Talk:Battle of Kinghorn

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that after losing the Battle of Kinghorn in 1332 the Earl of Fife was "full of shame" at being defeated by such a small force? Source: DeVries, Kelly (1998) [1996]. Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century: Discipline, Tactics, and Technology. Woodbridge, Suffolk; Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-0851155715, p. 117.

• Reviewed: Sylvia Pengilly
• Comment: Suggestions for alternative blurbs are welcome.

5x expanded by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 13:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC).

• Hi Gog the Mild, another excellent article. Review follows: article 5x expanded from 24 January; article is extremely well written and cited inline throughout to excellent sources; I don't have access to the offline sources but more than happy to AGF on any copyright violation; hook is very interesting, mentioned in the article and cited; perhaps we should put "reportedly" in there (but happy either way)? a QPQ has been carried out. All good here - Dumelow (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dumelow, high praise. I am indifferent re "reportedly", but it seems to me that everything in Wikipedia is "reportedly", and can be taken as inferred. A more experienced editor than me once told me off for using it, saying that its only function was to subtly cast doubt on what was "reported" and that is PoVing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy with that. The detail on who reported it is in the article anyway for those who want to click through to find out more - Dumelow (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Kinghorn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "A Scottish army, possibly 4,000... this sentence is very bloated with factoids, can we split?

Done.

• "would come over to him" bit euphemistic, can you be more direct?

Changed.

• Is there a useful link for "king of Scotland" which could be deployed on its first mention in the lead?

There is a list. I don't find it that useful, but I have added it.

• "Victory for the Disinherited" capitalises Disinherited, but that doesn't appear to be used anywhere else. Is there a link for such a "formal" grouping?

Apologies. My poor proof reading. (I think. Or a "helpful" drive-by edit I missed.) Fixed.

• "town of Berwick" for the benefit of our many non-UK readers, I would link this location.

Done.

• "in the English disaster of the Weardale campaign." in the English's disastrous Weardale campaign? "the English disaster of" reads very odd to me.

Reworded. Better?

• Suggest linking "regent" too.

Done.

• "Treaty of Northampton" any reason you're not using Wikipedia's common name for this?

If you mean why did I not refer to it as the "Treaty of Edinburgh–Northampton" it is because none of my sources do so. Sumption, Ormrod, Rogers and DeFries all call it the "Treaty of Northampton".

• "was 5-year" five-year

Done.

• "turned a blind eye" not sure encyclopedia's use idioms?

They don't, they don't. Although I like that one. Changed.

• "but he died ten days before they sailed" any detail on that?

  Gog the Mild anything on this point? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry TRM, saved my work while I checked this and forgot that that would ping you. My edit clash response is:

Not really. Just that he was an experienced old soldier who dropped dead in June. One source (just one) mentions rumours that the English poisoned him, but [OR alert] there were rumours of poisoning around most royal and near-royal deaths from 3,000 BC to about 1700.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• "as the new guardian" what is "guardian" in this context?

Oof. There's a complex question. Added "or regent" and linked it, which is about the closest short equivalent.

• "would come over to him" again, say what this really is.

Changed.

• "by Duncan, Earl of Fife and" comma after Fife.

Done.

• "variously as 4,000, 10,000, 14,000 and 24,000" these alts are not given in the infobox yet the casualty alt figures are. Any reason for that?

Because there is a modern secondary RS which gives a figure for the Scottish numbers, but none that do so for their casualties - they all repeat what the contemporary sources say, so I have used them. (The repetition in the Rss, not the chronicles.)

• "Dunfermline, where" consider linking.

Done.

• "Rogers' estimate" Rogers's.

Changed.

• "Scotland at Scone – the traditional place" if you made this a comma-separated clause, you'd avoid that tragic reference space en-dash clash.

Done.

Nice article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Evening TRM, many thanks for picking this up and for your usual high-quality review. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess just one more thing, the first war of independence is mentioned in the body, but the second war of independence is only in the infobox. Is there any context that can be added to place this battle into the second war? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Ah, you would ask that. The RSs don't really go for the First/Second war thing. ORing a bit, Balliol's invasion was just a dynastic squabble. England didn't get involved until the next year, when Edward invaded Scotland. Retrospectively one might argue that Kinghorn was the first conflict of the Second War of Scottish Independence, assuming you're a historian who recognises such an entity - most don't - but at the time it was just argy bargy among the Scottish nobility. I could possibly cherry pick sources - especially the more popular ones - to come up with a coherent sentence or so, but the consensus of RS scholars is the ignore the whole First/Second Wars of Independence altogether.

So that's two reasons why I duck it. I agree that it leaves a minor hole - but only because Wikipedia as an encyclopedia likes to pigeon hole things in neat categories, inventing them - or at least overstressing their importance - if necessary. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Understood, no problem. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)