Wars of the Roses was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
There is no listing of the battles of the War(s) of the Roses, although there is the map. I note also that Richard II's nominated heir Edmund Mortimer does not appear on the chart (his father was Roger Mortimer who is on the the chart). Beowulf (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Any objections to combining these sections into one Historical Background section? I found it confusing the way it is now - it would benefit from refimprove and some rewriting for run on sentences and the like as well. Seraphimsystem (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, a fair amount of the "Summary of Events" should go. It rewrites the main body of the article in a hasty and uninformative manner (Some years ago, it was part of the lead, was separated out and then bloated.) The Chronological List of Battles should be moved to the foot of the article, if not removed; it merely duplicates the Wars of the Roses campaign box and the Wars of the Roses template. HLGallon (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
When using inline citations please remember to add the full citation template to the Bibliography. For (Weir, 1995) I will have to go through my copies of Weir to figure out which book its from, as there are at least 3 possibilities. I also added full citations for at least two other sources. Seraphim System(talk) 23:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The only work by Weir which matters to the article is now listed in the bibliography. (It had been mis-filed under "Further Reading".) HLGallon (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
HLGallon There's been some confusion while I was cleaning up but I've restored your edits, except for moving the Weir cite. (I also solved the wrapping/spacing issue with my editor.) I haven't moved the full cite for Alison Weir because it is given as 1998, but the incline cite that I removed was for 1995, is this an error? Seraphim System(talk) 00:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Reference 51 is a short reference to Wise & Embleton, should this go the the last entry in the Bibliography section or to that used in reference 53? it could be that reference 53 is really the same as the entry in the Bibliography section as looks similar. Keith D (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)