Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Marston Moor

Battle of Marston Moor

Recently underwent an overhaul. Strong potential for GA status in the future, maybe further. Looking for further suggestions on how to further improve the article. Thanks in advance. Qjuad 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, but a number of things to work on:

Maps! Ideally, both a strategic map and one or more tactical maps of the disposition and battle itself.
I'd suggest using normal blockquote formatting instead of {{cquote}}.
Is there a particular reason why the dragoons are listed separately from the rest of the cavalry in the infobox?
- At this time dragoons were mounted infantry rather than true cavalry See dragoon Yendor1958 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The OOB should just be linked with {{details}} from the deployment section; it doesn't need a rump section of its own.
The footnotes missing page numbers really ought to get them; they're not particularly useful, otherwise.

Beyond that, a thorough copyedit would be helpful, at this point. Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

A cite in the lead might be helpful, I suggest "losing the north of England for King Charles I."
The first three paras of "The Allied army" are uncited, even if they come from the source cited to at the end of the 4th para, I think citing a little closer together might be a better option, or finding another source to compliment [4] and using both to cite the paras closer together. Possibly the same needed for middle two paras of "The Royalist army".
Interesting y^e's and such just under "Aftermath", what are they?
- See Thorn (letter)#Thorn in Middle and Early Modern English for an explanation of this. Yendor1958 09:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Newman & Roberts, "Marston Moor 1644", 13." isn't necessary, you can just put "Newman & Roberts p. 13", likewise "Woolrych, "Battles of the English Civil War", 66." can just be "Woolrych p. 66". This applies to all books for which you have the authors last name, as long as they are mentioned in full in your References section.
You might want to divide your references section into "printed sources" and "websites" (see Mozambican War of Independence or Siege of Malakand to see what I mean) and ensure that the "Battle of Marston Moor. English Heritage. Retrieved on May 8, 2007." in there, but against just a suggestion.

Those are all the ones I can think of. Remember they are just suggestions :) good work! SGGH ^speak! 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]