This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Naseby article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
I'm doing an essay on Charles and wanted to know what people thought of him. Also I wanted to know whether people thought he was a traitor or a martyr?
I think Charles was a bit of both. He did things which were right and wrong. Charles should't have marched into Parliament with his soldiers. I am at secondary school and all my class agree that him and parliament should have discussed their problems; as they had many. he should have thought of what he did and Parliament also went very far for their extent of power.
I seem to remember reading or hearing about some recent archaeological work on the battlefield that showed that Charles's army was forced to retreat to a hill where it was largely butchered. Does anyone have any information on this? Darkmind1970 08:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen fit to apply this tag to the article. In my opinion, it never was a brilliant piece of work, but over the last few months it has degenerated into nine-tenths imaginative detail, with one footnote to back up all the purple prose. There are a number of good to excellent books on the battle; some of these should be referenced. Without references, most of the descriptive passages appear to be OR. HLGallon (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody having queried the tag, I have rewritten the section dealing with the battle. It is by no means perfect and still needs some cites, but at least it no longer qualifies for the Booker Prize for Fiction.HLGallon (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
