Talk:Battle of Sark

Battle of Sark (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 9 November 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Military history: Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Numbers

There is a considerable mismatch between the numbers in the info box and the text. Casualty range is discussed in text was not matched in info box, so I have corrected. However, though I suspect the smaller text figures are correct for participants, I cannot confirm that. Could a more knowledgeable or better equipped editor tackle that, please? Monstrelet (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edit

I've reverted a major revision of the text in the last few days. This revision deleted most of the references of the current version to create a huge new battle. While the battle is less well known than we would wish, a new theory, apparently derived from original research, should be explored here on the talk page and, if shown to be a legitimate variant based on published accounts, placed in the article along with the more commonly accepted account. Monstrelet (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just glancing at the figures for e.g. Otterburn, Bannockburn, these edits would have claimed that this was a very large battle by the standards of Anglo-Scottish medieval warfare, which needs firm evidence. PatGallacher (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]