Talk:Siege of Basing House

Military history: British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by OKelly, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on January 24, 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Names of the six priests

C.H.F. asked the question could any one name the six murdered priests in Notes and Queries Volume 7 2nd S. No 169. March 26 1859 p. 258 -- PBS (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loose copying from source

As but a casual visitor to this article, I formed the impression that it is too detailed and "embroidered" to qualify as encyclopedic. On closer examination, I found that slabs of the composition were actually selectively copied (and without proper attribution) from a source. E.g., most of the "Prelude" section can be found verbatim at this online source. The apparent necessity of attending to overcapitalisation is obviated by inserting quotation marks and consolidating blockquotes, which I have done as an interim measure. (I would expect that much of this detail would be discarded or précised in a re-write of the article.) My discovery of a superfluous marginal date ("A.D. 1641") within one portion of text was adequate evidence that a cut-and-paste had been done. I have not had time to closely examine the rest of the article, but would recommend that others consider doing so. Bjenks (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text is attributed as required by the WP:PLAGIARISM guideline:

"A public domain source ... [can] be copied verbatim into a Wikipedia article. If text is copied or closely paraphrased from a free source, it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page."

Anyone is free to mercilessly edit it and alter the wording. I do no however think that many of the details ought to be removed as the article is only around 50k in size. Only primary source material ought to be in quotes, otherwise the text becomes ossified and editors will not improve it. For this reason I have removed the quotations around most of the text you put in quotations. -- PBS (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]