Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weardale campaign/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2021 [1].

Weardale campaign[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another of Edward III's military campaigns, his first. One which left him weeping with frustration. I believe that I have it there or thereabouts, but feel free to point out all of the areas where I have misjudged this. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 18:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Hi there, Gog. A while back you asked me for a review, but university was in the way. University is no longer in the way. I'll do the source review & spot-checks for you. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)

I'll spot-check 15% of the article's citations (6). If everything is good, then I'll support; if not, I'll do a further 15%.

  • Fn 35 (Aftermath). Page 177: "Edward II was held in secure custody until his suspiciously timely death in September of the same year." Pass.
  • Fn 24 (Notes). From Wikisource: It might be prudent to mention that monarchs, exercising their royal prerogative, decided who could have fun in the park. Just a suggestion, though. Pass.
  • Fn 13, 14, 15 (Background): I can't access the Rogers text, but can confirm the same information appears variously in other books (including Ormrod 2014). Pass.
  • Fn 42 (Aftermath): Page 8: "Balliol and a small force defeated the government’s army at the Battle of Dupp- lin Moor in July 1332. [...] However, civil war and repeated English invasions would continue to wrack the nation for years. It would take a Second War as well as the start of another major conflict – the Hundred Years War – for the Scottish King- dom to finally secure its independence." Pass.
  • Fn 26, 27 (Campaign). Page 86: "A large group of Scottish mounted infantry (soldiers who rode from place to place, but fought on foot in pike phalanxes called schiltrons", and "The English host found the Scottish schiltrons deployed in an unassailable defensive position, across a swift river (the Wear) and atop a steep hill, without enough room between the water and the slope for the English to form up". Pass.

Easy pass on the spot checks. Sources all look good; nothing is malformed, and the pedigree of authors is quickly confirmed by simply Googling their names. Support! Always fun to see some Scotland at FAC ;) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ImaginesTigers, much appreciated. I have tweaked your section title to help out the coordinators, and tweaked some of your copy editing, which you may wish to check. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a prose review, so I won't be quibbling further! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support A very few comments.

  • "his main counsellor, Hugh Despenser, was declared a traitor and sentenced to be drawn, hanged, disembowelled, castrated and quartered;" I gather you are mentioning the sentence, rather than the actual execution due to the historical doubt as to whether he was castrated; still, saying he was sentenced without mentioning an execution may leave the reader wondering whether it was carried out.
Good point. I have added the fate of his head, which I think clarifies that he was very dead, but without over-interrupting the flow of the prose.
  • "all round defence" should there be a hyphen connecting the first two words?
There should, there should. Done.
  • "guy ropes" Link?
Have you read the article guy rope links to? The omission was not accidental.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, short and sweet. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

Another page-turner from Gog. Clearly FA material, but I have a few minor points:

  • Lead – "James, Lord Douglas, Thomas, Earl of Moray and Donald, Earl of Mar" – do we need their Christian names here? I momentarily lost count of the cast of characters, and if it would be OK to say just "Lord Douglas and the earls of Moray and Mar" it would be more instantly clear. I don't press the point. Regardless of that, the first of these gentry is Lord Douglas in the lead and Lord of Douglas in the main text.
The usual, MoS encouraged, approach is to name in full at first mention. That said, no one recites nobles' full titles in articles, so let us do as you suggest and see if there are complaints.
Fixed.
  • "While assembling the Hainaulters" – Though, as you know, habitually sparing with commas whenever practicable, I think you might add one here after "assembling", to avoid the fleeting impression that the Hainaulters are the object and not the subject of the verb.
Hmm, done.
  • "the eye witness chronicler Jean Le Bel" – the OED makes eyewitness all one word.
Done.
  • "The English stood to arms all night, anticipated a desperate Scottish assault" – I pondered this: is "stood" used transitively (as in "I stood the vase on a table") or intransitively (as in "I stood there")? The former may be a technical military use unknown to me and if so, fine, but then it needs a comma before "stood". If it's the latter there is an "and" missing before "anticipated" (or "anticipated" should be "anticipating")
I hadn't realised that it was such a specialised term, I have added a Wiktionary link. Add, yes, the last of your suggestions - "anticipating". Done.
  • "On the night of 2/3 August" – not sure the slash is in line with MoS diktats – might be worth checking.
You are, as usual, quite correct. Changed.
  • "the main English force in the region was unable to venture out of their base" – singular verb with plural pronoun.
Corrected.
  • "5-year-old David II" – we usually give numbers under ten as words, rather than numerals
We do. And I now do too.
  • A more general point: I got to the end of the main narrative wondering why Robert Bruce vanished between the Background and Aftermath sections. It might be instructive to say where he was while this fighting was going on and why he absented himself, particularly as his opposite number, the English king, was there.
Good point. "Bruce was immobilised with an unspecified illness during 1327" added.
(Sounds like a note from his mother asking for him to be excused games.) Thanks for adding that - definitely helps the reader understand what was going on.

That's all I can find to quibble about. I enjoyed this article enormously. – Tim riley talk 22:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, and thank you for another thoughtful review. I am pleased that you enjoyed the article. Responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very pleased to add my support for the elevation of this fine article. Tim riley talk 20:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 21:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The former is now added, there seems no obvious place to add the latter and reading it, I don't see that it adds anything for a reader. There are other articles around this usurption which don't get a mention, eg Siege of Bristol (1326), but so what.
  • Worth adding to the map caption what the red castle-looking things signify?
Done.
Oops. Done.
  • Harv no-target error is flagging for me: short citation is for Barrow 2005 while the long citation is for Barrow 1965? Maybe missing a reprint date in the long citation?
My typo. Fixed.

Excellent article; anticipate supporting once these are responded to. Hog Farm Talk 23:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, thank you for picking up after my sadly-not-unusual sloppiness. All done, but see point one. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive support - I see nothing that runs afoul of any of the criteria here, and AGFing based on nominator's past history that there are no copyvios. Hog Farm Talk 13:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias[edit]

Overall, this is a typically well-written article, which is particularly good in detailing the military actions in an accessible manner. I have made a few edits to the article, and have a few queries below, but nothing major.

Yes: premature senility.
  • It feels odd that Jean Le Bel is introduced twice; in Note 1 during the Prelude, and then in the main text in the Campaign section.
It seems odd to me too and wasn't in the original. But I suspected that if I left it at just the note, which comes first, someone was bound to complain. Introduction in main text removed and complainants will be referred to you. I have kept "Le Bel" as you seem to prefer it, although a majority of the sources I have accessed prefer le Bel.
I have no major preference, but figured it should either be "Jean Le Bel" and "Le Bel" or "Jean le Bel" and "le Bel", and given you'd used "Jean Le Bel", I changed the other. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed.
  • "On the night of 2–3 August.." but later "On the night of 3/4 August.." MOS allows either an endash or a slash for an overnight span, but be consistent. (Personally I prefer the slash for this, but whatever.)
Tim riley suggested that the MoS did not permit the / and I couldn't find that it did. I then missed the second"/". Reverted to / if it is preferred.
For reference, it is the seventh major bullet point in MOS:DATERANGE, which says:
  • An overnight period may be expressed using a slash between two contiguous dates: the night raids of 30/31 May 1942 or raids of 31 May / 1 June 1942.
Or use an en dash: (unspaced) raids of 30–31 May 1942;  (spaced) raids of 31 May – 1 June 1942.

Anyway, all sorted now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "England and Scotland were soon at war again: in August 1332 Edward Balliol and his English supporters, backed by Edward III, won the Battle of Dupplin Moor and began the Second War of Scottish Independence." I mean, I guess that is just what it is called, but the phrasing of this seems odd: the English starting the Second War of Scottish Independence almost makes it sound as if they were fighting for Scottish Independence, but I guess there isn't much that can be done.
Good point. Sure it can: tweaked. See if that works better.

As I say, really nice work on the whole, and just me being picky. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias is back, let joy be unbounded. Your pickiness is much appreciated, and all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not call it a comeback just yet, but it's a start! Baby steps, and all that. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boo!
  • Support: there wasn't much wrong from my perspective to start with, and now I'm content that this meets our Featured criteria. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@FAC coordinators: , Ian Rose, 4 supports - 2 from non-MilHist editors - source and image review passes, been open for 11 days; can I nominate another. It looks to me as if my other nom - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treaty of Guînes/archive1 - is done; other opinions may be available. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, this ping didn't seem to appear on my alerts but Jim's below just did. Anyway let me take a look... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, yep, now that I've closed your other one, pls go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: , Ian Rose, piggy-backing on this, I have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abberton Reservoir/archive1 in a similar position, and would like to run Illustrations of the Family of Psittacidae, or Parrots Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answered. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Weardale_campaign/archive1&oldid=1035061066"