Talk:Battle of Brentford (1016)

Norse history and culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Mid‑importance

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / Nordic / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

A fact from Battle of Brentford (1016) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that although he won the battle of Brentford, Edmund Ironside lost so many men that he needed a new army?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Brentford (1016).

Wikipedia

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Brentford[edit]

~~Was there ever another Battle of Brentford? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Checked, there was. :P ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Brentford (1016)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Stub per tag. Unref, short, and in need of an infobox. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that although he won the battle of Brentford, Edmund Ironside lost so many men that he needed a new army? Source: Whether it was the result of men drowning in the Thames... ...Edmund returned to Wessex and assembled another army.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lifemark

5x expanded by CSJJ104 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

This looks good to go. The article was expanded eight-fold and was nominated timely. It is well written and very well sourced. I detect no copyvios. The hook is interesting, sourced, and of appropriate length. I have edited it slightly for clarity. Good job. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]