Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bonchurch

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Bonchurch[edit]

I have nominated this article, which is largely my own work, for two reasons. Firstly, during the course of the analysis by people deciding whether it should be A-class, I may get presented with suggestions for improvemenets. I want my article to be the best it can be, and thus I would welcome suggestions for improvements. Secondly, I have read the A-class article criteria, and I do believe my article meets what is required.

If a concern is length, I would like to state that I could find no more sources of information for the Battle of Bonchurch. The only other source of information in the world regarding the Battle of Bonchurch that I know of, is a book which is probably 30 years out-of-print. Thus, I believe the nominated article to be the most complete analysis of the Battle of Bonchurch available.

Thank you in advance to whoever reviews the article. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are, I think, two areas which require attention here. Firstly, the sources in the article are not particularly well-chosen:

"The Last Invasion" is a popular magazine article with no byline; it's not unreliable, per se, but it's not really a very scholarly source.
"False Propehts" and "Go Bananas" are essentially random websites, and are totally unsuitable as sources for a serious historical article.
Goodwin isn't necessarily an unacceptable source, but doesn't strike me as a serious historical work either.

An article of this sort should really be written based on the works of published, professional historians, even if those are somewhat more difficult to get one's hands on. Witherby's 1962 Battle of Bonchurch is indeed out of print—it seems to have been a small-scale private printing—but can be obtained at a number of major libraries. Some of the primary sources (Du Bellay, Ogander, etc.) can be reasonably obtained as well; and there are various snippets regarding this topic in other works on the general conflict.

Secondly, I'm not sure that the present organization of the article is the best one. The engagement at Bonchurch can't really be dealt with separately from the other landings (e.g. at Bembridge, etc.); and I doubt that each landing can sustain a full article without simply repeating the same background everywhere. The "Background", "Prelude", and "Aftermath" sections here already take this stance implicitly, talking more about the entire set of landings than about Bonchurch in particular.

I'd make this more explicit by renaming the article to something like French landings on the Isle of Wight (1545) (or the extant stub French invasion of the Isle of Wight (1545), but that's a somewhat overly grandiose name), and then adding in material regarding the other landings as well. This will fill out the article, and also make it easier to reconstruct the narrative by allowing us to discuss the movement of troops between the various landing sites, and the overall course of the attack.

Kirill 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kirill, for your analysis. I accept that some of the sources I have used are not the most suitable for using when trying to write a high-standard article. I shall enquire around a number of libraries to see if I can find more professional literature regarding the Battle of Bonchurch, although I do not have easy access to the types of libraries which I imagine I would find such work, and thus I can imagine the utilisation of high-standard sources for the article will be a long-term aim for me.

As for working on an article regarding the wider invasion (I do believe it is an appropriate word, as it fits in with the Oxford English Dictionary definition and, importantly, the scale of the fighting which occured around the island and the considered idea of retaining the island in French hands does set the campaign on the Isle of Wight apart from a skirmish, or mere landings (the French did succeed in driving a distance from the coast)), I will make that my next project.

If anyone else has any ideas for improving the article, please do raise them.

Thank you. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- You have a mixed inlince citation style, some of your cites are before periods, some after. I would like to see all citations reconfigured for uniformity, preferably with the citations after the period.
- Never start a sentance with a numerical number, always spell that number out. Case in point: The second to last sentence of the first paragraph in the Background section reads "30,000 French troops and a fleet of some 400 vessels were assembled.", it should read "Thirty thouasand French troops and a fleet of some 400 vessels were assembled."
- The third paragraph of the background section and the section titled "did the french win the battle?" are both cited entirely to source 4. If all references in a paragrpah point ot the same source then a single citation at the end of the paragrpah will suffice. This has been the norm on the FA pages for battleships, and the MILHIST MoS supports this methode as well.
- Unless an enitre quote is cited three dots are needed to note where the omitted text is in the quote, either "...<text>" or "<text>...".
Otherwise it looks good. Keep up the good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TomStar81, I appreciate your suggestions. I shall make the improvements in due course. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the improvements suggested by TomStar81. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. My compliants have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suppports. Tom's suggestion have been address and the article looks good. The only thing I can say is that the lead doesn't need citations as what is said in the lead is mentioned in the rest of the article. Kyriakos (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyriakos, when you say "lead", do you mean the first three paragraphs of the article, or the infobox? EasyPeasy21 (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the lead I mean the first three paragraphs of the article. But it is up to you if you want to have cits in your lead. Kyriakos (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Eurocopter (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.