Talk:Battle of Bonchurch

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The Introduction needs to be expanded so that it is a few paragraphs and gives a brief overview of the article.
   2. Many editors frown on two line paragraphs. So if possible could you merge them.
   3. For the section names it would be good if they are less verbose. For example, the 'Prelude to the Battle' should become 'Prelude' and the 'FIghting' the 'Battle'.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass. The article seems accurate and is verified by plenty of sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass. The article has a seemingly broad covered and has a strong background and aftermath sections. The only problem I have here is that the quotes should have ciations straight after them.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   'Pass. The article following WP:NPOV.

5. It is stable:

   Pass. Yes, the article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass. I can't see why not. It has an image in the infobox as well as the conflicting nations coat of arms, though additional images would be useful.

7. Overall:

   On hold. Overall, the article is good has no problems except for the above issues in the well written section. If these issues are address, I will have no problems in passing the article. Goodluck. Kyriakos (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

GAC

Good work, all the suggestions that I made have been met and I am happy to promote this article to GA. Kyriakos (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs re-write to clarify and to remove serious padding problems

Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and now done. Not sure whether GA was justified from previous drafting? IanB2 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Battle of Bonchurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041205155722/http://web.ukonline.co.uk:80/lordcornell/iwhr/plaq.htm to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lordcornell/iwhr/plaq.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110713070925/http://www.iwbeacon.com/The-Last-Invasion-of-the-Isle-of-Wight-The-Battle-of-Portsmouth.aspx to http://www.iwbeacon.com/The-Last-Invasion-of-the-Isle-of-Wight-The-Battle-of-Portsmouth.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Bonchurch. 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/20060513221510/http://www.thenewscentre.co.uk:80/rose/disaster.htm to http://www.thenewscentre.co.uk/rose/disaster.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

one source, why??

why is one amateur source that claims a french vistory, while ALL other sources say it was the English that won the battle, have some much prominence in the article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:20E:E800:607A:9CE8:489F:3390 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I have left all your claims in yet you still revert??? This is one source vs many, and you are cherry picking what you like even from that source!! Please do not revert it again, I have not put anything that isnt true in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:20E:E800:607A:9CE8:489F:3390 (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The ONE source doesnt even have an author and therefore is not a valid source at all????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:20E:E800:607A:9CE8:489F:3390 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

as your ONE source has no author it is not a valid or allowed source on Wiki. Therefore if you can not find a valid one in the next 3 days I will remove the section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:20E:E800:607A:9CE8:489F:3390 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not required that a source have an author. What's required is that the source should be accurate, and be known to be accurate. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)