-judged". "he source must be named
3167:
3078:
3043:
2992:
715:
2477:
Done—and that allowed me to use "ten days later" the second time, instead of repeating the date.
2090:
563:
Right: defined it as a "tax of movable goods" inline, added a footnote to explain more broadly.
2903:
to change her section title to "Comments from Buidhe", etc, and we'll be off and running  :)
2848:, for this; a couple of queries, but everything actioned one way or another. No rush. Cheers,
2600:"so much harm to the King and his reign were appointed". 'harm to his reign' sounds odd to me.
613:
bad idea; but it involves naming three people, which is... convoluted, to say the least. H'mm.
3094:
3009:
2923:
2896:
2882:
2860:
2845:
2828:
2782:
2712:
2671:
2573:
2524:
2520:
2497:
2483:
2446:
2346:
2170:
1597:
924:
870:
840:
821:
760:
741:
653:
634:
469:
450:
338:
310:
293:
1385:
I didn't want to add too much extra detail to the lead, so I went with a rewording: how does
3011:
2966:
2945:
2925:
2592:"It has been described as "the worst political crisis of the reign to date". Who described?
2188:
2116:
2094:
2002:
1599:
1462:
One 20th-century historian, Clementine Oliver, has described la Pole as a "staunch loyalist"
202:
152:
Westminster abbey changed its file name...re-sourced. Removed PD-old, left PD-US and PD-art.
61:
2089:
Sorry, I'm going to have to oppose unless the issues with original research are fixed. See
2043:
1763:
Is the inconsistent capitalization here in the source (in which case it should probably be
1649:
although the charges themselves were neither "frivolous, trivial or paltry," argues Roskell
408:
272:
Absolutely! Clarified that the king wanted a commons delegation, hence their sending lords.
2765:
Well, he had "forebears who were gaugers of wines and king’s butlers", so perhaps; but it
2632:"turned, says McHardy" This is the first mention of him so you should give his full name.
2252:"parliament demanded the earl's impeachment". I would capitalise parliament - however, as
1590:, and Wel Kome  :) sorry you had a disagreeable time of it on your last foray into FAC. @
1431:
Armed conflict broke out between crown and nobility, eventually resulting in de la Pole's
172:
158:
2899:, always appreciate your thoughts. All the best!Now, in lighter news, all we need is for
2500:—I've actioned almost all, but there's a couple that might be worth discussing. Cheers,
2374:"extravagant, if limited, patronage". How can patronage be both extravagant and limited?
1998:
1669:
3143:
has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
1788:
Nice, although now it produces (on my screen, but as noted probably also many others) a
2271:
2253:
1306:
1272:
1254:
1226:
1205:
1129:
1035:
990:
971:
362:"but had been growing in unpopularity". Maybe 'but his unpopularity had been growing'.
316:), but have only replied to those I felt need explanation, if that's OK. Thanks again!
2115:
17 notes is also excessive. Many of them should be axed or integrated into the text. (
241:"as he would have expected". What does this mean? If 'as he expected', why not say so?
3162:
3073:
3055:
3038:
3016:
3007:
2987:
2941:
2921:
2800:
were minions for that—but it let them sit next to the king and keep him topped up  :)
2670:
I do not think you need sic here. It is an alternative capitalisation, not an error.
2062:
1595:
53:
2572:
That was my computer. When I searched on it before the earlier one did not show up.
1767:
232:"was an English parliamentary session" → 'was a session of the English Parliament'?
1659:
Makes sense—have removed "adult", as you say, since all the parties involved were.
1524:
acquiesce in his government's arbitrary taxation" as historian John Palmer put it.
1948:), you've managed to accidentally omit the contemporary political perspective --
1186:
1057:
337:
That makes perfect sense. I shall have a look through your changes and comments.
3158:
3013:
2975:
2954:
2927:
2900:
2213:
2197:
2166:
2125:
2103:
2057:
Well some do; 'several' with suffice, which as you point out below != two (but,
2024:
2011:
1601:
1528:
1514:
Given the sentence's length, does "effectively" need to be set out with commas?
1388:
1089:
660:, always appreciated. See what you think of the latest series of edits? Cheers,
211:
133:
Check caption grammar - full sentences should end in periods, others should not
57:
2769:
old fashioned, so how about "had a lower-class background before attaining..."?
2390:"to take more judicious counselling". I do not think that this is grammatical.
286:
Good spot. This has enabled me to merge the two sentences into one shorter one.
228:
Goodness, is it that time already? Where does the time go? Recusing to review.
1446:
is in sorry shape and wouldn't be useful to anyone who did want to read more.
1171:
But this Parliament of October 1386, usually known as 'marvelous'—the epithet
2940:
Ian has not been very active of late, Gog and I am recused from this FAC, so
1656:
short statements as here adds sentence bulk that veers from the point a bit.
2822:
The victim of a previous round of austerity. He was probably a close friend.
1531:
given what's on that list, but could be linked to the currently-nonexistent
865:
for now. What you considering for your next? (Merciless Parliament? (I have
2445:
If you are not sure what it means I think it would be better to delete it.
392:"particularly de la Pole, the Chancellor". Is there a link for chancellor?
2264:
from the first, in 1926, to the most recent, in 2015, uses the lower-case
3060:
sorted, must've been a hangover from the original. Check the new text.
1748:
Well, I'm not sure we'd have a 4000-word article on it if it weren't...
1387:
Seeing de la Pole as both a favourite... parliament demanded the earl's
1564:
1191:
Thanks Tim, have used your phrasing, which has a nice inexactitude  :)
506:"attempted to limit him from elevating". Suggest "limit" → 'prevent'.
2430:"eloquently, if fictitiously". What does this mean and who said it?
594:
They didn't so much lie, as make things up! Hopefully now clarified.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
522:"No successes had been achieved since the previous parliament": -->
1443:
1432:
1512:
This commission was, effectively, a regency council for the King.
262:"They demanded the earl's impeachment". "the earl" → de la Pole'.
1096:
says it has been a cliché since the middle of the 19th century.
1084:"to all intents and purposes" – rather to my surprise, neither
656:, and also for the minor copy edits you've been quietly doing
568:"appoint his councillors in parliament". What does this mean?
2659:
capitalise "Parliament" in the phrase "Wonderful Parliament"!
1746:
The Parliament is significant in the context of later events.
887:
quotes?! Incredible! As it happens, I have some sources, so.
1169:
Yes, quite. This is rather tricky; Perroy's exact phrase is:
2819:"Chaucer had worked with since 1376 and was probably." Eh?
2648:"can be traced back to the Wonderful parliament " Why sic?
2318:
Absolutely right. Can't believe they got through like that!
1422:.? The current phrasing takes a while to get to the point.
1487:
a section later is spelled out, but its first appearance
543:"and it was that invasion". Suggest "invasion" → 'army'.
1708:
indeed, I've understood you correctly—apologies if not!)
1506:
Yeah, swapped that, and also the refs are now numerical.
1495:
Done, with a hint of cynicism to the poor ole footnotes.
1881:
571:
Hopefully clarified (now under parliamentary oversight)
473:
404:
if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
370:"they observed with dull eyes". Nice, but what does it
314:
65:
1794:
Although the court party was swept from power in 1386
2561:
Redlinked in the previous para, written out in full?
1773:'d) or is it an error in reproduction, so to speak?
796:
Good iea; swapped around, they fit together neatly.
424:"Expeditionary Force". Why the upper case initials?
247:"who had benefited—unfairly— ..." It may be me, but
2741:
Changed to "who saw themselves in an advisory role"
706:
For his current predicament?! Clarified who though.
249:
who had unfairly benefited' reads better to my eye.
1834:
1058:the epithet 'wonderful' … supposedly 'ancient law'
538:"His victory now gave him the time and resources".
3180:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
2944:is probably the only person who can promote it. (
265:"sent two lords instead". In what way were these
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
2288:I'll go with Tim and Fowler, if that's alright?
1753:The Parliament had long-ranging consequences...
157:File:ThomasWoodstock.jpg: source link is dead.
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
2929:these days? Not understaffed again are you?!
938:Thanks Gog, this section must be overtime  :)
3186:No further edits should be made to this page.
3157:template in place on the talk page until the
2326:Fair point—have removed the vacuous Sumption!
1924:Thanks, and thanks again for looking in VP!
695:"gather together and consolidate". Synonyms?
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
1835:Chaucer's attendance and literary depictions
535:"His victory freed then gave him the time"?
793:: consider running notes 7 and 8 together.
576:"occultus rumor". A footnoted translation?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
2334:Yes, I see what you mean—like a hangover?!
1344:
1028:KIng (upper case I needs to be lower case)
171:Ditto, the above, re-pointed link. Thanks
2310:Done, and removed subsequent duplication.
351:That all looks good. Onward, ever onward.
2256:has not queried it I am probably wrong.
1366:The latter, and snow blindness! Sorted.
1019:advisors (AmE rather than BrE advisers)
1907:this excellent article for promotion.
1845:Recent commentators have suggested ...
1170:
1740:Aftermath and King Richard's response
1727:the King was forced to withdraw them.
1153:Changed it to political misjudgement.
407:Named the historian, another one for
7:
1946:English invasion of Scotland (1385)
1876:Thanks for picking up those typos,
2916:Thinking about it, who's running @
24:
1973:point I was making anyway, but.
1651:doesn't seem like something that
1225:Thanks very much for your review
1099:I replaced it with 'effectively'?
1094:The Penguin Dictionary of Clichés
1052:A few minor points on the prose:
711:Is there a link for "attesting"?
313:: I've actioned all your points (
2619:Done in their previous mentions.
1161:Thought I'd caught that already!
1060:and so on should all be double.
309:Thanks very much for looking in
2363:"...observed with displeasure".
1733:Removed however and italicised.
1625:Attack on the royal prerogative
1022:targetted (double t not wanted)
387:Right, dropped the duplication.
3072:Change looks good; promoting.
2558:"PROME notes". What is PROME?
2414:"Ecclesiasts". Ecclesiastics?
1816:, split at your suggestion.
1610:, by the way. Thanks again,
1:
2711:Yes I agree it is redundant.
2141:places the subject in context
1319:23:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
1292:13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
1267:20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
1246:18:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
1218:18:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
1142:20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
1048:19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
1010:18:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
984:14:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
955:15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
933:14:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
904:15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
879:14:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
860:14:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
830:13:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
813:14:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
780:16:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
750:22:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
677:18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
643:14:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
192:19:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
167:19:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
123:18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
98:18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
3173:00:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
3116:00:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
3103:22:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
3084:00:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
3067:00:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
3049:22:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
3026:18:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
2998:18:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
2982:18:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
2961:18:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
2936:14:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
2910:17:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
2891:12:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
2870:12:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
2855:08:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
2837:22:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
2791:11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
2721:11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
2680:11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
2582:11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
2545:19:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
2533:16:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
2507:13:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2492:18:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
2455:18:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
2355:18:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
2284:19:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
2223:18:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
2204:23:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
2179:21:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
2150:18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
2132:06:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
2110:06:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
2034:06:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
2018:00:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
1980:06:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
1968:02:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
1931:14:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
1919:12:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
1891:18:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
1823:12:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
1808:23:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
1079:Gone for the latter, thanks!
493:19:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
459:19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
347:19:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
333:18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
302:17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
218:00:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
175:, hope this finds you well.
3152:featured article candidates
2023:Appreciate you checking in
1869:21:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
1638:might be better phrased as
1617:18:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
1579:19:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
1554:19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
1407:19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
1340:15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
31:featured article nomination
3203:
2066:et al'. is more than two.)
1438:concerningly, if a reader
1177:. He's slightly opaque. I
1025:chronice (missing letter?)
2496:Thanks for these points,
2001:? Could I have a quote? (
1483:PROME's first appearance
1442:happen to click through,
698:"consolidate and expand"?
427:BEF I guess, but l/c now.
224:Support from Gog the Mild
3183:Please do not modify it.
3002:Thanks for the replies @
2859:And thanking you again,
2749:Excellent, thanks! Done.
2247:Both sound points; done.
1739:
1485:in the main body of text
1395:Looks good, no worries.
141:Suggest adding alt text
36:Please do not modify it.
1586:Thanks for looking in,
1533:John Palmer (historian)
869:under consideration.))
867:Battle of Radcot Bridge
820:And that's all I have.
523:Is this a reference to
2655:bugger cited here who
2463:More rewording! Right.
2083:Recast more generally.
964:Support from Tim riley
476:, see what you think.
2863:. Have a good week!
2643:Expanded and sourced.
2345:Yes. I would change.
1449:Good point, unlinked.
1271:Thanks for this also
502:That all looks good.
2733:It has been removed.
2635:Her full name given.
1456:Political background
918:Source review - pass
73:Wonderful Parliament
3033:Serial Number 54129
2523:. just a reminder.
1937:Serial Number 54129
1903:All good. Happy to
1464:is missing a "de".
2881:. Looks fine now.
2627:Thanks, rephrased.
2299:the King agreed"?
2239:Comments by Dudley
1847:seems a good spot.
1425:Excellent, thanks.
1107:Excellent, thanks.
716:Attestation clause
64:) 5 February 2022
2651:Because he's the
2547:
1952:doesn't actually
1900:
1899:
1776:Sic'd, curiously.
1349:Resolved comments
101:
3194:
3185:
3156:
3150:
3147:, and leave the
3113:
3064:
3059:
3036:
3023:
3004:FAC coordinators
2978:
2957:
2933:
2918:FAC coordinators
2907:
2867:
2852:
2692:Rm sick; thanks!
2542:
2537:
2504:
2482:More to follow.
2408:
2396:
2281:
2279:
2274:
2220:
2200:
2147:
2142:
2128:
2106:
2031:
2014:
1977:
1951:
1928:
1888:
1878:Vaticidalprophet
1856:
1846:
1820:
1814:Vaticidalprophet
1795:
1772:
1766:
1762:
1754:
1747:
1728:
1715:
1699:
1690:
1689:and destroy them
1682:
1667:
1650:
1644:
1637:
1614:
1592:FAC coordinators
1588:Vaticidalprophet
1525:
1513:
1502:
1474:
1463:
1436:
1417:
1391:
1380:
1345:
1324:Vaticidalprophet
1316:
1314:
1309:
1289:
1281:
1264:
1262:
1257:
1243:
1235:
1215:
1213:
1208:
1188:
1139:
1137:
1132:
1059:
1045:
1043:
1038:
1007:
999:
981:
979:
974:
952:
944:
901:
893:
857:
849:
810:
802:
777:
769:
759:Thanks for this
740:More to follow.
674:
666:
633:More to follow.
490:
482:
472:, actioned with
449:More to follow.
330:
322:
292:More to follow.
283:"as to" → 'on'.
214:
189:
181:
120:
112:
95:
87:
79:
48:The article was
38:
3202:
3201:
3197:
3196:
3195:
3193:
3192:
3191:
3190:
3181:
3171:
3154:
3148:
3111:
3082:
3062:
3053:
3047:
3030:
3021:
3019:downunder...)
2996:
2976:
2955:
2931:
2905:
2865:
2850:
2540:
2502:
2406:
2394:
2277:
2272:
2270:
2241:
2218:
2198:
2145:
2140:
2126:
2104:
2063:Merriam-Webster
2029:
2012:
1995:
1975:
1949:
1926:
1901:
1886:
1854:
1844:
1837:
1818:
1793:
1770:
1764:
1760:
1752:
1745:
1742:
1725:
1713:
1702:making stuff up
1696:
1688:
1680:
1664:
1648:
1639:
1631:
1627:
1612:
1563:Later sections
1522:
1511:
1500:
1472:
1461:
1458:
1430:
1415:
1386:
1378:
1375:
1359:
1350:
1326:
1312:
1307:
1305:
1284:
1277:
1260:
1255:
1253:
1238:
1231:
1211:
1206:
1204:
1135:
1130:
1128:
1063:Thanks, caught.
1041:
1036:
1034:
1002:
995:
977:
972:
970:
966:
947:
940:
920:
896:
889:
852:
845:
805:
798:
772:
765:
669:
662:
604:in article text
485:
478:
402:in article text
325:
318:
226:
212:
184:
177:
115:
108:
90:
83:
76:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3200:
3198:
3189:
3188:
3176:
3175:
3165:
3161:goes through.
3133:
3132:
3131:
3130:
3129:
3128:
3127:
3126:
3125:
3124:
3123:
3122:
3121:
3120:
3119:
3118:
3090:
3089:
3088:
3087:
3086:
3076:
3041:
2990:
2914:
2913:
2912:
2876:
2875:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2857:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2817:
2816:
2815:
2808:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2794:
2793:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2704:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2646:
2645:
2644:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2598:
2597:
2596:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2458:
2457:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2428:
2427:
2426:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2358:
2357:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2240:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2207:
2206:
2182:
2181:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2039:
2038:
2036:
1994:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1836:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1741:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1646:
1626:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1457:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1374:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1358:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1348:
1343:
1325:
1322:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1013:
1012:
965:
959:
958:
957:
919:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
818:
817:
816:
815:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:Yep, this one.
729:
728:
727:
721:
720:
719:
709:
708:
707:
701:
700:
699:
693:
692:
691:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
631:
630:
629:
628:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
600:
597:
596:
595:
582:
581:
580:
574:
573:
572:
566:
565:
564:
558:
557:
556:
549:
548:
547:
541:
540:
539:
533:
532:
531:
520:
519:
518:
512:
511:
510:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
447:
446:
445:
444:
438:
437:
436:
430:
429:
428:
422:
421:
420:
414:
413:
412:
398:
397:
396:
395:Ineed! Linked.
390:
389:
388:
381:
380:
376:
375:
368:
367:
366:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
290:
289:
288:
287:
281:
278:
275:
274:
273:
269:a delegation?
263:
260:
259:
258:
251:
245:
242:
239:
236:
233:
225:
222:
221:
220:
196:
195:
194:
155:
154:
153:
147:
146:
145:
139:
138:
137:
103:
102:
81:Nominator(s):
75:
70:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3199:
3187:
3184:
3178:
3177:
3174:
3170:
3169:
3164:
3160:
3153:
3146:
3142:
3138:
3135:
3134:
3117:
3114:
3108:
3107:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3100:
3096:
3091:
3085:
3081:
3080:
3075:
3071:
3070:
3068:
3065:
3057:
3052:
3051:
3050:
3046:
3045:
3040:
3034:
3029:
3028:
3027:
3024:
3018:
3017:time dilation
3014:
3012:
3010:
3008:
3005:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2995:
2994:
2989:
2985:
2984:
2983:
2980:
2979:
2972:
2968:
2964:
2963:
2962:
2959:
2958:
2951:
2947:
2943:
2939:
2938:
2937:
2934:
2928:
2926:
2924:
2922:
2919:
2915:
2911:
2908:
2902:
2898:
2895:Thanks again
2894:
2893:
2892:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2877:
2871:
2868:
2862:
2858:
2856:
2853:
2847:
2843:
2842:
2840:
2839:
2838:
2834:
2830:
2826:
2821:
2820:
2818:
2813:
2812:
2810:
2809:
2798:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2792:
2788:
2784:
2779:
2778:
2777:
2776:
2775:
2774:
2768:
2764:
2763:
2761:
2756:
2755:
2753:
2748:
2747:
2745:
2740:
2739:
2737:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2722:
2718:
2714:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2699:
2698:
2696:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2681:
2677:
2673:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2664:
2658:
2654:
2650:
2649:
2647:
2642:
2641:
2639:
2634:
2633:
2631:
2626:
2625:
2623:
2618:
2617:
2615:
2610:
2609:
2607:
2602:
2601:
2599:
2594:
2593:
2591:
2590:
2583:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2560:
2559:
2557:
2556:
2546:
2543:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2530:
2526:
2522:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2513:
2508:
2505:
2499:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2489:
2485:
2481:
2476:
2475:
2473:
2472:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2456:
2452:
2448:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2432:
2431:
2429:
2424:
2423:
2421:
2416:
2415:
2413:
2404:
2403:
2401:
2392:
2391:
2389:
2384:
2383:
2381:
2376:
2375:
2373:
2372:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2356:
2352:
2348:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2333:
2332:
2330:
2325:
2324:
2322:
2317:
2316:
2314:
2309:
2308:
2306:
2301:
2300:
2298:
2294:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2282:
2280:
2275:
2267:
2263:
2258:
2257:
2255:
2251:
2246:
2245:
2243:
2242:
2238:
2224:
2221:
2215:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2205:
2202:
2201:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2151:
2148:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2130:
2129:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2108:
2107:
2100:
2096:
2092:
2082:
2081:
2079:
2074:
2073:
2071:
2067:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2055:
2053:
2048:
2047:
2045:
2041:
2040:
2037:
2035:
2032:
2026:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2016:
2015:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1992:
1989:
1981:
1978:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1966:
1965:
1961:
1960:
1955:
1947:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1929:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1917:
1916:
1912:
1911:
1906:
1892:
1889:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1867:
1866:
1862:
1861:
1843:
1842:
1839:
1838:
1824:
1821:
1815:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1806:
1805:
1801:
1800:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1784:
1783:
1780:
1775:
1774:
1769:
1759:
1750:
1749:
1744:
1743:
1732:
1731:
1724:
1718:
1717:
1712:
1706:
1705:
1703:
1695:
1686:
1685:
1679:
1674:
1673:
1671:
1663:
1658:
1657:
1654:
1647:
1643:adult monarch
1642:
1641:compos mentis
1635:
1634:compos mentis
1630:With note 8,
1629:
1628:
1624:
1618:
1615:
1609:
1605:
1602:
1600:
1598:
1596:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1577:
1576:
1572:
1571:
1566:
1555:
1552:
1551:
1547:
1546:
1541:
1540:
1537:
1536:
1534:
1530:
1521:
1516:
1515:
1510:
1505:
1504:
1499:
1494:
1493:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:Well spotted.
1477:
1476:
1471:
1466:
1465:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1448:
1447:
1445:
1441:
1434:
1429:
1424:
1423:
1421:
1414:
1408:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1399:
1394:
1393:
1390:
1384:
1383:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1365:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1354:
1353:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1341:
1338:
1337:
1333:
1332:
1323:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1315:
1310:
1293:
1290:
1287:
1282:
1280:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1265:
1263:
1258:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1236:
1234:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1216:
1214:
1209:
1190:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1180:
1176:
1174:
1168:
1167:
1165:
1160:
1159:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1149:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1133:
1125:
1124:
1122:
1121:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1111:
1106:
1105:
1103:
1098:
1097:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1077:
1075:
1070:
1069:
1067:
1062:
1061:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1039:
1027:
1024:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1011:
1008:
1005:
1000:
998:
992:
988:
987:
986:
985:
982:
980:
975:
963:
960:
956:
953:
950:
945:
943:
937:
936:
935:
934:
930:
926:
917:
905:
902:
899:
894:
892:
886:
882:
881:
880:
876:
872:
868:
863:
862:
861:
858:
855:
850:
848:
842:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
827:
823:
814:
811:
808:
803:
801:
795:
794:
792:
789:
788:
781:
778:
775:
770:
768:
762:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
747:
743:
733:
732:
730:
725:
724:
722:
717:
713:
712:
710:
705:
704:
702:
697:
696:
694:
689:
688:
686:
685:
678:
675:
672:
667:
665:
659:
655:
652:Thanks again
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
626:
625:
623:
615:
614:
612:
608:
607:
605:
601:
598:
593:
590:
586:
585:
583:
578:
577:
575:
570:
569:
567:
562:
561:
559:
553:
552:
550:
545:
544:
542:
537:
536:
534:
529:
528:
526:
521:
516:
515:
513:
508:
507:
505:
504:
503:
494:
491:
488:
483:
481:
475:
471:
468:Thanks again
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
456:
452:
442:
441:
439:
434:
433:
431:
426:
425:
423:
418:
417:
415:
410:
406:
405:
403:
399:
394:
393:
391:
386:
385:
383:
382:
378:
377:
373:
369:
364:
363:
361:
360:
350:
349:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
331:
328:
323:
321:
315:
312:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
285:
284:
282:
279:
276:
271:
270:
268:
264:
261:
255:
254:
252:
250:
246:
243:
240:
237:
234:
231:
230:
229:
223:
219:
216:
215:
208:
204:
200:
197:
193:
190:
187:
182:
180:
174:
170:
169:
168:
164:
160:
156:
151:
150:
148:
143:
142:
140:
135:
134:
132:
131:
130:
129:
125:
124:
121:
118:
113:
111:
100:
99:
96:
93:
88:
86:
78:
77:
74:
71:
68:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
3182:
3179:
3166:
3137:Closing note
3136:
3095:Gog the Mild
3077:
3042:
2991:
2974:
2953:
2897:Dudley Miles
2883:Dudley Miles
2878:
2861:Dudley Miles
2846:Dudley Miles
2829:Dudley Miles
2783:Dudley Miles
2766:
2713:Dudley Miles
2672:Dudley Miles
2656:
2652:
2574:Dudley Miles
2525:Gog the Mild
2498:Dudley Miles
2484:Dudley Miles
2447:Dudley Miles
2347:Dudley Miles
2296:
2269:
2265:
2196:
2171:Gog the Mild
2124:
2102:
2088:
2065:
2058:
2010:
1996:
1990:
1963:
1958:
1953:
1940:
1914:
1909:
1904:
1902:
1864:
1859:
1852:
1803:
1798:
1789:
1701:
1652:
1640:
1633:
1574:
1569:
1562:
1549:
1544:
1529:John Palmers
1488:
1484:
1439:
1419:
1402:
1397:
1335:
1330:
1327:
1304:
1302:
1285:
1278:
1252:
1239:
1232:
1203:
1200:
1178:
1172:
1127:
1093:
1051:
1033:
1031:
1014:
1003:
996:
969:
967:
961:
948:
941:
925:Gog the Mild
921:
897:
890:
884:
871:Gog the Mild
853:
846:
822:Gog the Mild
819:
806:
799:
790:
773:
766:
742:Gog the Mild
739:
690:Removed one.
670:
663:
657:
654:Gog the Mild
635:Gog the Mild
632:
610:
603:
589:Sir Humphrey
587:
524:
501:
486:
479:
470:Gog the Mild
451:Gog the Mild
448:
401:
371:
339:Gog the Mild
326:
319:
311:Gog the Mild
294:Gog the Mild
291:
266:
248:
227:
210:
198:
185:
178:
128:Image review
127:
126:
116:
109:
104:
91:
84:
80:
49:
47:
35:
28:
2409:is clearer?
2212:Thank you,
1812:Good catch
1389:impeachment
1032:More anon.
527:successes?
2393:How about
2385:Rephrased.
2266:parliament
1668:-- sneaky
1604:this convo
1435:and death.
658:en passant
555:policies).
411:I guess...
199:Coord note
173:Nikkimaria
159:Nikkimaria
3145:WP:FAC/ar
3141:candidate
2273:Tim riley
2254:Tim riley
1993:by Buidhe
1959:Vaticidal
1910:Vaticidal
1860:Vaticidal
1799:Vaticidal
1730:another.
1720:going on.
1698:remarks".
1608:this edit
1570:Vaticidal
1545:Vaticidal
1517:No, okay.
1398:Vaticidal
1331:Vaticidal
1308:Tim riley
1256:Tim riley
1227:Tim riley
1207:Tim riley
1173:mirabilis
1131:Tim riley
1037:Tim riley
991:Tim riley
973:Tim riley
617:sentence.
474:this edit
3163:Hog Farm
3139:: This
3074:Hog Farm
3056:Hog Farm
3039:Hog Farm
2988:Hog Farm
2942:Hog Farm
2844:Thanks,
2841:Recast.
2405:Perhaps
2091:WP:RS/AC
962:Comments
791:Optional
714:Then to
525:military
257:raised.)
54:Hog Farm
50:promoted
3112:SN54129
3063:SN54129
3022:SN54129
2932:SN54129
2906:SN54129
2879:Support
2866:SN54129
2851:SN54129
2657:doesn't
2541:SN54129
2503:SN54129
2219:SN54129
2146:SN54129
2046:issue.
2030:SN54129
1976:SN54129
1964:prophet
1954:mention
1939:, just
1927:SN54129
1915:prophet
1905:support
1887:SN54129
1865:prophet
1819:SN54129
1804:prophet
1636:monarch
1632:adult,
1613:SN54129
1575:prophet
1565:to kome
1550:prophet
1403:prophet
1357:General
1336:prophet
885:massive
839:Thanks
2977:buidhe
2956:buidhe
2901:Buidhe
2521:Dudley
2425:Check.
2297:unless
2262:Fowler
2214:Buidhe
2199:buidhe
2167:Buidhe
2127:buidhe
2105:buidhe
2061:, per
2044:WP:WTW
2025:Buidhe
2013:buidhe
1991:Oppose
1855:in1386
1751:True!
1675:Check.
1672:there
1666:King."
1489:at all
1467:Check.
1090:Gowers
1086:Fowler
718:we go!
611:really
546:Check.
517:Check.
509:Check.
435:Check.
409:WP:WIR
365:Check.
213:buidhe
58:FACBot
2757:Done.
2595:Done.
2538:wut
2417:Done.
2302:Done.
1999:WP:OR
1670:WP:LQ
1653:needs
1444:Exile
1433:exile
1288:erial
1242:erial
1179:think
1115:Done.
1006:erial
951:erial
900:erial
856:erial
809:erial
776:erial
673:erial
627:Done.
579:Done.
489:erial
329:erial
188:erial
144:Added
119:erial
94:erial
16:<
3168:Talk
3099:talk
3079:Talk
3044:Talk
2993:Talk
2887:talk
2833:talk
2787:talk
2717:talk
2676:talk
2653:only
2578:talk
2529:talk
2519:Hi
2488:talk
2451:talk
2351:talk
2278:talk
2175:talk
2059:pace
1935:Ah,
1882:here
1790:very
1755:etc?
1373:Lead
1313:talk
1261:talk
1212:talk
1136:talk
1088:nor
1042:talk
978:talk
929:talk
875:talk
826:talk
746:talk
639:talk
455:talk
372:mean
343:talk
298:talk
163:talk
136:Done
62:talk
56:via
3159:bot
1941:one
1884:.
1768:sic
1440:did
1420:etc
1273:Tim
989:Hi
841:Gog
761:Gog
379:Ah!
267:not
52:by
3155:}}
3149:{{
3101:)
3069:§
3006::
2973:)
2969:·
2952:)
2948:·
2920::
2889:)
2835:)
2789:)
2767:is
2719:)
2678:)
2580:)
2531:)
2490:)
2453:)
2353:)
2268:.
2195:)
2191:·
2177:)
2169:?
2123:)
2119:·
2101:)
2097:·
2009:)
2005:·
1771:}}
1765:{{
1594::
1567:.
1392:?
1279:——
1233:——
997:——
942:——
931:)
891:——
877:)
847:——
828:)
800:——
767:——
763:!
748:)
664:——
641:)
480:——
457:)
345:)
320:——
300:)
209:)
205:·
179:——
165:)
110:——
85:——
67:.
33:.
3097:(
3058::
3054:@
3035::
3031:@
2971:c
2967:t
2950:c
2946:t
2885:(
2831:(
2785:(
2715:(
2674:(
2576:(
2527:(
2486:(
2449:(
2397:?
2349:(
2193:c
2189:t
2173:(
2139:(
2121:c
2117:t
2099:c
2095:t
2093:(
2007:c
2003:t
1286:S
1240:S
1004:S
949:S
927:(
898:S
873:(
854:S
824:(
807:S
774:S
744:(
671:S
637:(
487:S
453:(
374:?
341:(
327:S
296:(
207:c
203:t
186:S
161:(
117:S
92:S
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.