Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Bosworth Field

Battle of Bosworth Field

Parallel peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Bosworth Field/archive1

I have greatly expanded the article and plan to bring it to Featured Article status. In this battle, Richard III of England died in glorious combat, one single men against a mass of footmen. On his death, his crown was picked up and placed on the head of Henry VII of England, starting the Tudor dynasty. With an article this big, it is best to solicit opinions from a greater field. I look forward to reading your comments and suggestions for this article. Jappalang (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hartfelt

Jappalang: I suggest that you consider eliminating your two-tier system of notes. It seems to me that the information in the nb notes may as well be woven into the text or put into a regular footnote. It is annoying to go to an nb note for a small nuggest of info and then have to go into the footnotes to find the source. The UK in WWI article now under peer review also had a two-tier system and the nb notes were all edited away w/o loss. Hartfelt (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the little stuff that could be of pertinence to the text; those that are more trivial, I have eliminated. The two remaining nb notes, however, are chunky. While it adds context to the statements in the text, interjecting them into the main paragraphs seem to break up the flow. Any suggestions? Jappalang (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions reflected in edits. Hartfelt (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyedits to your changes. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jappalang: I have read thru the Bosworth article in its entirety (once) and have the following comments. I offer them with respect for your efforts to date and only in the hope of helping you improve the article. In that regard, you definitely improved the article last night while building on my first editorial suggestion, so I am encouraged to share all of the following with you:

(1) Good, inviting intro (subject to my York/Lancaster comment below).

(2) Impressive research. Maybe too impressive, as there is a lot of background, etc. and, at the end of the day, only four paragraphs about the battle. You might ask yourself if you can pare out some of the material w/o loss. I wondered, for example, about all the detail on the Stanley feud with the Harringtons. Suggest you prune that para or sharpen writing to show relevance. Also, perhaps you can think of ways to build up the battle section itself.

(3) I believe there is room for improving the writing. You use the passive voice a lot (e.g., final para of intro almost entirely in passive voice), and the article would benefit from editing toward the active voice and shorter and simpler sentences.

(4) Context/transitions. I suggest that you work in more transitions to help the reader understand why he's being asked to read things. For example, why not a short intro under "Commanders" and before "Yorkist" that says something like "In a sense, the Battle of Bosworth brought to the field three forces: Richard III's Yorkist army, Henry Tudor's Lancastrian forces, and a force loyal to the fence-sitting Stanley family."

(5) York/Lancaster. The article somewhat backs into this important topic. Intro talks of Tudors and Plantagenets. "Yorkist" pops up in 3rd para; Lanncaster not until seventh? Suggest working in distinction earlier to orient the reader.

(6) Keeping all the people straight is a chore, especially with so many Richards, Edwards, etc. and the use of both surname and titles to refer to the same person. Suggest you read over carefully and take steps to help readers (especially American readers) keep people straight.

(7) The para about Francis II is confusing with present lead-in, as it seems initially to take reader back in time. Needs a better transition. Also, was Henry Tudor in effect a prisoner there?

(8) "Prelude" section seems to me to begin too abruptly.

(9) Exile/attainder. Would be helpful to describe in one place near beginning exactly what Henry Tudor's status was.

(10) Suggest most of para "Richard effectively lost" belongs at the end of the battle section, rather than at the end of the post-battle section.

(11) You have some nice illustrations. A few more would help in the "Commanders" section, a long patch of prose w/o illustration.

(12) Formally, I am thrown by style of "placing the period outside the quote mark".

Good luck from here. I will try to keep an eye on this page in case you want clarification of any of the foregoing. Hartfelt (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe you are right. The article could do with some changes to make it easier for anyone not familiar with the Wars of the Roses (Battle of Bosworth Field) at the start, easing him or her further along the sections. There could be difficulties with the names of the people involved (I remember although I took to the names quite fast, my intitial readings on the Wars involved a bit of confusion). I will try my best to resolve this, but I think the pruning and transitioning would involve some big changes. My language is not at a professional level; hence, the active voicing and pruning might take some time. Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just resolved about almost everything (except pruning, quotes, and illustration in Commanders). Jappalang (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]