Battle of the Standard was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 22, 2011, August 22, 2015, and August 22, 2019. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. It is well written. In this respect:
2. It is factually accurate and
verifiable. In this respect:
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
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.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
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
Other than these, I think what SGGH said is all true. After these suggestions, I think this article is good enough for GA status. Good friend100 17:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Cromdog 18:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I was tempted to do the review on this renom, but since I have my own current nomination in the section this is living in, and another review in that section on-hold, I decided not to. However, I just made several minor changes to the article, on which I would have commented had I done the review. The new section titles I'm not too happy about, particularly under the new "prelude to battle", so regular editors should amend as necessary... just remember, don't start a section title with a preposition (so no "the", "an", or "a"), and don't repeat the article's name as a section header. I think I got the endash-hyphen-emdashes all sorted out, and I used ref names to avoid some repetitions. I think I saw some other MOS and prose stuff when I read this last night, but can't spot them now. There remain paragraphs that need citing, though. Hope this helps, when another reviewer gets here to do it properly. Carre 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have taken on Battle of the Standard for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Cromdog. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.
Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 19:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:
1 Well written PASS
The article is well-written; the prose flows logically and is pleasant to read, and there are no significant manual of style deficiencies (however, see 2 below). It is not currently a GA criterion, but we would recommend to editors to use the templates on WP:CITET when formatting references and citations; this ensures standardisation and allows them to be processed by bots for tasks such as tracking down dead web-page links and ISBN conversion.
2 Factual accuracy FAIL
This is the only area that needs additional work. There are a few sections of text that need in-line citations, and one or two instances of possible commentary:
Cites needed for:
Additionally:
3 Coverage PASS
The article covers its subject well, and remains focused throughout.
4 Neutrality PASS
The article is balanced and written in a neutral tone.
5 Stability PASS
The article history shows no signs of currently undergoing major changes or recent edit-warring.
6 Images PASS
All images used are appropriately captioned and bear a suitable license.
As a result of the above minor issues I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although in some circumstances the hold period can be briefly extended). To help with tracking, editors may like to strike through each comment as it is dealt with, or use the template {{done}} after each comment.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or are ready for a re-review. In any case I'll check back here in seven days (around 26th November). All the best, EyeSerene TALK 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Since this article has now been on hold for four weeks (including the arranged extension) and not all the issues above have been addressed, I have reluctantly failed this GA nomination. Please feel free to renominate the article at WP:GAN when ready, or to take this to WP:GAR if you feel there have been problems with my conduct of this review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 10:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be good if there were some maps in this article.
1. To show where the battle is 2. To show the border of the Kingdom before the war and 3. To show the territory eventually gained by David in the war after the battle.
I bumped into this, and I'm afraid I had a considerable POV issue with it, as might be expected from its narrow reference base (and my moniker, although the ancestral hut was somewhere near
Heavenfield,
Wall or
Acomb- when Richard of Hexham speaks of the Abbey as a refuge for the poor people of the surrounding countryside, that probably includes my kin))
Viewed from the other side of the hill,
If the sources are consulted, there were also a significant number of basic factual errors.
Not making the first one requires a bit of contextual understanding ("Carrum" = Carham = Wark-on-Tweed), but the last 2 undermined the article more than somewhat
No of course it never is. I claim no ownership, but if people think there are errors of fact or definite POVs where there shouldn't be, please advise, perhaps not only the article but my own understanding would benefit from the correction-- Rjccumbria ( talk) 00:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of the Standard/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
.
As it has been through a couple of GA reviews I would think that not too much work would allow a resubmission - though the goal posts may have moved on since last try. Keith D ( talk) 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Standard. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Battle of the Standard was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 22, 2011, August 22, 2015, and August 22, 2019. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. It is well written. In this respect:
2. It is factually accurate and
verifiable. In this respect:
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
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.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
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
Other than these, I think what SGGH said is all true. After these suggestions, I think this article is good enough for GA status. Good friend100 17:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Cromdog 18:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I was tempted to do the review on this renom, but since I have my own current nomination in the section this is living in, and another review in that section on-hold, I decided not to. However, I just made several minor changes to the article, on which I would have commented had I done the review. The new section titles I'm not too happy about, particularly under the new "prelude to battle", so regular editors should amend as necessary... just remember, don't start a section title with a preposition (so no "the", "an", or "a"), and don't repeat the article's name as a section header. I think I got the endash-hyphen-emdashes all sorted out, and I used ref names to avoid some repetitions. I think I saw some other MOS and prose stuff when I read this last night, but can't spot them now. There remain paragraphs that need citing, though. Hope this helps, when another reviewer gets here to do it properly. Carre 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have taken on Battle of the Standard for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Cromdog. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.
Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 19:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:
1 Well written PASS
The article is well-written; the prose flows logically and is pleasant to read, and there are no significant manual of style deficiencies (however, see 2 below). It is not currently a GA criterion, but we would recommend to editors to use the templates on WP:CITET when formatting references and citations; this ensures standardisation and allows them to be processed by bots for tasks such as tracking down dead web-page links and ISBN conversion.
2 Factual accuracy FAIL
This is the only area that needs additional work. There are a few sections of text that need in-line citations, and one or two instances of possible commentary:
Cites needed for:
Additionally:
3 Coverage PASS
The article covers its subject well, and remains focused throughout.
4 Neutrality PASS
The article is balanced and written in a neutral tone.
5 Stability PASS
The article history shows no signs of currently undergoing major changes or recent edit-warring.
6 Images PASS
All images used are appropriately captioned and bear a suitable license.
As a result of the above minor issues I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although in some circumstances the hold period can be briefly extended). To help with tracking, editors may like to strike through each comment as it is dealt with, or use the template {{done}} after each comment.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or are ready for a re-review. In any case I'll check back here in seven days (around 26th November). All the best, EyeSerene TALK 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Since this article has now been on hold for four weeks (including the arranged extension) and not all the issues above have been addressed, I have reluctantly failed this GA nomination. Please feel free to renominate the article at WP:GAN when ready, or to take this to WP:GAR if you feel there have been problems with my conduct of this review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 10:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be good if there were some maps in this article.
1. To show where the battle is 2. To show the border of the Kingdom before the war and 3. To show the territory eventually gained by David in the war after the battle.
I bumped into this, and I'm afraid I had a considerable POV issue with it, as might be expected from its narrow reference base (and my moniker, although the ancestral hut was somewhere near
Heavenfield,
Wall or
Acomb- when Richard of Hexham speaks of the Abbey as a refuge for the poor people of the surrounding countryside, that probably includes my kin))
Viewed from the other side of the hill,
If the sources are consulted, there were also a significant number of basic factual errors.
Not making the first one requires a bit of contextual understanding ("Carrum" = Carham = Wark-on-Tweed), but the last 2 undermined the article more than somewhat
No of course it never is. I claim no ownership, but if people think there are errors of fact or definite POVs where there shouldn't be, please advise, perhaps not only the article but my own understanding would benefit from the correction-- Rjccumbria ( talk) 00:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of the Standard/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
.
As it has been through a couple of GA reviews I would think that not too much work would allow a resubmission - though the goal posts may have moved on since last try. Keith D ( talk) 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Standard. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)