Talk:Battle of the Standard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of High-importance within medieval Scottish studies.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

Battle of the Standard was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-02-23

[edit] GA Review

1. It is well written. In this respect:

• “The Battle of the Standard, sometimes called the Battle of Northallerton, in which English forces repelled a Scottish army, took place on 22 August 1138 on Cowton Moor near Northallerton in Yorkshire” is a little complicated, perhaps put “The Battle of the Standard, sometimes called the Battle of Northallerton, took place on 22 August 1138 on Cowton Moor near Northallerton in Yorkshire between the Scottish and the English”
• Also, wikilink the Scottish and the English to the respective countries (as they were at the time) if such articles exist.
• “The Scottish army were led by King David I of Scotland.” were?
• Second paragraph of lead perhaps a shade confusing
• There are other grammar problems in the article
• Other areas are well written
• We are three sub-sections into the larger “Battle of the Standard” section before we actual come to the battle, this seems a little disorganised.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

• One of the most excellent references sections I’ve ever seen!
• I would suggest you find the ISBN numbers for the books you ref’d from.
• Good use of primary sources

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

• Background, lead up, battle, aftermath, its all there, good job
• littleàno irrelevant trivia

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

• No NPOV issues that I can see

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

• Very stable, aside from recent expansion by one main user, which is okay.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

• Good use of recent images, and the tapestry is good too, all licences seem okay.
• Are there any images from the battle, paintings, tapestries etc?

This is an unlucky article in a way, points 2->5 is passes on, and point 6 isn’t enough to hold it back, unfortunately with the issues mentioned in point one, I feel that I can’t award GA status to this article quite yet. You may think I’m being a little harsh, but the quality of GA articles is only as high as the most lenient reviewer! Good work on the article as a whole, just those few points to consider. SGGH 10:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)