Talk:Radcot Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	British military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Assessment

I realize this is an article primarily about the bridge, and secondarily about the battle. That said, I believe in the use of the Military conflict infobox on all battle articles. I wonder if this article should perhaps be split? It would be easier (and more appropriate) then to properly categorize it and all that good stuff. LordAmeth 09:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. The original article I wrote was simply about the fourteenth-century battle - since then it has been broadened into a much more informative piece, with useful contributions from others. But it does now look a bit like an article within an article. So your suggestion makes sense to me at least.Ben Parsons 10:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)