Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bicocca
A somewhat obscure battle, but one that's quite important in terms of the evolution of warfare. I respectfully await all comments. Kirill Lokshin 05:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Who knew that a collaborative (and civil!) project would spawn numerous amazing war articles? RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Another great article from Kirill! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 07:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Rlevse 12:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Great article.UberCryxic 15:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support plange 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment concerns about the age of some refs (e.g. Hackett, Oman) and the likelihood that their views are obsolete. Given the frequency with which Oman is cited, this is a fairly major issue. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- They may be old, but I don't believe they're obsolete. Oman is considered the canonical historian for this period even now; and, as far as I could find out, there hasn't been another detailed reconstruction of the battle published—at least in English—since Oman's. Kirill Lokshin 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've added citations for a few key points from Bert Hall's 1997 book. The majority of the narrative is still sourced to Oman, though. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- They may be old, but I don't believe they're obsolete. Oman is considered the canonical historian for this period even now; and, as far as I could find out, there hasn't been another detailed reconstruction of the battle published—at least in English—since Oman's. Kirill Lokshin 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)