Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Towton/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 22:45, 8 February 2011 [1].

Battle of Towton edit

Battle of Towton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, all. This is an article about the Battle of Towton, fought on 29 March 1471 (a Palm Sunday on the Gregorian calender). It has been called the "largest and bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil," pretty justified if you believe the chroniclers' claims. King Edward IV pretty much chased his opponents out of England with this batle (or killed them). Its 550th anniversary is approaching soon, and I hope to bring this article to FA quality for it to be on the Main page that day (either the date or Palm Sunday). The article uses mostly academic and peer-reviewed sources, covering the background, details of the battle, aftermath, and legacies. I bring it here for judgment and for any more improvements to make to reach the FA-level. Jappalang (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images all appropriately licensed and sourced, however File:England_location_map.svg is a modern (post 1922) political map and maybe not be the best choice, either a timeless geographical map of the same area, or a political map of GB & Ireland reflecting the boundaries in 1461 may be more appropriate Fasach Nua (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the map, it appears, judging from an accepted 1920s "France and England, 1455–1494" map at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_europe.html (specifically [2][3]), the geographical outline of the country has remained the same (no major reclamation or loss of coastline) since the mediaeval age. Internal boundaries seem fairly similar, although it could be broken down further but I do not think that is a major issue; the boundaries between countries seem to match, which would have been the more major concern to me if it was erroneous. Jappalang (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two points. I think it is misleading to present an average age and background on 50,000 men on a handful of skeletal remains. All we can legitimately do is use this as an example of the type of men present. OK, just a question of wording but necessary at this level. More trivial point - Tadcaster is a town, rather than a city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monstrelet (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I would agree with you (and would not have written the current form) if the sources were newspaper articles or publications that were not reviewed, but the academic society has accepted the analysis of the remains as fairly representative of the participants of the battle and the information in this article is sourced to these academics. Per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about sources and verification, there would be no controversy to state their reviewed findings as fact; it is their ("high-quality" reliable secondary sources') opinion, not ours. I have eliminated the reference of Tadcaster as a city. Jappalang (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's your call and you have a sound source to back it. I'm not going to challenge it. Monstrelet (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: All sources are good quality and reliable, and citations properly formatted. I am glad to see old Clements Markham making himself useful. I see no citations to "English Heritage Battlefield Report: Towton 1461", which is listed as an online source. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cites to the report are in the form of "English Heritage 1995, p. ?". Currently the indexed cites to this are 21, 50, 52, and 63. Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A most interesting historical article. I have only read the first part so far, and have a few suggestions and queries:-

  • The location of Towton isn't that well-known, even among the educated English. The first line should at least say that it's in Yorkshire.
  • "turned the tables around" - the "around" is redundant
  • "9 years should be "nine years" per MOS. I would also suggest a short addition to the text, along the lines: "...nine years, before a brief restoration of Henry."
  • "long-standing royal lineage": Hmm, my memory tells me that the lineage went back a mere 60 years, to when Henry Bolingbroke seized the throne, so perhaps "established" rather than "long-standing"?
  • "stuck" is a rather crude, colloquial word for the mounting of heads on poles
  • "They liberated Henry..." We haven't been told he'd been captured.
  • "The Lancastrians retreated but were chased to Dinting Dale and killed". All of them were killed?
    • Yes, it seems so, according to the sources that cover the engagement at Ferrybridge. Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then I'd clarify and say "and were all killed there". Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Popular opinion favoured naming the battle after the village of Towton because of its proximity to the settlement, which was the most prominent in the area at that time." There is confusion around "its" in this sentence, which could do with some rephrasing.

I will add further comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for those commented above, I have taken actions directly as suggested or in some form as shown in this diff. Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a few more prose suggestions. Excellent, well-researched article, nicely mapped and illustrated. (I am less enthusiastic about the Vogon verses in nom statement, though). Here are my final comments:-

  • "stating that the figure of 50,000 is more likely" Is this 50,000 for both armies? Clarification needed - and it should be "a" figure, not "the"
  • "the tale demonstrates Warwick's loyalty to his king..." To "Edward", surely, since Edward cannot be regarded as king before Towton?
  • Slight concern about the use of "betrayal" to describe Trollope's defection. Might be thought POV; he may have had reasons other than self-interest for joining the Lancastrians.
  • Should Clifford me listed with the Lancastrian leaders, as he was dead at the time of the battle?
    • He is not really "listed" as a leader for this battle, but as part of a theme (the four linchpins of Lancastrian northern power) that is referred to in several parts of the article. Explaining this theme seems the least intrusive in the Force composition section than elsewhere. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never heard of a "bur tree". Using google I have discovered "Bur oak" or "Burr oak", but your link goes to an elderberry bush. Is this right? If so I'd say "elderberry" rather than "bur" in the article, as a more familiar term.
A bur tree is actually an alder - it's an obsolete Northern term see e.g. here http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/durhamdialect/north1787.htm This fact doesn't seem to be mentioned in the wikipedia alder article but it is where the redirect should go.
I have removed the link altogether. The "bur = elderberry" connotation was raised by Alex Leadman in the Yorkshire Archeological Journal (the very same issue from which Thomas Fallow's article is taken). Leadman, however, believed it to be a bush, not a tree; Andrew Boardman used Leadman as his source. No other sources tried to associate bur with elderberry or alder, so I think it would be better to leave out an interpretation of bur. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final sentence of the "Aftremath" section shouldn't end with the impression that Henry was the ultimate victor. I suggest: "... briefly restoring Henry to the throne until his final defeat at the Battle of Barnet in 1471."
  • Does Shakespeare need the appellation "Sixteenth century playwright"?
    • I think almost every one is aware of Willie, but several would not know exactly which century or period he was in. I set up the appellation to give a timeframe for the later information (impact on society then). Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. I have implemented your comments (which I did not reply to) as suggested or in another form.[4] Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An excellent piece of work and a very readable one. Just a few minor points.

  • "It was the "largest and bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil."[1]" Does this need attribution in the text. It would destroy the flow a bit, so could it be paraphrased?
    • It is quite a fantastic claim (hence needing attribution) and representative of the event. I do not think it can be paraphrased without losing the simplicity and clarity. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The one-sided missile exchange—Lancastrian arrows fell short of the Yorkist ranks—provoked their foes into abandoning their defensive positions." "Their" becomes confusing: the first one refers to the Yorkists foes, the second to the Lancastrian positions. Is there a way to rephrase?
  • "Lancastrians trampled each other or drowned in the rivers while fleeing from their pursuers." Another minor rephrase here as "or" suggests all the Lancastrians were trampled or drowned: maybe "Many Lancastrians were killed while fleeing; some trampled each other and others drowned in the rivers."
  • "When Margaret learned Edward and his army had won the Battle of Mortimer's Cross in Herefordshire and were marching towards London, she withdrew the Lancastrians to York." The only Edward mentioned in the main body so far is Margaret's son, which makes this a little confusing on first reading. Specify which Edward and link?
  • "Having lost custody of Henry, the Yorkists needed a justification to continue taking up arms against the king and his Lancastrian followers." Why? Did they have a justification the first time?
    • At that particular time, whoever owned Henry (weak as he was), controlled the crown. No one could dispute their cause as a betrayal of the allegiance they swore to the king. Without Henry, Edward and his gang would risk being branded traitors without any defense. Rather a bit complicated and would be lengthy to explain, I did my best to try to summarise. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Warwick's group moved on the main body's left..." Minor point, should it be to the west rather than left?
  • "Eighteen years old, he was an imposing sight in armour with his 6-foot-3½-inch (1.92 m) frame.[28] The young, muscular Edward looked more like a king than frail and shabby Henry." POV-ish? Could we at least add "according to X"?
    • Not according to almost all the sources out there. They agree contemporary portraits show a marked contrast of the two, and opined the effects it must had on their followers. Not one source (as far as I know) suggested Henry looked like a healthy specimen of a king (in the physical sense). Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lancastrian archers failed to perform": A little harsh! What about "were ineffective"?
  • "archers shot into the mass of men at short range with deliberateness": Slightly odd phrasing, what does "deliberateness" mean in this context?
    • At long range, longbow archers shoot at a general spot on the ground (they do not aim at people). It is at shorter distances that they pick out their targets. In the case of melee battles, they have to shoot into a mess of bodies and would have to be "deliberate" in their aim. The explanation of this would be a bit technical and off-point to the article. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as small groups of men began deserting their comrades and fleeing on their own for their lives": "on their own" seems unnecessary.
  • "One specimen, Towton 25, had the front of his skull bisected": Do we need to specify which one? If so, to avoid confusion, what about "known as Towton 25"? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading and supporting this article. Your concerns, which I have not replied to, have been implemented directly, or in an adjusted form.[5] Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Act of Accord and Peers

  • It is stated in the lede that "a majority of nobles agreed in an Act of Accord to let York and his line succeed Henry as king". However, it is later stated that of the peers on the battlefield (three quarters of the total) "Eight of them were sworn to the Yorkist cause whereas the Lancastrians had at least 19." Assuming that there were no major defections between the Act of Accord and Towton, the Yorkists clearly did not have a majority of the Lords behind them. What they did have were the wealthiest peers: York himself and Edward, who held the very valuable Earldom of March; the Nevilles; Mowbray, the Duke of Norfolk etc. Most of the smaller fry, many of them from the north who hated the aggrandising Nevilles, were behind Lancaster and presumably had not attended the Parliament which passed the Act of Accord.
  • It is also stated that "The Lancastrians were regarded to have reneged on the Act—a legal agreement..." Given that there were blood feuds going back generations between some of the rival peers, I think it unlikely that a mere legal quibble over an agreement reached by one side only would quite be the most significant casus belli. HLGallon (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hardcore Lancastrians did not attend the session if I recall correctly. Regardless, the majority of those in attendance passed the act. I reworded to point it as a Parliamentary motion instead of a general case (i.e. majority of those in Parliament rather than majority of the nobles of England). The reneging of the Act was seized by those who were neutral or less supportive of Richard's claim (hence why Richard did not achieve the throne); I have changed the wording to reflect the specific crowd who thought so. This "legal" offence was what allowed them to throw their support behind Edward and gang.[6] Jappalang (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few comments:

  • "declare himself as king" -> "declare himself king"?
  • "England was in the sixth year of a civil war—the Wars of the Roses" - technically speaking, the Wars of the Roses were a series of civil wars, not a single war
  • "reluctant to usurp an established royal lineage; instead, they established" - repetitive
  • Suggest a few more wikilinks - for example, tumuli is likely an unfamiliar term to most readers. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Towton/archive1&oldid=647846545"