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 is within the scope of WikiProject Worcestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Worcestershire-related articles 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.WorcestershireWikipedia:WikiProject WorcestershireTemplate:WikiProject WorcestershireWorcestershire articles
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Powick Bridge. 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 trueorfailed 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I'd actually consider it better to indicate that Byron was a Royalist directly when he's first mentioned in the lead, rather than implying it later in the sentence.
"Byron became aware of the proximity of the Parliamentarian army, and chose to seek refuge in Worcester on 16 September" - Is there a more specific reason why he chose that city? Did it provide advantages in some way?
"Brown led a detachment of around 1,000 mounted troops, and they reached the area just south of Worcester on 22 September, and secured a bridge across the north–south flowing Severn." - This leads a bit run-on, with the two and clauses in there
Tweaked this to "Brown led a detachment of around 1,000 mounted troops which reached the area just south of Worcester on 22 September, and secured a bridge across the north–south flowing Severn." Is that sufficient, or do you think it needs to be properly split? Harriastalk07:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The attribute 'first' needs to be qualified in some way. There were several civil wars in England after the Norman Conquest and before the reign of the first King Charles. The war between Matilda and Stephen in the twelth century, and the War of the Roses in the fifteenth century were the longest and most devastating. Perhaps those two are being ruled out by a narrow interpretation of the word 'civil', being struggles between rival claimants to the throne. But then, such a narrowing of what constitutes a civil war cannot be used to exclude what happened in the thirteenth century in the circumstances surrounding the setting up of the very first parliament by Simon de Montfort and its eventual overthrow by Prince Edward. 80.189.252.211 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only one war is known in the sources as the "First English Civil War", and as Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we follow the sources, not what we may all agree is common sense. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
