Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bosworth Field


 * 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 by the_ed17

Battle of Bosworth Field

 * Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has completed a peer review, and I think the article pretty much fulfills the A-Class criteria. This is a step to attaining FA and I hope everyone would offer comments and criticisms to help attain that objective. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Everything appears in order for a promotion to A-class. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Well cited, written and illustrated and comprehensive. Good work. I'd say it definately meets A class. I'm sorry I can't give much feedback as this is not my area of expertise at all. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Great to see an article of this standard on such a landmark battle - it's an epic in itself, well done! Can't see anything obvious stopping this from achieving FA as well. Couple of relatively minor points I'd like to see taken care of however:
 * Background: Richard III is described as "the tyrant", however the term is not in quotes, suggesting that this is editorialising. Does the source for that passage include the expression? If not it should removed.
 * Commanders: Last sentence of first para should be cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have put "tyrant" in quotes (original text: "that of the south condemned him as a villain and a tyrant."). Added a cite for the last sentence of the Commanders' first paragraph.  Jappalang (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, I figured they'd have to be a "tyrant" quote available somewhere in there...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Can't find any major problems with it. - Ed! (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - comments for FAC:
 * "Lord Stanley and Sir William Stanley were at the battlefield, considering which side would be more advantageous for them to support."
 * Should it be "Lord Thomas Stanley"?
 * "Richard's forces outnumbered Henry's, however Richard divided his army into three groups, each smaller than Henry's total force."
 * Perhaps "Richard's forces outnumbered Henry's, but Richard divided his army into three groups, which were each smaller than Henry's total force." would be better?
 * "The timing and extra judicial nature of the deeds done to obtain the throne for Richard won him no popularity, and rumours that spoke ill of the new king spread throughout England.[15]"
 * Hyphen needed? extra-judicial
 * "Except for those in the north, the people of England firmly believed that Richard, the "tyrant",[17] had murdered his nephews .[18]"
 * instead of "the tyrant", would "now called the "tyrant"" be better? Also, extra space between "nephews" and the period.
 * "The highest-ranking conspirator was Buckingham."
 * Do you mean the Duke of Buckingham?
 * Perhaps the maps should be forced larger? It is hard for me to decipher what is occuring with how small they are in thumbnail...
 * "Henry had no choice but to advance his army across the plain and confront Richard's forces on their own.[39]"
 * Henry's forces?
 * "The first open revolt against his rule occurred two years later."
 * "...occurred two years after the battle"?
 * Dude, this is one great article; I hope you are very proud of it. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.