Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bosworth Field/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 20:41, 21 July 2009.

Battle of Bosworth Field

 * Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

SCENE I. FAC.


 * Again many apologies to ole Willie... may the soft dirt cushion his turbulence in his grave...

Jappalang


 * Now comes the test of Bosworth's quality
 * Made glorious by all who laid pen upon it.
 * In days past, it was not shaped for critical thought,
 * Nor made to court the public's eye;
 * Deformed, unfinished, abandoned before its time
 * Into this project, scarce half completed,
 * Now this article aspires to comply
 * With all four featured criteria.
 * If you do replace a wrongful image;
 * You shall feel a sense of justice, the travesty gone,
 * If you do improve a dreadful sentence;
 * Your friends shall sing the litanies of sweet prose,
 * If you do help to fill in the blanks;
 * Your great deed increases the world's sum of knowledge,
 * If you do chop off redundant words;
 * Your trusty sword serves the project well.
 * Then, for Wikipedia and free information's sake,
 * Stretch your fingers, draw your red pens.
 * Tap keys and scroll pages, boldy and cheerfully;
 * Jimbo and Saint Isidore! Bosworth and FA!

Aye, for those who would dispense with such iambic banter, come sit thee down and feel welcome to say your piece. Take a read of the glorious Harry-Dick battle, where Dick got royally shafted due to the circumstances that spun his fate. If you are in the know, your help to identify the location and creator of this glass window is greatly appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I'll add my review here. This is a placeholder to remind me to come and review it when I've had some sleep. Great choice of subject matter. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC) OK, here goes. This is a monstrously good article, and will take some time to review properly. The overall impressions are all positive - good use of illustration, good depth of referencing, tone looks appropriate. All of which is excellent. And now on to detail... More anon as the Bard would have said. Maybe. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by Dweller
 * There's too much detail in the Lead. Length in number of paragraphs is right, but each one is too crammed. Cut it down.
 * It's difficult to do this without becoming superficial (given the length of the article), but I've trimmed it a little. EyeSerene talk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comprehensiveness: if you're going to cover Shakespeare's treatment of the battle, which is a good idea, then you really need to cover its treatment by other notable artists, including film-makers not shooting Shakespeare (I'm sure the battle has featured in historical epics)
 * There lies the issue of reliable sources and weightage. Of films, the Battle of Bosworth Field was criticially talked about for Olivier's and McKellan's films (and even so, focus is not solely paid to the battle).  The commentary in the article reflects the criticisms and are of the appropriate weightage given without undue weight.  It is theatric (plays) version that has received the most reviews among academic and respected sources.  Jappalang (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the image captions are overlong. Some fairly random decision-making in terms of linking/not linking in the captions.
 * I presume the overlong captions are the ones for the battle maps? I have trimmed them a bit, and removed the link to Ambion Hill.  Links in other image captions are not found in main article text.  Jappalang (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Images all have alt text. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3. I added alt text for the lead image as an example; could you please add alt text for the remaining images? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. I have read this article many times—following an invitation from the nominator, I made a series of minor edits during May–June of this year, mainly to help polish the prose. I accept the valid criticism of the length of the lead, but I can't see this being an obstacle to promotion. I think the article should stick with Shakespeare's dramatisation, since this is the most widely known and perhaps the only one that has misled history teachers. I agree that reliable sources could be a problem for modern dramatisations and add that there could be a danger of straying off topic; this is a history article after all. In my view, this contribution satisfies all the FA criteria and establishes a high standard. Graham Colm Talk 19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: Comments, leaning to support : Jappalang is one of our most resouceful editors, generous with advice and meticulous in his reviews. He is also one of our worst poets. However, fortunately for him that is not the issue here. This is a meticulously researched article with a gripping narrative, which I am reading with pleasure. I am picking up various minor points as I go through; before listing any details, can I add my voice to the concern expressed about the amount of detail in the lead? Also, there is rather a lot of clutter at the top of the article – image, infobox stuff, map. I wonder whether a slight repositioning, say of the map, might enhance the article's appearance.

Here are some detailed comments on the lead and Background section. More to follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead:
 * Nitpick: "...the battle was won by Lancastrian Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who by his victory..." Are battles won by individuals? Would it be more accurate to say "the battle was won by the Lancastrian forces of Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who by this victory..."
 * Grammar: "...while they decided which side would be most advantageous for them to support." Needs an "it" after "which side", and "for them" is unnecessary
 * "Richard's force outnumbered Henry's and the king divided his army into three groups (or "battles")" The two parts of the sentence are not obviously related, and shouldn't be connected by "and".
 * "This theme is most evident in the Shakespearian play Richard III and, as the finale of the play, the battle has become a focal point for critics in later film adaptations." I am unsure what is meant here by "a focal point for critics". What critics - film, theatre, historians?
 * I tried to address the first three points with these changes. As for "a focal point", it is supposed to mean the critics tend to talk about the battle in the film.  Maybe a change to "a focal point of attention"?  "Critics" is a general term; the article presents the views of a Shakespearian critic, a newspaper reporter, a military historian, and general views gathered by another Shakespearian critic.  Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Background
 * "extremely" weak smacks of POV. In any event, who alive at that time had a stronger legitimate claim? Edward IV's claim was pretty weak, too.
 * Another dubious "and": "His twelve-year-old elder son succeeded him as King Edward V, and the younger son, nine-year-old Richard of Shrewsbury, was next in line to the throne." Suggest replace "and" with semicolon.
 * "The royal court was worried, as Edward V was too young to rule and the Woodvilles, relatives of the Queen Mother Elizabeth, were plotting to seize control of the Royal Council who planned to rule the country until the king's coming of age." The sentence is too long, and needs splitting. Also, I'm a bit puzzled by the wording. "...the Royal Council who planned to rule the country" sounds a bit informal. I thought this was a statutory duty of the Council.
 * "secured Edward V" is not immediately plain. "Apprehended" or "took into custody" would be clearer.
 * "extrajudicial" is a single word
 * "Discontent for..." → "Discontent with..."
 * The verb "manifest" requires an object. Thus "manifested itself"
 * "started prematurely by 10 days" is awkward. "...started 10 days prematurely"?
 * I have edited the Background section. I hope these changes address the issues here.  Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will consider the length (and detail) of the lede. Any suggestions where to place the map?  Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have shifted the map into the Background section. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead trimmed further... EyeSerene talk 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no remaining issues with lead or map. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, who wrote this? Mostly beautiful or very professional prose, although I've looked only at the lead. This sentence is a little weak: "Literature, from the 15th to 18th centuries, glamorised the conflict as a victory of good over evil—it forms the finale of William Shakespeare's play about Richard's rise and fall." (All literature? Many English plays and poems? I think User:Bishonen is an expert on this area, inter alia, BTW. (2) The dash doesn't quite work as a connector for me ("and"?). I look forward to reading the rest. (3) Just a little audit on the use or omission of commas before and after names in the middle of clauses? Unsure. Tony   (talk)  10:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To Tony: GrahamColm, Malleus Fatuorum and others have brushed up little bits here and there, but EyeSerene is responsible for most of the beauty that is at hand. Jappalang (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Jappalang's overstating my involvement, although his kind words are much appreciated. However, I freely admit to something of a blind spot over commas because I can't always decide if a sentence reads more naturally with or without them. I'll proofread when I get the chance and try to tidy them up. EyeSerene talk 09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

More stuff
 * Commanders: Intro, last sentence - "In a sense" doesn't seem necessary.
 * Yorkist
 * "Small and slender, Richard III did not have the tall muscular build associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors." First three words redundant - Richard' size fully covered by the rest of the sentence.
 * I was trying to point out specifically that Richard was a "small and slender" man. I think striking these three words could result in a possible "well, he is not tall and muscular, perhaps he is just normal sized or short and flabby?" kind of thought?  Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, how about: "Small and slender in contrast to the tall muscular build associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors,[40] Richard nevertheless enjoyed rough sports and activities that were considered manly." Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweaked EyeSerene talk 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "His performance better as "His performances..."
 * "Lieutenant general" is a military rank rather than a post, though it might have meant something different then. Can you amplify?
 * Last sentence of first paragraph reads oddly, given that in the previous sentence Richard has been painted as somewhat irresolute. And why the reference to the Turks?
 * I've seen the revision. This looks like a sentence that should start "However,..." Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Darn... I was aiming to show that Richard was a militaristic man with that statement. Hence, this statement is not supposed to contradict or support Ross' or Carpenter's opinion but rather expand on Richard's attitude (a contrast to the seemingly pacifistic Henry).  Any suggestions on how to reword this to get the meaning across?  Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd still go for the "However..." beginning. At present, in paraphrase, this extract is saying: "Richard had been considered by some as a bit of a military ditherer, somewhat indecisive. However, when he became king he showed a different side" (his "thirst for war" etc. This is not a sticking point, so go with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also tweaked (missed your responses to Jappalang's latest, so my tweaks were made before I saw your latest. Hope they're ok) EyeSerene talk 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lancastrian
 * "Slender but strong, Henry lacked a penchant for battle and was not much of a warrior; chroniclers such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala found him a decisive man who was more interested in commerce." I think this sentence would read better if Henry's "decisive" attribute was listed with his other positive qualities, thus: "Slender but strong and decisive, Henry lacked a penchant for battle and was not much of a warrior; chroniclers such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala found him more interested in commerce."
 * " whom he could rely on" → "on whom he could rely"
 * Stanleys
 * "erupted in bouts of violence" - a bit heavy-footed. "erupted into violence"?
 * "Additionally, Stanley's position as Henry Tudor's stepfather, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472,[69] did him nothing to win Richard's favour." Suspect grammar: "having taken" relates to Stanley, not "Stanley's position." Also, phrase order seems wrong, and can we avoid beginning "Additionally..."? So how about: "Furthermore, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472, Stanley  was Henry Tudor's stepfather,  a relationship which did him nothing to win Richard's favour."
 * "Wary of the baron..." I've lost track of the identity of this baron.
 * Prelude
 * The comparison in the first sentence is amiss – between the first invasion and the second crossing. Suggest first four words are deleted.
 * Sir Geoffrey Elton – use of title inappropraite in text
 * Does Elton use the word "idolators"? If so, I suggest you put it in quotes, as it's an odd term. Otherwise I think it is too strong a word here, since it suggests veneration and worship. Another term, such as "ardent loyalists", might be more appropriate.
 * "...failed to move against him" – need to clarify "him"
 * Do you really mean "suborned", here? (incited to commit a crime)
 * I am confused by this sentence: "Richard had been aware of Henry's landing since 11 August, but although he had ordered his lords to maintain a high level of readiness, it took three to four days for his messengers to notify them of Richard's mobilisation." Some clarification requested.
 * I've done a little extra ce on this - see if you agree. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is fine. Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Engagement: a superb battle account; only one minor point: "Well aware of his military inexperience, Henry handed command of his army to Oxford..." Needs to say "own military experience", for clarity.
 * Post-Battle
 * Suggest link circlet, or descibe it as a crown
 * " 100 of his king's men" would be clearer as "100 of Henry's men"
 * I wonder if the events described in the final paragraph can really be considered "Post-battle"?
 * I note what you say below. The events seem to relate more to the early part of Henry's reign, rather than the immediate post-battle period. For example, in an article on the Battle of Hastings you probably wouldn't refer to William's subsequent suppression of Hereward the Wake. This is just a thought, not a sticking point with me; if you wish to leave it, fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Will conclude later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okey, Brian. I hope these changes resolve the stuff above.  As for "Post-battle", these events take place after the fighting.  Literally, they are suited for that section.  Jappalang (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A few last bits
 * Legacy
 * "to deduce possibly valuable information..." Things can be deduced from information, but information itself cannot be "deduced". Would "insights" be a good substitute for information?
 * There is an apparently intrusive "but" near the end of the second paragraph.
 * Uncertain about the "However" that begins the last sentence.
 * Shakespearian dramatisation: No comment - excellent and informative.
 * Battlefield
 * Suggest "a dispute broke out amongst historians that has led many..." becomes "a dispute among historians has led many..." (neater)
 * Perhaps a Wiktionary link for "toponymical"?

Final Comment: This is a first-class article which tells its main story brilliantly, with much thoughtful analysis thereafter. I have moved to full support notwithstanding a few minor outstanding issues which are really neither here nor there. Congratulations, Jappalang, and I look forward to more of your historical tours-de-force, if not the "poetic" introductions. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Brian, I have made these changes to address your final concerns. My future endeavour, however, would likely not be of English history, but your words have inspired me; I am going to serenade the FAC masses next with Vogon poetry!  Ahem... "Oh freddled gruntbuggly, thy micturations are to me!"  It is surely my calling!  Okay, "don't panic!"  That (Vogon poetry) was a joke.  Jappalang (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Don't worry, Jappalang, I enjoyed the poetic introduction - but then I've never understood the problem lifeforms have with Vogon poetry... Anyway, supported this at MILHIST A-Class review and, having re-read once more, can't see any reason not to award the bronze star as well - as I've said before, an epic in itself, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments on sources


 * The Bertram Wolffe book is listed in the bibliography, but there are no citations to it. Should it be described as "Further reading"?
 * Should the "Online source" subheading be pluralised? (Big point, that)

Otherwise all sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth has pluralised the subheading, and I have removed the unused source. Jappalang (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments on images

The images all cite sources and are appropriately licensed. Graham Colm Talk 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I was bold and changed the "online source" to "online sources") Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.