Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Barnet/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:05, 19 May 2009.

Battle of Barnet

 * Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

SCENE I. FAC.


 * Alarum. Enter Jappalang, head bowed, heart heavy with apologies to ole Willie Shakespeare for the following...

Jappalang


 * Where is the bronze star that marks a Featured Article?
 * How far hence is the mark, mine honest fellows?
 * Ah, who is nigh? come to me, friend or foe,
 * And tell me is this article, featured or not?
 * Why ask I that? my cramping fingers show,
 * My edits, my want of prose, my tired mind shows.
 * That I must yield my pen to this page
 * And, humbly, request the star from ye all.
 * The text has been given the red pen's edge,
 * Whose strokes marked out many redundant words.
 * Many eyes, that came in the peer reviews,
 * Have purviewed the content, giving deep insight,
 * To ensure the article yields all secrets.
 * The images brought forth, mixed amongst the text,
 * Are verifiably free to use for all in any means
 * Sweet call to pens! Voice, editors, your concerns and thoughts;
 * For Jappalang offers this article to FAC. Jappalang (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Support: Dude. I, like, did an aforementioned copyedit and stuff. I think this article is, like, totally awesome, what with all its research and comprehensive sourcing and thorough explanations and what have you. Jappalang is totally sick widdit for doin' all that work. Scartol •  Tok  12:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I realized that I should have done it in verse. So here's what I should have posted initially:
 * I must admit I did a peer review
 * and yet I say about the piece to you:
 * it's great, it's fine, it's excellent and more
 * relating thence the Roses gone to War.
 * The images are fine; we are no fools
 * you followed all the righteous Commons rules
 * the research carried out so thoroughly
 * has made this piece an article to see.
 * For all the noble work performed thus far,
 * I say, "Attach forthwith the FA star!"
 * Iambic pentameter, baby. What. Scartol  •  Tok  15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, I say, from me to you, dear sir;
 * it is a fine example you offer.
 * There is but one complaint I have to bear,
 * a thing that lacks consistency (a hair):
 * When thou dost state "In " to start a verse,
 * to not use a comma is quite perverse.
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mucho gracias for the supports.
 * Alas, I cannot match thy trains of thought;
 * For nought am I but a hack at best,
 * Who never took a literature test.
 * Forsooth, there goes the game.
 * Compared to ye twain, I am truly lame.
 * "In " now comes with a comma;
 * Prithee that soothes any choler. Jappalang (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * to not use a comma is quite perverse.
 * So is splitting an infinitive. =) Scartol  •  Tok  04:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I refuse to write in iambic pentameter. How much time did you guys taken writing those? :) As to the article: I felt that it was close to FA when I reviewed it for MILHIST's A-class, and it looks even better now. Great work! Regarding poor Duke Exeter: is it believed by secondary sources that he was murdered in 1475? "[...] the duke was reported to have fallen overboard and drowned without any witnesses" seems to imply that to me... If sources do say that, it might be an interesting tidbit to include. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry... we got carried away there (heh). Thank you for the support.  For Exeter, he was deduced to have fallen overboard and drowned; his body was found washed ashore at Dorset (hence, no eyewitness account).  A Milanese envoy, Giovanni Pannicharola, claimed that Charles, while drunk, told him Edward had planned it; this information, however, is brought up by a "popular" historian.  Respected historians and publications fail to give due to this claim&mdash;perhaps they consider it as plain gossip and hearsay&mdash;so it was advised to leave such unreliable information out.  Jappalang (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Only a little bit (though I now feel bad for breaking the chain ;). Could there be any other sources? It's not a big deal; I just feel that this would be rather interesting. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, no other sources exist (as far as I know) for this information, except Seward's The Wars of the Roses, which is the source I mentioned above. Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is getting hard to read. Look at what you started. ;) @ above, no problem then. Good luck with everything else! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  06:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment sorry to interrupt all the merriment, but the first reference needs an additional "p" as there are multiple pages. Fix this. And you think this can be an FA... Mm40 (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which was easily fixed. Jappalang (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Iridescent:  At the peer review a number of small   Concerns were raised by me. Use of obscure   Terminology, when simple modern   Equivalents exist. Image placement.   Confusion about the current and the   Historic status of Barnet village.   (Is it Hertfordshire? Middlesex? London?   Even the residents can be confused.)   And inconsistency in the use of   Metric and Imperial measurements.   It is all minor nitpicking, and yet   Minor nitpicking, it is the stuff that   All Featured Article candidacies   Do stand and fail on. Thus I'm pleased to see   That all the issues raised have been addressed.   It would be hypocritical of me   To raise fresh concerns, having been given   The chance to raise issues previously.   And so, while issues may be unresolved   (I do not pretend to have a knowledge   Of fifteenth century military   History, or of the policies that   MilHist enforce, but are ignored elsewhere)   To this article I give a support.      Exit stage left, pursued by Sandy –   iride  scent   00:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Chase you off the stage? Never!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review - All images are impeccably described and licensed. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (all in good fun) by the noted literary critic Awadewit. Jappalang, whose user page reveals his interest in games, has treated the FAC world to a linguistic game in his nomination statement. In a series of postmodern allusions, he references not only the "red pen" and its "strokes" but also the "cramping fingers" associated with the computer keyboard. The imagery tying both together is clearly phallic, as he reveals the homoerotic orgy behind the creation of this article. As readers, we are left to conclude that "The Internet is for Porn". Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ye forgot "Willie" if ye be tryin to delve along this path. Words cannot express my reaction, yet take a look at this.  Jappalang (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support (Full disclosure: I peer reviewed this article.) This is clearly-written, comprehensive, well-illustrated article. Thank you for working on it so diligently, Jappalang! Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Doth thou requirest that I should concur


 * With erudite comments from friends at FAC?


 * ‘Tis with pleasure this I do, for I’m sure


 * That thanks to prose so fair and cited facts


 * Each criterion has  been  well-surpassed.

Graham Colm Talk 18:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * ''Battle of Barnet:
 * ''Prose is clear and all looks good.
 * ''Featured article.

— Bellhalla (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel this piece is strong and clear
 * As any work I have seen here
 * The prose is fine, and I can see
 * Aught in it to displeasure me
 * I must confess a bias here -
 * Though one which makes my knowledge clear
 * For I was born in Barnet fair
 * And spent much of my childhood there
 * My parents and their little son
 * Were there in 1971
 * The two served on a committee
 * To fete the quincentenary
 * My mum, a novelist has writ
 * Of the events in battle met
 * Upon that field so long ago
 * So there are things that I do know
 * An expert, no... but expert's son;
 * (Son of a true Ricardian)
 * Alas, my gifts for rhyming fall
 * Far lower than McGonagall
 * But I will say well met my friend
 * And add my strong support at end.
 * Grutness...wha?  10:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.