Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Battle of Barnet

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Parallel WikiProject Military history peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Barnet

I am aiming for Featured Article with this article on a historical decisive battle in the Wars of the Roses; thus, I am soliciting any comments and suggestions to help it reach that mark. Your help is appreciated, many thanks in advance. Jappalang (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs
  • "The Battle of Barnet took place..." I don't know what it is about battle articles I've read recently (hopefully it's not a MILHIST guideline), but these openings are pretty bad at establishing context. Can we get an overview, what war it's from, et al, before we go into locations?
  • "bringing about fourteen" - sounds strange. Just make it fourteen or fifteen, whichever is closer.
  • "Yorkist" is never explained as a term--is it a guy from York?
  • "was not governing" - there's locations like these where the tense seems off? I'm not that great at english tenses, but a more straightforward "did not govern" seems better here.
  • "started to bestow gifts" - in a similar vein, redudancy such as this: change to "bestowed gifts"
  • "Therefore, he was unlikely to have fought at Barnet." - source?
  • "No longer, was each opposing group facing the other directly; they were slightly offset to their right" - spot the bad grammar!
  • "The English Heritage" - there are a couple locations like this one I wish there was a little more introduction in the text. Blue links are fine, but unless you've got popups you have to navigate away from the page to figure out what the English Heritage is, so prefacing it with a phrased intro would be nice.
  • "Here was fought the Famous Battle Between Edward the 4th and the Earl of Warwick April the 14th ANNO 1471 in which the Earl was Defeated And Slain" - is that bizarre capitalization scheme actually from the plaque?

Otherwise, prose looks pretty good, images look fine for the most part (although I have no idea if Tassauds could claim any rights on the figures seen in File:Warwick prepping for Barnet.jpg.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Rewrote the first paragraph of the lede. How does it read now?
  • "Bringing about fourteen years" should not be read as "bringing (verb) about (quantifier) fourteen years (noun)" but "bringing about (verb) fourteen years (noun)"
  • "Yorkist": somewhat, it refers to the alignment with the House of York, much like "Crusaders" . I think it would be awkward to explain or define the term here.
  • "was not governing" and "started to bestow gifts": Changed
  • "Therefore, he was unlikely to have fought at Barnet.": that is a summation of the two preceding statements that explained the disputes. Modern analysis (Haigh, Gravett, Goodman, etc) omit Somerset for the battles, i.e. they do not talk about his presence or absence, instead they just said that he left London to greet Margaret.
  • Vantine84 pointed out the same thing in the MILHIST peer review. I managed to find Gravett's statement of this and cited it.
  • "No longer, was each opposing group facing the other directly; they were slightly offset to their right"': changed to "Each group was not facing the other directly, but offset slightly to the right."
  • "English Heritage": I appended a descriptive clause to it, does that help? For others, I have described the broad category in the preceding statement, but could you point out any that are still confusing?
  • Inscription: yes, the captialization is what the inscription on the obelisk itself states (the reference from Haigh's book is a photo of the words).
  • File:Warwick prepping for Barnet.jpg: the figures are copyrighted by Tussauds (created c. 1995); however, United Kingdom permits freedom of panorama and the exhibit is permanent. Commons has allowed for such photos, as long as the "fop copyright tag" is applied.
Jappalang (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Just realized I never responded. That takes care of my concerns, and the first paragraph reads much better than before. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • One problem is that Weir is a "popular" historian, not a "scholarly" historian. Relying on her works is not a good plan. There are MUCH better sources for Wars of the Roses information.
    • Also, the Hicks work from "Essential Histories" .. this isn't a bad bad source, but like weir, it's more popular. Better sources can be found.
    • Same deal for Desmond Seward. Popular historian, not scholarly.
    • Look for Charles Ross' biography of Edward IV, also his biography of Richard III, as well as Wolfe's biography of Henry VI. A good overview of the time would be "Shaping the Nation 1360-1461" in the New Oxford History of England. Also Carpenter's "The Wars of the Roses" might be useful.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Aye carumba... looks like I have plenty of work to do. My country's library has only Richard III from the list you gave. Looks like I have to do detective work around the bookstores... Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: – only on the lead and first section, for the moment. Other comments will follow as time permits, over the next few days.

  • Lead: as a general point, I think the lead has too much detail and could be reduced by about a quarter. See comments below for where this particularly applies.
    • This is not my favourite formulation: "Taking place a few miles north of Barnet, a small town on the northern outskirts of London, the battle was fought on 14 April 1471." Why not: "The battle was fought on 14 April 1471 a few miles north of Barnet, a small town on the northern outskirts of London."?
    • The next sentence is also awkwardly phrased: "The forces of the House of York, under Edward, defeated the House of Lancaster's army, which was led by Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, and fighting for the cause of Henry VI." I suggest: "The forces of the House of York, under Edward, defeated the House of Lancaster's army which, led by Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, fought the cause of Henry VI."
    • I wonder, is there a better word than "recognised" to describe the two kings' status? Perhaps "rival" would highlight their relationship to each other?
    • "...having brought about..." would in my view be better phrased as "since it brought about..."
    • Tense issues in second paragraph: I suggest "Warwick had defected", "the earl had defeated..."
    • Repetition: "a town on the outskirts of London". Location of Barnet established in previous paragraph.
    • "In the dark of the night" is literary; "Under cover of darkness" would be factual. Similarly, "sneaked" is POV; a neutral word like "moved" is required. But I am uneasy about this extent of battle detail in the lead, which should summarise in broader strokes than these.
    • "Edward's victory proved crucial in securing his throne." More or less repeats the information from the first line of the article.
    • Margaret of Anjou's status as queen, and head of the Lancastrians, should be explained, but personally I wouldn't mention her here. I'd simplify this information to: "Deprived of Warwick's support, the Lancastrians suffered their final defeat at the Battle of Tewkesbury on 4 May 1471, which marked the end of the House of Lancaster and ensured the ascendancy of the House of York. Three centuries after the Battle of Barnet was fought, a stone obelisk was raised, on the spot where Warwick purportedly died, to commemorate the event."
    • Which event is being commemorated by the obelisk, the battle or Warwick's death?
  • Background: there is some confusion in the history here.
    • The first sentence doesn't square. Henry VI was effectively deposed in 1461, Edward being proclaimed king after the Battle of Towton (29.3.1461). Edward reigned from then until the brief period of Henry's restoration as Warwick's puppet during 1470-71, and resumed the throne, as you indicate, after the decisive Battle of Tewkesbury. Thus 1461, not 1469, was surely the milestone year, not 1469. The first paragraph will make sense if you adjust the date.
    • In the second paragraph the statement that Warwick decided to "resort to any means to make Edward compliant with his wishes" is too vague to be useful. Why not say what he actually did, which was to provoke a rebellion in the north and, while Edward was preoccupied with this, invade from France and overcome the king's forces at Edgecote?
    • The reason Warwick fled to France was because the king discovered his complicity in the rebellion which Edward put down at the Battle of Empingham (aka "Losecote Field", but I live three miles from Empingham, and that's what we call it here).
    • Warwick "submitted to Margaret" is very indirect language. What you mean is that Warwick joined the Lancastrian cause.
    • You need to give a date for Edward's flight to Burgundy (September 1470?)
    • I've not checked the prose in this section, because I think you need to make some alterations first.

Sorry to be rather piecemeal in my comments, but this way you don't have to wait until I've finished before starting. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Lede: I have taken action for most of your suggestions...
  • "recognised Kings of England": my intent was to state that here were at the same time, two royals who were acknowledged as Kings of England. Edward entered London as a King, but Henry was not officially deposed at the time, so technically there were two Kings. I think there is no other time such as this. Please correct me if I am wrong.
  • Obelisk: per the inscription, the obelisk seems to be commemorating both the battle and the earl's death. I tried a wording; does it suffice?
  • Background: mostly implemented...
  • Warwick's flight to France: would putting the reason in the footnotes do?
Waiting for the rest of the stuff. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

More comment, taking the review a little further.

  • Commanders - preamble
    • This introductory paragraph contains no dates and is therefore confusing. It is also a bit of a ragbag of assorted facts, few of which relate to what I thought would be its function, a preface to the introduction of the key commanders on both sides of the Battle of Barnet. I think the paragraph needs to be rewritten to state a few simple facts: Edward IV was head of the House of York, the turncoat Warwick was the de facto head of the House of Lancaster, they were each supported by other military commanders hardened by previous battles - no need to say more at this stage. Then go ahead and introduce the commanders properly, in the following subsections.
  • Yorkist
    • "personally" is redundant. "Led his armies from the front" is a bit of a cliché; what about something like: "King Edward was normally in the forefront of the armies which he took into battle"
    • Where is the "charisma and charm" information cited to?
    • "Several times..." Sounds weak. Suggestion: Frequently he would recognise and exploit defensive frailties in the enemies' lines, to claim victory in battle."
    • Financial accountability" is not in itself a virtue to be listed alongside good looks, personality, capable leadership etc. You can be accountable, but still make a mess of the finances (think credit crunch). I think you may mean "financial honesty" or "acumen"; whatever is meant would have to be supported by a source. Is it worth keeping?
    • "Standing on Edward's side..." is definitely odd. "On" could be "at", prewferably with the "standing" omitted, so the paragraph begins "At Edward's side..."
    • You need to specify when Gloucester was 18 years old. Thus: At the time of the Battle of Barnet Gloucester was 18 years old..." (the age should be given numerically)
    • "at the least" seems a bit unnecessary
    • "in the matters of loyalty" - delete "the"
    • Warwick married his daughter off to "their" prince - can you identify this prince?
  • Lancastrian
    • As a general point, the focus of this subsection should be on briefly introducing the Battle of Barnet commanders on the Lancastrian side. As it stands, this section is three times the length of the equivalent Yorkist section, and I think there is rather too much backstory, given all the relevant commanders have their own main articles.
    • Opening sentence: it needs to be "had fought" rather than "fought", and "the house" would be better expressed as "that House"
    • "moniker" is slang, egregiously so in an article about the Wars of the Roses. Suggest replace with "nickname" (moniker may be a respectable term in American scholarly prose, but trust me, it will sound odd to English readers).

Well, that's another slice. Apolgies if any of these have been picked up by others. The review is beginning to look like a case of too many cooks, so I will leave it for the present. When you have dealt with the various suggestions being heaped upon you, please ping me if you think my comments on the rest of the article would be helpful, and I'll be quite willing to resume, but there is such a thing as over-reviewing. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nitpicks from Iridescent Lots of minor nitpicks, I'm afraid; in no particular order)

  • "records of the town boundaries and geography were not detailed enough for the historical body or other historians to conclude the exact location of the battle" reads a bit strangely – what is "the historical body"? If it's English Heritage you mean (not "The English Heritage", incidentally) I think that needs to be specified;
  • Two sections start with left-aligned images; unless there's a very good reason to have them immediately below the headers, Sandy will give you Strong Words Of Advice should it go to FAC;
  • In the lead and in the text, Barnet is described as "on the outskirts of London" – at around 10 miles from Westminster and 12 miles from the City of London, on the opposite side of steep hills; it was certainly not a London suburb at the time of the battle (it was only with the coming of the railways in 1850 and construction of the A1 road in the early 20th century that Barnet began to develop into a London suburb);
  • "Shakespeare ("The Bard")" looks very odd to me – is a nickname really appropriate? It's hardly necessary to differentiate William from any other Shakespeare (no sane reader is going to think any of these guys wrote Henry VI, Part 3), and "The Bard" as a term for Shakespeare is an Americanism; in Britain the term is just as likely to refer to Robert Burns or William Wordsworth, depending on who you're talking to and in what context;
  • Nitpick par excellence – the units of measurement are inconsistent. I've not fixed them as I don't know if you want to standardize on metric or imperial, but sentences like "an obelisk about 200 metres south […] it stands 18 feet tall" jump out at me;
  • "Higher spiritual being" reads very oddly. Is this the exact wording Hicks uses, in which case its usage is justified? Otherwise, the fact that mediaeval England was a Christian country is not in doubt, and "sanctioned by God" is a lot clearer;
  • "Historians theorised that had Warwick's force joined Margaret's before challenging Edward, the combined Lancastrian army would have overwhelmed the Yorkists and brought about a different English history." is uncited, and really needs to be both cited and explained. Firstly, which historians? Secondly, does "theorised" as opposed to "theorise" mean they don't believe it any more? Finally, what aspect of history would have been different?

I know they're all minor nitpicks, but I think they all need to be at least looked at. – iridescent 01:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Changed "the historical body" to English Heritage (and dropped the "other" before "historians")
  • Regarding left-aligned images, it is starting off a third-level section (i.e. one that is started with "=== xxx ===") that earns the disproval of the MOS. Starting off a second-level section ("== xx ==") is okay.
  • Barnet's location is now pinpointed as a distance from London.
  • Well, "the Bard" was to vary the mentions of Shakespeare; it would be monotonous to keep referring to "he" or "Shakespeare". In light of what you have said, I will try to find another way to name him. Add-on: changed to "dramatist"
  • "sanctioned by a higher spiritual being" changed to "sanctioned by God" and "approved spiritually"
  • I presented metrics as the primary standard (although I am still in pretty much two minds over this; imperial fits the age better, but we are living in the metric era).
  • I will dwelve more into the "different English history" part. I think it was more of a mention rather than an in-depth study, which in that case, I could remove it.
Solving nitpicks will yield a better article; thus, your opinions are very much appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions from HLGallon Mainly to do with historical context

  • It should be mentioned that Charles the Bold of Burgundy was not only Edward's host in exile, but also his brother in law. No wonder Edward obtained support there.
  • Other relationships; Warwick was Edward's cousin (his father, the Earl of Salisbury, was the brother-in-law of Richard of York (Edward's father)
  • I wouldn't refer to Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York as "Plantagenet". The man he tried to supplant was also Henry Plantagenet. Every history I have read refers to him simply as "York" (or occasionally as "Richard", but since he had been dead for a decade by 1470, this could cause confusion with Richard of Gloucester.
  • It may be mentioned that residual suspicion of Warwick on the part of Margaret of Anjou, formerly his mortal enemy, was part of the reason Margaret and her son, Edward of Westminster, did not arrive in England for several months after Warwick forced Edward into exile. The role of Louis IX of France, in arranging the awkward alliance of Warwick and Lancaster so as to prevent a hostile alliance between Burgundy and England under Edward, could perhaps be expanded.
  • You may mention Edward's concerns that the Bastard of Fauconberg might attack London, as he did in May, which caused Edward to bring Henry VI along in his train instead of leaving him in the Tower of London. (The auguries weren't good; at every battle at which Henry had been present previously, whether compos mentis or not, the side which held him had been defeated.)
  • Hope this helps. HLGallon (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Charles' relationship to Edward is now mentioned.
  • Edward and Warwick's relationship is inserted, I hope it is not in a too casual or throwabout manner.
  • The 3rd Duke of York is not referred to by "Plantagenet" now.
  • I think Margaret's reasons for her delayed arrival is best contained in the Battle of Tewkesbury, rather than here.
  • The possibility of Fauconberg's attack is a good thing to insert, but I need a good source for it. (I am still sourcing for Ross' Edward IV, which I believe should have this info on p. 173, but cannot confirm).
Every little bit is always of help. Thank you very much. Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Laser brain's comments
  • "The earl decided to resort to any means to make Edward compliant with his wishes." Consider "to make Edward comply with his wishes."
  • "Lancastrian supporters took advantage of Edward's imprisonment to stage uprisings, and because most Yorkist-aligned warlords ..." I might be misreading this, but shouldn't the conjunction be "but"?
  • "When York waged war to coerce Henry to remove Somerset from power, the warlords mostly took sides ..." The "mostly" is misplaced here, as it seems to modify "took".
  • "The king continually overlooked the duke's failures and promoted him to positions of power; this was often done ..." Avoid using "this" to refer to a previous idea or action. It is ambiguous. You can avoid it by rewriting: "this treatment was at the expense of ..." Please check throughout for this issue.
  • "The Wars of the Roses, however, saw executions ..." Avoid anthropomorphism like this—the wars did not see anything. Again, please check throughout if you have the tendency to use such phrasing.
  • "... killing his foes while wearing his suit of gilded armour." As with the "comply" example above, you seem to have a bit of tendency toward wordiness. Would not "killing his foes wearing a suit of gilded armour" serve just as well?

More later. --Laser brain (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Actions taken on the above, except "... killing his foes while wearing his suit of gilded armour." A possible problem with "killing his foes wearing a suit of gilded armour" is that it introduces a question of "who is wearing a suit of gilded armour", the king or his foes. The conjunction bit ("and" instead of "but") on Edward's imprisonment is also unchanged. The "... because ..." is more descriptive (explanatory) than a contradiction to the preceding clause [think of it as "Uprisings started and Warwick was forced to release Edward (because no one wanted to listen to the earl)."]. Looking forward to your further comments. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • In the infobox I would add that Edward IV is on a horse or mounted to the image caption for clarity - I thought he was one of the figures on foot.
  • The battle was fought on 14 April 1471 a few kilometers north of Barnet, a small town 19 kilometres (12 mi) north of London. I presume the battlefield location and distance from London is known, would it make sense to give the distance of the battlefield from London? The battle was fought on 14 April 1471 some 21 kilometres (13 mi) north of London, and a few kilometers north of Barnet, a small town. (my guess on distance from London - whoops reading more it seems the location is not known as well as I assumed)
  • which, led by Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, fought the cause of Henry VI. Should it be "fought [for] the cause of Henry VI"? Just sounds odd this way
  • Can "constituted" be linked - perhaps to Wiktionary? in Both constituted Kings of England were present on the battlefield.
  • In the Background, I would identify Edward as Yorkist and Henry as Lancastrian on first mention.
  • I would add the year that Edward secretly married Elizabeth Woodville, and the year(s) for the Commanders section
  • House is unclear in Formerly a trusted Yorkist, the Earl of Warwick fought for the house since the early stages of the Wars of the Roses ...
  • Should this be past tense (owed)? Phillip Haigh suspects that the earl owes some of his acclaimed victories ...
  • I thought it was "bestowed on" but At her prodding, Edward bestowed gifts of land and titles to her relations ...
  • I would identify the forces by colors in the map captions (very nice maps by the way)\
  • Watch units - metric is first almost everywhere, so has reported the battlefield as lying a mile or half-mile north of the town of Barnet. needs to include metric and have km first to be consistent with the others.
  • The quote in the Battlefield section uses {{cquote}}, which is for pull quotes, but {{blockquote}} is supposed to be used here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe I have implemented the above, except:
  • Distances between London, Barnet, and the battle: I will try to find another way around this.
  • "fought the cause" vs "fought for the cause": it seems either form is correct (from books), although the latter is more commonly seen. I think it can be easily corrected later if needed.
  • Years: I am trying to avoid an overload of dates, inserting a "benchmark" year here and there. I added the year to the marriage in the Background section to hopefully create another benchmark.
Thank you very much for the look through. Jappalang (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You were kind enough to offer help recently with an article with which I was concerned and I should like to return the favour. Is there still time for me to read the article and comment within 24 hours? Tim riley (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

  • Lead
    • I suggest that to make the earliest initial impact you mention the Wars of the Roses first and then say what the consequences were – something like "…was a decisive engagement of the Wars of the Roses, a dynastic conflict of the 15th century. This battle and the Battle of Tewkesbury secured the throne of England for Edward IV."
    • I wondered about the suggestion, above, that Barnet was on the outskirts of London. It is now, but wasn't then. If you mention this I think you might make that distinction.
    • Kilometers/kilometres in one sentence. The latter is correct. Is the first necessary in the lead section? Perhaps just "near" would be suitable here.
    • "Both constituted Kings of England…" – is "constituted" a technical term here? It reads oddly to the lay eye. "Anointed" or "crowned" would read more naturally, but perhaps are not technically correct. Just a suggestion. (I have read the earlier comments on this point, and quite see the difficulty of finding the exact word for the unusual phenomenon you describe.)
    • I agree with the comment above that "bring about fourteen years" is ambiguous. Perhaps something neutral on the lines of "Edward's victory was followed by fourteen years of Yorkist rule over England" would be clearer.
    • Tewkesbury didn't actually mark "the end of the House of Lancaster" surely? The house persisted, albeit somewhat diminished: "downfall" or something similar might be more accurate.
  • Background
    • "further incurred the wrath of his chief adviser" – this refers to Warwick, I assume, but it could be clearer.
  • Lancastrian
    • "The new Marquess" – in similar constructions you have referred to Warwick as "the earl" – lower case. Lower case marquess would be consistent here, I suggest.
    • "Edmund Beaufort, 4th Duke of Somerset, was a prominent Lancastrian and one of Maragaret's trusted men." - typo in the queen's name.
    • "the 1st Duke's demise" is "demise" an improvement on "death"?
  • Fighting in the mist
    • "Yorkist's …Lancastrian's" singular possessives should be plural.
  • Footnotes
    • Note 3: "modeling" should be "modelling" if you are using British spelling throughout.

I enjoyed reading this article. It is vivid and easily comprehensible to the lay eye. I hope these small points are of some use. Tim riley (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I have corrected the errors you have pointed out and implemented your suggestions, except for the first (which I have something in mind, but have yet to work it out) and the "constituted" kings ("crowned" would seem close, but still..., I would continue working on it). Jappalang (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Reworked the first paragraph of the lede as suggested. I dropped the part that mentions both kings were on the battlefield; aside from the difficulty in conveying the significance, not many (scholaristic) sources really harp on this point. Most point out the effect of this battle towards securing Edward's rule (some claim Tewkesbury was needed, others say this was it!). Jappalang (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit[edit]

This is a very engaging article - it describes the confusion of the battle well! Here are my suggestions for improvement.

  • The earl felt marginalised: his influence over the young king seemed to have been lost, and he decided to take drastic action to force Edward to comply with his wishes. - His plan seems to have been to replace Edward, though, so I'm a bit confused here.
  • Warwick's initial "coup" was intended to menace Edward into compliance—capture Edward, imprison him, get him to authorise orders meted out, and free him of the "evil" Woodvilles. Hopefully, after some time, Edward would "see the light" and favour Warwick's ideas again. Unfortunately, that did not work... Jappalang (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The rewording is clearer. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Warwick deliberated over replacing the king, and the Duke of Clarence, Edward's brother, supported his plan. - He did more than deliberate, right? If so, I think this sentence should be reworded.
  • Yeah, this appears to be the problematic sentence. Warwick pondered over replacing Edward, but did not set about doing so until his second rebellion (however, there were reports that claimed Warwick almost started plans to do so during Edward's captivity). I will try to think up of another way to reword this and the above. Jappalang (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, tweaked a bit to state that forcing Edward to do his bidding was Warwick's primary plan, and replacing the king with Clarence was his backup plan. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what Edward's "financial honesty" is referring to.
  • It was supposed to refer to Edward's focus on repaying the royal loans taken out to finance the wars. I have rephrased this to "commercial policy", which would encompass his focus on improving the trade of English merchants. Jappalang (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't explained in the article however, so the reference is a bit obscure. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The earl was waiting for the arrival of Clarence, who had told him to wait so that their combined strength would overwhelm the Yorkists. Edward turned away with his men, but returned, accompanied by Clarence's troops. - Why did Clarence join Warwick, again? (If this was mentioned earlier in the article, I forgot - perhaps best to remind those of us who only vaguely know what the Wars of the Roses are all about.)
  • Clarence did not join Warwick a second time. Clarence's defection (back) to the Yorkists happened just before the Battle of Barnet at Coventry. Like Montagu, who was waiting for Warwick to invade England, Clarence was waiting for Edward's invasion before switching sides. I think the problem comes with introducing Clarence on the side of the Yorkists in the Commander's section (stating his eagerness to go back to the Yorkists without a point of reference). I added a time frame to his defection in this section. Hopefully, it can clear this up. Jappalang (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I still think this paragraph is hard to follow. Perhaps a few more sentences on the defection? Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Should there be some redlinks in the article? I was wondering if The Arrivall of Edward IV should be linked, along with a few other items.
  • I am not particularly enamoured with red links. If others were to create the articles, I would happily link to them, but I quite dislike seeing spots of red. Jappalang (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • But people won't know what to create articles on without the redlinks. I think redlinks encourages people to contribute - it also helps defuse that weird attitude that Wikipedia is somehow finished. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Shakespeare used few details reported by contemporary chroniclers that were historical in nature, ignoring several others, such as the confusion over Oxford's and Edward's badges that influenced the outcome. - I'm not quite sure what this means - did he use the badge bit or not?
  • Shakespeare did not use the "badge confusion" in his play, even though it is dramatical in nature. I am going to rephrase this sentence. I believe this ascribes to Cox's view that Shakespeare did not view Edward's victory as God given, which the badge issue might be construed as such. Jappalang (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, casted the last part of the sentence into a stand-alone clause instead of a descriptive. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Shakespeare cast the Neville brothers as a contrast for the widening divide of loyalties amongst the Yorkists. - I'm not sure what this means.
  • For Barnet, Shakespeare presented the Nevilles as brothers who were willing to die for each other, whereas the three sons of York were slowly driven apart by their own goals and ideas. Jappalang (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Your explanation above is much clearer than that in the article. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As I was reading, every once in a while I had to recheck who the "earl" was and which side was which. I realize that you want to vary your diction, but it was sometimes confusing that people are referred to by two or three different names.
  • I will see what I can do. Jappalang (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

More suggestions from HLGallon Mainly to do with historical context

Probably difficult to work in concisely; but whatever Elizabeth Woodville was, she was not a commoner. Although the widow of a mere knight (who had died in battle fighting for Lancaster), her mother (Jacquetta of Luxembourg) was effectively royalty, had been married to a peer, and formerly to a younger brother of King Henry V. Warwick's objections to the marriage were that it ruined any chance of making a diplomatic match for Edward (particularly with a French princess), and that it was done in an underhand way which undermined his (Warwick's) authority and prestige. George of Clarence was no doubt miffed that with the birth of Edward and Elizabeth's first son, he was no longer heir presumptive to the throne. There were any numbers of Yorkist nobles who were offended by the Woodville relatives' rapacity. Elizabeth's kindred were Lancastrians, had fallen on hard times after the Yorkist victory in 1461 and were undoubtedly eager to grab any honours, titles and property going.

It has also been suggested that Elizabeth was regarded as unsuitable as, being a widow with two children, she was (obviously) no longer a virgin, though there does not seem to have been any contemporary complaints over this, and the objections were practical rather than moral. HLGallon (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite a bit hard to work into a summarised form. I have not Richard III on me at the moment, but I believe I wrote her "commoner" to reflect that she was a "mere" lady-in-waiting. I think I can work in George's motive in the background. I will see what I can do later when I am back with my books. Jappalang (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Elizabeth's status is corrected (though she is not a royal before marriage by any means). I have added Clarence's beef with Edward in the Commanders section. Note that Warwick's dissatisfaction with the marriage is also in there. Basically, the Background is a summarised view, and the Commanders section contain further background notes that elaborates their motivations towards the battle and their fighting abilities. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)