Talk:Battle of Babylon Hill

Battle of Babylon Hill is currently a Warfare good article nominee. Nominated by Harrias ^talk at 10:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms B‑class

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

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 and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United Kingdom B‑class Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Dorset B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dorset, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Dorset. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Dorset project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.DorsetWikipedia:WikiProject DorsetTemplate:WikiProject DorsetDorset articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Somerset B‑class Low‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Battle of Babylon Hill appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 October 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that according to one historian, the Battle of Babylon Hill was "more muddle than battle"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Babylon Hill.

Wikipedia

B class review comment

I have two comments. Djmaschek (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you write a battle article, please edit the associated campaignbox template and add the battle name (in this case: Template:Campaignbox First English Civil War). This time I did it for you.
In the introduction, it says Hopton was almost captured, but I don't see this in the narrative. This information and citation should probably be in the narrative. I'm not sure in what part of the skirmish this happened. Once it's in the narrative, it does not need a citation in the introduction.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 21:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: (Just in case you'd forgotten about this.) Harrias ^talk 10:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No DABs, external links OK
Images properly licensed
"nominal" victory rather than "notional"
were carrying out reconnaissance passive voice "reconnoitering"
Link Somerset, musketeer, dragoon, artillery on first use
were able to pull back ~~from the hill~~ under the cover
town itself but were unable comma after "itself"
defence on Yeovil Bridge, over the River Yeo, a combination of infantry and artillery awkward
- I have rephrased to "Bedford had posted a guard, consisting of both infantry and artillery, on Yeovil Bridge, which spanned the River Yeo." Harrias ^talk 08:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before the ~~entire~~ foot >Before all of the foot
amongst Moreton's men ~~too~~ "as well"
Which son of William Balfour?
- None of the sources say. Harrias ^talk 08:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
lost five, and the Royalists around 20 MOS says that spelling needs to be consistent for quantities of the same things, overriding the normal requirement about spelling numbers below ten
No need to link publisher locations--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sturmvogel 66: Thanks for your review; I have edited the article to account for each of your points, and have addressed a couple directly above. Harrias ^talk 08:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]