Talk:Battle of Werl

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Werl article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: European / German / Early Modern

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:
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:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Needs a little more context regarding the Cologne War; it's not clear how this battle in particular resulted in a consolidation of Wittlesbach authority, etc. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, will do. Do you know anyone interested in collaborating on these battle articles? Also, will you look at that part again? I think it should be clearer now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've upgraded it to a B as you've explained the context more clearly now. Still a couple of things to watch out for. Your lead is very short and should be expanded. Remember that it's supposed to summarize the body of the article. And watch the formatting of your references; there are a couple that are missing the p. for page number. See WP:CITE for more information. I suspect that you'll be working alone on these as you've found a very specialized topic that interests you. It's nice when its otherwise, but you can't count on it happening very often. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adjusted parameters to match B class assessment. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]