Talk:Battle of Evesham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Evesham article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Battle of Evesham has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 23, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 30, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 3, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

	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.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792)

Contents 1 Assessment 2 GA nomination on Hold 3 Failed GA nom 4 GA hold 5 The Welsh marcher lords and the alliance with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd 6 GA Sweeps Review: Pass 7 Automatic addition of "class=GA"

[edit] Assessment

In many respects, this is a B-Class article. The only real suggestion I would make at this point is that you may want too add a section titled "Aftermath" (or something similar), and use this to expand the last portion of the article. Carom 02:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done! Lampman 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination on Hold

• Good job on the article!
• One difference between GA and FA is that the former requires coverage of the topic to be "broad," while the latter requires "comprehensive" coverage. If you're headed to FA, I strongly suggest you take a detour through Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review#A-Class review first. I have a feeling that this article needs some work before it meets the standard of "comprehensive coverage," and those folks are skilled at helping.
• Now, the reason I put this on hold is in fact its coverage of the topic. I won't hold you to FA standards, but as I was reading the omission of a couple details stood out, because they left me puzzled/confused:

1. Why did Montfort have to "secure the realm"? Were there battles taking place at many different places? Why did he specifically have to go to Wales?
2. What concessions did he make there that were so unpopular?
3. Is there some reason why the Welsh deserted early? Is this related to the earlier discussion of "securing the realm"?
4. "After the struggles of the preceding years..." What struggles.. the first war of the barons? A simple wikilink would help clarify things.

• That's all. I guess this means adding a maximum of four or five sentences; maybe fewer. Please let me know when you finish... Ling.Nut

• Thanks for the input. Very busy, gonna have to ask for an extension. Lampman 02:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Left message on editor's Talk... Ling.Nut 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nom

In consultation with the nominating editor, I have decided to fail the GA nom for the time being. The suggested improvements to this article are not terribly onerous (see above), but unfortunately the nominating editor has no time at present. When the suggestions are addressed at a later date, we will revisit this GA nom. Thanks... Ling.Nut 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA hold

This article is quite good, but it needs just a little sprucing up.

• The lead is not a standalone summary of the article (see WP:LEAD for hints on writing leads).
• I realize that details from this period are difficult to come by, but the "few" and "great" under casualties is just too vague. Everyone's idea of "few" and "great" is going to be different.

Other suggestions (not necessary for GA):

• What do you think about a map to assist readers in locating the places relevant to the battle?
• Are there any more images that could be added to the page? I would think that one more would be good.
• I would suggest a copy edit by a good copy editor. There are some awkwardly worded sentences:

• EX: the outcome rapidly turned into a massacre
• EX: With the Battle of Lewes still fresh in memory, the battle was marked by great bitterness and resentment on the part of the royalists.

If you have any questions about this review, let me know; otherwise, drop me a line on my talk page when you want me to re-review it. Awadewit | talk 20:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Welsh marcher lords and the alliance with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd

The article "Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester" claims Simon lost the support of the Welsh marcher lords due to his alliance with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd: "The reaction against his government was baronial rather than popular; and the Welsh Marcher Lords particularly resented Montfort's alliance with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, Prince of Wales. Little consideration for English interests is shown in the Treaty of Pipton which sealed that alliance on June 22, 1265."

On the other hand, the article "Battle of Evesham" claims the alliance was forged after the marcher lords switch side: "With the lords of the Welsh Marches now in rebellion, Montfort solicited the aid of Llywelyn ap Gruffyd, the Prince of Wales".

Who is right?

Top.Squark 17:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Powicke (Thirteenth Century, p. 200) writes: 'already [6 May] the men of the marches and the Severn valley were up in arms.' The treaty with Llywelyn was not signed until 22 June. The treaty probably didn't help his popularity with the Marcher Lords (he basically sold them out), so as such the Montfort article isn't exactly wrong, but the rebellion was already well on its way by this time. Lampman 14:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I made a few minor corrections, but there were no major problems with the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 05:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)