Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Barnet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I am planning to submit this article for Featured Article, and the next logical step after going through peer reviews would be the A-Class reviews. Sources, images, prose, and content have been looked at during the initial rounds of reviews. A further closer scrutiny under the Military history Wikiproject would do good. Jappalang (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - (this version)
- Dabs and external links look fine.
- Refs look great!
- I don't think that retrieval dates are necessary for the links to Google Books, but I don't think that they are outlawed either. Just a thought if you wanted a little less clutter.
- "Texas: Baylor University Press" and "Virginia, United States: Capital Books": you have a city as a publishing location for the other books, so it might be good to keep it consistent.
- OCLC's may be of help to readers if they wanted to find one of the books in a library near them, but this is up to you. If you want to add them, type worldcat.org/isbn/########## into your browser, replacing the #'s with the ISBN of the book you wish to find an OCLC for.
- Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the publishing locations, I used the states/shires as the locations. If they (state/shire) are well-known or possibly ambiguous (two possible countries), I add the country. I have read on FACs sometimes about how well-known locations need not further details. For the OCLCs, I have included them only for the books that do not have ISBNs (due to age); adding them to every book might be a bit of overkill. Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could use more ilinks per WP:BTW: from the lead: England, Lancastrian army, royal house, morale , English politic, Battle of Tewkesbury, a stone obelisk (notable monument?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a distaste for over-linking at FACs, especially for common words. The Battle of Tewkesbury is already linked in the first paragraph, and the obelisk is a local monument that does not have an article (even if it did, it would be merged into the Battle as that is the only notable thing it is known for). The rest of the suggested words are either too broad or might be frowned upon for non-intuitiveness if pointed to certain articles. Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent article, with only one question: why is there a blank white box in the battle maps? Otherwise looks excellent. – Joe N 00:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support. The blank white box represents the Yorkist reserves (who has no appointed commander as Edward leads from the front). I had thought of putting the text "Reserves" in it, but refrained as I wonder if someone might be confused into thinking it is the name of a commander. If there are ideas to support or handle this, please voice them. Jappalang (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps putting Reserves in a different font or color? – Joe N 23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have named the reserves as "(Reserves)" (funny, how never I thought of this in the first place ...). Does the naming suffice? Jappalang (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. – Joe N 22:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have named the reserves as "(Reserves)" (funny, how never I thought of this in the first place ...). Does the naming suffice? Jappalang (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps putting Reserves in a different font or color? – Joe N 23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent article. One question, Did the Yorkists capture Henry VI when they occupied London prior to the battle? The article seems to indicate that, but doesn't state clearly whether that is what occurred. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for supporting. They did sort of "capture" Henry... The chronicles state that when Edward entered London to cheers of the citizenry, Henry warmly greeted his "usurper" as a royal brother and declared that he would be safe in the younger man's hands... This event (and later history) shows how wrong (and senile) Henry was then. I am currently away from my books, thus the inclusion of this piece of information have to wait a few hours. Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Henry's "unconditional surrender" is now mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for supporting. They did sort of "capture" Henry... The chronicles state that when Edward entered London to cheers of the citizenry, Henry warmly greeted his "usurper" as a royal brother and declared that he would be safe in the younger man's hands... This event (and later history) shows how wrong (and senile) Henry was then. I am currently away from my books, thus the inclusion of this piece of information have to wait a few hours. Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.