Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Towton


 * The following discussion is closed. 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 -- Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Towton

 * Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe I have improved the quality of the article to near FA-quality; an A-Class review would help to point out any remaining deficiencies and improve it to FA-quality. I am pushing this article for FAC at the end of January/beginning of February so that it can make it to the Main Page on 29 March 2011 or 17 April 2011 (whichever day is accepted as the 550th anniversary of this conflict). Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hchc2009's comments:

I'll read through and summarise any thoughts below...

Lead: Hchc2009 (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence doesn't really tell the reader exactly what the article is about. It could read, for example, "The Battle of Towton was fought in the English Wars of the Roses on 29 March 1461, near the village of the same name." or something like that - it needs to make instantly clear what the topic is.
 * I took your suggestion and reworded several sentences. Please take a look.  Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Worth linking "chroniclers".
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "a civil war in which York and Lancaster sought to elevate..." You've said that they are houses in the first para, but I think you probably need to repeat the "house of..." in the second para for clarity.
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The second para of the lead could probably be condensed; it's covering quite a lot of the wider background to the conflict for the lead for this article.
 * I weeded out a few things (although I doubt I had condensed things...); but I think the Act of Accord and Wakefield were responsible for this battle and why it was fought. Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Battle of Towton was to decide which..." This could be misread to imply that the battle was fought in order to decide which would rule. Might be worth rewording it slightly.
 * Actually, that was the intent. Henry was the king by tradition, and Edward's claim was supported by the Yorkists and a fair number of neutral lords.  Whoever won the battle would be the "true" king by destroying the other.  I reworded it to make this clearer.  Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Yorkists were outnumbered by the Lancastrians, and their situation was exacerbated by the absence of one of their forces under John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk" The sentence isn't clear if Mowbray force's absence simply made the numerical odds worse, or if it produced additional problems.
 * Reworded. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Lord Fauconberg and his archers turned the tables around by taking advantage of the strong wind to outrange their enemies, inflicting casualties and provoking them into abandoning their defensive positions. " You probably need to clarify who Fauconberg was (e.g. "the Yorkist leader Fauconberg...")
 * Reworded. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The arrival of Norfolk's men invigorated the Yorkists..." do you mean invigorated, or reinvigorated? (invigorated would imply to me that they lacked spark throughout the battle before his arrival; invigorated would imply they were tired before he arrived, but had previously been suitably lively)
 * I think it was reinvigorated and have now reworded it... Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Most of the casualties were suffered during the retreat..." on both sides, or just the Lancastrians?
 * Removed. Main body text (and most sources used) did not really state this.  Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The battle effectively diminished Lancastrian power to a degree ..." phrase felt a bit clumsy.
 * Reworded. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The battle was remembered by most people as to have happened..." by who? How about "William Shakespeare's play Henry VI... heavily influenced later generations' image of the battle." or something like that?
 * Reworded. Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Various relics..." I know what you mean, but it would perhaps be more precise/clear to say that "Various archaeological remains..."
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Various times..." Repetition of "various".
 * Merged into the previous sentence. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Background:

Hchc2009 (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The references backing some of the paragraphs sometimes give quite wide page ranges (e.g. Ross, pp.11-8). I have a personal bias towards trying to give more precise page references, giving several separate citations if necessary, in order to make finding the location of a fact and later editing easier (e.g. Ross, pp.11-12, or Ross, pp.14). This is my personal opinion, however, and not wiki policy, so don't feel obliged to follow it! :)
 * "Such actions proved detrimental to their cause:" Two bits from me. Were these deliberate actions by their leaders? (it wasn't easy to control armies in this period). Secondly, the wording felt odd. How about "As a result, the city of London..."?
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Running short on supplies and with no adequate means to replenish them, Margaret withdrew the Lancastrians to York in the face of Edward's march towards London with an army that had won the Battle of Mortimer's Cross in Herefordshire" A long sentence; probably worth breaking it in two.
 * Not sure if I really broke the sentence, please have a look. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Warwick and his remnants..." > "Warwick and the remnants of his army..."
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "On 4 March, Warwick took the opportunity to proclaim the young Yorkist leader..." Unclear which opportunity he was taking.
 * Reworded. 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * " On 4 March, Warwick took the opportunity to proclaim the young Yorkist leader as King Edward IV, an action that gained greater acceptance than the previous duke's claim; several nobles previously opposed to letting Edward's father ascend the throne viewed the Lancastrian actions as a betrayal of the legally established Accord." Another long sentence. It probably also needs a "because" in it (or similar word): e.g. "The proclamation gained greater acceptance than Richard Plantagenet's claim, as several nobles...".
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "especially if Edward was to be formally coroneted" > "crowned", as opposed to "coroneted"?
 * Changed to "crowned". Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "However, he refused to extend..." I'd avoid starting a sentence with "however".
 * Eliminated by rephrasing the below. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "he refused to extend his offer to 22 nobles " - 22 specific nobles? You probably need to indicate what was special about these 22.
 * Reworded to show the greater scope of his act, the reason behind the 22 were not mentioned (nor were the bounties specifically for them), guess I misread the source here. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Yorkist army broke into three detachments—a common deployment at that time." - as written, it makes it sound like a military formation. What does the source say? It just sounds a bit odd to say that it was common to divide forces into three groups in the 1400s, but I may not be understanding it.
 * A mistake: I was thinking of the three-battle formation&mdash;vanguard, main, rearguard&mdash;when I wrote this. The formation would only apply to the fight.  Far better to write they were moving on three different paths.  Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "On learning the encounter..." > "learning of the encounter"
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "forced into a gruelling encounter" - repetition of "encounter"
 * Reworded. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Free of enemies in the immediate vicinity,..." > "Having cleared the immediate area of enemy forces,"...?
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "encamp in" > "camp overnight at"?
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Lancastrian army had marched..." You could lose the pluperfect (i.e. change to "the Lancastrian army marched")
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * " The religious nature of the date led to the naming of the engagement as the Battle of Palme Sonday Felde, which failed to gain long lasting recognition" Wording felt a bit odd. How about something like: "As a result of this, there were later calls for the conflict to be called the Battle of Palme Sonday Felde, but these did not gain wide acceptance."?
 * There are not really "calls" for it to be named; some documents pointed to the name, but historians and chroniclers did not adopt it. I will think of another phrasing later.  Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, adapted your suggestion. Please have a look.  Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I really liked the maps.
 * Thank you! Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay! Comments on the next section follows: Force compositions:
 * "Contemporary sources declare that the two armies were huge in terms of manpower..." Is the "in terms of manpower" clarification essential? I wasn't sure how else a "huge army" could be measured, and wondered if it could just go "..were huge, stating that..."?
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "In William Gregory's Chronicle of London (15th century)" - Is Gregory counted as a contemporary account in this paragraph? (the flow of the text needs a little tweaking either way)
 * Made it explicit that Gregory is a contemporary source Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...they were on the average 30 years old..." > "they were on average 30 years old" (or "they were on average 30 years old at the time of their deaths" if you wished to be very precise)
 * Corrected (to the not so "very precise" change) Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Many knights and noblemen were among the ranks..." - in the sense that they fought in the battle, or that they fought in the ranks of the common soldiers?
 * Changed to "fought in the battle" Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * " approximately three-quarters of the English lords stepped onto the field of battle" Two issues. I'd recommend "took part in the battle" as opposed to "stepped onto the field". Secondly, what do you mean by "lords" in this sentence? Depending on context, "lord" can be quite a wide term at the time, or can be quite narrow (a member of the nobility). Looking at the numbers you then give, I think the latter is what's being described - might be worth checking the original source again.
 * Wolffe said "surviving peerage", using "English peers" now Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "It was a battle to decide which of the two kings would rule over England, but while Edward fought with his men, Henry remained in York with Margaret. Regardless, the presence of the Lancastrian king might not have been much help to his followers. They regarded him a puppet; it was his wife who was in charge. Furthermore, they were wary of his mental instability." The way this was worded seemed a bit, well, judgemental. How about something like: "The Lancastrian forces were commanded by the Duke of Somerset, while Henry commanded his army in person. Henry, who remained in York with Margaret, was not well regarded by his men - they considered him a puppet of his wife, and had concerns about his mental instability."?
 * The paragraph was to compare the the two kings (in effect introducing Edward as a more "hands-on" ruler). I am wary to adopt your suggestion as it repeats the later Lancastrian commander paragraph.  I removed the judgmental sentence and tweaked the sentences.  Please have a look.  Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Yorkist strategy" - strictly speaking, I think this should be "Yorkist tactics", not strategy.
 * I was trying to avoid repeating the earlier "tactics"; I have now reworded "Yorkist tactics" to "the Yorkist plan of action". Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Edward Hall" - could wiki-link him.
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "among his previous achievements were administration of the French town of Calais" - "were the administration"
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "conduct of several piracy missions of import" - odd wording. How about just "leading several piracy expeditions"?
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "and command of the vanguard" > "and the command of the vanguard"
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Norfolk, although in charge of gathering men in the east, likely never made it to the battlefield due to his advanced age." I was unclear if this mean that because he was gathering men in the east, he should have made it to the battlefield? (NB: it didn't make sense to me if that was the case) I can see it's trying to contrast with the previous leaders though. How about "By contrast, Norfolk, in charge of gathering men in the east, probably never made it to the battlefield due to his advanced age."
 * Tweaked the sentence a bit (to accommodate the suggestion below&mdash;avoiding two successive "In any ..."), please have a look. Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Norfolk was an "unpredictable ally" - the text will flow better if you start this sentence with "In any event, Norfolk was..."
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "establish a seat of power for himself" - a seat in this sense would mean a castle or a stronghold. I think you probably mean "establish a power base for himself", i.e. make himself a powerful lord in the east of England.
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "However, according to several historians," I'd avoid starting a sentence with "however"; e.g. "According to several historians, however..."
 * ✅ Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * " and the then recently deceased Clifford" - if he was dead, it seems odd to list him as a powerful noble at court.
 * Rephrased Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hchc2009 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Deployment:
 * "with plenty of wide open areas and small roads to manoeuvre the armies" > "on which to manoeuvre"?
 * Second paragraph: I'd advise sticking to a single tense - sometimes you are saying "was", and sometimes "is". This is clearly accurate, but throws the reader between past and present tense all the time.
 * "According to Gravett and fellow military enthusiast Trevor James Halsall (who is also a geologist)" - I'm not sure that Halsall's background as a geologist is worth mentioning here - perhaps as a footnote?
 * I liked the description of the terrain here, BTW!
 * "frontline" NB: I'm not sure, but should this be "front line"?
 * "the notion that" - "notion" in this context implies a rather fanciful idea. That may be what you're after, but would "the suggestion" be a softer way of putting it?
 * "forming up; line after line of soldiers crested the southern ridge of the dale and formed up" - repetition of "forming"

Fighting:
 * "The Lancastrian archers failed to perform." I'd have gone for "perform well", but its only a thought!
 * "lending his sword arm to the fight" I rather like the description in this section, but this phrase was probably a bit too rich for me. How about "engaging in the fight"?
 * "The armies clashed against each other" "against each other" is superfluous, given the "clashing" verb.
 * "three according to English Heritage" - are you sure it is really English Heritage being quoted here, and not a specific historian writing or working for them? (I might be wrong, but it sounds unusual for the organisation to have an official view on something like that). NB: Ah. Looked up the reference. "three according to research by English Heritage" would be a better form of words.
 * " the entire fight lasted 10 hours" I might have gone for "lasting 10 hours".

Aftermath:
 * "Tired men flung off their helmets and armour..." Because you're starting a new section, you'll need to clarify who these are, e.g. "The tired Lancastrian men..."
 * "the brutality in these killings" - brutality is quite a judgemental adjective - I'd be inclined to consider an alternative way of describing the level of force used in these final stages of the battle.
 * "Lancastrians were killed not just by their enemies, but also by their fellow soldiers and nature." This sentence didn't quite work for me - how about "Lancastrian casualties were increased by the panic as the soldiers attempted to cross the Cock Beck river."?
 * "which Charles Ross and other historians believed" Charles Ross is dead, but the other historians (I presume) are still alive and still believe it. Given that Ross is a contemporary historian, you could therefore probably safely go with "believe" rather than "believed" in this context.
 * " a bur (elderberry) tree" - I'd simply go for "a bur tree" and just link bur to elderberry.
 * "one notable gentry" - I don't think (?) you can say "one gentry", I think it should be "one notable member of the gentry"
 * "becoming exiles subject to the mercies of their hosts." - true enough, but I'd suggest closing it off after "becoming exiles." - the rest feels a bit dramatic.
 * "remaining in the care of the traitors' families" - traitors feels POV in this context (given that it was a civil war...) I'd suggest "remaining in the care of their families"?
 * "the English people no longer suffered the doubt over the country's state of leadership since the Act of Accord. They were assured that there was one true king—Edward—for the time being" - I've absolutely no evidence to back up my next point (!), but I find it really hard to imagine the typical rural dweller of the period being racked with doubt about the country's state of leadership. Is it worth checking back on how Carpenter says this?

Literature:
 * "Sixteenth century playwright William Shakespeare occasionally wrote dramatizations of historic figures." - I'd have said that "he wrote a number of dramatizations..." - there are quite a few of them.
 * "it was thanks to Shakespeare's dramatization of the battle that the weak and ineffectual Henry was at least remembered by English society in a manner," "in a manner" doesn't feel right at all.
 * "comes right after" > "comes immediately after"?
 * "Both killers had acted out of greed" > I think you need the present tense here, because of the tense of the preceding sentence, e.g. "Both killers have acted out of greed and fall..."
 * "Shakespearian scholar Arthur Percival Rossiter names the scene as the most notable of the playwright's written "rituals". The delivery of the event follows the pattern of an opera: after a long speech, the actors alternate among one another to deliver single-line asides to the audience." - that's correct, but I'm not sure that it is unique to this play is it? (i.e., the sentence would fit well in an article about Shakespeare, but I'm not sure you need it in an article talking about the battle).
 * I liked the sourcing for this section - IMHO, really good to see secondary works being used in this way.

Legacy:
 * " The ruins of the structure were still evident five centuries later." - this implies that they're not visible today - is this correct?

That's all from me. Thanks for such a well sourced article, a pleasure to read. Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments: (just a technical review from me at the moment):
 * no dabs, ext links work, images all have alt text (no action required);
 * in the Notes, "Carpenter 1997" - probably should be "Carpenter 2002" given that was when the version that is cited was published, also changing it to that will fix up the broken harvn link;
 * "Wolffe 2002" or "Wolffe 2001" (currently both appear in the Notes [Citation # 6 v. Citation # 11], but according to the References it is Wolffe 2001);
 * "Harris 2005" or "Harriss 2005" (currently both appear in the Notes [Citation # 8 v. Citation # 26], but I think it should just be "Harriss 2005"). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, every little bit helps to improve the article. All links have been fixed.  Jappalang (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. The changes look good. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: I have the following copyediting suggestions. So far I have just looked at the first couple of sections up to and including the Force compositions section. Please take a look and let me know what you think. If they are not to your satisfication, just let me know, cheers:
 * in the lead, "The Battle of Towton was fought in the English Wars of the Roses on 29 March 1461..." I suggest tweaking this slightly to: "The Battle of Towton was fought during the English Wars of the Roses on 29 March 1461...";
 * in the lead, "Henry's wife, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the dispossession of her son's right to the throne and along with fellow Lancastrian malcontents raised an army". I think there should be a set of paired commas inserted: ", along with fellow Lancastrian malcontents,;
 * in the lead, "Several taken as prisoners were executed". I think that this would sound better as: "Several that were taken as prisoners were executed";
 * Used "who" instead of "that". Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Background, "...which ruled the duke and his heirs would succeed the throne on Henry's death". I think that there is a missing word. I think "that" should be inserted: "...which ruled that the duke and his heirs...";
 * in the Background, I think a "however" should be inserted into the first sentence of the second paragraph so that it links to the previous statement, e.g. "The Queen of England, Margaret of Anjou, however, refused to accept this agreement...";
 * It would not be totally unexpected of her to reject the agreement (it was about her son, and those who thought it up never consulted her), so the contradiction "however" would not serve here. Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Background, "by a small band of Lancastrians, approximately 500 men led by John Clifford, 9th Baron de Clifford". I think this should be: "by a small band of Lancastrians, consisting of approximately 500 men led by John Clifford, 9th Baron de Clifford";
 * Either seems fine to me. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Background, I think there is a word missing here: "Learning the encounter, Edward led the..." I think that this should be: "Learning of the encounter, Edward led...";
 * in the Background, "approximately 2 miles north" - you might consider adding the 2 mi conversion tag, as this will translate miles to kilometres and display both figures (some readers can't conceptualise miles);
 * in the Force compositions section, "Contemporary sources declare the two armies huge in terms of manpower..." I think that this would flow better if it were reworded slightly: "Contemporary sources declare that the two armies were huge in terms of manpower, stating that more than 100,000 men fought in the battle";
 * in the Force compositions section, "A soldier in the Wars of the Roses claimed in William Gregory's Chronicle of London (15th century) that the Yorkists had 200,000 soldiers and the Lancastrian army even more". This might sound better as: "In William Gregory's Chronicle of London (15th century), a soldier who had served during the battle claimed that the Yorkists had 200,000 soldiers, while the Lancastrian army even more";
 * Inserted a "had": "while the Lancastrian army had even more". - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Force compositions section, "Later historians agree these figures were exaggerated, and believed 50,000 a more probable number. Regardless, the armies were among the largest gathered in those days". This might flow a little better as: "Later historians believe that these figures were exaggerated, however, stating that the figure of 50,000 is more likely; nevertheless, the armies that were gathered were among the largest at the time";
 * in the Force compositiions section, "Many knights...; as many as..." (repitition of the word "many" - is there a way to reword);
 * in the Force compositions section, there is a tense issue here: "Regardless, the presence of the Lancastrian king might not be of much help to his followers." ("might not be of much help" is present tense). Perhaps reword to : "...might not have been much help to his followers" (this would give it past tense);
 * in the Force compositions section, I think this clause needs a couple of linking words as it stands in opposition to the examples of the other prominent leaders: "Norfolk, in charge of gathering men in the east, likely never made it to the battlefield due to his advanced age..." For instance: "Norfolk, however, although in charge of gathering men in the east...";
 * Used "although" but not "however" (seems too many contradiction then). Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Force compositions section, I think a linking word is required here as it stands in opposition to the first part of the paragraph: "According to several historians, Sir Andrew Trollope, and not Somerset, was the Lancastrians' primary strategist". For instance, it might improve the flow if it were written like this: "However, according to several historians, Sir Andrew Trollope, and not Somerset, was...";
 * This isn't AmEng, but Chicago 5.207 approves of the way Jappalang implemented this: "According to several historians, however, ...". - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Force compositions section, I think a word is missing here: "His betrayal was a big blow to the Yorkists, for he was familiar with their men and played a key role in their victories in France". It might sound better as: "His betrayal was a big blow to the Yorkists, for he was familiar with their men and had played a key role in their victories in France";
 * in the Force compositions section, "There was also..." This sounds a little informal to me. Perhaps: "Other notable Lancastrian leaders included Henry Holland, 3rd Duke of Exeter, who had a reputation for violence and stupidity, and Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland, who military historian Christopher Gravatt described as lacking in intelligence";
 * Other than "whom ... described", adopted wholesale. Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Force compositiions section, "...and the recently deceased Clifford". I think "recently" is subjective, so perhaps: "...and the then recently deceased Clifford" might make the narrative flow a little more smoothly? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for those commented on, I have implemented those exactly as suggested. Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * in the Deployment section, "Detailed accounts of the battle were few..." might sound more definative as: "There were few detailed accounts of the fighting written at the time of the battle. Even though it was written 70 years after the battle and there have been questions about its sourcing, Hall's chronical has subsequently become the main source used by historians";
 * None of the primary sources, save one, was written near the time of the battle. I have reworded the sentences.
 * in the Deployment section, "Later reconstructions of the battle were based on Hall's version..." Maybe: "Later reconstructions of the battle have been based on Hall's version..."?;
 * I think this should be consistent in past tense since Waurin is getting broader usage (it is not just purely Hall nowadays)? Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Deployment section, "...supplemented by bits and pieces..." this sounds a little informal. Maybe: "supplmented by other minor details drawn from other sources"?;
 * in the Deployment section, "...which connects the English capital..." I think the use of "English capital" here is slightly problematic. Is not London the capital of the UK as well as England? The UK is a modern concept, of course, so it is probably best not to use it as a term in this article, so in this case I'd suggest replacing "...to the English capital" with "to London";
 * I am not sure what the problem is; the article is about England, not UK, and London was the capital in any case. Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry too much about it. It is not major. It depends on the tense you are using, e.g. "which connects the English capital" is present text, my understanding from previous encounters here at ACR is that currently "London, England" is not correct, while "London, United Kingdom" is. If you were to say "connected the English capital" (i.e past tense), then I think it would be okay to say English capital. Like, I said, though, it is a minor thing and if you don't want to change, its no drama. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Deployment section, I suggest wikilinking "plateau" on first mention;
 * in the Deployment section, this sentence probably needs a citation directly following it as it sounds like a judgement call: "Somerset's decision to engage the Yorkist army on this plateau was sound";
 * I directly named the sources instead (the two cites for them are at the end of the "protective ditch" sentence). Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Deployment section, "London-Towton road" should have an endash per WP:DASH, e.g. "London–Towton road";
 * in the Deployment section, "...or an old Roman road to the west..." I think this should be "...or the old Roman road to the west" (the former is passive language, while the latter is a bit more definate);
 * We have not named or described any Roman roads to the west; hence, I think an indefinite article for the road should be correct? Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, what sounds good to me doesn't necessarily sound right to someone else, I can accept that. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Deployment section, "...letting the valley act as a "protective ditch". I think that this would flow better as: "...using the valley as a "protective ditch";
 * in the Deployment section, the first part of this sentence almost seems like it should be the opening sentence of the section: "No primary sources give the exact deployment of the armies..." I wonder if you could find a way to fit it into the first paragraph of the section. The second part (about the commanders) can probably stay where it is;
 * First part moved, second eliminated. Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Fighting section, "...maximum range of their longbows". Do you able to provide a figure for this distance? It might make it a little clearer for the reader;
 * None of my sources give a range to this exchange, and with different materials and skill requirements between those bows and modern reconstructions, it would be original research for me to insert a modern estimate. Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, then. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Fighting section, "...had gone on for hours—3 according to...". Per WP:MOSNUM this should be "had gone on for hours—three according to" (numbers less than 10);
 * in the Fighting section, "By the end of the day, the Lancastrian line had broken up, small groups of men deserted their comrades, fleeing on their own for their lives". I think this should be reworded to: "By the end of the day, the Lancastrian line had broken up, as small groups of men began deserting their comrades, fleeing on their own for their lives";
 * in the Aftermath section, "...stated forty-two knights..." per WP:MOSNUM, I think that this should be "stated 42 knights";
 * in the Aftermath section, "....In 1996, workmen at a construction site in the town of Towton uncovered a mass grave. Archaeologists believed the bodies in this grave were slain during or after the battle in 1461. The bodies..." I think this would flow better as: "In 1996, workmen at a construction site in the town of Towton uncovered a mass grave, which is believed to contain the remains of men were slain during or after the battle in 1461. The bodies..."
 * in the Aftermath section, I suggest wikilinking the term "peerage";
 * in the Literature section, "3-part" should be "three-part" per advice above;
 * in the Literature section, I think there is a missing word here: "...albeit for his pining to have been born a shepherd than a king". I think it should be: "albeit for his pining to have been born a shepherd rather than a king";
 * in the Legacy section, "...well maintained, albeit several of its panels had been weathered away". I think that this would sound better as: "well maintained, even though several of its panels had been weathered away";
 * Used "although", "even though" seems a bit too strong. Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Legacy section, "Centuries after the battle, various relics found in the area include rings, arrowheads, and coins". I think this should be tweaked to read: "Centuries after the battle, various relics that have been found in the area include rings, arrowheads, and coins";
 * in the Legacy section, "it was the largest if not one of the largest fought in England..." I think this is the wrong way around. Perhaps reword to: "it was one of the largest, if not the largest, battles fought in England...";
 * in the Legacy section, I'm not sure about this, but I think "reenactors" should be "re-enactors";
 * in the Legacy section, given that there is a photo of people re-enacting the battle, would it be possible to briefly mention this? You might consider stating who takes part, wow often it occurs, whether it receives significant coverage, etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is almost no reliable source that talks about the re-enactments. There are a few guide books but I think the quality of them and their scanty promotional sentences would be suspect at FAC.  The Press has only one newspaper article about it and it is a press release by the Towton Battlefield Society (and for only last year).  Thus, to build a paragraph or give details about this would seem to be of undue weight.  Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'd suggest trying to find a way to maybe even just include a sentence about it before FAC, if there is any way to do this, but its not a major deal for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for those commented on, I have implemented those exactly as suggested. Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: excellent article. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. AustralianRupert has asked me to comment as I have time on his reviews, and my comment is: fantastic job, both of you.  Except as noted, I agree with every one of AR's observations, except where Jappalang resisted, in which case I agree with Jappalang.  It's interesting how some BritEng feels like a completely foreign language to me, and other articles ... such as this one ... feel so comfortable. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - only a few very minor points
 * The maps are very good (no action required);
 * This seems awkward: " to let York and his line to succeed Henry as king." should it be " to let York and his line succeed Henry as king." (remove the 2nd 'to')?;
 * "to covertly conceal itself" seems like a tortology to me, maybe reword to just "to conceal itself"; and
 * "into the mess of men" should this be "into the mass of men"? (although mess probably does work here). Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I have done what you pointed out above (mess might work, but unfortunately, it is too informal for an encyclopaedia). Jappalang (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, striking all issues now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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.