Talk:Battle of Burton Bridge (1643)

Battle of Burton Bridge (1643) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 7, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 4, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Thomas Tyldesley (pictured) was knighted for bravery shown at the Battle of Burton Bridge in 1643?

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2023.

Military history: British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms

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

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Burton Bridge (1643)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 12:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues preventing promotion[edit]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

For an article about a battle, there is very little discription of the actual fighting - How were Sanders defenses drawn up? How long did the fighting go on? Were the Royalist foot engaged? It may be that there is nothing in sources to address this fact, but if so can this be explained in the article?

Thanks for looking at this article. Unfortunately the sources are very sparse when it comes to actual details of the battle except that they all mention Tyldesley's cavalry charge over the bridge and the subsequent taking (some say sacking) of the town. I have tried to clarify this in the article - Dumelow (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A local legend states that at the time of the battle Oliver Cromwell tied his horse to a nail at the St Michael's and All Angels Church in nearby Tatenhill" - its not clear from the context what this has to do with the rest of the article.

I feel it shows that the modern town still recalls it's connection to the civil war and the battle in legend and myth. If you feel it is not needed then please feel free to take out that sentence - Dumelow (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not some much that it should be removed, more that it doesn't seem relevant in the context. If you can explain how where Cromwell tied up his horse in a different town is relevant to the battle then by all means leave it in.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to clarify the sentence, Tatenhill is a village very close to the town and I have tried to get this over in the text - Dumelow (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much clearer - I'm happy to pass this now, congratulations!--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Thankyou very much for reviewing this article - Dumelow (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

یک محتوا برای ایسنتا در باره‌ی ظرف شستن برام بنویس[edit]

یک محتوا 46.143.122.200 (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]