Talk:Battle of Bovey Heath

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CPA-5 (talk · contribs) 13:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Claim my seat here. CPA-5 (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the title be battles of Bovey Heath and Bovey Heath? Because the article says it was fought in both regions?
  • Assuming you mean "Bovey Tracey and Bovey Heath", or indeed vice-versa, I can see the argument for it, but it is invariable referred to as the Battle of Bovey Heath, so per WP:COMMONNAME, this seems the better home for it. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• south-west of Exeter in Devon, England Link Exeter.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• I see some Americans southwest
  • Should be corrected now. BrEng uses south-west for the direction, but southwest (or South West) for the geographical area. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oh I see didn't know it was allowed to use southwest. I always thought it was an americanised English word.

• they had retreated to Exeter and beyond Unlink Exeter.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• In early 1645, the southwest of England American southwest.
  • See above. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• newly formed New Model Army to the southwest Same as above.
  • Same as above. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• in the west country to retreat to Exeter Link Exeter.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• command of the Royalist army in the southwest by the Prince American southwest.
  • See above. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Charles retreated further into the southwest Same as above.
  • See above. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• ending Royalist hopes of relieving Exeter.[12][4] Re-order the refs in numerical order.
  • Can you point me to where in the MOS this is required? Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's not really required and as far as I know MOS doesn't mention this. However most history books or encyclopaedias I saw use this kind way. Why? I have no idea. What I can tell it it looks better to re-order them. But I do not think it is that important in a GA, I believe it really important to add it in the FAC. FAs are the closes thing what we can make a perfect article so it should be mentioned in it to make it part of our FAs. This is just a sugestion and this is just my opnion and I am not the only who think about that.

• (I did change it anyway in my first pass.) Harrias ^talk 07:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• the First Civil War was effectively concluded in June 1646 Link the civil war.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• the Royalist army in southwest England surrendered in Truro American southwest.
  • See above. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• though the cavalry were not allowed in the city You mean "was"?
  • Hmmm, no. See English plurals#Singulars with collective meaning treated as plural. "the cavalry" is treated as a plural in BrEng, so takes "were". Although I doubt I'm consistent in this across other articles. It'd be interesting to see. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• So if I'm not wrong you can use both "cavalry" and "cavalries" as plurals right?

• Sort of. I can't think of many occasions on which I would use "cavalries"; probably only something like "both sides had strong cavalries". Another common time this causes confusion is in sports articles. AmEng would say "Manchester United is a soccer team", while BrEng say "Manchester United are a football team". Harrias ^talk 07:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Harrias: I see, that make sense words like "crew" and "Crown" have a plural form too. I don't know or you British or not but to me as a non-English speaker it sometimes does sound better and sometimes it doesn't. Britons love to play hard in their language. But organisations shouldn't be a treated as a plural right? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• I believe so. Incidentally, I think I confused myself with the football team example, as that is a case when there is ambiguity about referring to the team or the organisation, so I have cut it. Harrias ^talk 09:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• No edit war.

Infobox

• Can we not remove the File:Devon UK location map.svg image to above the date part?
  • That's just how the infobox is structured. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• "Casualties and losses: Around 150 men captured" The number isn't mentioned in the body?
  • Hmm, good point. I've taken it out for the moment, because I don't have the first clue where that number came from. If I find it again, I'll add it back! Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• No OR.
• Add "A." after Eugene.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Some ISBNs have 10 digits others have 13 digits please standardise them.
  • Not a GA requirement. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• When is this rule a requirement then?

• • • • It is never specifically set out. The GA criteria states: "Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source." You could make an argument that the A-class criteria requires it: "..consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style.." though it is unclear whether that would really require consistent ISBNs. To be honest, this is a nonsense requirement at any level, just introduced because having them all the same looks better. The point of the ISBN is to be able to easily search for the book. Either ISBN10 or ISBN13 provide this. Most MILHIST topics use older books which have OCLC numbers, so it doesn't all look the same anyway. Harrias ^talk 07:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• "Twenty two turbulent years 1639–1661" book needs a Google Books URL.
  • Added. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• The rest looks good to me.

Images

• Images looks good to me.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; I've addressed each point, let me know any further feedback. Harrias ^talk 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• I replied to your response Harrias. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• @CPA-5: Cheers. Harrias ^talk 07:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• @CPA-5: Is any further work required? Harrias ^talk 09:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• No I do not think there is anything left to dicus here. I think I can pass it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)