# Talk:Battle of Alton

The article states "...but withdrew to Basingstoke in failure, with his soldiers near mutiny from poor conditions."  What kind of conditions? Food, billeting, weather, pay? Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant "weather conditions". I fixed the sentence in the article. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The text includes {{Cnote|β|Colonel Richard Boles name is given as Bolle in many sources.<ref name=curtis This convention may originate with Godwin's ''Civil War in Hampshire''.<ref name=curtis40 /><ref name=curtis42> Curtis (1896), pg. 42</ref>}} 
But there is an incomplete ref name=curtis in the note.  It is swallowing a sentence and causing a cite error.  Probably all that needs to be done is complete the ref name, i.e.  <ref name=curtisXX />.  ClamDip (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've fixed the problem, mostly. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I just emphasized the part that is the error.  ClamDip (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Ahh. I was confused as to what the error was. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Alton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: JonCatalán(Talk) 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
→ Here is some initial commentary; I also copyedited a bit, so feel free to revert anything that you believe detracts from the article  Remember, these are all meant in good faith.  I hope you can use these comments to further better and complete the article.

Lead

I tried to fix the bunching (note how the edit links don't appear with the proper headers), but to no avail.  I'm not sure what the problem is.
It comes off as incongruous, due in large part to the introduction of characters which are unknown to the layman.  For example, it starts by referring to William Waller and Ludovich Lindsay, but then suddenly you introduce Colonel Richardson Boles.  The relationship between the two is unclear, and it makes the first paragraph of the lead rather messy (also, I suggest referring to Ludovich Lindsay as such, because suddenly switching to "Lord Crawford" was slightly confusing to me; I know it occurs quite frequently for English military leaders, who are oftentimes referred to by their titles of nobility, but the connection should be more obvious to avoided altogether in the lead).
I agree and struck Lindsay's name to clear it up.
The lead should have a structure which loosely follows that of the rest of the article.  In other words, while the first sentence or two may be a general description of the event, the lead should still follow a structure that has a beginning, middle, and end (or before, during, and after).  It should discuss events leading to the battle, the battle itself, and the consequences (and it shouldn't be too specific).  As such, the lead should probably be split into three paragraphs, loosely following this structure (perhaps not so much elucidation of the consequences is necessary).
I agree, and I reworked the lede as you suggested.
There is a lot of dramatization.  For example, you write, "Indeed, musket holes from this fierce but hopeless fight can still be seen in the south door to the church and inside, where so many cornered men were killed and captured."  I'm not sure this is entirely encyclopedic, even if the content is worthwhile.
Encyclopedia articles don't have to be dry and lifeless?
Well, this may be true to a degree, but there is a difference between an exciting use of language and embellishment. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I attest this is the case of the former, not the latter.
The lead could also use some copyediting to make it more clear and concise (criteria 1a), but I'll hold off on this (I was going to do some myself) until the structure of the lead is clarified.
I read through it again, adding a comma and making a minor change of word choice.
Background

The second paragraph has a couple of sentences I didn't want to touch too much, but I still feel they should be revised.  First (I quote my revision of the sentence, rather than the original—the content is the same), "While not of great strategic importance, Basing's proximity to the main road between London, Salisbury, and Winchester made it worthy of attention." → Perhaps Basing was not of "great" strategic importance, but what defines a "great" strategic importance seems entirely subjective here.  The fact that Basing sat on a main road between London and Salisbury probable makes Basing strategic, even if it wasn't of "great" strategic importance.  Maybe this sentence should be revised to avoid discussing on its strategic importance relative to the greater war, and instead focus on its strategic importance relative to Waller's expedition.
I think it's worth emphasising that that even Basing was really not that important; I think it's very important that the bigger picture be presented clearly.
I agree, but as elucidated in another comment, in an article regarding the Battle of Alton, the strategic relevant of Basing within that "bigger picture" is also important. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Second, "where he determined his capabilities: "... 16 troops of horse, 8 companies of dragoons, 36 companies of foot, and a train of artillery, consisting of ten heavy guns and six cases of small 'drakes' [light artillery]." He marched further that day, but later retreated to Farnham." → I think it would read better, "...where he recomposed his capabilities, consisting of "16 troop of horse..."".
He didn't "recompose" them; he determined them. I don't understand the problem.
I don't think this meets criteria 3.  I feel as if it's not sufficiently broad in coverage, because there is very little preparation in regards to "Colonel Barnnett" (whoever that is) ad his defense at Alton.  Maybe a little more background information on Alton's defense is due.  Also, while it is true that there are wikilinks to the English Civil War, this article should nevertheless give a good, broad coverage on these events within the context of the war (i.e. who was Waller attacking? why?)  Finally, originally you write that he had been ordered to "defend Hampshire County".  Is this some way of saying that he was told to capture it?  The word "defend" does not seem to fit with the idea that he attacked Alton.
First of all, there is really no more information on that small skirmish that I can find. But in any case, if more is to be written, it should go in another article, as its events were irrelevant to the Battle of Alton (really).
The use of "defend" was a mistake of mine: actually, that was NPOV-style wording from the source. I've made it a quotation to make the use clear.
The next couple of sentences make clear the larger picture for the battle.
Now, at the third paragraph, I am really confused.  First, Waller attacks Colonel Barnnett at Alton, then Waller retreats after attacking Basing to await "Lord Hopton" (again, whoever that is).  Suddenly, it's Lord Crawford who is defending Alton.  This background just doesn't piece together well.
I've changed the introduction of Crawford to make it clear that he was an underling of Hopton's.
The lengthy quote is probably better off as a note, or a reference, with the attribution in that note/reference.
I considered this, but decided that it fits too linearly into the storyline.
"During this exchange, Waller, eager to repair his reputation after Roundway Down,[10] promptly decided to attack Alton, the nearest Royalist outpost to Farnham and only ten miles away." → I'm confused, is he attacking Alton or an outpost ten miles away?  If Alton is the outpost then this should be clarified much earlier in the background.
I really don't understand what confuses you here. Alton, as a town in which Royalist forces were quarted, well qualifies as an "outpost" for the latter's forces.
I must have read the sentence wrong. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Overall, I think it reads choppy and the events are not elucidated clearly.  There are a lot of holes in the story, and it's difficult to follow.  I think that these holes should be easy to fill, but will require some time and work.
I've made some significant organisational changes. Please review them. Now I follow chronological order much more strictly, and keep each paragraph about only one side.
Battle

A question; "Waller's forces reached the western side of Alton by this circuitous route at around 9:00 a.m., and he captured six of Crawford's sentries posted in the north." → If they approached Alton from the west, how did they capture sentries in the north?  Some of these comments are made from (my) genuine ignorance on the topic, but I am the type of person the article should be written for.
They came from the north, but looped around to the western side. Hence "circuitous". I don't understand how this could be clearer.
"Circuitous" doesn't really imply any given direction, or imply anything at all really. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It implies that the direction from which they left and the direction from which they arrived may be different.
In the third paragraph of the battle you introduce the name Haslerig, but there is no prior mention of him.  Who is he?  Just adding his name adds confusion, as these forces were not mentioned and delineated before.
He's a minor character who does not deserve prior mention, but should still be named as a commander of a regiment in Waller's army. I've tried to rework the sentence to make his position under Waller clear.
In the fourth paragraph, do you mean jerry-rigged?
Yes.
The epitaph is sort of randomly placed.  Where was it inscribed?  Who inscribed it?  Why was it inscribed?
It's placed there because, chronologically, that's where he died. That information I believe is extremely irrelevant to the battle itself. If Boles ever has an article, it can go there. In the mean time, if someone is curious, he can look at the reference.
Boles dies in the battle and has an epitaph written for him.  I don't find further clarification on this "irrelevant", especially when the article is only 23kB long. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, the details of the epitaph say nothing about the battle itself.
Aftermath

"Hopton was severely depressed by his defeat at Alton, actually more than was appropriate." → Okay?  What was appropriate?
Reworded.
A useful addition to the aftermath section is putting the importance of the battle within the context of the war (also, this goes back to the underdeveloped background).  Right now, the battle seems largely irrelevant to the war, because it is impossible to discern its relationship with th war in general.  Elucidating that would  certainly be helpful.
It was largely irrelevant to the war. Its effects were pretty much solely that it allowed Waller to advance upon Arundel and had a psychological effect on both commanders.
Other

Images look good.
Seems stable.
Accuracy seems acceptable.
Therefore, the article seems to fail criteria 1a and 3a.  There is substantial work to be done.  I will leave the review open for three days so that you may respond (I may be wrong on some points) and edit the article accordingly.  On 6 October I will pass or fail based on the progress made. JonCatalán(Talk) 07:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the solid copyediting. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


### Pics and What Didn't Happen
The inclusion of modern-day photographs (viz [St_Lawrence_bullet_holes.jpg] and [File:St_Lawrence_finds_after_battle.jpg] ) spark two desires in me. 
First, I should like to see a more recent photograph of the church as it now stands - though this desire can be sated by following a relevant link, you might consider cross-linking that page's image here. It would provide a nice transition, I think, from descriptions of events to discussion of the aftermath. But it's certainly not necessary to so do :)

I don't think it's appropriate. Any images of the church taken in colour hardly relate to the aftermath of so ancient a battle.
Second, I would be interested to see an entry concerning the post faco historiography of the incident. The "aftermath" section of the article places the battle in the context of the War; but the images given later in the article, of contemporary relics, conjure in me a wish to learn more of the battle's place in history and popular perception. Is there a Blue Plaque at the Church? Where is Boles' elegy (as given in the article) to be found transcribed? Is the battle celebrated by the town, or ever commemorated by recreationists? Likewise: is there any divergence in popular perceptions of the battle, as from the sources you have encountered?

A quick search indicates there is no Blue Plaque.
More, rather uninteresting details on the elegy are easily found in the cited reference; as stated above, I think this matter relates more to Boles the man than to the battle itself.
I have read about reenactments. They seemed rather small-scale, though, and not worthy of mention.
Nope. No divergence that I saw. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


### Annoying Tidbit Request
What was the population of the town at the time of the battle? 

I've added the approximate population in 1666. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


### Annoying Tidbit Request
Did the town of Alton declare openly for Parliament after the battle? Did they remain loyal to the Roundheads for the remainder of the Warres?

I haven't seen anything about that. I suspect nobody care(s/d). -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
My limited exposure to like historiography suggests that this indicates they remained neutral-Parliamentarian... that is to say: occupied. I'll see if I can find anything mentioning it explicitly in the parliamentary record.
Dak06 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


### Dating
"13 December 1653"
Is that old- or new-style dating?

Good question. That's the date given in all contemporary works (as far as I recall without note), and I think most accounts are derived from that of Godwin (1882). Is there no consensus on which date to use in the literature on the English Civil Wars? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe there's a consensus among historiographers, particularly of the Victorian are (and non-Oxbridgian to boot). Since most modern works provide an explicit declaration as to one form of chronography or the other (or use an intertextual RegEx to offer both), I expect that works which predate the Great War simply take one or t'other as they prefer.
ASIDE: It would be nice for WikiPedia to have a concrete policy on this issue. Since Battle of Naseby, listed as being the battle of the First Civil, makes no allowance for such chronographic differentiation, I expect that there is no such policy, or else it is unfortunately obscure. In which case I expect my request would be better brought before a Project rather than an Article. Forgive me for burdening you with it :)

It looks as if the appropriate project is WikiProject History, which unfortunately is a bit general. If I were you, I'd ask if there's a policy, find out there isn't, then write one yourself.
That being said: Do you still have access to Godwin '82? If so, you might try to triangulate based upon its citation of a common date - the Battle of Edgehill, for example, or Marston, or Oxford, or (even better) a parliamentary enabling act, or (shooting the moon) a regicide or coronation. That being said: if it is not a standard to which articles are held, I suppose you could use your time more profitably elsewhere.

Yes. See the bibliography of the article... there should be a link there. Would you do the honours of looking at that source? I trust your judgement in these matters more than mine, and I might make a careless error from unfamiliarity with the material. Of course, such work is technically OR, but I think we might let the matter slide, as long as we're very careful. Still, it's possible that Godwin, for instance, is inconsistent in his usage, and we wouldn't want to make a mistake. It'd be better if the ambiguity were resolved in one of the newer books I used, and I just missed it in my initial research. I'll be in the city this weekend, and I may get a chance to go to the NYPL and check it out. It's not a standard to which articles are regularly held; but it certainly should be! Ambiguous, misleading and wrong information are all certainly worse than no information at all. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Dak06 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


### Four Tildes
Dak06 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is he referred to as Lord Waller in para 2? He was just a knight. Same goes for Hopton.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2011
Is it worth mentioning that Waller and Hopton were friends, and only enemies in battle/politics, hence the considerably more cordial letter from Hopton compared with the bitter letter from Crawford???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.235.118.50 (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Alton. 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/20110211201827/http://www.localauthoritypublishing.co.uk:80/councils/alton/battle.html to http://www.localauthoritypublishing.co.uk/councils/alton/battle.html
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: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)