Talk:Battle of Burton Bridge (1322)

MILHIST assessment

Nice piece of work - I had been compiling information on this for a short article but this is much better than I could have achieved. I think you could be a bit fuller on the battle. There is evidence that other bridges were broken in the area, for example, to impede the royal army[1]. Good picture of the bridge but maybe a description ?(it's covered in the VCH). Classed as C but with a little more on the battle, could easily be B.Monstrelet (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article. I was hoping to find more detail for the actual battle section (as it is a bit sparse at the moment) but couldn't find anything in a reliable enough source. I will have another look and see if I can get a description of the bridge in there as well. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Roger d'Amory

Could the Roger d'Amory article be updated to include his posthumous execution mentioned in this article? It currently states (or at least implies) that he was captured alive. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Burton Bridge (1322)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 21:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

This article is excellently written and sourced; I see no significant problems on my first pass. Very fine work--thanks for all the effort you put into it.

I made some very minor copyedits as I went that I'd invite you to double-check. The most persistent issue I noticed is that "the king" and "the earl" were sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. It's my understanding that "king" should generally only be capitalized when preceding a name or in a specific legal term, and I've corrected accordingly, but feel free to revert me if I'm wrong. In either case, though, this usage should be made consistent in the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is very good; spotchecks of sources 2,3, and 19 show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Burton Bridge (1322). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D917E5A9-B21E-4CF0-937E-C19D2B89E966/125037/T2TIssue13.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)