Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Bosworth Field/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Bosworth Field

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Parallel MilHist review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Bosworth Field

"A review, a review! My gratitude for a review!" I have greatly expanded the article on this penultimate battle in the Wars of the Roses and would like to eventually make it a Featured Article. Please take a read and offer your comments/critiques. Thank you, Jappalang (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • References
  • Please convert to named refs:
  • Adams (2002) p. 19.
  • Carpenter (2002) p. 210.
  • Carpenter (2002) p. 216.
  • Carpenter (2002) p. 223.
  • Chrimes (1999) p. 54.
  • Edelman (1992) p. 80.
  • Elton (2003) p. 89.
  • Jones (1993) p. 64.
  • source in notes but not in bibliography: Morgan (2000) Oh, I found it...
  • What is that format... you have some sources indented beneath others.. are those chapters in a book? If so, where did you see this format used before? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Converted the references that are used multiple times. As for Morgan (2000), it is related to the indented format in the bibliography. You are correct in thinking that they may be chapters (the books concerned are collections of peer reviewed articles). I think my attempt is original and I have asked Ealdgyth if this is acceptable (I think she is not yet active).[1] Returning to Morgan, the ref is to "Morgan, Philip" under the book by "Dunn, Diana". Jappalang (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you're looking for is something along the lines of {{cite encyclopedia}} where the author is the author of the chapter, the title is the title of the chapter, the encyclopedia is the title of the whole book and editor is the editor of the whole book. Then you alphabetize by authors across the board. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have separated the papers into their own bullets. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good but a few questions:

  • The caption to the England map says Battle of Bosworth Field is a green dot but on the map it looks grey to me. & why is Northumberland shaded yellow?
    • Fixed the dot. Northumberland is shaded to provide a reference for its location (in the Prelude section, it is mentioned to be the northernmost farthest estate, and I thought it might be helpful to show it). Jappalang (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the position of the apostrophe correct in St Jame's Church? I would have thought St James' Church - in the pic caption its called St James the Greater, Dadlington - need to be consistent for FA. There is more info on the church at Images of England - might be worth creating a stub for it?
    • Ugh... dropped the apostrophe for consistency (sources all give various forms)... Jappalang no like red links. Jappalang no want make church articles. Think those interested would have initiative to do it themselves. Ugh. Jappalang (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pic caption "Richard's Well, where the last Yorkist king supposedly drank from" doesn't strike me as good English?
  • Should English Heritage be wikilinked on 1st occurrence?

Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 10:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  • "concrete rule over England for a hundred eyes" What's a concrete rule, and I suppose that's "years". Ling.Nut (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which are considered as Tudor propaganda". Considered by whom? By Lull (next note after this sentence)? And is "considered as" Britspeak? Me from below the Mason Dixon line; me would say "considered to be"... Ling.Nut (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general attitude of modern historians is that the Tudor-era texts are biased towards Henry (especially those written in England). There are still good facts that can be gotten from them, but it would require sifting. Should this view be cited with multiple sources, or would a single study do? For "as" and "to be", I am no true Brit myself, but my assumption is that "as" is reserved for inanimates while "to be" is for animates. I have asked GrahamColm, who hails from Birmingham, if he is willing to copyedit the article, so he might help to sort this out. Jappalang (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added Michael Hicks' study on the sources for the Wars of the Roses, and reworded a few sentences (including the one pointed out). Does this help? Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I'm beginning to feel a bit at sea on the grammar. Forex, "Richard is portrayed to suffer" is that Brispeak? I would say, "Richard is portrayed as suffering..". Do we need some UK eyes on this article? Ling.Nut (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As suggested by Professor Philip Morgan, initially, a battle might have such an enormous impact on the society that it does not need a specific name to be readily identified. After some time, there comes an official need to identify the event specifically, and a notable name, usually toponymical in relationship, is ascribed to it. This official name gets accepted by society and the future generations without question." This bit makes my eyes go googly. I'll try to do what seems best to me, but others may need to recheck my edits... No, I've changed my mind. I had a look at Morgan p. 42, and I'm not sure it says what you say it says. You need to rethink this... Ling.Nut (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh boy... I believe my mistake was reading Morgan's words as "In the first phase the battle is not perceived as a historical event and thus receives no name at all." (I missed the word that was struck out in my reading), which coupled with the later "... Domenico Cancini and Piero Cambini simply announced, 'have you heard the big news in this county'" led me to write what you have pointed out. Thank you very much for checking it. Jappalang brain go bad. Too much words. How is this amended version? Jappalang (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malleus says the grammatical infelicities are not due to Britspeak... this article needs some very serious copy editing, methinks. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am always ready to agree; I am pretty much aware of how my English standards compare to professional levels (apalling would be the nicest thing to say). If GrahamColm declines or has not responded by tomorrow, I will start looking for another (very likely your recommendation: Malleus Fatuorum). Jappalang (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • GrahamColm has agreed to copyedit and I see Malleus is also helping out on his own initiative. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard moved his army towards Ambion Hill, judging it a geological feature of tactical value". Ning-ning (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think GrahamColm has copyedited the sentence. How is it now? Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike other prominent members of his family, Richard III was small and slender." I thought Edward was the odd one out, at 6 foot 4, Richard Duke of York being small, and Clarence presumably being average (how big is a butt of Malmsey?). Ning-ning (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard and his dad were the odd ones out (according to Ross).
"According to Polydore Vergil, Ralph Shaw, in his notorious sermon at St Paul's Cross in June 1483, used the resemblance between Richard and his father, Duke Richard of York, both 'very little', with short, round faces, and the lack of resemblance of York and Edward IV, who was 'high of stature' and 'large of face', as the basis for the claim that Richard was the legitimate son of York, and Edward was not." Ross, Richard III (1999), p. 139.
Ross, however, points out that Edward IV's appearance is characteristic of the Plantagenet family as a whole: "Like his great-great-grandfather, Edward III, [Edward IV] inherited to full the Plantagenet characteristics of great height and good looks." Ross, Edward IV (1997), p. 10; and
"Richard was unfortunate in that he did not inherit the great height and powerful build of many of his Plantagenet predecessors, often allied with good looks, as in Edward I, Edward III, Richard II and his own brother, Edward IV, whom Commynes called the handsomest prince he had ever seen, 'a truly regal figure'." Ross, Richard III (1999), pp. 138–139.
I think it is fair to say that Richard III and his father were the exceptions of the family (Plantagenet). Would it be better to clarify "his family" as the House of Plantagenet? Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

  • Richard's body was displayed in the church of St Mary of the Annunciation, in the Newarke. A fragment of this church is visible in the basement of the Hawthorn building, De Montfort University.
  • He was buried in a chapel of Greyfriars Monastery. Henry later commissioned a memorial (tablet?).

I'd put this in the article, but maybe it's too much information. Ning-ning (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better mentioned in Richard's article instead. I deliberately avoided talking much about his body's fate (the "cheap" coffin it was supposedly interred in some years later, and how during the Reformation, his remains were thrown into the River Soar, etc). The matter seems too far removed from the battle (no close relationship). Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added new reference, which is a report by Glenn Foard commissioned by Leicestershire County Council in 2004. Contains assessments of the theories of Williams, Foss, Jones and Wright; accuses all except Foss of ignoring or misreading the geography and geology. There was an extended campaign of archaeological work apparently ending in July 2008, of which there's been no news. Ning-ning (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the latest assessment of the battlefield, and Foard and his organisation, Battlefield Trusts, have impressive credentials. However, his report does not yet seem to have a substantial impact on English Heritage, historians, or the Battlefield Centre. How and what should we use from this report? Jappalang (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jones does make an interesting argument for the French contingent of Henry's army to have been trained in the Swiss method of pike fighting. He claims that in the last stages of the battle the French surrounded Henry with a pike wall, through which Richard was unable to penetrate. Unfortunately can't be cited in the article as it appears that Jones' second book not an RS. Ning-ning (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandeford was described in a proclamation of Henry to be the place where Richard was killed. Although Sandeford is mentioned in the article, it's just in passing, as one of the early names associated with the battle- maybe needs to be added if a decent cite can be found. Ning-ning (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentences[edit]

There are a few convoluted sentences whose meaning isn't obvious.

"Henry Tudor, the only Lancastrian noble with a trace of the royal bloodline after 1471, had an extremely weak claim to the throne,[1] and Edward regarded him as such, making sporadic attempts to obtain the fugitives." Does this mean that Edward regarded Henry as a serious threat and made efforts to extradite him, or that Edward regarded Henry as an inconsequential threat and made only sporadic efforts to secure him? I suspect the latter meaning to be the case, but the "as such" isn't clear.

Replaced "as such" with "a nobody" (from Ross). There is "the only imp now left of Henry VI's brood" from Chrimes, but it is quoted as a descriptive clause and might be someone else's comments. Jappalang (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Henry recruited several war veterans, whom—aside from his uncle Jasper—he could rely on for military advice and command of his armies." This sentence implies that Jasper Tudor was an unreliable or ineffective commander and military adviser. The opposite seems to be true.HLGallon (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "aside from". Jasper Tudor seems not to have been at Bosworth, so it could mean that Henry didn't have access to his advice, or it could have the meaning as above. Don't know. Ning-ning (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The intent was to say that besides Jasper, Henry had several veterans of war available to help him in military matters. I can see now that the original phrasing was flawed. Jappalang (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Battle_of_Bosworth_Field/archive1&oldid=298532357"