Talk:Battle of Powick Bridge

Assessment

I have removed the stub tag. The article appears to be fairly complete and needs assessment. --Kudpung (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Start-class.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Powick Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619194112/http://www.battlefieldstrust.com:80/index.asp to http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060620082335/http://www.thevickerage.worldonline.co.uk:80/ecivil/powick.htm to http://www.thevickerage.worldonline.co.uk/ecivil/powick.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613193225/http://www.thevickerage.worldonline.co.uk:80/ecivil/index.htm to http://www.thevickerage.worldonline.co.uk/ecivil/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Powick Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• I'd actually consider it better to indicate that Byron was a Royalist directly when he's first mentioned in the lead, rather than implying it later in the sentence.
  • Changed to "Sir John Byron was escorting a Royalist convoy of valuables from Oxford to King Charles's army in Shrewsbury.." Harrias ^talk 07:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Sir John Byron's convoy

• "Byron became aware of the proximity of the Parliamentarian army, and chose to seek refuge in Worcester on 16 September" - Is there a more specific reason why he chose that city? Did it provide advantages in some way?
  • No, it's just where he was. I have tried to make this a little clearer by saying "..in nearby Worcester.." Harrias ^talk 07:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Prelude

• "Brown led a detachment of around 1,000 mounted troops, and they reached the area just south of Worcester on 22 September, and secured a bridge across the north–south flowing Severn." - This leads a bit run-on, with the two and clauses in there
  • Tweaked this to "Brown led a detachment of around 1,000 mounted troops which reached the area just south of Worcester on 22 September, and secured a bridge across the north–south flowing Severn." Is that sufficient, or do you think it needs to be properly split? Harrias ^talk 07:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Opposing forces

• "cavarly" - Spelling is fun
  • Overrated. Corrected. Harrias ^talk 07:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "where they met Essex's Lifeguard" - Some context on what the Lifeguard was would be nice
  • Added a note on this. Harrias ^talk 07:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• " The Puritan preacher, Hugh Peter gave a sermon" - Not sure that comma is needed
  • Yup, removed. Harrias ^talk 07:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• I'm not super familiar with all of these publishers, but the sources all appear to be reasonably reliable for what they're cited for.

Nice little article. That's it, I think. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Hog Farm, how's that? Harrias ^talk 07:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Strength

Apparently the strength of each side was 1,000 horses. Were these a particularly warmongering breed, or were humans also involved? User name for this site (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

That's "horse", no s. Definition 4 in Wiktionary: "(Military ...) Cavalry soldiers". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

"First" English Civil War

The attribute 'first' needs to be qualified in some way. There were several civil wars in England after the Norman Conquest and before the reign of the first King Charles. The war between Matilda and Stephen in the twelth century, and the War of the Roses in the fifteenth century were the longest and most devastating. Perhaps those two are being ruled out by a narrow interpretation of the word 'civil', being struggles between rival claimants to the throne. But then, such a narrowing of what constitutes a civil war cannot be used to exclude what happened in the thirteenth century in the circumstances surrounding the setting up of the very first parliament by Simon de Montfort and its eventual overthrow by Prince Edward. 80.189.252.211 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Only one war is known in the sources as the "First English Civil War", and as Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we follow the sources, not what we may all agree is common sense. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)