Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Barnet

Battle of Barnet

Parallel peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1

I have rewritten and greatly expanded this article, and plan to nominate it for Featured Article. It was a decisive battle in the Wars of the Roses, seeing the death of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, and the securing of Edward IV of England's throne. I look forward to reading your comments and suggestions for this article. Jappalang (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HLGallon

As the subject of the article is British, American usages should be avoided. In particular, snuck should be replaced by sneaked at least, or some more elegant turn of phrase be used. HLGallon (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the heads up. Corrected to "sneaked", although any more elegant suggestions are welcome. Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about lurked, skulked, slinked from Webster Thesaurus --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "lurk" is mostly stealthily hiding and moving about in a fixed location (more like a thug or robber's behaviour). "Slink" is primarily for predators. "Skulk" might be possible, but it, too, seems to carry some criminal connection (still could be possible)... I used "slip" for Warwick's move at St Albans. There are two "sneaks" left in the article, referring to Edward's night movement at Barnet. Jappalang (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vantine84

Prose/Style/Layout

Background

"Instigating several rebellions in the north, Warwick lured the king to go north to put the uprisings down." - A little redundant with "north"—try "Warwick instigated several rebellions in the north to lure the king out of [I assume] London."

Not strictly out of London, it was more to isolate him from his support in the south; I have reworded. Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders

"Traditionally, nobles were typically taken prisoner in the battles for ransom." - Probably don't need "traditionally" and "typically" in the same sentence here.

I was trying to point out that in the past, the nobles were usually taken for ransom (not all the time), but it seems "typically" is redundant, so taken out. Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkist

~~From a layman's perspective, the first paragraph of this subsection seems to have been written by a fan of Edward IV.~~

Not much can be helped here, Edward's military achievements are pretty impressive by the records. Gravett does offer a slight critique, which I included. I am trying to get Ross' book on the king and that might be of more help later. Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better.

"...hewing his foes while wearing his suit of gilded armour." - Tone consideration, with "hewing his foes".

Changed to "killing his foes". Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but now sounds a little gruesome. How about "striking down his foes" or simply "Standing more than 1.83 metres (6.0 ft) tall and wearing a suit of gilded armor, he was an inspiring figure in combat."

That is more concise, but it gives the impression that the inspiration is just a show (big and flashy). I am hoping that explicitly stating his kills would convey the sense that he was described as a capable warrior. Jappalang (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hastings has followed Edward through thick and thin, accompanying the young king in exile and supporting him in his return." - Present tense here; the rest of the paragraph is in the past tense.

Changed to "... had followed ...". Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancastrian

"Therefore, he was unlikely to have fought at Barnet." - Not cited...OR?

David Fuchs (in the other peer review) has raised this up too, and I stated that this is but a summary of the two preceding statements. Since it is pointed out again, I went back to the books and noticed Gravett's pointing this out. Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good! I'd say it's accessible to the general public, even those not familiar with English or military history. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the_ed17

In the citations, you have "Ross (1997) [1974]" and "Ross (1997) [1981]"—shouldn't the second one be "Ross (1999) [1981]"?

Doh! I thought both books were republished in 1997, hence noting both years in the references. Thank you for pointing that out. I can now reduce them to single year. Jappalang (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation? "Warwick deliberated over replacing the king, and Clarence, Edward's brother, joined the earl on that possible promise." —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now cited. Thank you for the look through. Jappalang (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]