Talk:Battle of Bonchurch

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written:
#:Not Yet
##The Introduction needs to be expanded so that it is a few paragraphs and gives a brief overview of the article.
##Many editors frown on two line paragraphs. So if possible could you merge them.
##For the section names it would be good if they are less verbose. For example, the 'Prelude to the Battle' should become 'Prelude' and the 'FIghting' the 'Battle'.
#It is factually accurate and verifiable:
#:Pass. The article seems accurate and is verified by plenty of sources.
#It is broad in its coverage:
#:Pass. The article has a seemingly broad covered and has a strong background and aftermath sections. The only problem I have here is that the quotes should have ciations straight after them.
#It follows the neutral point of view policy:
#:'Pass. The article following WP:NPOV.
#It is stable:
#:Pass. Yes, the article is stable.
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
#:Pass. I can't see why not. It has an image in the infobox as well as the conflicting nations coat of arms, though additional images would be useful.
#Overall:
#:On hold. Overall, the article is good has no problems except for the above issues in the well written section. If these issues are address, I will have no problems in passing the article. Goodluck. Kyriakos (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Good work, all the suggestions that I made have been met and I am happy to promote this article to GA. Kyriakos (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC 

message: Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs re-write to clarify and to remove serious padding problems 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Battle of Bonchurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041205155722/http://web.ukonline.co.uk:80/lordcornell/iwhr/plaq.htm to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lordcornell/iwhr/plaq.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110713070925/http://www.iwbeacon.com/The-Last-Invasion-of-the-Isle-of-Wight-The-Battle-of-Portsmouth.aspx to http://www.iwbeacon.com/The-Last-Invasion-of-the-Isle-of-Wight-The-Battle-of-Portsmouth.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Bonchurch. 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/20060513221510/http://www.thenewscentre.co.uk:80/rose/disaster.htm to http://www.thenewscentre.co.uk/rose/disaster.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: why is one amateur source that claims a french vistory, while ALL other sources say it was the English that won the battle, have some much prominence in the article??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:20E:E800:607A:9CE8:489F:3390 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not required that a source have an author. What's required is that the source should be accurate, and be known to be accurate. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  one source, why??